has the time come for mandatory national service?

couloir41 · Post by **couloir41** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:51 am

it seems to me many posters on this board are pretty gung ho when it comes to the agenda of the current administration...what if you or a loved one had to fulfill a mandatory commitment to serve in some capacity after the age of 18 regardless of sex...???

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 2:11 am

If Bush is building the case to invade Iran or Syria they might need to consider a draft. It's also interesting to me that this year there is a record number of troops returning from service running for office. 55% have reported to be running as Democrats, most pushing for reform after their first hand experience in the service, while 40% are running as Republicans.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:57 am

couloir41 wrote:it seems to me many posters on this board are pretty gung ho when it comes to the agenda of the current administration...what if you or a loved one had to fulfill a mandatory commitment to serve in some capacity after the age of 18 regardless of sex...???

actually that would be good for all those types that like to protest the war that they dont have to fight

besides...if you are saying that i should, you are barking up the wrong tree..i need to loose about 30 pounds first

Stevicat · Post by **Stevicat** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 9:37 am

couloir41 wrote:it seems to me many posters on this board are pretty gung ho when it comes to the agenda of the current administration...what if you or a loved one had to fulfill a mandatory commitment to serve in some capacity after the age of 18 regardless of sex...???

No problem here and I have loved ones nearing the age who would be proud to serve their country and defend it against terror.

You seem to think that appeasing terrorists or ignoring the threat is the answer. Bringing freedom, iberty and hope to the heart of this region is what will end terrorism. It's really that simple although getting to that will not be easy.

couloir41 · Post by **couloir41** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 9:48 am

hey hells...i your case they might work you back into shape...so just for the health benefit you sound like a great candidate...

the reason for the question is because when i served (usarmy 66) i met some absolutely incredible people (of all ethnicity) who helped me understand that the opportunities available to me were just not available to a huge percentage of them...the draft ended up being a way for them to escape their circumstance...and they had to risk their life to do it by going to war...not much different than todays volunteer forces...with the difference that it was mandatory that they serve their country...

today i think a lot people (mostly under forty) have an underlying sense of entitlement...for example...some don't want to pay taxes...some despize (sp) government but want some kind of public subsidy...and on...if they got out of their comfort zone and did something that was completly foreign and had an uncertain outcome or benefit and it was mandatory i believe there would be a better understanding of other's points of view and other's ideas and beliefs...more critical constructive understanding than there is now...

there is nothing quite like being forced to work along side someone who looks smells and speaks differently than you...plus they might also scare the hell out of you until you get to know them personally...to expand your social...political and world understanding...

besides we all have it pretty soft in america...the land of what have you done for me in the last five minutes...so i say it is time to show some gratitude and give something back...whether it is in some civil service or military force...

think there are only one or two us congressmen (besides those in office) who loved ones at risk in the war...if that number were higher this problem would have been solved in six months if the military were made of volunteers and conscipts...oh well...

the message i am hearing

couloir41 · Post by **couloir41** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 9:50 am

lost part of it...i guess i was done anyway...

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:12 am

i think it is long overdue, however, I believe that it should be males from 18 - 22 that have to serve in some capacity. if they goto college they must do ROTC type of program otherwise the need to go straight to basic training (yes I have a son, yes my hubby is currently deployed overseas)

i still think women bring too much conflict to deployments, but feel young women should have to serve their communities between 18-22 in some capacity. if they goto college for a degree that wont put them in a combat unit, I say wait until they graduate and make them serve four years in uniform before getting another job.

my mom, dad, brother served, I would have done ROTC but had a medical issue that wouldn't pass me for it at MSU.

couloir41 · Post by **couloir41** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:05 am

stevi cat...

you're not clairvoiant (sp)...you have no idea what i think regarding terrorism...so stay with your day job...

also...we should be fighting terrorism in afganistan with every available troop...using every available military tool...

we should not be trying to foist our belief system on others...as we are doing in iraq...and in the process creating a larger problem than saddam ever was or could have been...

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:25 am

...we should be fighting terrorism in afganistan with every available troop...using every available military tool...

hey genius we ARE there with thousands of troops - or was the 10 months my hubby already spent there with his troops - um taking a vacation?

BobCatFan · Post by **BobCatFan** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 11:17 am

Re/Max Griz wrote:If Bush is building the case to invade Iran or Syria they might need to consider a draft. It's also interesting to me that this year there is a record number of troops returning from service running for office. 55% have reported to be running as Democrats, most pushing for reform after their first hand experience in the service, while 40% are running as Republicans.

Why should these surprise you? Most recruits come from the lower economic levels of society. Montana has a very high enlistment per capital mostly because the small towns in Montana offer nothing for the non-college bond high school graduate.

I will agree that the Guards have been missed used in the war on Iraq so my thinking is many of the troops running for congress are from the Guards.

couloir41 · Post by **couloir41** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:12 pm

bri...seems like alot of males including myself have taken extended high risk hiatuses (vacations) from loved ones while chasing the misguided policies of our leaders...

anyway...what i clearly did not communicate was that we should not be in iraq prosecuting a war...we should be in afganistan or/and pakistan doing said...with all of our resources...

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 4:24 pm

anyway...what i clearly did not communicate was that we should not be in iraq prosecuting a war...we should be in afganistan or/and pakistan doing said...with all of our resources...

i concur

myself have taken extended high risk hiatuses (vacations) from loved ones while chasing the misguided policies of our leaders...

thanks

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:43 am

Hell's Bells wrote:
couloir41 wrote:it seems to me many posters on this board are pretty gung ho when it comes to the agenda of the current administration...what if you or a loved one had to fulfill a mandatory commitment to serve in some capacity after the age of 18 regardless of sex...???
actually that would be good for all those types that like to protest the war that they dont have to fight
besides...if you are saying that i should, you are barking up the wrong tree..i need to loose about 30 pounds first

I'm not following the logic on this one ....

