Reinstate the Draft?

[lakota]

No more "chicken hawks" like 5 time deferment VP Cheney, talk about leading from the REAR.  If we are going to police the world, and conduct preventative warfare; I think it is time to bring back the draft.   
NWBear

There's an easier way--stop electing Republican presidents.

Hmmm. How far back to you have to go to find a democrap president that has served?......Back to the late 70's!

How far back do you have to go to find a Democrat president who has ended a war? Yesterday???  This morning???

Dont worry...by midsummer when your incompetent moron king needs a poll bump the troops that just came home will be sent to another war...I am guessing either Iran or another massive surge in Afghanistan...maybe he will surprise us all and attack North Korea. They did just test fire a short range missile.

[yooper77]

I am strongly against the draft.
 
Retiring in Feb 2009 after serving 22 1/2 years in the United States Air Force all on active duty, I can tell you first hand we want and need volunteers only.
 
Armed forces are being very selective in all aspects as they should be and turning away past DUI convicted volunteers for example. I know they also turn away domestic violence convictions.
 
I also spent many years in Air Force Special Operation Command (AFSOC) working closly with Navy Seal Teams.
 
yooper77

[magooch]

I can't think of a situation where we would ever need a big pool of trained people to conduct a military operation, or for that matter any kind of national emergency.  The only kind of armed conflicts this country should be involved in are those we intend to win in a matter of minutes; the rest are just killing grounds where bodies are sacrificed until one, or both sides grow weary.
 
Everyone should by now be aware that we as a nation do not have unlimited funds--not even for our defense.  The money we do have, needs to be spent with the best results possible.  Having to spend untold time and money to be constantly trainining thousands of short termed conscripts into an army is not the best use of limit funds.
 
In any case, there is no possible way that this country could even train, house, feed, or even clothe the millions of yutes that would be eligible for mandatory service--if that were the case.
 
This bears repeating:  The military is not a social service, a training service, or a dumping ground for excess misbehaved and aimless yutes.  It is the one agency that has the highest responsibility and must be manned by people who are dedicated to that responsibility and the country.
 
I clearly remember the scolding we got from one of our TI's (training Sergeant) when he asked us why we were there (Air Force boot camp).  Most of the troops said they were there for the training, or to keep from being drafted into the Army, or to see something of the world.  The Sergeant said, there's only one reason you should be here and that is to defend your country.  He was right.

[briarpatch]

The threat of draft will always hang over our heads, especially when cannon fodder is needed.
With high tech war its not needed, or desired.

[Swampman]

We could do as our forefathers wished and just not have a standing army.  Everyone could then attend Militia duty quarterly for training.  They would of course be required to provide all their own gear as they were back in the day.

[mdwest]

How far back do you have to go to find a Democrat president who has ended a war? Yesterday???  This morning???

the president brought the majority of the troops in Iraq home..
 
whether he ended the war depends on whose definition you use.. and who has political gain in using that particular definition..
 
we ceased offensive combat operations, with the exception of certain special operations, in Iraq over 3 years ago..
 
that is still the case today..
 
we had troops on the ground 2 weeks ago..
 
guess what... we have troops on the ground today.. and intend on keeping troops on the ground for years to come..
 
the number has reduced.. and the angle of the mission has changed.. but the core of the mission remains the same today as it did 3 years ago..
 
wonder why we kept the handful of troops in Iraq that we did?
 
wonder why the location of the bases they are on was selected?
 
because they support the ongoing mission.. that hasnt changed...
 
 
do you believe that special operations offensive combat missions have ceased? (they havent)
 
do you believe all the support troops that were just removed had an offensive combat mission? (they didnt)
 
how about the tens of thousands of civilian personnel that worked on DOD funded contracts last year.. that are still in theater, still doing the exact same thing they were doing last year.. but are now doing it on DOS funded contracts? (so they no longer "belong" to the military or support a military operation.. but they are still there doing the same thing they always did... just on another division of the US governments payroll...)
 
 
 
Sure.. alot of guys in green are not over there anymore..
 
but the "war" is still in the same status it was 2 weeks ago.. we still have troops on the ground.. and we still are providing support to the Iraqi military, the Iraqi civilian government, etc...
 
