# touchy subject brought up at town meeting



## BetrayedAmerican (Jan 8, 2013)

Should there become a law passed that makes every able bodies male serve a minimal of two years in the service after highschool and every female willing to go through... 

It was half and half for a long time but then our community thought it would be a good idea and that was only after a local highschool class piped in and said they would agree with it... even those that didn't have any intent to join stood up for the idea... just thought I would ask what you thought.


----------



## Casper (Nov 14, 2013)

I think it's a good idea. Discipline, honor, and patriotism are things that have been all but forgotten by my generation.


----------



## jesstheshow (Nov 18, 2013)

I wouldnt want my sons fighting under the obama administration. Remember Benghazi? i feel bad for the troops.. they are seen as disposable.


----------



## BetrayedAmerican (Jan 8, 2013)

Having served over seas twice I can openly say that no matter what, wars will have losses.. There is no fair or rules in war. Bad things happen to our boys and god be with them all... The problem is we are not fighting to win. The point wasn't necessarily made to focus on this war but the overall look at the future of the united states if that was made law.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

Hard to argue with your statements, BA. As far as serving, it works for Israel.


----------



## Ordnanceman (Oct 19, 2013)

I think I remember Isreal doing this in the 90's.I saw alot of uniformed college age males and females walking around the Scud mall in Haifa; bookbag on one shoulder,weapon on the other.


----------



## Rigged for Quiet (Mar 3, 2013)

I think it's a good idea. To many young foks out there who can't take care of themselves because they have no idea how to, or even believe they can.


----------



## Doomsday (Jun 25, 2013)

I would not like the ideal as long as our political leaders keep using our military in other countries as peace keepers/regime changers. Would not have problem putting my life on the line to protect this country but everyone else can kiss my a$$


----------



## warrior4 (Oct 16, 2013)

I do think it's a good idea, so long as they keep or even improve the current standards for fitness and for lack of a better term IQ. A strong and smart military has a lot of advantages over a military that just sends in cannon fodder. There are advantages to cannon fodder too, but the way this country is going PC-wise that'll never happen.


----------



## Mic (Jul 19, 2012)

Hmm.

Would it have some benefits...yes.
Do I think enslaving young people for 2 years when they reach a certain age is a good idea? Hell no.
A lot of people talk about freedom and then say, "Yeah, that sounds like a good idea." Think before you speak!


----------



## Ratfink (Nov 19, 2013)

Having served two over-sea's tours I love to see young men go into the military by choice. It shows their moral compass is pointing in the right place. 
Now that being said....I wouldn't like to think the "balloon head" fighting next to me was forced against his will. It would not inspire "espirit de corps" for one thing. There is a certain pride in doing ones duty out of patriotism. 
The other disagreement I would have is yet another law. Our political thermostat has been set at passing more and more laws. Hence, large government which is out of control already. That size of a military takes funding and guess who's going to pay for that? Yup, you guessed it. Joe- Taxpayer. 
So, I guess I would say I think not. IMVHO


----------



## jesstheshow (Nov 18, 2013)

I dont know.. I come from a heavily influenced military family and they all have seemed to be scarred and war-torn after several deployments. my grandpa even said he didnt want anyone joining because of what happened to him in vietnam (he was in for over 20 years)

I would rather have volunteers than people who are forced. I am afraid that if they didnt want to do it, then they will be more prone to acting out or not doing their jobs, causing more loss for us


----------



## Ratfink (Nov 19, 2013)

exactly my point...Thanks JS


----------



## jesstheshow (Nov 18, 2013)

Ratfink said:


> exactly my point...Thanks JS


I figured, i elaborated from my pov


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

jesstheshow said:


> I wouldnt want my sons fighting under the obama administration. Remember Benghazi? i feel bad for the troops.. they are seen as disposable.


I believe every citizen should serve our country and no one should be forced to serve our country.

I told both of my boys/men before they enlisted. "If you cannot serve regardless of who is elected President, do not sign up.

I served when judges would give criminals a choice: "jail or volunteer for the draft. I do not want my boys/men serving with the scum I was forced to by such judges.

There is a lot to be said about the character of those that can and do not serve. I find that good information when meeting strangers on which I might need to depend or trust.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf (Nov 17, 2012)

I do not believe us older people should have a right to tell the younger generation that they must do our bidding. It didn't work in Vietnam, the draft became a tool for the politicians. If you had the money you could send your children to collage and get them out of it (hell with the upper class children safely in collage they didn't even fight the war to win). The justice system used it as punishment and instead of going to jail you could join the army. There is no comparison of an Army made up of people who want to be soldier as to an Army of people forced to be soldiers. Even our own military doesn't want a draft. This BS is usually raised when there are a lack of jobs which even piss me off more to think the same ones that propose this want to send our kids to war or forced into social activities and then open the boarders for other countries children. So while our children or overseas or forced to do Obama's bidding the illegals will be getting free college and the open jobs. 
NOT NO BUT HELL NO.

