Will the US reintroduce the draft?

[Townsend]

LOL.

You understand incorrectly then.

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=17584

You cannot do it only when a war starts up! You do it way before hand...

It is not a matter of convince for people to avoid having to fight, it is suppose to be used for people who have a problem with wars but still want to serve. Understand?

 

[Townsend]

You just contradicted yourself.

You just said that you received benefits beyond what normal people receive because of your service and that you believe it should be extended.

Well, worry to inform you but it isn't and no matter what you 'think' America doesn't work like that.

Hoist ... meet petard.

What the heck are you talking about? Is english your first language?

I currently receive benefits that I earned by serving. There are other benefits that people get from the government for their education. I think these benefits should be taken away from people who did nothing to earn those benefits and instead should be reserved for people who are willing exchange some kind of service to their community or country to get them.

Where O where did I say anything to the contrary?

 

[SOS2008]

No...I don't believe that you have to support a war that you disagree with. However, serving in the military does not mean that you support the war, it only means that you are serving in the military. You have a right to vote and a right to speak out against this war. You have a right to form organized protest and I encourge you to do so if that's your perspective.



Yeah, I am glad that we have it too.

I was being somewhat facetious in my earlier post about the draft, but there is something to the premise of whether an individual should be asked to sacrifice their life for something they don't support or believe in. In regard to mandatory service, what if you were fulfilling your mandatory service during a time when a war is started that you don't support?

Aside from that, I don't feel we have representation at this time. The majority of Americans do not support the war, do not support privatisation of Social Security, do not support open borders/illegal immigration, do not support trade agreements, do not support over-turning of Roe v Wade, and the list goes on and on... But all this has been ignored--there is a major disconnect with the Bush administration (same reason Bush Sr. lost to Clinton).

 

[Townsend]

I was being somewhat facetious in my earlier post about the draft, but there is something to the premise of whether an individual should be asked to sacrifice their life for something they don't support or believe in. In regard to mandatory service, what if you were fulfilling your mandatory service during a time when a war is started that you don't support?

Aside from that, I don't feel we have representation at this time. The majority of Americans do not support the war, do not support privatisation of Social Security, do not support open borders/illegal immigration, do not support trade agreements, do not support over-turning of Roe v Wade, and the list goes on and on... But all this has been ignored--there is a major disconnect with the Bush administration (same reason Bush Sr. lost to Clinton).

I voted and had the opportunity to voice my opinion about our elected officials. Sorry if this is not a direct democracy government that you seem to want but you still have representation. Just not direct representation, its more or less like James Madison wanted it to be when he came to the convention with his Virginia plan. The problems we have are small compared to the problems that a direct democracy would bring.

Regards,

 

[BobG]

So then it strikes me that if the above is true then anyone who enlists should have a right to the same education at Harvard or Yale because 'daddy's money equates to risking your life.

The reason I mention Yale is because clearly, Bush didn't belong there and it was 'daddy's money that got him in.

Philosophically, I'd tend to agree with the first statement, but the cost might be higher than my agreement. If I had my druthers, I'd rather fork out for a cheaper school.

I'm not sure what your point is about Bush. He's an isolated example.

Even within his own family, he's not typical. Bush 43 wasn't the first in his family to benefit from a rich, politically connected daddy. Prescott Bush was pretty successful, himself, and Bush 41 benefited a lot from his daddy's success. I wouldn't say Prescott Bush wasted his money. Bush 41 did very well for himself - he was elected President and was a very good President, at that.

Even among losers, Bush 43 is an exception. Normally, daddy wasting his money on his spoiled brat only affects his own family - it isn't taxpayers' money that's at risk. Most of the time, if a rich kid rewards his parents' efforts by becoming an alcoholic and/or drug addict, nobody's going to come along, drag him out of the gutter, and prop him up for President.

I don't have a problem with the government helping people. I don't have a problem with requiring some collateral to protect against a bad investment, either.

The difference is in whose money's at risk. If the wealthy want to risk their money on their kids, they're welcome to it - it's a risk that will probably pay off. If it's taxpayer's money being risked on strangers, they deserve some assurance they'll get something back in return.

 

[The Smoking Man]

You cannot do it only when a war starts up! You do it way before hand...

It is not a matter of convince for people to avoid having to fight, it is suppose to be used for people who have a problem with wars but still want to serve. Understand?

Sorry, it can be used when you fight a war you don't support. (ie. if you believe the war to be illegal or against a principal you hold more dear than the reason for war.)

Enlistment is not a blank check.

 

[Townsend]

Sorry, it can be used when you fight a war you don't support. (ie. if you believe the war to be illegal or against a principal you hold more dear than the reason for war.)