Obama didnt do anything other than play a political card.. and to his credit, actually kept a campeign promise (somewhat) to bring the majority of troops home..
 
If you think the last American life was lost in Iraq last week as a result of us no longer being involved in theater.. you are both nieve and sadly mistaken.. there will be more losses.. and they will continue.. and at roughly the same rate (although much less publicized) until we are truely "out" Iraq (something that we are not going to do for quite some time...)
 

[lakota]

We could do as our forefathers wished and just not have a standing army.  Everyone could then attend Militia duty quarterly for training.  They would of course be required to provide all their own gear as they were back in the day.

Not a bad idea as long as they stuck to the militia act of 1792 and could only use the militia in cases of insurrection, and invasion or imminent invasion of the U.S. No sending people overseas to the Kosovo's or Somolia's of the world to render "aid"

[OldSchoolRanger]

We are at the point where most of those that serve in the military are from the south, and rural areas.  Those from the "elitist" NE part of the US want to rule without having served.
Interesting fact. Anywhere I can find that info?

KIMBER45,

This has been the subject of quite a few studies, in the news recently.  Here is a sample:

"The South is overrepresented among military recruits. It provided 42.2 percent of 1999 recruits and 41.0 percent of 2003 recruits but contained just 35.6 percent of the population ages 18?24. How­ever, other regions also provide a higher proportion of enlistees. The states with the highest enlistment propor­tional ratings by far are Mon­tana (1.67), Alaska (1.42), Wyoming (1.40), and Maine (1.39). (A proportional rating of 1.00 means that a state?s enlistee and general popula­tions ages 18?24 are exactly proportional to their respec­tive national populations.)
This section utilizes the ?home-of-record? ZIP code of recruits to assess the regional origin of military members. The home-of-record ZIP code represents the area where individual recruits resided upon enlistment, not their location after enlistment. We calculated and analyzed a regional distribution of recruits by state and region for comparison to similar distri­butions of the general population.
In addition to confirming the strong Southern military tradition, we also found an exceptional ten­dency for lower than average military participation in New England. The West was underrepresented among 1999 recruits, but its 2003 proportion was equal to the population. For example, the East North Central Census region, conventionally known as the Great Lakes states, had a proportional rating of 0.86, which rose to 0.93 after September  11, 2001. This implies a lower than average interest in joining the military in the region compared to the nation, but it may reflect other variables as well (e.g., relative health and fitness of potential recruits). Table 5 shows the proportions for each region."
For actual articles, see the following links, or goggle (Demographics of Enlisted troops, and Officers. & Who serves in the US Military)

 www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm AND http://www.mediamouse.org/features/052406army_.php AND http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/1485.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-in-the-us-military-the-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers

[Dixie Dude]

Johnson started the Vietnam war, Nixon ended it.  Clinton got us involved in Kosovo and Croatia.  Obama is more heavily involved in Afganistan that Bush was, and has gone over into Pakistan.  Obama also used Americans to "help" oust Kadafi.  He has sent troops into Uganda or one of those small nations next door.  It isn't just Republicans.

[OldSchoolRanger]

... there are exceptions.. the very last draftee from the vietnam era just retired within the last couple of years.. he spent most of his career in special forces.. once he got past his draft enlistment and was eligible to apply to SF, he volunteered for the army, stayed in, and went to the fort bragg school for wayward boys.. he however was an example of the exception, not the rule.. he determined that military service was something he enjoyed and wanted to stick with.. and worked his butt off to be good at it.. the vast majority of draftees, while not bad people, couldnt wait for their enlistment to be up, and did not want to be where they were..

I like your description of the SF boys 

Your comment about; "I didnt join the military to be some other guys baby sitter or to take responsibility for turning some turd into a man..." has nothing to do with the subject, but since you brought it up.  I do recall that in the military you do what your told, not what you want to do.  Sound familiar?  This military tradition tends to teach people respect for authority, and gives them a work (that they may need to perform jobs they don't like) ethic.  This attitude is sorely missing in our society today.  Maybe those are the losers that Swampy is referring to.

so by your standard I am assuming you believe that the military should be involved with this.. and has nothing better to do?
 
