• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Are you between 18 and 42?

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
If you are, or know someone who is, this might effect you.

Link at bottom of article.
A BILL

To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the favorable treatment afforded combat pay under the earned income tax credit, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Universal National Service Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

HR 393 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 393
To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the favorable treatment afforded combat pay under the earned income tax credit, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 10, 2007
Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the favorable treatment afforded combat pay under the earned income tax credit, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Universal National Service Act of 2007'.

(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--NATIONAL SERVICE

Sec. 101. Definitions.

Sec. 102. National service obligation.

Sec. 103. Induction to perform national service.

Sec. 104. Two-year period of national service.

Sec. 105. Implementation by the President.

Sec. 106. Examination and classification of persons.

Sec. 107. Deferments and postponements.

Sec. 108. Induction exemptions.

Sec. 109. Conscientious objection.

Sec. 110. Discharge following national service.

Sec. 111. Registration of females under the Military Selective Service Act.

Sec. 112. Relation of title to registration and induction authority of Military Selective Service Act.

TITLE II--FAVORABLE TREATMENT OF COMBAT PAY UNDER EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT MADE PERMANENT

Sec. 201. Favorable treatment of combat pay under earned income tax credit made permanent.

TITLE I--NATIONAL SERVICE

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:

(1) The term `contingency operation' has the meaning given that term in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code.

(2) The term `military service' means service performed as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services.

(3) The term `national service' means military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.

(4) The term `Secretary concerned' means the Secretary of Defense with respect to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard, the Secretary of Commerce, with respect to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with respect to the Public Health Service.

(5) The term `United States', when used in a geographical sense, means the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

(6) The term `uniformed services' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.

SEC. 102. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.

(a) Obligation for Service- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title unless exempted under the provisions of this title.

(b) Forms of National Service- The national service obligation under this title shall be performed either--

(1) as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; or

(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.

© Age Limits- A person may be inducted under this title only if the person has attained the age of 18 and has not attained the age of 42.

SEC. 103. INDUCTION TO PERFORM NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) Induction Requirements- The President shall provide for the induction of persons described in section 102(a) to perform their national service obligation.

(b) Limitation on Induction for Military Service- Persons described in section 102(a) may be inducted to perform military service only if--

(1) a declaration of war is in effect;

(2) the President declares a national emergency, which the President determines necessitates the induction of persons to perform military service, and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration and the need to induct persons for military service; or

(3) members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps are engaged in a contingency operation pursuant to a congressional authorization for the use of military force.

© Limitation on Number of Persons Inducted for Military Service- When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall determine the number of persons described in section 102(a) whose national service obligation is to be satisfied through military service based on--

(1) the authorized end strengths of the uniformed services; and

(2) the feasibility of the uniformed services to recruit sufficient volunteers to achieve such end-strength levels.

(3) provide a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service.

(d) Selection for Induction-

(1) RANDOM SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE- When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall utilize a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service.

(2) CIVILIAN SERVICE- Persons described in section 102(a) who do not volunteer to perform military service or are not inducted for military service shall perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity pursuant to section 102(b)(2).

(e) Voluntary Service- A person subject to induction under this title may--

(1) volunteer to perform national service in lieu of being inducted; or

(2) request permission to be inducted at a time other than the time at which the person is otherwise called for induction.

SEC. 104. TWO-YEAR PERIOD OF NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) General Rule- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this title shall be two years.

(b) Grounds for Extension- At the discretion of the President, the period of military service for a member of the uniformed services under this title may be extended--

(1) with the consent of the member, for the purpose of furnishing hospitalization, medical, or surgical care for injury or illness incurred in line of duty; or

(2) for the purpose of requiring the member to compensate for any time lost to training for any cause.

© Early Termination- The period of national service for a person under this title shall be terminated before the end of such period under the following circumstances:

(1) The voluntary enlistment and active service of the person in an active or reserve component of the uniformed services for a period of at least two years, in which case the period of basic military training and education actually served by the person shall be counted toward the term of enlistment.

