| Author |
Message |
    
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 260
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 2:29 pm: |     |
Michaela, I said the same thing between 18 and 21, at which point I couldn't vote (law hadn't changed) and I couldn't drink. I tend to think the age for everything should be 18.
I think public service is different than the right to smoke, etc.
A problem with not drafting parents is that people will sometimes become parents to avoid a draft. And recall that I'm not specifically in favor of combat draft, but rather public service draft. I'd hope that if a 17 year old knew service was coming, and had any sense at all, he or she would neither marry nor get pregnant at 18. Not good for the baby, and not good for a baby to be conceived as a draft dodge, either.
I admit that my "good for them" remark was very parental. But then, I think a lot of 18 year olds could benefit from a year or so living away from home before going to college, in service of something greater. Might make the freshmen year a little more productive if they got a little more independent first. Slightly more adult students tend to do better in college and have more focus. |
Michaela May
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 16
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 2:37 pm: | |
It's not like undocumented immigrants come here to live in lap of luxury. The minimum wage is not even a living wage. You don't think their ancestors fought wars and bore hardships? If we want to delve into history, we could point out that the ancestors of many white Americans benefited from slave labor and the land of displaced American Indians. We could point out that Europeans colonized Vietnam, India, Africa ... When it comes to ancestal debts, it gets messy and opens up a whole topic I doubt anyone here wants to get into. |
monster
Citizen
Username: Monster
Post Number: 76
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 2:43 pm: | |
I say yes, but not just for the military.
There should be a mandatory draft into civil service (for a couple of years), those pressed into service should be out there keeping America clean, rebuilding and repairing where needed.
All new immigrants should be drafted also, if they want to play here, they should work on keeping the playground in shape. |
chocoholic
Citizen
Username: Shrink
Post Number: 75
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 2:45 pm: | |
I'm not talking about undocumented aliens. How could you draft them any how?....They are undocumented. I'm talking about people who set up shop in neighbor hoods and make a pretty good living, I'm talking about immigrants who come out of a foreign country and land very good jobs in the tech industry or whatever. Yes, they and their families should pay the price that every body else who is here to keep America that bastion of freedom loving capitalism that it is. Let's face it, if this country wasn't offering people a chance to be more prosperous and free than where they were living, they wouldn't come. |
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6095
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 2:49 pm: | |
quote:Nohero has an 18 year old son??? I hope he's the next Alex Keaton.
Now that's funny |
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6096
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 2:50 pm: | |
The next draft will involve robots. Then they'll become conscious, watch The Matrix and take control of the Earth. |
chocoholic
Citizen
Username: Shrink
Post Number: 76
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 2:53 pm: | |
And I don't care if the immigrants have fought wars in their own countries...They want to come to the US and live. There is a price to be paid to keep this country prosperous and they should pay as have others who have gone before them. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2667
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 2:55 pm: | |
Dave: Sure, funny to you!  |
Michaela May
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 17
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 3:02 pm: | |
If they're illegal, they are most likely undocumented -- that's what I meant.
But aren't we prosperous at least in part because we squelch other countries? Why do we deserve so much to benefit from (relative) freedom and prosperity more than someone else? Because we were fortunate enough to be born here?!
I still maintain that mandatory service would be the antithesis of freedom.
***I am still noticing that fans of such a program don't tell me how old they are... I wonder, would those who never served in the military or in a civil service program do such a program retroactively? ***
Also what about the argument by the Armed Forces themselves that they don't believe draftees can do as good of a job as volunteer, career soldiers? (And I will concede that one problem with that argument is that such volunteers are overwhelmingly from lower-income families, and therefore the poeple dying in Iraq are disproportionaly less priviliged.) |
chocoholic
Citizen
Username: Shrink
Post Number: 77
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 3:20 pm: | |
Yes, we are fortunate to born here. But that doesn't obviate the fact that that many people who were born here had ancestors who weren't born here who fought in bloody wars to keep this country free...so you and I could be born here in relative prosperity. They ( our ancestors) paid the price just so we could reap the benefits. My spouses ancestor who went marching into the battle of Antietam (maybe he'll post and tell us the family stories behind that one), didn't want to go...but he did because he had to and he wanted the country to be whole for his children and their children. Yes, they paid the price... we reap the benefits...but I don't think that some one should be able to come here from whereever, make a decent living for themselves and their families and reap the benefits of what others paid for with blood. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4235
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 3:25 pm: | |
At what point is a draft justified? Does the US have to be invaded before we send kids, involuntarily, into combat?