I would disagree.. the military exists to kill people and break things (on behalf of our government).. it should not be a clearing house for the education of our youth in becoming a man, unless that youth wants to kill people and break things (on behalf of our government)..

The military might not need compulsory service, but having a pool of manpower with prior military service would be a good thing to have in case of a national emergency, or would you rather we start from scratch when a national emergency occurs (like in WW2)?

 
why do we need to start from scratch?
 
maintain the force at the size necessary to handle the mission.. then recruit volunteers to fill those positions.. simple as that..
 
We havent had a problem meeting the needs of the military with man power since the late 1970's.. and the leadership at the pentagon (both civilian and military) dont anticipate that changing any time soon..

The military does instill discipline, respect for authority, and gives them a work (that they may need to perform jobs they don't like) ethic.  This is a valuable by product of military service, which is needed in our society.
 

My response to that is, "yet".  There was a point during the Afghanistan & Iraqi conflicts where the US military (specifically Army & Marine) units were stretched to the point of breaking.  Units were being redeployed almost as soon as they rotated back home.  The activation of so many Reserve and National Guard Units is a sign of the force not being able to meet the needs of the job.  What would we have done if another conflict happened during that time period?  Where would the troops have come from if not starting from scratch?

[NWBear]

Lots of good points about the "Professional" Military and I agree with them.  However my original point was to DIRECTLY involve everyone EVERYONE in the nation in our mutual decision to send troops into harms way.  I think our "care factor" would increase dramatically.  I am not certain of the answer, but this seemed like a good start.  I could even envision a two stage military - a professional elite corps and a secondary mass dedicated as needed to the multitude of tasks at hand.  The second tier is not with out honor and would include fighting units lead by the "Pros", just like in the past.  However my experience of 4 years in a draft and post-draft Army showed many jobs ably accomplished by draftees.  Those who want to continue can go on to as much training as they qualify for.  This could also relieve some pressure on the reserves, using them as intended; reserved for sudden emergencies not because the active service is not large enough.  Right now if we were ATTACKED, we don't have the reserve capability to respond - we would really be stretched thin.
NW Bear

[Dand]

Interesting thread you started NW.  First let me state that the draft ended about 1 month before I was eligible. I admit I was greatly relieved that 'Nam ended soon after.  I grew up in that era, the son & nephew of WW2 vets (1 a Japanese POW for 11 months) and nearly every neighbor of my dad's age was a vet of WW2 or Korea  (or both) as well. I also attended my first year of college just before the draft ended and saw a bunch of nitwit draft dodgers playing at school. I finished college knowing a number of Viet Nam vets - and all the draft dodgers were long gone.  In 1986 I spent a month in Greece and got to know a couple guys there and learned of the mandatory service requirements there.  It got me to thinking. It seemed to me that the Greek men seemed to have a stronger appreciation for their country - even if they didn't like the people in government.  I'd say the same thing for the military vets I knew / know. 


In the last 20 yrs I see and hear more and more of the silliness of young American men [& women] with: little interest in education, over-inflated egos, drugs, gangs, utter lack of work ethics or knowledge of how to work in a group, no understanding of chain of command, low to no respect for their freedoms and the greatness of our country and people. Our country has become badly "Balkanized" with a lot of selfish attitudes and a decreasing sense of unity,and low sense of community service.


It would be my hope that mandatory service, including the training could be a healthy homogenizing influence.  And YES to have a bit of (nearly) ALL Americans' "skin in the game". 


It would also educate more  Americans about what it takes to have and to run the military.


With all due respect to the many honest and good people in our military, I still believe that it is dangerous for our democracy to have an isolated warrior society. Not only as other posters have shown that the bulk of the military comes from limited portions of the country, but  I have read where its become a family thing with multiple generations of single families providing many many of the recruits.  I THANK ALL OF THEM FOR THEIR SERVICE AND DEDICATION. 


BUT  I believe history shows there can be a tendency over time for the military to become too self-centered, may lose respect for the rest of the countries population and system of Govt.  That's how Egypt, Pakistan and a many other countries are partially or totally dominated by their military - AND at that point, if not before, the military usually is quite corrupt and freedoms disappear.