Enlistment is not a blank check.

News to me. Is there any place I can go to find more information about what you are saying? I hope you will understand if I won't simply take your word for it.

 

[Archon]

The question I have to ask is, why are they so poor? There is so much opportunity in this country I just don't understand it. When I was stationed in Lemoore CA I was renting from a Mexican family that came into the US not 15 years ago and now they are very rich. They came with no money and no education. They never needed a hand out because they were willing to work any kind of job and they saved up and well...you get the idea.

Of course this would be the ideal, but most poor Mexican immigrants don't become rich. In fact, many people who begin their lives poor also end their lives poor, not because they are unwilling to work their hardest, but because they start with such a disadvantage that it is difficult even to buy enough food to survive. These are the sorts of people who I believe would be well served by government support. The term handouts is somewhat misleading though, since I don't necessarily believe that people should just be given money: they must demonstrate need and show that they use the money/resources to the fullest potential.

If I thought it would work then I might consider it but I think handouts only perpetuate the problem.

I agree that in many cases, government handouts can do more harm then good. But this is only the case when they are true handouts, with no strings attached and with no requirements for continued assistance.

Consider the following analogy: if your friend asks you to loan him some money so he can get back on his feet after a rough time, you wouldn't refuse him based on the fact that he MUST work for everything he gets. But you wouldn't keep lending him money if you knew that he was wasting it in some way. I believe that ideally, the government would work in much same way.

The skills that are needed to become successful in this country have little to do with a college education. They have to do with work ethic and perseverance. If someone wants to become a doctor they most certainly can and they can do it without any government handouts too.

Again, I disagree. While some (or many) of America's poor are simply lazy, I think that more often, the problem is that they are born into a world that is immediately hostile and forces them to struggle for the basic requirements of life. Many people who work multiple jobs remain poor in spite of this. You can't really argue that such a person is too lazy to advance through society.

And a college eduction is certainly an enormous advantage: it creates opportunities that the uneducated have no access to. College graduates make, in general, more than those who have not graduated from college. Obviously, if you define success based on the amount of money one makes, then college graduates are already more successful than "non-graduates." Furthermore, greater wealth leads almost invariably to a better condition of life. So education would certainly seem to be important.

 

[Archon]

I voted and had the opportunity to voice my opinion about our elected officials. Sorry if this is not a direct democracy government that you seem to want but you still have representation. Just not direct representation, its more or less like James Madison wanted it to be when he came to the convention with his Virginia plan. The problems we have are small compared to the problems that a direct democracy would bring.

Regards,

You seem to have missed the point, which is that, though our government is not a direct democracy, it is still very much based on the desires and will of the people. As SOS is saying, the government has been blatantly ignoring the will of the people on many issues, a policy which I find more characteristic of a dictatorial government than a republic/democracy.

Before anyone panics, though, I'm not actually calling Bush a dictator: I'm merely saying that in many ways, he is not respecting at home the ideals he claims to spread abroad.

 

[Townsend]

Archon

I agree that college is important but my point is that it is not a requirement needed to be successful. I think a big reason why people who have a degree make more than those who don't have a degree is not so much the degree but the person.

What I mean is that the people who have college degrees are willing to work hard and they believe in themselves. While there are a lot of reasons why people may or may not be getting a college degree today, money should not be one of those reasons. If someone wants to go to school most schools will find a way for them to pay for it. And yet, not everyone has a college education...why do you suppose that is?

The people who have a degree are more often than not hard workers who are willing to make sacrifices to succeed. Obviously their degree helps but I think their success has more to do with intestinal fortitude than a piece of paper.

Regards

 

[Townsend]

You seem to have missed the point, which is that, though our government is not a direct democracy, it is still very much based on the desires and will of the people. As SOS is saying, the government has been blatantly ignoring the will of the people on many issues, a policy which I find more characteristic of a dictatorial government than a republic/democracy.

Before anyone panics, though, I'm not actually calling Bush a dictator: I'm merely saying that in many ways, he is not respecting at home the ideals he claims to spread abroad.

I did not miss the point at all. Even if an elected representative is not acting for the will of the majority our government is functioning like it was designed to function. Elected representatives do not always respond to the will of the majority but through time the will of the majority is eventually realized. The diffusion of the voice of the people is what the Federalist wanted and that is what they got. Of course there were some compromises made along the way and we see those today too.

Regards

 

[solutions in a box]

So now you say that you were not PCSed 7 times?