The truth is that if people have love for their country they will join when needed. When a government looses the respect of it's citizens then they need to be forced to join in bad time.


----------



## Ratfink (Nov 19, 2013)

^^^^ bump


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I think a mandatory service of some kind would be a good idea - as long as:
1. it included military type boot camp
2. gave choices to serve in either military or civilian programs
3. there was no "getting out of it" because your daddy is....
4. it taught the constitution and what it is supposed to do
5. taught the difference between a republic and a democracy
6. It was state or locally run - without the federal government involved


----------



## Gunner's Mate (Aug 13, 2013)

How about making all the freeloaders on welfare serve.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf (Nov 17, 2012)

PaulS said:


> I think a mandatory service of some kind would be a good idea - as long as:
> 1. it included military type boot camp
> 2. gave choices to serve in either military or civilian programs
> 3. there was no "getting out of it" because your daddy is....
> ...


I don't care how good the program sounds you need to look at all the possibilities of what can (will) happen once you have all these people under government control especially under this present regime.
I do not believe this ideal that the military will straighten them out, or they will learn this or that. No one learns this or that unless they want to learn this or that. I am the type that I don't like to tell someone what to do but hate even more someone trying to tell me what to do. No if I was forced in the service I would probably be the worst soldier in the world, but if I joined on my own I would do my best.

You want people to join the army or other social projects then you offer them the incentive to join. You don't have millions of people on the government tit, then try to save money by forcing people into forced labor which is what it actually is. With good programs the Military has no problem getting the recruits they need.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

I dont' know why women would only get a choice and not have the same requirements? The one thing I'd do is create a non military service so they could contribute to the infastructure, public safety or other good if they don't have what it takes for the amred services and perhaps those folks could give 3 years to their society instead of just two.



BetrayedAmerican said:


> Should there become a law passed that makes every able bodies male serve a minimal of two years in the service after highschool and every female willing to go through...
> 
> It was half and half for a long time but then our community thought it would be a good idea and that was only after a local highschool class piped in and said they would agree with it... even those that didn't have any intent to join stood up for the idea... just thought I would ask what you thought.


----------



## dannydefense (Oct 9, 2013)

PalmettoTree said:


> There is a lot to be said about the character of those that can and do not serve. I find that good information when meeting strangers on which I might need to depend or trust.


What about those who signed up to serve and were turned down? I filled out a million pages of application, and was told that my GED excluded me. They requested I try again when I had enough college credits... it's not easy getting more college credits when you're already in severe debt from attempting to go to college, and your paychecks are just enough to pay rent and bills. While it's your right to judge on anything you choose, I would recommend against judging on a factor that can have much more back story than a simple, "did you serve?" question might reveal.

That being said, I don't agree with mandatory service one bit. You no longer live in a free country when you're told what you're going to be doing and when.

It's also a little ironic that we use the military as our measuring stick for so much, when we were warned by our founding fathers against having a standing force in times of peace.


----------



## LunaticFringeInc (Nov 20, 2012)

I think its an ill conceived idea at best and that's coming from someone who served 21 years!!!

Heres my reason for it...

1. First not everyone is cut out for that sort of life style. Some can adapt but many wont or cant. That degrades the effectiveness of the force whether you want to admit it or not. People who volunteer are more likely to be more effective and produce far better results than when you force people to do things they don't want to do. You can have an effective force that dedicated or you can have camp cupcake full of grab asses. We live in a society where there are some men and there are a lot of metrosexuals, you cant have it both ways. You can have the best or you can have the largest, choice is your don't be late.

2. You will not be able to maintain adequate physical or moral standards. It is what it is. Not everyone can meet physical standards needed for the job at hand, not everyone has a level moral compass. I turned down advancement to E-7 and retired as a E-6 at less retirement pay in 2006 cause I couldn't take the BS anymore or the political correctness that so dominated the military I joined in 1983. At 38 I could out doo most of the 19 year olds on PRT test day and I was by no means in shape at that age or athletic and about as lazy as they come when it comes to expending energy and smoked 2 packs plus a day! It was even worse when we were forced to allow women in our rate. Nothing against women in my rate as I have worked with some that would be my top pick if I were allowed to pick and choose the personnel in my work center, some of which could and would work circles around me even when I was turning and burning! That being said they were by far the exception. And these days half the guys are about as weak as the ladies, now that's just pathetic!!! Further more when you put young ladies and young men together in intergraded units, I can assure you getting the job done aint the first 10 things on their minds...think about how stupid bucks get when does are present during the rut, then multiply it by 10. Talk about professionalism all you want, do all the training you want but it does little to change reality and human nature. It looks really great on paper though in a directive and in a class room course material! I have done both and it really comes down to the quality of your people and their level of morality, two qualities many are short on these days. Hell I am working in the civilian sector and I see that crap more now than I did in the military!!! As a leader I got no use for that crap in my work place...it reduces my ability to produce irregardless of what it is I am producing whether its making widgits or making an effective fighting force.

