Congressman wants to bring back the draft

[BlueBandit24]

There are too many people who take thier freedom for granted. They expect everything but give nothing. To serve in the military for even just 2 years would open the eyes of most people.

I can see your point. But it isn't a little a little hypocritical for a land that prides itself on freedom to force people to serve 2 years in the military?

[josebach]

Every person in Israel serves two years in the military. It's not impossible, impractical, or illogical. It makes a LOT of sense to me. I just don't see it happening.

There are just over 6,000,000 people in Israel. There are 300,000,000 people in the United States. What percentage of the United States citizens serve in the military? What percentage of Israeli citizens serve in the miltary? By saying this Israeli's policy makes sense, you're implying that the percentages should be the same in both countries. How is this not impossible, impractical or illogical? How does it make a LOT of sense when our military's personnel requirements during non war times are for the most part already met?

We ARE at war with Terrorisim and don't forget Iraq.

I'm not forgetting terrorism or Iraq, that's why I specifically mentioned "during non war times". Nobody in this thread that stated that mandatory military service was a good idea, was suggesting that it only happen during times of war. If they did, it would be called the draft.

[Goatwhacker]

The military is more than just shooting guns. People don't realize that. You get training in a job and you work it. When you are done with your enlistment you are one up on everyone else. They are leaving college with only an education, no on the job experiance.

Seawolf, I agree with this 100%, but I do not think military service should be mandatory on the basis that it will make people better. The government already does enough of telling people to do things for what they think is their own good.

Every so often somebody will propose mandatory service, which usually involves a choice of military, peace corps, Americorps, etc. I would even be against that because to me that is taking away personal freedom for a period of two years. Yes it might be good for the country and good for most of the participants, but infringing on people's freedoms is not justified unless there's a dire need.

I would support a mandatory draft only if there was a critical military need, and even then I'd think twice about it.

[SeaWolf]

There are too many people who take thier freedom for granted. They expect everything but give nothing. To serve in the military for even just 2 years would open the eyes of most people.

I can see your point. But it isn't a little a little hypocritical for a land that prides itself on freedom to force people to serve 2 years in the military?

Freedom isn't free. Why should the poor or less fortunate be the majority of the military?

[BlueBandit24]

There are too many people who take thier freedom for granted. They expect everything but give nothing. To serve in the military for even just 2 years would open the eyes of most people.

I can see your point. But it isn't a little a little hypocritical for a land that prides itself on freedom to force people to serve 2 years in the military?

Freedom isn't free. Why should the poor or less fortunate be the majority of the military?

I agree that the bulk of the military is constituted by that demographic and that freedom is a term used rather loosely at times, but it seems to force all to go into the military would be setting a double standard. The poor still choose to enter, either because they lack better options or in some cases they really have a desire to enter, but they still have the choice to pursue other endeavors. Why force the upper classes into the military just to make the system more "fair"?

[josebach]

There are too many people who take thier freedom for granted. They expect everything but give nothing. To serve in the military for even just 2 years would open the eyes of most people.

I can see your point. But it isn't a little a little hypocritical for a land that prides itself on freedom to force people to serve 2 years in the military?

Freedom isn't free. Why should the poor or less fortunate be the majority of the military?

Ok, so give some of those jobs that the poor and less fortunate are glad to have to people that don't even want to be there.

How many people use the military to pay for advanced schooling? Are you taking that away too? If not, are you suggesting that the military pay for people's college that can already afford to pay for it?

We currently have about 1.5 million people in active duty of the four main branches of the military (about .5% of our population). Force citizens to spend two years in the military and this number will increase to about 10 million (3% of our population). What are the extra 8.5 million people going to be doing and who's going to pay them to do it?

[Plindsey88]

There are too many people who take thier freedom for granted. They expect everything but give nothing. To serve in the military for even just 2 years would open the eyes of most people.

I can see your point. But it isn't a little a little hypocritical for a land that prides itself on freedom to force people to serve 2 years in the military?

Freedom isn't free. Why should the poor or less fortunate be the majority of the military?

Ok, so give some of those jobs that the poor and less fortunate are glad to have to people that don't even want to be there.

How many people use the military to pay for advanced schooling? Are you taking that away too? If not, are you suggesting that the military pay for people's college that can already afford to pay for it?

We currently have about 1.5 million people in active duty of the four main branches of the military (about .5% of our population). Force citizens to spend two years in the military and this number will increase to about 10 million (3% of our population). What are the extra 8.5 million people going to be doing and who's going to pay them to do it?

Yep....

Also, I submit that without the extra perks of military service (schooling, signing bonuses, etc...) fewer people will voluntarily join the military, which means we aren't truly talking about an additional 8.5 million people...

Also, when you remove females from the mix, 3% of the male population is closer to 5 million... Not 10 million....

And imagine the upgrade in quality that we will see in our military when everyone has to serve some amount of time, rather than just the people who have few or no other options... Instead of the military being populated mainly by inner-city kids who view the military as the best of their limited options, we'll have potential engineers and computer scientists thrown in the mix... We'll have valedictorians and Ivy Leaguers thrown in... Etc...

The benefits are massive...

[Matthias]

Hm.

1) There's a difference between a draft and everyone who is eligible serving. In Vietnam, they had a draft but they didn't take every single male 18-24. They had a draft lottery and if your number came up, and you didn't fit into an exemption (school, only child, etc.) you went. So on the practicality question, I'm guessing the Armed Services would give a number and Selective Services would fill it.

2) It would force more reasoned policy-making when you are jeopardizing the lives and well-beings of people who touch everyone in America, not just those who volunteer. Remember, Dick Cheney once said that people on welfare should be taxed so that they when they vote, they are feeling the impact of tax policy and choose their leaders accordingly. This is the same idea.

3) It's not going to happen.