Look, I am like nohero, I have kids who would be eligible for the draft so I am not looking at this lightly. |
thegoodsgt
Citizen
Username: Thegoodsgt
Post Number: 341
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 3:40 pm: | |
For those of you who support any kind of mandetory civil/military service, I return to my early post. Would you want to depend on people who didn't necessarily want to be working with you?
Consider this analogy: We've all had bad experiences in college courses where we had to work in a group to complete an assignment. Remember that slug of a team mate who didn't pull his weight? Remember working overtime to pick up his share of the work? Now imagine doing with that same person where the results of your team's efforts affected your paycheck or your job security.
I'd rather work with people who share my passion for what we do. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1669
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 3:51 pm: | |
Michaela or cynicalgirl, how about if the arrangement is that you pay your dues to get the privileges? Like, maybe, you do your required public service in order to earn the right to vote?
Charles Rangel, congressman from the upper west side of Manhattan, proposed a draft a few months ago. I think he was not entirely sincere, because I think he wanted to point out that the congressfolks who were so eager to put people to war have no children of their own at risk of being sent overseas.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 826
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 4:01 pm: | |
Wanting to keep your kids out of harm's way is noble, certainly. It is a parent's foremost reponsibility. But, when speaking of whether or not there should be a draft, I think it is extremely important to recognize that we are talking about what is best for the country, not what is best for me and mine. That must be terribly difficult for a parent, but I think it is essential. |
Kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 307
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 4:16 pm: | |
Looking Backward by Bellamy
The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today..FDR..
Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth...G.W.
Everyone wants a voice in human freedom. There's a fire burning inside of all us...L.W.
Dave Ross is the coolest!!(being banned sucks) |
Michaela May
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 21
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 4:18 pm: | |
Tom asks, "how about if the arrangement is that you pay your dues to get the privileges? Like, maybe, you do your required public service in order to earn the right to vote?" Decide whether voting is a privilige or a right -- there is a distinction between the two.
But as I see it, there is already enough apathy toward the political process. And I think mandating two years of public service to vote would make that much worse, and cause all kinds of problems.
Still, no one answers my question about whether they would make mandatory civil service retroactive. It's easy to say that a younger generation should be made to do this and that, but would you do it YOURSELF?
I have to say, I resent people decades older than me -- an adult who pays taxes, votes and would serve on a jury if called -- trying to mandate what I should do, merely because I am younger. Perhaps you don't know what is best for me, and perhaps it is unfair to say that, even if mandated civil service would benefit much of society, it is the burden of the 18-22 population (conveniently much younger than the power players) to make that contribution. Why not high-schoolers? Seniors? The middle-aged? As a 22-year-old, frankly, I would be infuriated and move to Canada were this country to mandate civil service for all people my age. (I now anticipate scores of responses about how my generation is somehow degraded from our predecessors, blah, blah, blah).
Oh yes, and I am a D.C. resident, I don't even get a full vote. That's a whole other diatribe, though. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4238
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 4:19 pm: | |
Charlie, who for some strange reason I really like, is also a decorated Korean War vet. When he called General Clark to tell him he was supporting him he claims he said, "General Clark, Sgt. Rangel here".
My son mentioned a couple of weeks ago that Big Bill and Congress eliminated the student deferment in the event the draft is reinstated. Does anyone know if this is true. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1674
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 5:23 pm: | |
Michaela, first, let me say it's a pleasure having you here.
Thank you for making the distinction between a right and a privilege. I concede that point.
Still, I think my point about paying dues into society stands on its own.
I do believe that older telling younger people what they should do is fitting for a society, though I'm sure you won't enjoy hearing that. But you certainly wouldn't propose the opposite.
But don't worry. I don't foresee this change happening any time soon.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2040
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 8:10 pm: | |
Can't be bothered to vote. Can't be bothered to serve. Why should we be bothered to be free? |
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 262
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 8:56 pm: | |
I kind of liked what Rangel had to say.
Unfortunately, older people are always telling younger people what to do. At least now 18 year olds can vote, so if a someone were to try to pass legistlation in the direction of mandatory public service, the 18 year olds could vote against it -- just like the AARP has a pretty good track record of making it's opinions known when younger people try to tell older people what to do about social security, prescriptions, etc.