Send the people who are anti-war to war (assuming they are fit), but leave a chickenhawk at home because he's out of shape?

Which member of the administration are you, anyway?

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:36 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote:
couloir41 wrote:it seems to me many posters on this board are pretty gung ho when it comes to the agenda of the current administration...what if you or a loved one had to fulfill a mandatory commitment to serve in some capacity after the age of 18 regardless of sex...???
actually that would be good for all those types that like to protest the war that they dont have to fight
besides...if you are saying that i should, you are barking up the wrong tree..i need to loose about 30 pounds first
I'm not following the logic on this one ....

Send the people who are anti-war to war (assuming they are fit), but leave a chickenhawk at home because he's out of shape?

Which member of the administration are you, anyway?

if you want the overweight to be able to be in the army wright your congressmen and you will have a brand new best friend in MT....trust me i tried man but if they wont take me they wont take me

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:38 pm

couloir41 wrote:hey hells...i your case they might work you back into shape...so just for the health benefit you sound like a great candidate...

the reason for the question is because when i served (usarmy 66) i met some absolutely incredible people (of all ethnicity) who helped me understand that the opportunities available to me were just not available to a huge percentage of them...the draft ended up being a way for them to escape their circumstance...and they had to risk their life to do it by going to war...not much different than todays volunteer forces...with the difference that it was mandatory that they serve their country...

today i think a lot people (mostly under forty) have an underlying sense of entitlement...for example...some don't want to pay taxes...some despize (sp) government but want some kind of public subsidy...and on...if they got out of their comfort zone and did something that was completly foreign and had an uncertain outcome or benefit and it was mandatory i believe there would be a better understanding of other's points of view and other's ideas and beliefs...more critical constructive understanding than there is now...

there is nothing quite like being forced to work along side someone who looks smells and speaks differently than you...plus they might also scare the hell out of you until you get to know them personally...to expand your social...political and world understanding...

besides we all have it pretty soft in america...the land of what have you done for me in the last five minutes...so i say it is time to show some gratitude and give something back...whether it is in some civil service or military force...

think there are only one or two us congressmen (besides those in office) who loved ones at risk in the war...if that number were higher this problem would have been solved in six months if the military were made of volunteers and conscipts...oh well...

the message i am hearing

this case i must be able to work my way down to either 195 or 191 lbs from 230

i am already at 220 but i want to be in shape before i join

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:43 pm

So if there was a draft, going to Canada or being from a connected political family would no longer be necessary? Potential draftees would only need to spend a month at McDonalds to avoid being drafted into service?

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:56 pm

ch

Bay Area Cat wrote:So if there was a draft, going to Canada or being from a connected political family would no longer be necessary? Potential draftees would only need to spend a month at McDonalds to avoid being drafted into service?

if there was a draft i am sure they would just choose to run people till they make wieght

but as of right now in order to make it to basic you have to be under a weight or they wont let you enlist....trust me i know what i am tlaking about

there is also a fat percentage you can go by

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 4:02 pm

I can see it all now:

Dateline WASHINGTON, D.C.: US To Reinstitute Draft!

President says mandatory draft only for teaching purposes and for self-defense.

Mexico mobilizes 1,000,000 troops to Rio Grande.

Canada seeks mutual defense treaties with Russia and China.

France inks deal selling high-tech weaponry to Syria, N Korea and Iran. Sale includes 10 nuclear warheads.

Russia backs out of Salt II Treaty and begins bringing nukes out of mothballs...and they sell a bunch of tanks and guns to Syria, N. Korea and Iran.

China mobilizes 10000000000000000000 soldiers and SUPRISE! discloses it now hows the worlds largest navy, including nuclear ballistic submarines.

Syria seeks aid from all who are listening.

Iran openly delcares that Uranium enrichment NOW not only for peaceful purposes but plans to build a nuclear deterrent.

Israel bombs nuclear faciliities in Iran and Syria.

Egypt breaks peace treaty with Israel.

OPEC announces oil embargo against US. Russia, Canada and Mexico join embargo.

Ya, that'll fly.....NOT!

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 4:11 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:ch
Bay Area Cat wrote:So if there was a draft, going to Canada or being from a connected political family would no longer be necessary? Potential draftees would only need to spend a month at McDonalds to avoid being drafted into service?
if there was a draft i am sure they would just choose to run people till they make wieght

but as of right now in order to make it to basic you have to be under a weight or they wont let you enlist....trust me i know what i am tlaking about

there is also a fat percentage you can go by

So you've tried to enlist, and they've turned you away? Get on that treadmill and avoid the fatty foods! Our recruiting numbers are dragging, so we need you in Iraq (and maybe someone else will be able to come home sooner)!

couloir41 · Post by **couloir41** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:55 pm

so far only bri...and stevi...answered the question...

what i want is for those who post here to give an opinion on whether it is believed by them a mandatory service period after age 18...male and female...is a worthy national policy...and why or why not...?

most who post here are relatively young...pre curmudgeon (sp)...and it seems to me would have an interesting opinion...

has the time come for mandatory national service?

has the time come for mandatory national service?

Re: has the time come for mandatory national service?

Re: has the time come for mandatory national service?

Re: has the time come for mandatory national service?

Re: has the time come for mandatory national service?