Just recently  Time Magazine had a whole issue about how so few of our national leaders of today have military experience and how that translates into poor judgement regarding military affairs, getting into wars, how to evaluate military spending,  [?? November 21, 2011 | Vol. 178 No. 20 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601111121,00.html#ixzz1hLV7UxgG] maybe .  The current tendency is to give carte blanche to the military or the supporting industries for some really hare-brained programs, or terribly inconsistent policies.  There are not enough civilians with basic military experience to have military wisdom both supportive and critical.  It is dangerous for an uninformed public to be too dependent on a few military advisors.


Just as it is dangerous and unwise to have a civilian population expect a military class to do all the dirty work for them. It should be a shared responsibility.


Another concern is that our govt has promised huge benefit packages to our military personnel that this country cannot afford to pay.  I don't begrudge our troops good pay and benefits - but we have over-promised and taxes will have to go up to meet the obligations.  The military budget today is being gobbled up by the retirement and health benefits we have promised.


Now, if we can't meet those obligations, AND we have a separate, military - will they just accept reduced benefits if our economy can't make good on the promises? For how long?  Will civilians care enough to happily dig deep to pay it off?  This seems scary to me.


It really is a complex issue.  And it may seem I'm chicken-sh-- since I never made my contribution. I'm very aware of that. But we also need to look at history and project out how to avoid getting into some serious traps.


Overall I think a draft system or mandatory public service of some sort might help even things out.

[jlwilliams]

  Interesting discussion.
 
  I see the downsides to a draft and the upsides to a volunteer only army.  At the same time, I see young people with no clue or interest in getting a clue about their country or the world.  They just don't give a damn.  When the war was starting up I asked a number of high school aged kids what they thought about it.  Most had any idea.  No opinion.  Complete disinterest in anything that wasn't coming through their stupid little 'smart phone'.  I pointed out that they may want to pay attention because they and/or some of their friends may be fighting in this war so pay attention. (some went on to fight or to see classmates go and not come back). 
 
  A mandatory service of a couple of years would put everybodies 'skin in the game'  Pay attention to who you vote for and what they do, because you or your kid will be effected.  It would also give kids a couple more years of education after the coddling of hight school.  A perverbial and sometimes literal slap in the face to wake the hell up.
 
  Everybody should learn to safely handle a firearm.  Everybody needs to learn basic wound care and aid.  Everybody should learn how to be part of the solution when a disaster strikes.  Katrina was such a huge disaster in part because of the poor reaction by the people in the area.  The disaster relief went poorly and all the damn looters and the like really hurt their neighbors.  A couple years of service/ training could turn everybody into the "first responder".  I know that the looters are people who are and always will be morally incompatible with that sort of thinking, but if they were dramaticly outnumbered by a well trained and organised public they would have a lesser impact.

[Savage .250]

I`d be for a draft if everyone who turned 18 .......served a tour. No exceptions!   

[ironglow]

  OSR says;
  " We are at the point where most of those that serve in the military are from the south, and rural areas.  Those from the "elitist" NE part of the US want to rule without having served".
..................................................................................................
   Ranger;
   I usually agree closely with you, but here I must digress slightly.  I'm from the northeast and have served as many of my friends have..of course, I am not "elitist" in any way. In the military, I was just a "run of the mill tanker".  However, in this current wartime era, I have among others, 3 very close individuals who are all serving in spec ops positions.  They include 2 of my former Sunday School students; one an Army Ranger (1st Ranger Bn), the second, a Marine with an explosive ordnance detection dog. Both served more than 1 deployment to Afghanistan.  The third, my grandson..a Spec Ops marine with a couple deployments under his belt.  Northeast?.. assuredly...     Rural..most definitely.
   I know many other young men serving in the military, nearly all born again Christians...  One, a son of my cousin is in a cavalry unit who's class A uniform consists of a DI style hat and spurs on his feet..don't know the unit..perhaps somebody here does
  Fact is, at least from my perspective..If we are looking for a heavily serving demographic..born-again Christians are providing many to the military and contribute well also to Spec ops..
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
  ANDY;
   Any idiot.. given the opportunity, can 'end a war' simply by pulling needed forces out and allowing several years efforts in blood, sweat and capital..run down the drain...
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
 
  I'm not in favor of conscription, even though the unwilling can serve in rear eschelon jobs, but extra respect and benefits should be provided for those who "are the brave, so all can be free"..
      I do believe that prior military service, especially in combat arms would be a prime prerequisite for anyone running for president...just so they can have a better grasp of what they are "commander-in-chief " of..
   As I see the present C-in-C, who never held a REAL job in the public sector and never wore a military uniform other the one  shown below, I am even more convinced of the wisdom of my last sentence..
   