I'm not coming from a place where I'm trying to punish the young. Just giving a lot of thought to how our military and related needs could be met more equitably. I've been married to a draft dodger, and now a veteran. I see the we v they thing; a lot of people still think all Viet Nam veterans were some sort of alien numb nut for their willingness to go (especially if they enlisted), and I find a lot of the well wishes towards today's service people kinda interesting. I get the feeling a lot of educated middle class folks find people who enlist a very separate species from themselves. We're grateful as hell that they're willing to do it, but don't particularly want our kids to -- even when a war's not going on. Just looking for a way to make all of us be part of the necessary. |
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 263
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 9:10 pm: | |
And, yeah, I *think* I would. An alarming number of my middle aged, liberal, female friends and I were ready to fly right over to Afganistan post 9/11. It was that whole thing about moms' being sick to death of being afraid, and all the big boys telling us that on a need to know basis, well, we just couldn't know, it was all too complex, blah-blah. A certain element of thinking the men were just muddying the issue. We were infuriated, and a bit abashed by our feelings of anger and rage. Quite the phenomenon, and it has stuck with some of us, liberal, Democrat, Viet Nam era women. Seems like we split, as a group, and some went ultra peacenik and now want Dean or whatever, and the rest of us are a bit lost as Democrats (and can't quite get there with the Republicans/Bush/Cheney etc.) Looking for a new model, and none around that work for us. |
melidere
Citizen
Username: Melidere
Post Number: 619
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 8:37 pm: | |
Micheala, it's wonderful reading your posts. Frankly, I think you make an excellent point about pushing all this 'duty' on the young. It would make perfectly good sense to me to force a fair number of people out on the golf course to 'enlist' to help with some of the duties of society. Maybe they could take care of the kids of the young people they send off to carry a gun.
Maybe they could do administrative duty.
It's surprising to me, too, that i am really liking a lot of what Rangel has to say. Go figure. I like Rangel and Clark. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 909
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 8:54 pm: | |
Nohero's son as Alex Keaton, and Ed May's daughter as ...who?....Jerry Rubin? 
For what it's worth I agree with Tjohn. |
Ainsworth Hunt
Citizen
Username: Ainsworth
Post Number: 137
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 11:48 pm: | |
Bill Moyers, documents U.S. support of terrorist regimes and the brutality of Americas foreign policy.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3281.htm
|
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2684
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 6:06 pm: | |
I regret to report that kids today don't know who "Alex Keaton" was.
However, I am happy to report that I do not have my own "Alex Keaton" at home (although the offspring in question is looking forward to voting in this year's presidential election). |
Earlster
Citizen
Username: Earlster
Post Number: 98
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 1:13 pm: | |
A new draft would be nothing else but a disguised tax hike. We are cutting taxes, so we can't afford the military we need. Whoa, lets go and draft them and pay them a minimal service wage.
This is so contrary to the usual capitalist mantra of mantra of: let's pay people for the work we don't want to do ourselves.
Growing up in Germany I had to involuntarily spent 15 month in the army. It sucked, nobody wanted to be there, so everybody just tried to 'duck and hide'. Not a good model. The top one reason that the US military is this professional is because they are professionals who chose the military, and love to do their job, not because they were made to serve.
Cynicalgirl, I doubt that my mandatory service made me any more mature, if anything it made more cynical towards government and rules and order. I believe that teenagers get more mature if you give them responsibility, trust and freedom. Those are not the values that the military usually preaches.
Chocoholic, those immigrants that you are talking about pay there dues in taxes and value to the economy just like any born American. Many of them came here because the US needed them. At the time there were not enough skilled workers in this country to man the bubbel economy.
That doesn't mean that immigrants shouldn't be part of voluntary work, donations, etc. if they want to. |
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 143
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 1:41 pm: | |
The main reason are armed forces are superior is because they are professional. They decided to enter service, it was a free choice. This subject is a slap in the face to our armed forces, the military people I know do not wont to serve next to a drafted person, they want to serve with people that are their by their own choice. The is not your father's army, given the training required of today's military personal, both physical and mental, I would bet that a large majority of those drafted would not be able to cut it. If someone has a sound plan for mandatory service, I would listen, but it would take years to be effective and cost a ton of money. Our current system works, with the a catch, it is expensive and it needs to be fully funded. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2065
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 7:16 pm: | |
A professional military has its advantages. Unfortunately, certain military missions such as occupying Iraq are unpleasant and require a lot of people and that is where the volunteer professional armed forces may be in trouble.
Sylad, the reason our armed forces are superior is because they are backed by superior technology. The training and commitment is a big plus, but if we had gone into Iraq without precision guided weapons, tanks with extremely tough armor and total control of the skies, the road to Baghdad would have been a lot bloodier.
Even modern weapons are easy to operate. The hard part in a military organization is to operate as a team and to keep equipment at a high-level of maintenance. The people in the Armed Forces are everyday people who happened to chose to serve. As with the people with whom we work, some are good and some are wasting oxygen.
As far as this not being your father's army, your right. It's not. My hat is still off the the veteran's of WW II who served under truly God-forsaken conditions with lousy equipment. I would far rather serve in today's Army than the army of WW II or WW I or anything earlier. It is not easy now, but it was brutal in the past. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page