I asked you a straight forward question..don't get mad at me because you made a mistake. I am finding it very hard to believe you but that is besides the point. You may have been in the service...I could be wrong about that...what does that change? Nothing except that you would have seen the bases that you claimed. My point is why did you mention stuff that has been going on for years as if it was new? Thats the main reason why I am finding you hard to believe edward.

Townsend it appears that you have a hard time believing anthing anyone says. Either that or you are a mere neocon troll. You have refuted and disputed nearly every post without giving anything but your own obsessive opinions. What is old about the current illegals joining the military with only a fake green card?
All of the military bonuses were updated on "stand down day" So was the high school dropout situation.
Is no child left behind something old?
Put down your swagger stick and try to be more objective.

 

[Townsend]

Townsend it appears that you have a hard time believing anthing anyone says. Either that or you are a mere neocon troll. You have refuted and disputed nearly every post without giving anything but your own obsessive opinions. What is old about the current illegals joining the military with only a fake green card?
All of the military bonuses were updated on "stand down day" So was the high school dropout situation.
Is no child left behind something old?
Put down your swagger stick and try to be more objective.

I addressed everything you said already..I am not going to play the repeat myself till I am "blue in the face" game with you.

 

[Archon]

Archon

I agree that college is important but my point is that it is not a requirement needed to be successful. I think a big reason why people who have a degree make more than those who don't have a degree is not so much the degree but the person.

There are no "requirements" for success, at least not in the sense you mean. Obviously, one can be successful without a college degree. But one can also be successful without perseverence and the willingness to work hard. The truth is that people with college degrees earn more than people who are merely willing to work hard. This is the case regardless of whether one is a hard worker or not: those with degrees simply earn more.

What I mean is that the people who have college degrees are willing to work hard and they believe in themselves. While there are a lot of reasons why people may or may not be getting a college degree today, money should not be one of those reasons. If someone wants to go to school most schools will find a way for them to pay for it. And yet, not everyone has a college education...why do you suppose that is?

Money is not necessarily the problem: quality of education is. It is well known that poor areas have, in general, schools of a far lower quality than comparatively rich areas. Certainly, the degree itself is valuable in getting people higher-paying jobs, but without the skills that come from a good education, the degree is worth little.

In response to the question: college is not a very feasible (or even possible) option for many of the nation's poor. Many must start working at an early age in order to help support their families, and this often prevents them from going to high school, much less college. Furthermore, poor areas are much more susceptible to crime, drug use, and other such problems, which further reduce opportunities for the children of poor families to make it to college.

The people who have a degree are more often than not hard workers who are willing to make sacrifices to succeed. Obviously their degree helps but I think their success has more to do with intestinal fortitude than a piece of paper.

Unfortunatly, intestinal fortitude will not usually get you a job, nor will it feed your family. That "piece of paper" will do these things far more effectively.

 

[Archon]

I did not miss the point at all. Even if an elected representative is not acting for the will of the majority our government is functioning like it was designed to function. Elected representatives do not always respond to the will of the majority but through time the will of the majority is eventually realized. The diffusion of the voice of the people is what the Federalist wanted and that is what they got. Of course there were some compromises made along the way and we see those today too.

Regards

The purpose of the founding fathers was not to slow the process of the will of the majority manifesting itself in the government. They sought to prevent the will of the majority from intruding on the rights of others, a very valid concern. However, it seems that the opposite is happening here: the minority is imposing its desires for war, etc. on the majority, which is, for the moment, powerless to stop this from happening. This should be a grave concern to everyone, but you seem to be writing it off as the government's purpose in action, even though it seems to be quite the opposite.

 

[Townsend]

Archon

We could go on about this forever. I see your point and I understand where you are coming from. We both want people to be happy and successful in life. We just don't agree about how to accomplish this. So, I am afraid we may just have to agree to disagree on this one. I do however appreciate your point of view so don't think I am trying to be a prick or anything.

Regards

 

[Townsend]

The purpose of the founding fathers was not to slow the process of the will of the majority manifesting itself in the government. They sought to prevent the will of the majority from intruding on the rights of others, a very valid concern. However, it seems that the opposite is happening here: the minority is imposing its desires for war, etc. on the majority, which is, for the moment, powerless to stop this from happening. This should be a grave concern to everyone, but you seem to be writing it off as the government's purpose in action, even though it seems to be quite the opposite.

They acknowledged the fact that the system of government that would best protect the individual from the tyranny of faction was also a system of government that would be slow to respond to the will of the people it was to govern. That knew it and that is what they wanted it to do so that it could be what it is. In other words James Madison made a compromise when he designed the Virginia plan. Like it or not, the government is functioning exactly like it is suppose to be functioning.

