Is conscription for national defence, rather than overseas service, justifiable?

Question

I basically have to write a briefing note explaining the issues and advantages of the following three options:
1. Conscript for national defence only
2. Conscript for national defence and overseas service
3. Do not conscript
I also need to provide a recommendation for one of these options. Thus far, I have been using the Vietnam war as an example.

Answer 1

Conscription is perhaps justified for national defence, but not for overseas adventures.

Answer 2

national provider/Conscription is a bad thought. Neither the human beings, the government nor the militia of united kingdom want it. As an previous soldier myself, who joined the British military elderly 15 in 1957, the extra severe squaddies I ever met have been the national Servicemen. non-give up whingers. If recruitment is a topic it rather is the fault of those stupid politicians who've asked the army to decrease back on recruitment between the Celtic warrior form of Wales. South Wales has constantly traditionally been a solid recruiting floor for the British military. massive mistake. merely enable the army recruit from the place that's conscious it gets the form of folk that's finding for. no longer in drug ridden London the place I stay.

Answer 3

Very interesting topic! I thought about it for a while but still can't come to a conclusion. Here are some of my thoughts for both sides.

PROS: (It is justifiable, because)
- we relish in our country's fruits. When it comes under attack, every citizen should (or would want to) defend it from foreign attacks. If you don't love your country enough to defend it, don't live there.

CONS: (It is NOT justifiable, because)
- "National Defense" is not a clearly defined term. Its roles and responsibility can be skewed to serve a different purpose than merely defending the nation that can directly contradict to the beliefs of individuals.
For example, does in entail things such as; killing illegal immigrants that cross the border?, launching missle attacks on neighbouring countries as a pre-emptive measure? discreet surveillance on citizens?

.... still thinking... hope that helps for now.

Answer 4

There is a lot by Ron Paul on this topic. His take (and I agree with it) is that the idea of the draft is that the Government has a claim (or ownership) on your life and thereby has the right to choose whether to use you for it's purposes. That is not what the constitution allows. According to the Constitution we are suppose to be sovereign citizens and the government our servant. You'll definitely want to Google Ron Paul for more details on this.

Answer 5

Post yourself as a non-American.
We do not use the word "conscription", We do not have "overseas service"
"conscript means force" If you have to write a brief and your here, at yahoo answerer's, your way to stupid to present the brief.

Answer 6

I'd go with the first one. It is easiest to defend.