[magooch]

This country hasn't had a draft for a long time and the military has not become a political force any more than it ever was.  When the draft last existed, it was only for the Army--not for the Air Force and not for the Navy.  When the draft did exist, it was for a two year stint and it made no sense whatsoever from an economic view, or from any other view for that matter.  By the time the draftees were trained and reached any kind of proficiency, it was time to muster out.
 
The idea of having forced service to the country, if for no other reason is impractical by the shear numbers.  The military budget and infrastructure could never and should never be geared to accomodate the masses.  It would be insanely expensive and wasteful. 
 
The United States is not Greece, or Switzerland, or any of the other militarily insignificant entities.  We are a nation of over 300 million and have no use for even a million military recruits per year, let alone the multiple millions of youngsters that would become eligible each year if mandatory service were instituted.

[Swampman]

IMO you should have to be either a veteran or active duty in order to vote.

[jlwilliams]

IMO you should have to be either a veteran or active duty in order to vote.

  You lost me there.
 
  You need to be military to have any say in society? The only way someone could possably be elligable to have a say is to have spent time under complete controll of the government?  That is completely out of line.
 
  With all respect for your service, you completely lost connection with what you swore to uphold and protect.
 
  The idea of a nation run by military only voting is un American.

[Swampman]

Same should go for holding public office.  Serving in the military should be necessary to remain a citizen after you are 21 IMO.  No service, no civil rights.  This is of course assumimg you are physically and mentally able.  Why should those who are unwilling to defend this country, rule over those who have risk their lives defending it?  Just a question...........as our country continues to swirl down the toliet.

[jlwilliams]

  I'm having a hard time knowing if what I'm reading is serious or a rhetorical game.  Could a guy who swore to uphold and protect the Constitution really be saying (in seriousness) that he thinks only the military should vote?  Really?  It's not making sense.
 
  Looking at history, there are plenty of precedents for what you are saying.  Historicaly, in caste societies, military has had rights and privelages where the peasants have not.  History is full of examples.  America as concieved by our founders is the exception to the rule.  Freedom may be a passing fad when you look at how many have lived under oppression for most of human history and how quickly we are running headfirst back into opression.
 
  Is America swirling down the tubes?  I have to agree that it is.  What we need is the freedoms that our government has taken from us to be taken back.  To move toward a military rule would be to move further from our nation's roots not closer to them.  The notion of "no service- no civil rights" would by design create a tiered society with half citizens.  Putting the only path toward "equality" (in quotes because some would be more 'equal') into service of the government would be sheer madness.  Really, if being under complete controll of the government is a pre-requisite for participation in that governemnt as a voter or official is kind of....asking for trouble.  We'd have a complete military dictatorship within a decade.
 
  I do think that compulsory service has some merits, as does the current all volunteer system.  On the other hand, the idea of limiting civil rights to only the warrior caste is completely without merrit and would be a head first jump directly back into the Dark Ages.
 
  If you are joking or making a rhetorical point, that's one thing.  If you seriously are suggesting this as a statement of personal conviction I hope you'll review your oath you took in the service and maybe review that Constitution you swore to uphold.  You seem to be missing some salient points.
 
  As we swirl around the bowl there may still be time to pull out.  Moving toward the ideas and ideals of our founders may still save our country.  Moving further away just pulls the flush handle.  It may be broken now, no need to make it irreparable.

[magooch]

Good post, jl.

[ironglow]

 While I don't think being a veteran should be mandatory for voting, I am very much against the efforts in 2000, 2004 and again in 2008 ..to suppress the active military's vote.  Their votes should be encouraged, guarded and definitely counted.