Regards

 

[edward]

Meanwhile back at the topic

• More education news

A little-noticed clause in the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act requires high schools to hand over students' names, addresses and telephone numbers to military recruiters as a condition of receiving federal aid.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6448213/did/8273416/

 

[Townsend]

• More education news

A little-noticed clause in the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act requires high schools to hand over students' names, addresses and telephone numbers to military recruiters as a condition of receiving federal aid.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6448213/did/8273416/

Well giving out aid is their prerogative, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Well giving out aid is their prerogative, wouldn’t you agree?

Nope. That's why the Universities told them to blow it out their butts.

 

[Townsend]

Nope. That's why the Universities told them to blow it out their butts.

What do you mean?

So if it is not the prerogative of the federal government to decide who they give aid to then whos prerogative is it?

 

[The Smoking Man]

What do you mean?

So if it is not the prerogative of the federal government to decide who they give aid to then whos prerogative is it?

Funding of education has nothing to do with selective service.

The us military has also been blocked because they have been consistently lying to students to achieve their goals.

It was upheld in court.

Again, you assume that the people serve the government and that the government does not serve the people.

 

[Townsend]

Funding of education has nothing to do with selective service.

The us military has also been blocked because they have been consistently lying to students to achieve their goals.

It was upheld in court.

Well, whos prerogative is it then? Please tell me what authority has the right to decide who can have aid and who cannot?

Again, you assume that the people serve the government and that the government does not serve the people.

The government does NOT have an obligation to give money out for people to goto college with. Do you understand that?

This is why Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the WORST American president of all time.

 

[Archon]

Archon

We could go on about this forever. I see your point and I understand where you are coming from. We both want people to be happy and successful in life. We just don't agree about how to accomplish this. So, I am afraid we may just have to agree to disagree on this one. I do however appreciate your point of view so don't think I am trying to be a prick or anything.

Regards

I see your point as well, and I certainly appreciate your civility.

They acknowledged the fact that the system of government that would best protect the individual from the tyranny of faction was also a system of government that would be slow to respond to the will of the people it was to govern. That knew it and that is what they wanted it to do so that it could be what it is. In other words James Madison made a compromise when he designed the Virginia plan. Like it or not, the government is functioning exactly like it is suppose to be functioning.

Regards

The only problem with this last sentance is that the same could have been said to the founding fathers themselves, in reference to the British Government. However, they disagreed with its tenets, and so created the United States based on their own image of government. Every revolution, political or otherwise, starts with some sort of disagreement. We cannot forget that, even if the system proposed by the founding fathers was perfect when first brought into being (an impossibility), 250 years of history has altered the world and made change necessary. From my perspective, there are still many more changes that need to be carried out. The reflection of the(rational) opinions of the people in their government is one such change.

 

[Townsend]

The only problem with this last sentance is that the same could have been said to the founding fathers themselves, in reference to the British Government. However, they disagreed with its tenets, and so created the United States based on their own image of government. Every revolution, political or otherwise, starts with some sort of disagreement. We cannot forget that, even if the system proposed by the founding fathers was perfect when first brought into being (an impossibility), 250 years of history has altered the world and made change necessary. From my perspective, there are still many more changes that need to be carried out. The reflection of the(rational) opinions of the people in their government is one such change.

I am totally cool with people who think that things need to be changed. Perhaps they do but I doubt they will because of path dependency.

Just so you know I like the way the Constitution works. Not that it wasn't rather clear from my post.

Regards,

 

[Archon]

The government does NOT have an obligation to give money out for people to goto college with. Do you understand that?

The government also does not have the obligation to invade other countries, for whatever purpose. However, it has the ability to do so when it perceives that this action will protect the lives of Americans. Similarly, while the government may not (from your perspective) have the obligation to give money to people so that they can go to college, it certainly has the ability to do so, and will do so as long as this appears to improve the state of Americans' eduction. After all, an educated populace is in the best interests of most governments.

 

[Townsend]

The government also does not have the obligation to invade other countries, for whatever purpose. However, it has the ability to do so when it perceives that this action will protect the lives of Americans. Similarly, while the government may not (from your perspective) have the obligation to give money to people so that they can go to college, it certainly has the ability to do so, and will do so as long as this appears to improve the state of Americans' eduction. After all, an educated populace is in the best interests of most governments.

Right, my point is that it is the government’s prerogative to give out money to whomever they want. They are not required by law to do so and as such they should be able to decide who gets money and for what reasons. The schools don’t have a right to make up the rules about how they get the money. Either they play by the rules of Federal government or they don’t get any money.