If it was as simple as training then why do we have SEALs, Rangers, Recon, Green Berets when we could just use infantry men from the Army right out of basic? Its because we need people who are team players, we need people who are dedicated, we need professionals in every sense of the word "professional", we need people who hold themselves to a higher level of accountability than we expect from them. We don't live in that kind of society any more. Some other societies may be more adept at pulling this off than we are with the general population, but that's not the high level of society we in America live in today.

Take it from a decorated Vet with a distinguished career, who whos been a leader, a manager, a instructor, a trainer...this is not a good idea.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

Considering that about half our young people can be called "a criminal element," I would say training them is probably a bad idea.

Draft the gangbangers and train them to work well as a military unit... umm, no, not so much, thanks.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

As somone who served 20 years, I think it is a good idea. I like the Swiss system best, 6 months basic training for every male citizen when he turns 18, reserve status until 45 with two weeks annual training to check gear and get refresher training.

Airborne Ranger, Master Parachutist, llB3V.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf (Nov 17, 2012)

roy said:


> As somone who served 20 years, I think it is a good idea. I like the Swiss system best, 6 months basic training for every male citizen when he turns 18, reserve status until 45 with two weeks annual training to check gear and get refresher training.
> 
> Airborne Ranger, Master Parachutist, llB3V.


They don't have a standing army like we have, they have a system that is more like what our founding father had in mind. But do you think the liberals would go for something like this.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

The all volunteer service means that those serving want to, are capable and willing to make the sacrifice. Some of these muppets I arrest have absolutely no business in any uniform other than the fast food variety. Israelis serving in the IDF is a completely different animal. Israel is teetering on the precipice of destruction every day. Israelis are pragmatic, resourceful, determined and united against a common foe. We can't agree on the color of a turd.


----------



## BetrayedAmerican (Jan 8, 2013)

Mic said:


> Hmm.
> 
> Would it have some benefits...yes.
> Do I think enslaving young people for 2 years when they reach a certain age is a good idea? Hell no.
> A lot of people talk about freedom and then say, "Yeah, that sounds like a good idea." Think before you speak!


no offence here but it is that bleeding heart stuff that is the exact reason I believe we need this.. You will have people right out of high school or still in high school complaining about how the government is or how this isn't right.. What have they done or what do they truly know about the government or how it is ran or the military and how it is ran... I figured the instilling of moral standards, and the principles of the military LOYALTY DUTY RESPECT SELFLESS SERVICE HONOR INTEGRITY and PERSONAL COURAGE. LEADERSHIP. All of these are good principles of which every man and women of every race and every faith can embrace..

Then when they get out they will have a reason to complain about the military and where it is and what it is doing. If you cant stand behind the soldiers feel free to stand in front of them because to many that have been willing to freely join and lose their lives so the bleeding heart whinny ass self conscience people back home can complain for the very reasons they fight. They fight and people ridicule them, they fight so you can cut them down.... REMEMBER THAT...

It would be much better if you can show people that mile... That mile not many other than those who have served would ever know how to travel...

My hats off to all those that have served and to those 100% behind our military... With your help and your support you drive us on and give us something worth fighting for... I stand 100% behind the idea...


----------



## BetrayedAmerican (Jan 8, 2013)

several good points the standing next to someone that was forced to be there compared to those that joined may be different but I tell you this... When the lead starts flying and you and your battle buddies are pinned down behind a clot wall made of nothing but mud and straw and they are firing AK-47s and RPG's into your AO and you have to hold that position until your support element gets there and the die hard hooha hooha guys sits in the fetal position crying and the guy that joined for the money and never wanted to join looks up and says carry on sgt and lays cover fire that tells me something....

You will never ever ever know the calibur or a person nor what they are truthfully like until in a gun fight... You would be surprised how many people that do not join from choice you make bad ass soldiers...

Now dont get me wrong that dont mean to make soldier of everyone anyway which after reading I find a lot of error in this idea but at the same time it is a thought....

Yes I like what the switz have.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

I went in in 1967, when the meat grinder was running full speed and draft standards were lowered. That was before the draft lottery system came into being and if you were warm and breathing you stood a good chance of getting the letter.
Unless of course you were hiding out in college on a student deferment or ran away like a little girl to Canada. 
Anyone ever hear of the project called MacNamara's 100,000? I thought not. That was a program to draft marginally retarded men and make them trigger pullers. Borderline murder is what it was. But that's how hard up the military was.
Look, I served with some guys who had no business being in the service, for many reasons. Some of them were good guys, to be sure. Some were not. Some clearly did not belong there.
I am against compulsory military service because all men were not created equal. And people could get killed because of it.

