Should Military Service be mandatory for all?

The reason I think all should be drafted is so they at least have some idea of what war is.
Just maybe they would not be so willing to start one.

The real reason for build up of residential arsenals wont be to protect ourselves from government.
It will be to protect ourselves from our fellow citizens who (from the looks of these threads)
can't agree on anything now. Hence they would be shooting each other just to prove who is right.
Ask any person at this forum..."Would you rather you be right....or happy"
The truth is they all would prefer to be right.

 

I would say that everybody should at least take basic training if they want to own firearms. They should also have a designated point to fall in and be prepared to resist invasion or suppress insurrection when the compost meets the ventilating device.

If they are not physically fit for combat, but own weapons, they should at least have a place to be to support those who can fight, like guarding food supplies and other property against looters, or to help evacuate non-essential personnel from the danger zones.

That is what is meant by a "well-regulated militia" in the first place.

 

The question though is where does the money come from. I am not sure Americans would run with the foundation of a home guard system for an invasion that has a pretty close to zero chance of happening

 

I live in a country where thats the case.

I wouldnt have it any other way. Keeps the male folk from becoming wimpy loosers -.-

 

The people, in all their discontent, aren't starting any wars.

The government are trying to quash any and all protest and civil dissent by trying to portray them as violent.

In fact, the ones who protest war are the ones branded as violent thugs. Non-violent protest movements they see as a threat get swooped in on by militarized police who resort to violence themselves and make mass arrests to discredit them.

Still no civil war.

There are REAL wars being fought and bled over, caused by the war profiteers in your congress and government and the crooked offense contractors they are in bed with, started by blood mongers like John McCain, who not only served but apparently was tortured, but that didn't stop him from championing torture and wars. That's the power of the military industrial money trough. If you think it's the public that are the ones we need to be discouraging from war then you're wrong.

 

We wouldn't be a land of the free if we did. Nobody should be forced to fight a war that they don't want to, especially if it's not one they believe in. That's why I don't hold anything against draft dodgers.

 

And therefore you are right??

You honestly can't think of any other way than war to change things for the better?
Or do you just chose not to think of any other way?
Or do you just identify with the word war because it sounds masculine?
Have you actually given any thought as to why you have chosen your beliefs?
Or are you just trying to be part of a group that makes you feel safe?

In all the years of recorded human history, only the weapons have evolved.

 

Isn't that what keeps it "land of the free"?
"Support our troops" remember?

 

No not really

 

Perhaps I misunderstood your response. Sorry if I did.
My question is.....if "The people, in all their discontent, aren't starting any wars." as you say,
then what is the need for them to stockpile weapons in their basements?
If they feel threatened by their own government, then why don't they work "together"
for a change and try to make a change.
Or do you insist that change for the better can only come from more killing?

 

Ironic, advocating wide spread manditory participation in the government? That's called Communism the last time I heard. Let me guess, you're a conservative? LOL!

Being right is not defined by owning a gun or being trained to own one, so if you haven't figured that out yet, you are in more trouble than most people who have never even held a gun. There is no such thing as "protecting" your self from a gun by owning another gun, just ask all the sodiers and cops killed and maimed by guns every year. Did owning and knowing how to use a gun from years of training keep them safe?

[video]http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/50699277#50699277[/video]

 

I agree with you.
But does the majority?

 

The draft has been done away with the exception of Selective Service registry. So Iwould say the majority is on board as well.

 

I never advocated for war or killing as a solution for anything.. I think you misread my post. What I said was that those who advocate for war and violence are those who are running the country and the offense contractor corporations. That's certainly not me.

Yes there's people who stockpile weapons but there have always been these people and I doubt they constitute a very large percentage.

There are large, organized movements for peaceful change, but the government responds with violence and oppression. People who dissent get punished for it. The government use fear in order to scare people into being quiet, not dissenting, not blowing the whistle on government crimes, etc. As can be seen by their war against the press, whistle blowers, protestors etc. I advocate the people continue, and not get scared off by this. I never advocate violence.

 

Being a Conservative I do not like to use the word mandatory for anything. However, when we abide by the tenets of the Constitution that speaks of maintaining a strong and viable military, I'm willing to use that Constitutional reality in at least discussing the possibility of mandating a conscription of sorts to where all physically able men give back to the country of residence. Remember, JFK said..."Ask not what your country can do for you....ask what you can do for your country." One could argue that adopting some sort of civil service mandate to be used as a chicken Shiite way out of actually serving in the military; that way all those wussy anti war leftists out there could escape the realities of and the manly experiences of serving in the military. Plus, the leftists wouldn't have to abscond to Canada to flee a war time scenario. Either way, getting these teens off the streets and out of the crime ridden ghettos to do something of worth for themselves and for country seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

Absolutely! Its what got the Spartans through. Unfortunately roughly half of America, today, sees itself as Athenians, men chasing after other men and young boys.