Now if it were an obligation for the government to give out money things would be very different. However, that’s not how they are so who cares?

 

[Archon]

Right, my point is that it is the government’s prerogative to give out money to whomever they want. They are not required by law to do so and as such they should be able to decide who gets money and for what reasons. The schools don’t have a right to make up the rules about how they get the money. Either they play by the rules of Federal government or they don’t get any money.

Somehow, I managed to miss that part of your post. My error.

Now if it were an obligation for the government to give out money things would be very different. However, that’s not how they are so who cares?

I presume that people who believe that the government should give out money to those who need it do care. I certainly care about the nature of my government. And again, we can use the analogy of the founding fathers vs. the British government. How different would things today be if these men had said "That's not how the British are. Let's just forget about Democracy." Though the topic of our discussion perhaps isn't quite as important, it seems to work in much the same way.

 

[Townsend]

I presume that people who believe that the government should give out money to those who need it do care. I certainly care about the nature of my government. And again, we can use the analogy of the founding fathers vs. the British government. How different would things today be if these men had said "That's not how the British are. Let's just forget about Democracy." Though the topic of our discussion perhaps isn't quite as important, it seems to work in much the same way.

You can care about it...I am not saying that you can't at all, or at least that is not what I meant if I did say it.

All I am saying is that the law does not require our government to give handouts. Therefore, it is up to the government to do so how it sees fit. How the government should give out money is a topic for another thread.

Regards,

 

[The Smoking Man]

Right, my point is that it is the government’s prerogative to give out money to whomever they want. They are not required by law to do so and as such they should be able to decide who gets money and for what reasons. The schools don’t have a right to make up the rules about how they get the money. Either they play by the rules of Federal government or they don’t get any money.

Now if it were an obligation for the government to give out money things would be very different. However, that’s not how they are so who cares?

Following on with the point ... the money they 'give out' isn't theirs. It makes it into their hands by taxing the people.

Failing to give them their fair share when collected from them allows them to, in turn retain those portions of taxes or suffer the same fate as the British for Taxation without representation.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Following on with the point ... the money they 'give out' isn't theirs. It makes it into their hands by taxing the people.

And continuing down the causality chain, the congresspeople and the president were elected by the people, and if the people don't like the way the Federal Government is spending the tax receipts they can always "throw the bums out". Every seat of the House of Representatives is up for election every two years so the voters can do a quick ouster if they really want to.

 

[solutions in a box]

I addressed everything you said already..I am not going to play the repeat myself till I am "blue in the face" game with you.

Why not you are playing it anyway by constantly repeating your own political flatulence with other posters to this thread.

And you have addressed nothing in any substantial factual manner.

The fact is that the Bush administration is playing a very dangerous game in trying to manipulate America's high school students into joining the military. And all of this is to fight a war based on lies.

The neocon Administration fully realizes that to bring back the draft would be political suicide, so they are using underhanded Karl Rove type tactics to try to save their own behinds.

 

[solutions in a box]

• More education news

A little-noticed clause in the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act requires high schools to hand over students' names, addresses and telephone numbers to military recruiters as a condition of receiving federal aid.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6448213/did/8273416/

Edward

The operative phrase here is " A little-noticed clause".

Until it recently made the news, because the schools and parents were complaining, no one but the politicians knew about it.

The real effect of the "clause" is that it will bring about an unbalanced number of enlistees from underpriviledged and rural schools. Since they cannot afford to lose that federal aid, recruiters will have full access to personal student information.

On the other hand schools in more affluent areas can afford to lose the federal funding.
And a number of those schools have already told the government to take the money and shove it.

 

[Townsend]

Why not you are playing it anyway by constantly repeating your own political flatulence with other posters to this thread.

And you have addressed nothing in any substantial factual manner.

Whats with all the scathing diatribe?

The fact is that the Bush administration is playing a very dangerous game in trying to manipulate America's high school students into joining the military. And all of this is to fight a war based on lies.

Recruiters were playing games when Clinton was in office too! It has nothing to do with the current Administration and you people cannot just make these kind of casual connections. The burden of proof is with you people, the ones making the sensational claims.

The neocon Administration fully realizes that to bring back the draft would be political suicide, so they are using underhanded Karl Rove type tactics to try to save their own behinds.

please...

 

[BobG]

And you have addressed nothing in any substantial factual manner.

I don't like to get involved in these kind of things very often, but, to be honest, you have a pretty high flame to substance ratio, yourself. One post with 6 sentences of flame and 2 stating your opinion about the subject. One post with 2 sentences of flame and 3 about the subject.

The last wasn't too bad. Not much support, but at least all the sentences addressed the subject.