For the record, I voluntarily enlisted in the Army, and after 1 & 1/2 years service I requested overseas service in the Republic of Vietnam, which was granted. I served 2 years, 8 months, and 28 days. Honorably discharged as an E-5.


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

Hear out on this, instead of your military service,instead the person has the choice between a peace corps here in the US or working on the Border as true homeland security. Still earn college credits and a type of G.I bill. We know that it wasn't a good idea having conscripts in Vietnam so why would be a good idea today?


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

Got drafted in 1966. We called 'em President's 100,000. Generally, the draftee has been pretty good. We won WWII with 'em.


----------



## Kidzthinkimahoarder (Feb 11, 2013)

Hell No, is my answer.

I think it should be by choice, theirs, not our Governments. I have all the respect in the world for anybody that has served. I can't even begin to express my gratitude for what each one of you that have served has done by choice. But as a mother, I can't stand the thought of loosing one of my boys in that manner. I have already lost one cousin, and several out of our county from this war. The amount of heartache these people are enduring because of that still to this day is hard to fathom, because I've not walked in their shoes.

We have raised our two young men in this household to be Men, and not thugs. If they choose that route, I will support it, I will not be happy about it, but it's their decision...not mine.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

jesstheshow said:


> I wouldnt want my sons fighting under the *obama administration*. Remember Benghazi? i feel bad for the troops.. they are seen as disposable.


Or Bush, clinton, carter, reagan. Hell look what lincoln did, over 600,000 Americans killed each other to keep the federal government's power / control over the states and the people and he is considered a good president. Please don't say it was to free the blackman, that was only brought up to gain favor and money for a loosing war. Like nobama, lincoln gave some good speeches, but both trampled the Constitution, IMO.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

When I first saw this topic I thought what a great idea, then I thought no, more government is not the answer, then I posted a way that it might be acceptable and the more I think about it the less I like the idea of even local government with the power to control the lives of young adults for two years. It might be a good idea but the "what could go wrong" light is blinding me with its bright flashing.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

A standing military is of no use unless you are using it and the founding fathers said no . The US had no problem raising an army for either world war and they did a great job from what I can see. No manditory service unless those that enforce it serve too. Would you really want nobama and congress actually fighting a war for you????? If those that start the wars had to actually fight it, we wouldn't have many wars any more.


----------



## BetrayedAmerican (Jan 8, 2013)

I guess thats where I differ from others in that dying while in service is an honorable death. My brothers never came home but I did. Mother cant look at me father proud as hell... So there will be haters always and there will be those that are like me that understand and accept the sacrifice no matter who it is or of what relation. Would I have wished it on someone else instead of my brothers. NO. They died for what they believed in and they got to take that to the grave. 
Greater love hath no man then to lay down his life for a friend and when you willingly serve you potentially lay you life down for a friend. When you come in to that final formation and you are told that you have been relieved of your post and to carry on. Then you know you have done your service and your laying your life on the line has ended for uncle sam. Those that come home under the american flag, they paid the ultimate price and died with honor...

As a mother I cannot ever know what it would be like but as a father I would like to say I will be as strong as my father was.... Son keep your head down, squeeze the trigger dont ever pull you know the consequences, name tap defilade and always remember NOT ON MY WATCH.

Pride, not sinful but pride in yourself family and country no matter how far gone either of them seem...


----------



## BetrayedAmerican (Jan 8, 2013)

ekim said:


> A standing military is of no use unless you are using it and the founding fathers said no . The US had no problem raising an army for either world war and they did a great job from what I can see. No manditory service unless those that enforce it serve too. Would you really want nobama and congress actually fighting a war for you????? If those that start the wars had to actually fight it, we wouldn't have many wars any more.


No i wouldn't trust them as far as a could throw a dump truck with some much as a bb gun... I am a very firm believer that all presidents of the united stats should have military backgrounds and required at minimal senior NCO or Officer ranks in service so that way they dont throw our boys around like pawns in a chess game...

I believe the commander in chief should be just that a fellow soldier...


----------



## LunaticFringeInc (Nov 20, 2012)

BetrayedAmerican said:


> No i wouldn't trust them as far as a could throw a dump truck with some much as a bb gun... I am a very firm believer that all presidents of the united stats should have military backgrounds and required at minimal senior NCO or Officer ranks in service so that way they dont throw our boys around like pawns in a chess game...
> 
> I believe the commander in chief should be just that a fellow soldier...


That's one point where I will definitely agree with you on. How can a Commander in Chief be expected to do a job he has never done and has no idea of how it "really works" and whats "really truely at stake"? I can read about being a brain surgeon but does that really make me qualified to do brain surgery on you? Look at the difference in how Gulf Wars Part I was fought and then look at how we have fought wars in the last 5 years and then look at the differences in the casualties we incurred in each. Then look at what kind of a person we had as a CiC at the time, its a face that looks like treason to me!