[jlwilliams]

While I don't think being a veteran should be mandatory for voting, I am very much against the efforts in 2000, 2004 and again in 2008 ..to suppress the active military's vote.  Their votes should be encouraged, guarded and definitely counted.

  I agree +100.

[Swampman]

I said only active duty military and veterans should be able to vote or hold public office.  Everyone who has reached the age of 21 should have already fulfilled their 2 year military requirement and then they get to vote.  I'll add this, if you accept public assistance or get a tax refund that is more than you paid in, you shouldn't be able to vote either.  Citizenship should be earned.  Why should slackers get a say?

[Cuts Crooked]

Why should slackers get a say?

Because the founders of this nation believed that all men are created equal.

Look Swampy, I fully understand what you feel. But it is just not compatible with the constitution.

[Swampman]

Originally you had to be a landowner to vote.

[wreckhog]

Most countries that have a draft are at war. North Korea has the highest percentage of citizens serving and yes Virginia, it is mandatory. On the other hand, do you want to be the one to invade them and take every house one at a time? Because that is what it would take.

Ironically, practically no one there gets a vote.

[OldSchoolRanger]

... This could also relieve some pressure on the reserves, using them as intended; reserved for sudden emergencies not because the active service is not large enough.  Right now if we were ATTACKED, we don't have the reserve capability to respond - we would really be stretched thin.
NW Bear

This was my point exactly, we as a nation got caught with a small all volunteer army prior to WWI and WWII.  When will we ever learn, that history constantly repeats itself.
 
 

... I spent a month in Greece and ... learned of the mandatory service requirements there. ... It seemed to me that the Greek men seemed to have a stronger appreciation for their country - even if they didn't like the people in government.  I'd say the same thing for the military vets I knew / know. 
 ...I see and hear more and more of the silliness of young American men [& women] with: little interest in education, over-inflated egos, drugs, gangs, utter lack of work ethics or knowledge of how to work in a group, no understanding of chain of command, low to no respect for their freedoms and the greatness of our country and people. Our country has become badly "Balkanized" with a lot of selfish attitudes and a decreasing sense of unity,and low sense of community service...
 It would be my hope that mandatory service, including the training could be a healthy homogenizing influence.  And YES to have a bit of (nearly) ALL Americans' "skin in the game"...
 ... I still believe that it is dangerous for our democracy to have an isolated warrior society. Not only as other posters have shown that the bulk of the military comes from limited portions of the country, but  I have read where its become a family thing with multiple generations of single families providing many many of the recruits...
 BUT  I believe history shows there can be a tendency over time for the military to become too self-centered, may lose respect for the rest of the countries population and system of Govt.  That's how Egypt, Pakistan and a many other countries are partially or totally dominated by their military - AND at that point, if not before, the military usually is quite corrupt and freedoms disappear....
 ...Time Magazine had a whole issue about how so few of our national leaders of today have military experience and how that translates into poor judgement regarding military affairs, getting into wars, how to evaluate military spending,  [?? November 21, 2011 | Vol. 178 No. 20 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601111121,00.html#ixzz1hLV7UxgG] ...
 There are not enough civilians with basic military experience to have military wisdom both supportive and critical.  It is dangerous for an uninformed public to be too dependent on a few military advisors....
 Just as it is dangerous and unwise to have a civilian population expect a military class to do all the dirty work for them. It should be a shared responsibility.....
 Overall I think a draft system or mandatory public service of some sort might help even things out.
 
 

Apologies to Dand for my shortening his post, but I believe I have retained his salient points which sustain my arguments.
 
 

   OSR says;
   " We are at the point where most of those that serve in the military are from the south, and rural areas.  Those from the "elitist" NE part of the US want to rule without having served".
 ..................................................................................................
    Ranger;
    I usually agree closely with you, but here I must digress slightly.  I'm from the northeast and have served as many of my friends have..of course, I am not "elitist" in any way. In the military, I was just a "run of the mill tanker".  However, in this current wartime era, I have among others, 3 very close individuals who are all serving in spec ops positions.  They include 2 of my former Sunday School students; one an Army Ranger (1st Ranger Bn), the second, a Marine with an explosive ordnance detection dog. Both served more than 1 deployment to Afghanistan.  The third, my grandson..a Spec Ops marine with a couple deployments under his belt.  Northeast?.. assuredly...     Rural..most definitely.
    I know many other young men serving in the military, nearly all born again Christians...  One, a son of my cousin is in a cavalry unit who's class A uniform consists of a DI style hat and spurs on his feet..don't know the unit..perhaps somebody here does
   Fact is, at least from my perspective..If we are looking for a heavily serving demographic..born-again Christians are providing many to the military and contribute well also to Spec ops..   
 