(2) The admission and service of the person as a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, or the United States Merchant Marine Academy.

(3) The enrollment and service of the person in an officer candidate program, if the person has signed an agreement to accept a Reserve commission in the appropriate service with an obligation to serve on active duty if such a commission is offered upon completion of the program.

(4) Such other grounds as the President may establish.

SEC. 105. IMPLEMENTATION BY THE PRESIDENT.

(a) In General- The President shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this title.

(b) Matter to Be Covered by Regulations- Such regulations shall include specification of the following:

(1) The types of civilian service that may be performed in order for a person to satisfy the person's national service obligation under this title.

(2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and of penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily.

(3) The manner in which persons shall be selected for induction under this title, including the manner in which those selected will be notified of such selection.

(4) All other administrative matters in connection with the induction of persons under this title and the registration, examination, and classification of such persons.

(5) A means to determine questions or claims with respect to inclusion for, or exemption or deferment from induction under this title, including questions of conscientious objection.

(6) Standards for compensation and benefits for persons performing their national service obligation under this title through civilian service.

(7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to carry out this title.

© Use of Prior Act- To the extent determined appropriate by the President, the President may use for purposes of this title the procedures provided in the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), including procedures for registration, selection, and induction.

SEC. 106. EXAMINATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF PERSONS.

(a) Examination- Every person subject to induction under this title shall, before induction, be physically and mentally examined and shall be classified as to fitness to perform national service.

(b) Different Classification Standards- The President may apply different classification standards for fitness for military service and fitness for civilian service.

SEC. 107. DEFERMENTS AND POSTPONEMENTS.

(a) High School Students- A person who is pursuing a standard course of study, on a full-time basis, in a secondary school or similar institution of learning shall be entitled to have induction under this title postponed until the person--

(1) obtains a high school diploma;

(2) ceases to pursue satisfactorily such course of study; or

(3) attains the age of 20.

(b) Hardship and Disability- Deferments from national service under this title may be made for--

(1) extreme hardship; or

(2) physical or mental disability.

© Training Capacity- The President may postpone or suspend the induction of persons for military service under this title as necessary to limit the number of persons receiving basic military training and education to the maximum number that can be adequately trained.

(d) Termination- No deferment or postponement of induction under this title shall continue after the cause of such deferment or postponement ceases.

SEC. 108. INDUCTION EXEMPTIONS.

(a) Qualifications- No person may be inducted for military service under this title unless the person is acceptable to the Secretary concerned for training and meets the same health and physical qualifications applicable under section 505 of title 10, United States Code, to persons seeking original enlistment in a regular component of the Armed Forces.

(b) Other Military Service- No person shall be liable for induction under this title who--

(1) is serving, or has served honorably for at least six months, in any component of the uniformed services on active duty; or

(2) is or becomes a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, the United States Merchant Marine Academy, a midshipman of a Navy accredited State maritime academy, a member of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, or the naval aviation college program, so long as that person satisfactorily continues in and completes at least two years training therein.

SEC. 109. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION.

(a) Claims as Conscientious Objector- Nothing in this title shall be construed to require a person to be subject to combatant training and service in the uniformed services, if that person, by reason of sincerely held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.

(b) Alternative Noncombatant or Civilian Service- A person who claims exemption from combatant training and service under subsection (a) and whose claim is sustained by the local board shall--

(1) be assigned to noncombatant service (as defined by the President), if the person is inducted into the uniformed services; or

(2) be ordered by the local board, if found to be conscientiously opposed to participation in such noncombatant service, to perform national civilian service for the period specified in section 104(a) and subject to such regulations as the President may prescribe.

SEC. 110. DISCHARGE FOLLOWING NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) Discharge- Upon completion or termination of the obligation to perform national service under this title, a person shall be discharged from the uniformed services or from civilian service, as the case may be, and shall not be subject to any further service under this title.

(b) Coordination With Other Authorities- Nothing in this section shall limit or prohibit the call to active service in the uniformed services of any person who is a member of a regular or reserve component of the uniformed services.