----------



## MikeyPrepper (Nov 29, 2012)

Hmmmmm


----------



## WildernessGuy24:13 (Nov 20, 2013)

I think it would help give structure to those males who have grown up with out a male role model or have had zero discipline over the years. Not to mention it would also help fight the obesity epidemic.


----------



## dannydefense (Oct 9, 2013)

It's a great idea, for SO many reasons. It's also a bad idea, for so many reasons. The Swiss system would be the only way it would make sense, IF we adapted their whole system, and didn't just bend parts of it into our own way of thinking.

To put my views in perspective because I know a lot of you are discounting my opinion purely on the fact that I have not served, and I know I have no way of proving this to you all, but I swear under God and on my family that if I was called to serve for an honorable purpose, I wouldn't hesitate for a second. I am not some bleeding heart, I believe in fighting for what's just. I just have a hard time equating compulsory and free.


----------



## Titan6 (May 19, 2013)

I like the idea..just 2 years to let them grow up a bit..


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

ekim said:


> A standing military is of no use unless you are using it and the founding fathers said no . The US had no problem raising an army for either world war and they did a great job from what I can see.


That was ultimately correct for WWII. We went from a very small, unprepared military in 1939 to victory in 1945.
HOWEVER, because we were so unprepared in the beginning, tens of thousands of American GI's had to be "written off" and suffer the fall of the Phillipines, Bataan Death March, the fall of Java, the fall of Wake Island, New Guinea, and more. We did not have the ships, planes, man power, to save servicemen (and women) from death.
A strong standing military is of great use, to keep other countries from attacking us. It is at it's best use if it is never used for it's ultimate purpose.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

A large standing army is against the intent of our founding fathers. Our military currently is structured as an offensive force. If the continental U.S. was attacked we would have to surrender because our forces are deployed around the world. We spend as much on our military as the rest of the world combined. Make every man a soldier. Give him an assault rifle with a basic load of ammo to take home like the Swiss do.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I do like the fact that there are more public gun ranges in Switzerland than golf courses. I don't like the idea of a standing army. I don't like the idea of being the world's police force. I don't like the cost of being the world's police force - in money and in lives lost.


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

roy said:


> Got drafted in 1966. We called 'em President's 100,000. Generally, the draftee has been pretty good. We won WWII with 'em.


I don't think we can compare the greatest generation with today's generation.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> That was ultimately correct for WWII. We went from a very small, unprepared military in 1939 to victory in 1945.
> HOWEVER, because we were so unprepared in the beginning, tens of thousands of American GI's had to be "written off" and suffer the fall of the Phillipines, Bataan Death March, the fall of Java, the fall of Wake Island, New Guinea, and more. We did not have the ships, planes, man power, to save servicemen (and women) from death.
> A strong standing military is of great use, to keep other countries from attacking us. It is at it's best use if it is never used for it's ultimate purpose.


First let me say, Thank You for your service, but I dis agree with your post as it is now a different time and type of fighting war. I put zero value on the people we are supposedly fighting now and those that stand back and watch. IMO, if you won't help stop the fighting you are part of the fight and there fore my/our enemy. Call it a war over religion, way of life what ever, they are willing to kill because of who we are and how we live. IMO, we kill them now or they will in time kill us. We put our military out there to fight and die on their terms and that is un acceptable to me. We are getting our service men and women killed for money and power for those in power(our government). I would much rather see Americans fighting against our own government to regain our rights than some foreign country that should have been taken out years ago. We don't need troops on the ground fighting hand to hand while those that start those wars sit back and get rich promoting said wars. We have the ability to make them pay/die for what they did, yet those in power choose to have more Americans die so they(the government ) can look like they care and are trying to stop the killing while they push for more killing. If we the people took control of the government, maybe we could stop the killing. IMO, it's worth the effort to try that, as what we are doing now isn't working to good, I'd rather see a few politicians bite the dust than many American service people die for those few to prosper. As far as our current enemy we are fighting, we need to make the cost of the fighting so high that they will give up that fight, we have the power to do that.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf (Nov 17, 2012)

ekim said:


> Or Bush, clinton, carter, reagan. Hell look what lincoln did, over 600,000 Americans killed each other to keep the federal government's power / control over the states and the people and he is considered a good president. Please don't say it was to free the blackman, that was only brought up to gain favor and money for a loosing war. Like nobama, lincoln gave some good speeches, but both trampled the Constitution, IMO.


