Saviors of the Japanese
Compulsory Military Service
I am against the notion of Compulsory Military Service in the US for three reasons:
1. The loss of Espirite de Corps: the morale of the military would drop because of the number of people there who never wanted to join.
2. Economics: Can you imagine how much it would cost to train and equip every male who turns 18?
3. Morals: If everyone is in the military, who is the military fighting for?
“The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”
—Sir William Francis Butler
It Gets Worse.
Big countries like the U.S can easily afford proffessional armies these days, when superior numbers have largely lost their meaning. Small countries like Finland must, however, depend on general conscription.
I will be stepping into the grey of the army in January 2007.
The common culture of a tribe is a sign of its inner cohesion. But tribes are vanishing from the modern world, as are all forms of traditional society. Customs, practices, festivals, rituals and beliefs have acquired a flut and half-hearted quality which reflects our nomadic and rootless existence, predicated as we are on the global air-waves.
ROGER SCRUTON, Modern Culture
Vicarius Provinciae
The U.S. doesn't have conscription......yet.
Saviors of the Japanese
I know, but what do you think of the idea. I know some people have claimed the US needs it.Originally Posted by Honor&Glory
“The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”
—Sir William Francis Butler
Vicarius Provinciae
If the U.S. decides to invade another country then a draft is inevitable. The U.S. military is stretched thin and the Army is having recruitment problems. I think conscription is appropriate for wars like WW1 and WW2, but they are not appropriate for wars like that of Vietnam or the current Iraq War. The fact is that the military itself doesn't like to have draftees.
Drafting is never justified in a democratic nation.
A democratic nation is supposed to represent its people's desires. It should engage in a war only when most people in the nation wants to. Which means that there should be 50% of people that supports the war. Now, no nation will ever need 50% of its population in the front lines. And so, drafting should never be justified, unless if the majority of the nation is hypocrites. Cough, USA, Cough.
It Gets Worse.
Whine whine. Well, since 90% of Finns support general conscription, I guess that is pretty democratic. Here people still know, that in society there are rights and there are responsibilities.
The common culture of a tribe is a sign of its inner cohesion. But tribes are vanishing from the modern world, as are all forms of traditional society. Customs, practices, festivals, rituals and beliefs have acquired a flut and half-hearted quality which reflects our nomadic and rootless existence, predicated as we are on the global air-waves.
ROGER SCRUTON, Modern Culture
Civitate
Oh, ok. I think it would be a bad idea for a simple reason. It is probably going to decrease the value of your military. If you have only soldiers who want to be there, you are going to have a much better army than if you have a bunch of anti-army war haters.
And more people would probably support the war if they weren't constantly barraged by the Bad News Brigade that is the media. And somehow Bush got reelected, so I'm not so sure about poll numbers anyway.
For my name is Legion
People can not agree with the war, but when it has been started by elected officials of the state that represent them, then they should try and support it, if and how they can.
In the long run, we are all dead - John Maynard Keynes
Under the patronage of Lvcivs Vorenvs
Holding patronage upon the historical tvrcopolier and former patron of the once fallen, risen from the ashes and again fallen RvsskiSoldat
Civitate
True, I'm not sure what the motivation would be for advocating losing the war.
Mr Common Sense
Like I say: would you support something you thought immoral, even if an elected representative had put it in place?
primus pater cunobelin erat; sum in patronicium imb39, domi wilpuri; Saint-Germain, MasterAdnin, Pnutmaster, Scorch, Blau&Gruen,
Ferrets54, Honeohvovohaestse, et Pallida Mors in patronicum meum sunt
Civitate
I think wilpuri is right.
Although, not everyone would be in the military.
Vicarius Provinciae
The U.S. is not completely Democratic. It's a Democratic Republic, thus the three branches of government. It's like the Republic of Rome to a great extent.
For my name is Legion
The US does not need a conscription, but rather more support at home for the wars it is fighting. Robert Novak, an editorialist at CNN, makes rather good points on this...
In the long run, we are all dead - John Maynard Keynes
Under the patronage of Lvcivs Vorenvs
Holding patronage upon the historical tvrcopolier and former patron of the once fallen, risen from the ashes and again fallen RvsskiSoldat
Mr Common Sense
So they should agree with what they don't? Logical...
primus pater cunobelin erat; sum in patronicium imb39, domi wilpuri; Saint-Germain, MasterAdnin, Pnutmaster, Scorch, Blau&Gruen,
Ferrets54, Honeohvovohaestse, et Pallida Mors in patronicum meum sunt
But there is no denying the fact that the nation is supposed to bow to the wants of its people, in theory.
Vicarius Provinciae
The U.S. Constitution does give the people the power to change or alter the government, either through popular vote or through legislative representation.
Conscription is a violation of individual rights on a most fundamental level. It is immoral.
The United States will not implement conscription because it is political suicide. If we get into another war, we'll pull soldiers out of Iraq or Afghanistan or just move a carrier battle group or two into the area if it's close enough to the ocean and conduct an air campaign.
Vicarius Provinciae
You're right, for the Republicans it would be political suicide.
Civitate
Why not the democrats? I would think Republican voters would be more open to the idea.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