SEC. 111. REGISTRATION OF FEMALES UNDER THE MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.

(a) Registration Required- Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended--

(1) by striking `male' both places it appears;

(2) by inserting `or herself' after `himself'; and

(3) by striking `he' and inserting `the person'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 16(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by striking `men' and inserting `persons'.

SEC. 112. RELATION OF TITLE TO REGISTRATION AND INDUCTION AUTHORITY OF MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.

(a) Registration- Section 4 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 454) is amended by inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection:

`(h) This section does not apply with respect to the induction of persons into the Armed Forces pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2007.'.

(b) Induction- Section 17© of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 467©) is amended by striking `now or hereafter' and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting `inducted pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2007.'.

TITLE II--FAVORABLE TREATMENT OF COMBAT PAY UNDER EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT MADE PERMANENT

SEC. 201. FAVORABLE TREATMENT OF COMBAT PAY UNDER EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT MADE PERMANENT.

(a) In General- Clause (vi) of section 32©(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining earned income) is amended to read as follows:

`(vi) a taxpayer may elect for any taxable year to treat amounts excluded from gross income by reason of section 112 as earned income.'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2006.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.393:
 

ghautz

Bronze Member
Site Supporter
I think this is basically a good idea. I know that I benefited greatly from four years in the Navy before returning to college. However, it would create some hardship for many who are started in their careers and families. It might be more reasonable to require this service before age 25 or so.
 

Cityboy

Banned
It is obvious that this is nothing more than political hyperbole by Wrangle to make Bush look bad and create more public outcry against our involvement in Iraq.

Further, I do not think mandatory national service is a good idea except as a last possible resort in dire national emergency within our own borders. You simply do not want people forced to be in the military who do not want to be there with their pissed off attitude affecting those who volunteered of their own free will. For those of us who served voluntarily, think back on your time in service. Remember those other volunteers who could not handle military life? We called them shitbirds in the Marine Corps. Imagine adding thousands of these shitbirds who do not want to be there, and who did not want to be there in the first place. Imagine the disciplinary issues and problems that would constantly be arising. Imagine the effect on the volunteer troops who are the back bone of our military. Then explain how this could possibly be a good thing for our military and the nation?
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Cityboy said:
It is obvious that this is nothing more than political hyperbole by Wrangle to make Bush look bad and create more public outcry against our involvement in Iraq.

That is not at all obvious to me.

I do remember Bush and Rumsfeld saying they had no plans for reinstituting the draft, but then they did what was called a back door draft by extending service for those already in.

When you have a war going on not as many will sign up. With Iran issues on the horizen and N. Korea problems still unresolved and more of our reserve forces being used for extended periods it seems obvious to me that we do need a draft. I served at the end of the draft lottery and did not witness the problems you speak of with a drafted force. True Americans did their duty when called upon. Others went to Canada.
 

Cityboy

Banned
Doc said:
That is not at all obvious to me.

I do remember Bush and Rumsfeld saying they had no plans for reinstituting the draft, but then they did what was called a back door draft by extending service for those already in.

When you have a war going on not as many will sign up. With Iran issues on the horizen and N. Korea problems still unresolved and more of our reserve forces being used for extended periods it seems obvious to me that we do need a draft. I served at the end of the draft lottery and did not witness the problems you speak of with a drafted force. True Americans did their duty when called upon. Others went to Canada.

You were in the Navy weren't you Doc? How many draftees did you guys actually get? Most draftees went to the Army during vietnam. I personally know several former Army Vietnam veterans who did see the problems, and some of those veterans I am personal friends with WERE draftees who did not want to be there but did what they had to do. These were the guys with the peace symbols on their helmets who did what they had to do to survive and get back home alive and did not give a damn about the "mission".

There are many in the military voluntarily for the meal ticket. Wars have a way of weeding those people out and attracting those with true committment. When the first Desert Storm hit, do you remember the news reports about the massive sudden increase in pregnancies of female troops? I do. David Hackworth wrote several articles about it as well. I also remember seeing a reserve soldier on the evening news actually say: I didn't sign up for this crap! I joined for the education! I never thought I'd have to go to war!" The draft will only give you more troops of this ilk and worse.