"In War; Resolution:
In Defeat; Defiance: Winston Churchill. Churchill later added that any people or nation that couldn't, or wouldn't abide by those principles wouldn't have to worry about their freedom for long, for they were sure to lose it.

"A nation is defined by those whom it honors" JFK.

True to character, Barack Hussein Obama threw the bust of Winston Churchill that the English people had so graciously granted the United States into the White House dumpster at almost the very moment he set foot into the WhiteHouse after his inauguration. That the man who almost single handedly saved the world from sliding into a new Dark Age would be treated so rudely, by a United States president seems almost incongruous. Comrade Obama apparently gave very little thought to the likely notion that if it hadn't have been for Winston Churchill, knowing how Adolph regarded most of the African untermuenchen, especially Communist leaning ones, Comrade Obama would never have even gotten to be a glint in his father's eye in his womanizing course of pursuing Stanley Ann Dunham's favors.

 

I can respect that rationale and agree with you.

BTW, it is "Losers" not loosers.

 

I agree with your post and your sentiments!

A bit of clarification. I checked this story about Obama throwing out the Churchill bust at the time and there was a bit of confusion about whether it was indeed true.

So, to anyone who doubts it, check this out.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/whit...ct-claim-that-churchill-bust-was-not-removed/

The WH sent a letter to Charles Krauthammer admitting the bust WAS removed.

 

First of all, there's nothing "wimpy" about not wanting to serve. You have to stand by and witness war crimes you can't report, if not take part in them with a gun to your back.. Give me a break. Who would want that. Maybe you'll get lucky and not be dead but become a homeless veteran with missing limbs whose country turned their back on them.

To argue this you need an actual threat to the country that requires it. But for decades, the USA has engaged in frivolous wars.. Were the Viet Cong going to invade the USA and take over our country? Nope. Even if we didn't send our boys there to get killed, and even carpet bombed by our own chemical weapons.

What about Saddam Huessien. What about Assad? Big threats to the USA homeland? Nope. Business opportunities. Why should people be wimpy for not wanting to sacrifice their own blood to make corporations money.

In fact, these wars strain our resources, and increase hatred against us, so they make us less safe.

So really, it's like you want to force people to work AGAINST their country.

Why should a patriot, who knows that all these wars will be our downfall, have to fight AGAINST their nation?

 

Just by being in the military (Army or Marines), does not give one an idea of what war is [like]. To learn what war is like, one must actually serve in a war, and not just a "combat zone," but at the actual scenes of battle. In Vietnam, the whole country was declared a combat zone -- even ships floating around fifty miles from shore were in the "combat zone." Everyone got a Bronze Star -- even those who never heard a shot fired in anger. Of course, those that actually did experience the battle ground and pulled some triggers, got a deserved Bronze Star with attached V device for valor.

But in answer to the question, yes everyone that doesn't volunteer should be drafted. If everyone served, active duty and veterans would not be considered to be so special. If everyone served, being a veteran would just be, okay, ho-hum, so you served and did your duty to your country ... didn't we all? What do you want for having done a duty that you were supposed to do anyway?
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Infantry and Red Cross do-nut dollies -- everything else is just support!

 

First of all, there's nothing "wussy" about not wanting to serve. You have to stand by and witness war crimes you can't report, if not take part in them with a gun to your back.. Give me a break. Who would want that. Maybe you'll get lucky and not be dead but become a homeless veteran with missing limbs whose country turned their back on them.

To argue this you need an actual threat to the country that requires it. But for decades, the USA has engaged in frivolous wars.. Were the Viet Cong going to invade the USA and take over our country? Nope. Even if we didn't send our boys there to get killed, and even carpet bombed by our own chemical weapons.

What about Saddam Huessien. What about Assad? Big threats to the USA homeland? Nope. Business opportunities. Why should people be wimpy for not wanting to sacrifice their own blood to make corporations money.

In fact, these wars strain our resources, and increase hatred against us, so they make us less safe.

So really, it's like you want to force people to work AGAINST their country.

Why should a patriot, who knows that all these wars will be our downfall, have to fight AGAINST their nation?

 

I think a few years in the military would do a lot for most kids today. Kids nowadays need to learn responsibility (commitment to a mission/task), respect for elders (chain of command), and learn to care for their country. Mandatory enlistment after high school but before going off to college would do 99% of the children in America a world of good.

 

Their's more then one way to support the troops.

 

They dont teach english grammar in the army -,-

 

interesting thought, so anybody wanting to own a gun would have to register for a draft and take basic training, and sense they know how to use a gun they would be up at the front of the list if needed