T Nation

National Draft?

Is this a joke?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-393

This was never a legitimate bill to institute a draft - it was Rangel’s attempt to make an antiwar statement. Same bill was attempted in 2004 was voted down 402-2.

I have been hearing A LOT of Selective Service ads on the radio lately. Some of them are really fucking stupid. One in particular has a couple of teen sounding boys talking to each other and one of them goes one and says something like “Yeah man, serving your country is THA REALEST thing you can do!” Then the announcer comes on and goes, “Guys, sign up for the Selective Service, and KEEP IT REAL!” Trying to sound all cool and hip.

There is another one with R. Lee Ermey doing his Drill Instructor bit screaming at the young pukes to get out and sign up for the Selective Service if they wnat to live in his United States. And another one with a female country singer or something. She sounds cute.

But yeah, I have been hearing a lot of Selective Service ads lately. Although, I dont know why they play on the talk radio stations, I don’t think a lot of 18-24 year olds listen to talk radio…

[quote]skaz05 wrote:
I have been hearing A LOT of Selective Service ads on the radio lately. Some of them are really fucking stupid. One in particular has a couple of teen sounding boys talking to each other and one of them goes one and says something like “Yeah man, serving your country is THA REALEST thing you can do!” Then the announcer comes on and goes, “Guys, sign up for the Selective Service, and KEEP IT REAL!” Trying to sound all cool and hip.

There is another one with R. Lee Ermey doing his Drill Instructor bit screaming at the young pukes to get out and sign up for the Selective Service if they wnat to live in his United States. And another one with a female country singer or something. She sounds cute.

But yeah, I have been hearing a lot of Selective Service ads lately. Although, I dont know why they play on the talk radio stations, I don’t think a lot of 18-24 year olds listen to talk radio…[/quote]

I did when I was that old. That said, I’d dodge the draft in a heartbeat. Let me rephrase that. I’d refuse to be drafted; I wouldn’t run.

mike

Or course, we could always just do what Heinlein suggested: make national service entirely voluntary, but you can’t vote until you have completed your term.

That would, as a side benefit, be the end of the Democratic Party as we know it.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Or course, we could always just do what Heinlein suggested: make national service entirely voluntary, but you can’t vote until you have completed your term.

That would, as a side benefit, be the end of the Democratic Party as we know it.[/quote]

Slavery as a requirement for the right to vote.

What a charming idea.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Or course, we could always just do what Heinlein suggested: make national service entirely voluntary, but you can’t vote until you have completed your term.

That would, as a side benefit, be the end of the Democratic Party as we know it.

Slavery as a requirement for the right to vote.

What a charming idea.[/quote]

Beowolf, you do understand the meaning of “voluntary,” right?

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Beowolf, you do understand the meaning of “voluntary,” right?[/quote]

Indentured servitude would be a more accurate description.

There IS a positive side to the Draft: Right now, you basically have a lot of well-off white people being defended by a disproportionate number of minority members. For ex, about 11% of the American population is black but roughly 19% of the Army is black. It seems we are sitting back on our asses while mostly poor minority people defend us. Sounds a lot like ancient Rome.

Philosophically, I oppose the draft but it does have its good points.

And out of fairness, if a draft ever were instituted, I think old guys like me should somehow have to suffer like the young people. We are a lot less likely to vote for a war if us older pharts might get in on it.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[/quote]

Amen to that!

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
There IS a positive side to the Draft: Right now, you basically have a lot of well-off white people being defended by a disproportionate number of minority members. For ex, about 11% of the American population is black but roughly 19% of the Army is black. It seems we are sitting back on our asses while mostly poor minority people defend us. Sounds a lot like ancient Rome.

Philosophically, I oppose the draft but it does have its good points.

And out of fairness, if a draft ever were instituted, I think old guys like me should somehow have to suffer like the young people. We are a lot less likely to vote for a war if us older pharts might get in on it.[/quote]

Good point.

I think one of the main reasons a lot of European countries are rather unwilling to be involved in a military conflict is that we´d have to fight ourselves instead of sending some teenagers that volunteered.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Beowolf, you do understand the meaning of “voluntary,” right?

Indentured servitude would be a more accurate description.[/quote]

Haha, I actually had that written originally, and decided to change it for dramatic effect.

I’d join up if:

A) All the politicians who voted for such legislation had to sign up as well.

B) We all get to call ourselves Centurion on return (if we survive the war that is).

[quote]Spry wrote:
I’d join up if:

A) All the politicians who voted for such legislation had to sign up as well.

B) We all get to call ourselves Centurion on return (if we survive the war that is).[/quote]

I’m with you on A. National service should be mandatory for anyone who wants to hold public office.

As to B, you could only call yourself a centurion if you had attained the rank of Captain, and had commanded a company of infantrymen.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Beowolf, you do understand the meaning of “voluntary,” right?

Indentured servitude would be a more accurate description.

Haha, I actually had that written originally, and decided to change it for dramatic effect.[/quote]

Fine. I have no problem with that characterization.

Indentured servitude was typically an arrangement whereby the servant voluntarily offered his services in lieu of repayment of a debt, usually to pay for his passage to the New World, as well as room and board.

Apply that reasoning to the debt owed by all citizens of a nation to those who have died before them to secure the standard of living that they now enjoy.

An eighteenth-century indentured servant had to serve for seven years. I’d say a voluntary service of two years, in exchange for the lifetime sovereign right of franchise, is pretty cheap.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Beowolf, you do understand the meaning of “voluntary,” right?

Indentured servitude would be a more accurate description.

Haha, I actually had that written originally, and decided to change it for dramatic effect.

Fine. I have no problem with that characterization.

Indentured servitude was typically an arrangement whereby the servant voluntarily offered his services in lieu of repayment of a debt, usually to pay for his passage to the New World, as well as room and board.

Apply that reasoning to the debt owed by all citizens of a nation to those who have died before them to secure the standard of living that they now enjoy.

An eighteenth-century indentured servant had to serve for seven years. I’d say a voluntary service of two years, in exchange for the lifetime sovereign right of franchise, is pretty cheap.[/quote]

That would require a sense of responsibility rather then entitlement and thus would be opposed by a significant portion of the populace.

Well, the ones who care more about entitlement than responsibility wouldn’t be the ones voting, then, would they?

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Well, the ones who care more about entitlement than responsibility wouldn’t be the ones voting, then, would they?[/quote]

I’m in favor of earning the right to vote. Just being alive should not allow a person the ‘right’ to determine the fate of industries they know nothing about, or to determine the lives and earnings of others.

It is very tempting to use governmental power to rob and abuse one’s betters. The ‘betters’ then take over the gov’t to prevent the mob from getting there first. We then get our wonderful world of today.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Well, the ones who care more about entitlement than responsibility wouldn’t be the ones voting, then, would they?[/quote]

I don’t know about that. Plenty of people that have shouldered responsibility believe they are entitled to some sort of reward. Some of them may think the ones that didn’t step up are just the ones to pay the reward.