As a nation, we really need to think carefully about troop committments on foriegn soil. If people believe in the cause, they will volunteer. If they percieve it as a political meat grinder, they will not. The politicians need to think about this. A draft is not the right answer. Wrangle knows this and is using it only to make a point.
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I've met and served with draftees. We hauled some jarheads around. :D

How many did you serve with and or know personally?
 

Cityboy

Banned
The Marine Corps had very few draftees and I can't say I served with a single one left over from the days of the draft. I do, however know several as I previously stated. My dad was drafted into the Army in WW2, so I'm the son of a draftee. But that was a different generation and a different time for a different cause.

But wouldn't you agree it is one thing to luck out and get drafted as a squid, :D serving as a jarhead taxi service; and something entilrely different to be drafted as a ground pounding infantry grunt?
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Cityboy said:
The Marine Corps had very few draftees and I can't say I served with a single one left over from the days of the draft. I do, however know several as I previously stated. My dad was drafted into the Army in WW2, so I'm the son of a draftee. But that was a different generation and a different time for a different cause.

But wouldn't you agree it is one thing to luck out and get drafted as a squid, :D serving as a jarhead taxi service; and something entilrely different to be drafted as a ground pounding infantry grunt?

I'll agree with you that it is different to serve as a squid than a ground pounding infantry grunt. Everyone that served during the draft years was affected by the draft. Would they have volunteered had there not been a draft? Each story is different so there is no one answer. When I served we had lifers, and everyone else serving their 1st hitch was treated as if they were drafted. Many did not want to be where they were. They hated being told what to do 24 hrs a day and in general did not like the whole military experience. I was one of them. I was young and had other plans. After growing up and looking back on it, I mainly remember the good things. It was an awesome experience. I grew up a lot during the time I served.

I think you do a disservice to every person that served during the draft years with your biased opinion. Though many did not want to be where they were, they sucked it up and did their job. Sure they bitched about it but they worked hard and played harder. Were there bad apples? Sure. They would be dealt with by being tossed in the brig. Our armed forces were stronger because of those that served. I knew men who were drafted, went to Viet-nam and died for our country. Was their life worth any less because they were not a volunteer? NO!!!! They paid the ultimate sacrifice. How dare you belittle their service. If your buddies served with a draftee who did not serve with honor then the person in charge is at blame for not whipping them into shape or putting them in the brig.

I fully understand WWII was a different cause and supported by the majority of the nation. But a draftee for that war is no different than a draftee from Viet-nam or any other war. They were called upon and did their duty. All deserve the same respect. To suggest otherwise is bias IMO.
 

dzalphakilo

Banned
I would think that during "war time" when we, as a nation had a draft, didn't matter if you wanted to be there or not (in the military), if you're in a combat zone, the number one goal for everyone was survival. When you have bullets flying over your head, you don't think if you were drafted or not.
 

Kwiens

New member
Won't happen, political wrangling by the libs to make President Bush look bad. It's so easy to see through their pure hatred for him.
 

dzalphakilo

Banned
Cityboy said:
Further, I do not think mandatory national service is a good idea except as a last possible resort in dire national emergency within our own borders.

Then why not just bomb the shi%t out of who we are going after?

Correct me if I'm wrong, we went into the sandbox because we were attacked and we saw a threat to our borders (and yes, we were attacked during 9/11, but not by a military force).

In for a dime, in for a dollar, just make sure the dime is worth it.
 

Cityboy

Banned
Doc, where in the world did you get the idea I was belittling anyones service? :confused2: Come on man! I know you know better than that. My point is simply the draft should be reserved for dire straights here within our borders. No one should be forced to serve in a foriegn war if they do not wish to. That is my opinion on this subject, but having that opinion is belittling no one. Our military is far better today than it was in the 60's, 70's and even the 80's. Why? Because it is totally voluntary and those young people take great pride in their work and their country. Our military was in pathetic condition after Vietnam compared to today, and it is my opinion the Vietnam draft was a major contributor to that decline. I'm not blaming the individual draftee's, I am blaming the politicians.