You are 100% correct and if the South wouldn't have tried to keep holding on to the slavery issue which was on it's way out anyway, they would have had a good chance of winning that war. The South sent a lot of raw materials to Europe and the main reason the European countries didn't help the south with supplies was the slavery issue.
Back then if you had money you could pay someone to take your place in the Army.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Nowhere did I say we should be the world's policeman. Nowhere did I say we should have troops stationed all around the globe. Nowhere did I say we should fight in any wars that were not directly related to self-defense.
However, I do believe a standing army is essential for our national security.


----------



## PrepperLite (May 8, 2013)

BetrayedAmerican said:


> Should there become a law passed that makes every able bodies male serve a minimal of two years in the service after highschool and every female willing to go through...
> 
> It was half and half for a long time but then our community thought it would be a good idea and that was only after a local highschool class piped in and said they would agree with it... even those that didn't have any intent to join stood up for the idea... just thought I would ask what you thought.


I believe in Israel to gain your citizenship you have to serve, which is a novel concept and I guess proves it does work.

That being said, I completely disagree with this Idea for law. I *DO NOT* want to serve beside someone who doesn't want to be here, that is how people get killed. Talking to other Shipmates, one had a (I think the term might be conscript?) well, subordinate that was forced to either go to jail or join up, he chose the latter. Needless to say this person worked the bare minimum that was required and would not be the kind of person I would want to follow into combat.


----------



## dannydefense (Oct 9, 2013)

Meangreen said:


> I don't think we can compare the greatest generation with today's generation.


Then: Bunch of truly patriotic boys shouldering 30.06 under heavy fire, while wearing less than it takes to keep warm. Started with paper routes, and built nation wide businesses.

Now: Spend more time in the bathroom fixing their hair than reading books, and think the greatest disaster known to mankind is an interruption in their internet service.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

BetrayedAmerican said:


> Should there become a law passed that makes every able bodies male serve a minimal of two years in the service after highschool and every female willing to go through...
> 
> It was half and half for a long time but then our community thought it would be a good idea and that was only after a local highschool class piped in and said they would agree with it... even those that didn't have any intent to join stood up for the idea... just thought I would ask what you thought.


No. Absolutely not. For a couple of reasons.

The first reason is that putting people into the military who do not want to be there places a burden on those who want to serve. That is no good.

Now, to the reason that is more timely. This nation is no longer a constitutional republic, the government no longer serves the purpose of protecting our rights, and the banks and global corporations use the military for their own profit. How many of our people were killed, maimed, or mentally devastated in the last several decades, even though there has not been an existential threat to the nation or the constitution - from outside, anyway?

No, no forced service. Yes, it might sound a but strange, considering we have been in every major conflagration since the civil war, but that is the way I see things, now.

Our biggest threat is from within, and we are too deluded to see it and to lazy to act, even if we saw beyond the lies.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

KillSwitch said:


> I believe in Israel to gain your citizenship you have to serve, which is a novel concept and I guess proves it does work.
> 
> That being said, I completely disagree with this Idea for law. I *DO NOT* want to serve beside someone who doesn't want to be here, that is how people get killed. Talking to other Shipmates, one had a (I think the term might be conscript?) well, subordinate that was forced to either go to jail or join up, he chose the latter. Needless to say this person worked the bare minimum that was required and would not be the kind of person I would want to follow into combat.


I want to serve beside someone who doesn't really want to be there. Rambo will get you killed.


----------



## PrepperLite (May 8, 2013)

roy said:


> I want to serve beside someone who doesn't really want to be there. Rambo will get you killed.


So will someone who doesn't care enough to stand a taut watch, or cover you.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

Mandatory military service is a form of conscription, and is brute force used by governments on their own people to boost the size of their armies. Do we need it? I'd say no. The government already has more than enough power over peoples lives as it is, I don't think giving them more power over the people is going to help matters. Besides we have the draft which is sufficient to ensure that should we get into a really big war they can tap into the population at large for conscripts.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

KillSwitch said:


> So will someone who doesn't care enough to stand a taut watch, or cover you.


Yes. The best soldiers are the ones who hate to fight. You need to read The Art of War.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

I mean this as an honest question...

Does the average high school grad today even have enough smarts to learn how to control many of the modern weapons systems we have? It seems to me that keeping the military a volunteer force allows them to select only the enlistees that have the mental capabilities to learn how to use modern high-tech weapons. I would really rather not have a bunch of dumb guys controlling missiles that are costing us a couple million bucks a copy.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Inor said:


> I mean this as an honest question...
> 
> Does the average high school grad today even have enough smarts to learn how to control many of the modern weapons systems we have? It seems to me that keeping the military a volunteer force allows them to select only the enlistees that have the mental capabilities to learn how to use modern high-tech weapons. I would really rather not have a bunch of dumb guys controlling missiles that are costing us a couple million bucks a copy.