IG - No insult meant to you and yours.  What I was pointing out is a fact of life.  Maybe I was generalizing too much, but if you look at my post in reply to KIMBER45, you will see that I gave links to prove my point about the lack of people from the northeast enlisting in the military, in comparison to the rest of the nation.  By the way, where do the Clinton's, Kerry's, Kennedy's, Biden, Romney's reside?
 

This country hasn't had a draft for a long time and the military has not become a political force any more than it ever was.  When the draft last existed, it was only for the Army--not for the Air Force and not for the Navy....
 

magooch - Sorry I have to tell you that your wrong.  IIRC, the draft was for all services that needed manpower, especially the Army.  What happened was that because of the draft, a lot of people enlisted in the Reserves, the National Guard, Coast Guard, Navy and Air Force to get out of being drafted into the Army and Marines.  Since the Navy and Air Force had all those "volunteers", there was no draft needed for those services.  Yes, even the Marines.  Contrary to popular belief, there were people drafted into the Marines.
 

IMO you should have to be either a veteran or active duty in order to vote.
 

... You need to be military to have any say in society? ...
 

While I don't completely agree with Swampy.  That's not what he said, if you read it carefully, he stated either a vet or active duty.  His point meaning you had to have served your military obligation. 
 

...  in caste societies, military has had rights and privelages where the peasants have not.  History is full of examples.  America as concieved by our founders is the exception to the rule.  Freedom may be a passing fad when you look at how many have lived under oppression for most of human history and how quickly we are running headfirst back into opression...     
   I do think that compulsory service has some merits, as does the current all volunteer system.  On the other hand, the idea of limiting civil rights to only the warrior caste is completely without merrit and would be a head first jump directly back into the Dark Ages....
 

jl - Nobody is talking about castes, he is talking about compulsory military service.  There is no castes if everyone has to serve.

  While I don't think being a veteran should be mandatory for voting, I am very much against the efforts in 2000, 2004 and again in 2008 ..to suppress the active military's vote.  Their votes should be encouraged, guarded and definitely counted.
 

IG - That is Chicago style vote rigging at it's finest.
 

Most countries that have a draft are at war. North Korea has the highest percentage of citizens serving and... it is mandatory. On the other hand, do you want to be the one to invade them and take every house one at a time? Because that is what it would take....
 

What about Switzerland, and Greece?  They're not at war, and if you want to research it there are probably more countries that have mandatory military service.  Your statement above would support my point about a benefit of mandatory service.

Merry Christmas to all!

[magooch]

My point was that the draft when it last existed was not being used to man the Air Force and the Navy; of course it could have been, but it wasn't.  None of that changes my main point and that is that the only purpose for our military should be for the security and defense of this country.  It should not be for social, theoretical patriotic, or other philosophic purposes.
 
Yes, I know that our military is also used to defend and secure, our "allies"--probably all too often.

[ironglow]

OSR says;
    " IG - No insult meant to you and yours.  What I was pointing out is a fact of life.  Maybe I was generalizing too much, but if you look at my post in reply to KIMBER45, you will see that I gave links to prove my point about the lack of people from the northeast enlisting in the military, in comparison to the rest of the nation.  By the way, where do the Clinton's, Kerry's, Kennedy's, Biden, Romney's reside"?
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
  OSR;
   Those clowns all reside in the EAST..Northeast      ..   You can take the northeast coast, go inland 50 miles right up the coast...and root out a whole passel of libs...LOL   Anyhow, no offense taken..since I cannot deny the lefty-lean of the northeast...
  Just remember, looking at a map of the NE;  anything which looks like city..LIBERALS /  Anything that looks like country....CONSERVATIVES
    THe suburbs are divided..