Understandably, it is logical to think that if Congressman knew that people they knew might be shipped out, they would be less likely to vote for a war but that's leaning on blackmailing. If a war was necessarry, lawmakes would practically be deciding between their family and friends or the cause.
In addition, even when a war wasn't going on (Which all together take out only a few years of every century) a good number of people would be drafted into the reserves and forced to miss college and years of their lives.
More importantly, does the government have the right to draft people against their will when there is no need for them?
2006-11-19 16:52:48 · 15 answers · asked by Simon 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I think there should be a compulsory national service of some kind for adults 18-45.
Military service could be one of the choices. Another option for conscientious objectors should be an in-country service corps (like AmeriCorps VISTA) or the overseas Peace Corps.
Not enough people realize how lucky they are to live in the United States - too many people take their situation for granted. A national service requirement would change their perspective.
I also believe that an immigrant who served in a national service should be given credit for their time served, if they wanted to pursue immigration by naturalization.
(added 11-20-06)
Reinstatement of the draft significantly raises the "political trigger" for a government to choose to go to war. If we had the draft in place before sending troops to Iraq in 2003, you can bet there would be a more spirited debate, and we probably would not be in the mess we are now.
And immigrants who choose to join the military today can get credit for time served, if they eventually apply for citizenship. It's a law that has been on the books for many years.
2006-11-19 17:05:58 · answer #1 · answered by Tom-SJ 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. Conscription is the one of the ultimate violations of civil liberties. I'm not a radical libertarian but if there are limits on government power over people's lives I think conscription should be one of the big ones. It's nationalizing human bodies. Politicans who would never consider nationalizing an oil company or even regulating gas prices seem to have no problem with the government taking control of young men. Being drafted forces you to politically support the foreign policy of the current administration.
In a case of "if they can do this what can they do next" conscription could become the basis for other state intrusions on people's lives. In 1927 Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes cited the draft as a legal precedent for forced sterilizations. He said that being able to draft the physically fit allowed the government prevent people deemed unfit from breeding.
2006-11-23 15:34:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
People who are drafted are not necessarily forced in to missing college and years of their lives. Some people do go back to college after their tour of duty. Some choose to stay in the militiary. Sadly some never come back. A fairer solution then the "draft" may be required service for all individuals reaching 18 years of age. It would afford every one the same opporunities without putting some people through hardships and letting others off.
I don't think Congress or the President would be less likely to go to war if there was a draft for personal fears of children/family being drafted. The only deterrent would be political. The fear of losing votes when a war is started and people are drafted.
2006-11-19 16:57:46 · answer #3 · answered by QuickQuestion 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Unfortunely, yes. The government does have the right to reinstate the draft. I think it would not be a good idea because it only weakens the military. People that didn't want to be there would just be more trouble than good. The military is currently the strongest that its ever been.
2006-11-19 17:01:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't support the draft. But, if the draft ends before 2009, that would mean that when I turn 18 in '09, I could still attend college and NOT have to fight in the front lines in Iraq.
2006-11-19 17:39:54 · answer #5 · answered by Brian 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Draft as we know it- NEVER!
I WOULD support a universal compulsory military service, where everyone serves x time at x age, and not even Senators' sons can avoid it!
I think that would make a great country greater -- when it really needs it! Americans are now TERRIFIED of guns, for example. We should all learn to clean and shoot one safely.
People don't know enough about war here in order to effectively decide which wars to support, and WHEN! Before was the time to not support the Iraq war, not NOW!
If the military were *everybody*, we wouldn't be prone to these ridiculous problems resulting from a democratic government run by an ignorant populace!
2006-11-19 16:56:52 · answer #6 · answered by A Box of Signs 4 · 4⤊ 3⤋
I do not support the reinstatement of the draft. I have a son about to turn 18 and he is very patriotic , however, he is patriotic about things that he believes in,, He does not agree with the Iraq war so I do not support FORCING him to fight for something he doesnt believe in. Come on folks, lets get a clue. God is working his wonders here and Satan is trying to attack. The last days are upon us and we need to wake up as a country and get back to the basics.. ONE NATION UNDER GOD.. My son fights for his rights,, not the anti religious crap happening at this moment. I wou ld have to say..I would hide him!
2006-11-24 22:42:34 · answer #7 · answered by draygontearz 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would favor conscription, similar to what Germany does. Conscription was popular throughout much of western Europe until recently. It is still used in Germany and Scandanavia. Each male serves 9-12 months of service to his nation, whether military (think National Guard) or for conscientious objectors, civil service/volunteerism. One of my biggest regrets (if one can have any regrets), is that I did not serve my country when I was younger.
2006-11-19 17:02:12 · answer #8 · answered by former history major 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
With limitations, deferements would be strictly enforced and no is forced to serve overseas ...The could have a manadatory service brigrade that guards train station in between hitches or something
2006-11-19 17:01:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would prefer it not be necessary but if we are to sustain this level of military activity then it will become a must. Our military is very strong right now but I fear that years of over deployment will weaken the will of our soldiers by low reenlistment numbers and general malcontent.
2006-11-19 17:54:14 · answer #10 · answered by Derek M 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