It is all a matter of training. The military does a task over and over until it can be done under stress without thought.
Now, obviously that can be accomplished more readily with an M-16 and infantry squad tactics than an ICBM and launch codes.
Just like there's a big difference between the sailor manning the helm of a ship, and the carreer chiefs and officers in charge of the ship. 
The trick is to not lower morale enough that the older more experienced guys-n-gals want to get out.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

Seneca said:


> Mandatory military service is a form of conscription, and is brute force used by governments on their own people to boost the size of their armies. Do we need it? I'd say no. The government already has more than enough power over peoples lives as it is, I don't think giving them more power over the people is going to help matters. Besides we have the draft which is sufficient to ensure that should we get into a really big war they can tap into the population at large for conscripts.


Military service is a duty that comes with citizenship. Folks that don't serve are ridin' the cart while the rest are pushin'.


----------



## NotableDeath (Mar 21, 2013)

roy said:


> Military service is a duty that comes with citizenship. Folks that don't serve are ridin' the cart while the rest are pushin'.


Thats a bit unfair to say dont you think ? Just as we have our men out their fighting to protect us, we have people in the country that work to drive it forward. Thats like saying all common hard working men and women we have today that work 40 hours a week to get by are just "riding the cart" just because they didnt choose to serve in our military. Aswell, FORCING Men into a army is like FORCING a circle block into a Triangle square. What good is a army without a will to fight. Instead, i think it should be more of a mandatory Boot Camp of sorts. That go through what the military would, but FORCING men into a military isnt much freedom is it ?


----------



## kevincali (Nov 15, 2012)

I would go  I'm all for the idea of mandatory 2 year service. Just place them where they'd do best. If someone is unwilling, let them have latrine duty. For their whole term  unless they show attitude adjustments  I think service would help our youth. Not that I'm THAT old haha

But unfortunately I've been turned down by all branches 

I was involved in a bike accident that obliterated my right knee when I was 16. I couldn't pass the physical, and to this day my knee hurts like hell when I put too much weight in it. Couple that with a bad back, and I'm useless  according to them.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

roy said:


> Military service is a duty that comes with citizenship. Folks that don't serve are ridin' the cart while the rest are pushin'.


Military service, or a civic service. Not everyone is cut out for the military.
The Job Corps, volunteering at a food bank, volunteering at your local police department as a file clerk, Meals On Wheels, Council On Aging, the posibilities are boundless.
And I agree, anyone who is privileged enough to live in this country owes a debt. Anyone who can perform some sort of service and does not is selfish.
After all, we could have been born in Rwanda instead of the greatest country on earth (even with Obama it still is the greatest).


----------



## PrepperLite (May 8, 2013)

roy said:


> A large standing army is against the intent of our founding fathers. Our military currently is structured as an offensive force. If the continental U.S. was attacked we would have to surrender because our forces are deployed around the world. We spend as much on our military as the rest of the world combined. Make every man a soldier. Give him an assault rifle with a basic load of ammo to take home like the Swiss do.


I don't think people understand the sheer logistics of launching an invading force halfway across the world. Jihad / China isn't, scratch that, cant launch such an assault despite what you may have read in the latest issue of guns and ammo. The U.S is the only country capable of doing this at the moment.



roy said:


> Yes. The best soldiers are the ones who hate to fight. You need to read The Art of War.


I have, So you are comparing people who are lazy and don't want to be here to people who want to show restraint? Oh and btw, I thank you for your military service to this country. Happy Late Veterans Day!


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

On some point we argee. Hitler couldn't invade England across the English Channel. The technology for amphibious assault hasn't changed much. We couldn't conquer a little nation like Vietnam because of the difficult logists. The U.S. is invulnerable to invasion because of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

roy said:


> Military service is a duty that comes with citizenship. Folks that don't serve are ridin' the cart while the rest are pushin'.


Are you saying you are in support of mandatory service? Because to suggest that's military service be mandatory (European system) is socialist in nature. Besides not everyone is cut out for military service and quite frankly there are some people that have no business being in the military...ever.

So what would the government make these non military types do to for their mandatory service? AmeriCorps? That's too is socialist. Now on the other hand if you are saying we should take it upon ourselves as a society to serve our country. Then I say it's pie in the sky. Because the compelling reason to serve is shifted from government force through law and penalty to coercion through social peer pressure.

You can't have it both ways and not loose some of your liberties in the process. I may be riding in the carriage but I'm paying a hefty price through taxation for the privilege.

Edit to add;
I'm not down on the military, I support our service people, I happen to think that the current system of voluntary military service is the best of both worlds it give us great soldiers who want to serve, while preserving the individuals liberty to make their own choices in life.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

A-men, Ball004. The greatest duty that can be performed for this nation is to rear children in the ways our forefathers would find honorable. No army in the world can fix the internal threat that is harming us most.


----------



## MikeyPrepper (Nov 29, 2012)

......


