of 3-4 years serving military time??
2007-03-26 05:47:20 · 37 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Definitely yes. The Israeli's have a system, whereby everyone upon graduation from High School is then obligated to serve in the military. In America we should be doing the same. This would give everyone a breather between high school and college, therefor allowing a more mature individual to attend college. It would also give our country a standing reserve force of trained people. It might also cut down on the crime rate, as a lot of the younger aged criminals would be in the military.
2007-03-26 05:53:45 · answer #1 · answered by Beau R 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I think our country is worth that. The problem with Americans is they want to live in the condo but no one wants to pay the rent.
All of this bull sh!t about it would bring down the professional level of the all volunteer military is a crock o sh!t. We've fought many a more horrible war withconscripts than the present one and they did just fine, held their own and then some. People who support the war need to decide if they support the war by buying a yellow magnet from China or if the country is worth their kids lives and possibly their own.
I wish things were the way they were back in the Roman times. If you lost a war, not only did you lose the war. The entire country paid a price. The men were turned into slaves, the women turned into whores and all property and beast was confiscated by the victor. I bet then you wouldn't hear anyone talking about no draft due to professionalism. LOL!
2007-03-26 05:56:36 · answer #2 · answered by huckleberry1 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
A Maximum? Some people make careers out of being in the military...you're saying you want to limit their service to 4 years?
Or did you mean minimum? Meaning they HAVE to serve at least 4 years?
In that case, NO. It should be my choice whether I want to serve in the military. You can't govern my patriotism any more than you can govern my religion.
2007-03-26 05:51:44 · answer #3 · answered by Nasubi 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, that is extremely silly. Three - four years is such a long time! I know other countries who require military service, of which I know none exceeding one year.
The US has been in many conflicts recently, so wouldn't this be similar to a death sentence for many? Where will a bright future come from if everyone is being sent to death when they reach a certain age? I think it would be more beneficial if volunteering were mandatory. I don't believe war is a solution to much, but helping people in trouble is very beneficial for all: both for the recipient of the service, and for the volunteer.
2007-03-26 05:55:57 · answer #4 · answered by idugh 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
No, but two would be nice. I truly believe that all young men and women should have to spend time in the mil or a civilian org that would place them in a foreign country for at least one year. It would serve more than one purpose. They would see a little of what this world is about and would give them a better view of what to do with their lives. It should be a requisite to college.
Results - a better, rounded person.
Hisemiester
2007-03-26 05:54:15 · answer #5 · answered by hisemiester 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think you may mean a "minimum," not maximum, of time served in the military. Like Israel.
Simple answer is no, because it would bankrupt the treasury.
I would also prefer to have willing volunteers doing the job of protecting the country's interests, rather than the unwilling conscripted.
Last, I consider compulsory military service a violation of my constitutional protection against involuntary servitude.
2007-03-26 05:52:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Not a good idea. It lowers the morale, serving overseas or in the states with soldiers that don't want to be there. Mandatory community service for civilians and legal imigrants is better for maybe 300 hrs. They should be paid for it to. Most colleges and high schools require that. It is more reasonable.
2007-03-26 07:20:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No.
That would be "involuntary servitude" in violation of the Constitution, and even if it weren't, it certainly would make it hard to say that we're a free country with a straight face.
Moreover, a lot of people would be utterly useless in uniform. While it may be true that it would benefit some people to have military experience, the service is not a social agency. The idea is "defense", not to try to raise the average character level of society to the average level of the armed forces.
No, leave it volunteer, don't dilute it by taking anyone and everyone.
2007-03-26 05:56:43 · answer #8 · answered by open4one 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
We live in a FREE country. The government already screws us enough, so, no, taking 3-4 years of my life and possibly shipping me off to another country to fight an unwinnable war is not my idea of freedom. We have plenty of men and women who want to serve our country, and I respect the hell out of them, but for me, I serve in other ways. I'm very grateful for those men and women. They have a special character that not many human beings have. I volunteer my time, I've picked a job where I can help people (thank God for my freedom to pick my own career), and I do everything else I can to "serve" my country in one way or the other.
2007-03-26 05:59:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
As good as an idea as it sounds, we would have lots of trash in the military....Volunteer military is a healthier military.
In the 60s & 70s, we had the draft...we had all the undesireables in the world...was not a good situation.
I would rather fight alongside a volunteer, than someone that doesn't want to be there
2007-03-26 06:26:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