----------



## MikeyPrepper (Nov 29, 2012)

Good idea


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

Not everone is cut out to be in the military, hmmm. Most of the folks in the military are doin' what everyone else does, drive a truck, peel a potatoe, direct air traffic, be a cop . . . Universal military service is no more European or socialist than flush toilest or fire departments. Our forefathers found military service honorable and the vast majority of them serviced. Sadly, this is one of the tradition we have forgotten.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

There are those people who cannot follow orders. There are those who cannot walk more than a couple of miles much less run twenty. There are those who mentally collapse under stress. These are not people who can serve in the military. They are classified as "unfit for military service".

There are also those whose faith will not allow them to harm or be connected to the harming of others. They would rather die than fight whether that fight is for self defense or the defense of their country. These people are classified as "conscientious objectors".

Not everyone can serve in the military.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

PaulS said:


> There are those people who cannot follow orders. There are those who cannot walk more than a couple of miles much less run twenty. There are those who mentally collapse under stress. These are not people who can serve in the military. They are classified as "unfit for military service".
> 
> There are also those whose faith will not allow them to harm or be connected to the harming of others. They would rather die than fight whether that fight is for self defense or the defense of their country. These people are classified as "conscientious objectors".
> 
> Not everyone can serve in the military.


Sounds like excuses to me. The military has lotsa jobs for conscientious objectors.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

A true conscientious objector can't do anything in the military - not even be a doctor or a nurse. They would be supporting the violence. They can't work in a factory that supports the war, they can't work on a farm that supports the war - nothing that in any way supports the war - it is against their religious beliefs.

The other issues are not just excuses - the affected people can't physically, emotionally or mentally survive the stresses of the military life. These are the people who commit suicide in basic training or kill a DI in AIT. They are truly unfit for service.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

PaulS said:


> A true conscientious objector can't do anything in the military - not even be a doctor or a nurse. They would be supporting the violence. They can't work in a factory that supports the war, they can't work on a farm that supports the war - nothing that in any way supports the war - it is against their religious beliefs.


I guess you never heard of Desmond Doss, a Seventh Day Adventist, then?
The first Conscientious Objector to recieve the Medal Of Honor, and one of only three so honored.
Desmond Doss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An excellent documentary that I saw premiered on the GI Film Festival on the Pentagon Channel is http://www.desmonddoss.com
It can be found on youtube. 



It is a very moving piece.


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> I guess you never heard of Desmond Doss, a Seventh Day Adventist, then?
> The first Conscientious Objector to recieve the Medal Of Honor, and one of only three so honored.
> Desmond Doss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


Oh yes I have heard of Desmond Doss being raised in a Seventh Day Adventist home. My biggest problem with him is he would not do anything on Saturday no matter what was happening but luckily he earned his Medal of Honor on a day other than Saturday.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Meangreen said:


> Oh yes I have heard of Desmond Doss being raised in a Seventh Day Adventist home. My biggest problem with him is he would not do anything on Saturday but luckily he earned his Medal of Honor on a day other than Saturday.


He would not go anywhere without his bible either. And his Captain would not start a patrol until Desmond had time to do his daily devotional. The last time he was hit, two grenades going off blew the bible out of his pocket. When that battle was over, all the riflemen in his platoon scoured the battlefield until they found it and brought it to his hospital bed.
Watch the documentary I posted. It's almost 2 hours long but is excellent! And there will be parts that WILL make your eyes mist up.
I have seen it several times already, it's now 11:29 PM, but I'm awake enough to watch an hour or so.
He was in a lot more action than the 5 day period where he earned his MOH. Several Bronze Stars, several Purple Hearts.
And of course, the CMB - Combat Medics Badge. When you see one of those, you have met a man the grunts call "Doc".


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> He would not go anywhere without his bible either. And his Captain would not start a patrol until Desmond had time to do his daily devotional. The last time he was hit, two grenades going off blew the bible out of his pocket. When that battle was over, all the riflemen in his platoon scoured the battlefield until they found it and brought it to his hospital bed.
> Watch the documentary I posted. It's almost 2 hours long but is excellent! And there will be parts that WILL make your eyes mist up.
> I have seen it several times already, it's now 11:29 PM, but I'm awake enough to watch an hour or so.
> He was in a lot more action than the 5 day period where he earned his MOH. Several Bronze Stars, several Purple Hearts.
> And of course, the CMB - Combat Medics Badge. When you see one of those, you have met a man the grunts call "Doc".


Yes I have read several books were he is mentioned and I remember he was mentioned to me when I met Gregory "Pappy" Boyington. He is an amazing man and is a true hero. I just couldn't understand why a man that had done so much wouldn't respond to his calling on a Saturday? I grew up Seventh Day Adventist and I know the Sabbath but when duty calls you respond. I don't understand religion and it is why I have left it. I do believe in a higher power but not in the confines of religion.


----------