Charles Wrangle is just stirring the political pot and he knows exactly what he is doing, and he is getting the exact response he intended to get.
 

dzalphakilo

Banned
Cityboy said:
Doc, where in the world did you get the idea I was belittling anyones service? :confused2:

Funny, I thought the same thing reading your post.

Have to wonder, why not an American made weapon per your avatar? Looks like the left hand (er, paw) is jacking off:D
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Cityboy said:
Further, I do not think mandatory national service is a good idea except as a last possible resort in dire national emergency within our own borders. You simply do not want people forced to be in the military who do not want to be there with their pissed off attitude affecting those who volunteered of their own free will. For those of us who served voluntarily, think back on your time in service. Remember those other volunteers who could not handle military life? We called them shitbirds in the Marine Corps. Imagine adding thousands of these shitbirds who do not want to be there, and who did not want to be there in the first place. Imagine the disciplinary issues and problems that would constantly be arising. Imagine the effect on the volunteer troops who are the back bone of our military. Then explain how this could possibly be a good thing for our military and the nation?

CB, the above quote belittled the draftee in my opinion. The volunteer was not the 'back bone' when I served. Nor is any volunteer better than any draftee IMO.

Anyone who served during draft years might have volunteered to avoid the draft, or thought they would be drafted so why not get it over with. They might never have entered the service if the draft was not in place. The draft was a factor. I believe the vast majority served with honor. I believe the same could happen again if the draft came about. They might not like it, but they will do their duty.

I think the draft would be a good thing for our nation, but you are probably right about them just wanting to make Bush look bad and the bill does not stand a chance. But lets pretend is does stand a chance, wouldn't a draft be better than the back door draft going on now? And better than calling up the multitudes of reserves? I think it would be.
 

Cityboy

Banned
Doc said:
CB, the above quote belittled the draftee in my opinion. The volunteer was not the 'back bone' when I served. Nor is any volunteer better than any draftee IMO.

Certainly you're entitled to that opinion, but common sense dictates that willing volunteers tend to put forth a better performance than someone who was forced into the situation, or someone who knew they would be forced into it and went ahead and joined to get it over with.

Doc said:
Anyone who served during draft years might have volunteered to avoid the draft, or thought they would be drafted so why not get it over with. They might never have entered the service if the draft was not in place. The draft was a factor. I believe the vast majority served with honor. I believe the same could happen again if the draft came about. They might not like it, but they will do their duty.

I too believe the vast majority of Vietnam era draftees served honorably. I'd go so far as to think some, once they got in, even decided to make a career of the military. But I still say that we, as a nation, are far better off with troops that make their own personal choice to join, with the full knowledge they may be killed in combat, and with that knowledge, sign on the dotted line.

Doc said:
I think the draft would be a good thing for our nation, but you are probably right about them just wanting to make Bush look bad and the bill does not stand a chance. But lets pretend is does stand a chance, wouldn't a draft be better than the back door draft going on now? And better than calling up the multitudes of reserves? I think it would be.

When you sign your enlistment papers, there is a section which you also must initial that states that you may be involuntarily extended under certain conditions, and also that you may be called back after discharge. You know this up front, and it should be no surprise to the individual volunteer when it happens, providing the volunteer actually took the time to read the entire contract before signing it.

The reserves, as the name implies, is a ready group of troops held in reserve in the event our national defense requires them to be activated. It should come as no surprise to any reservist who gets called to active duty. They signed the same enlistment contract in that regard, as did the active duty volunteers. It tears my heart out to see 40+ year old fathers and mothers pulled away from their families when their reserve unit is activated, and it rips my guts out when these same people return to their families in the plastic bags inside the silver, flag draped coffins. However, these people volunteered to serve as reserve troops. As a parent and provider, one must make decisions accordingly. People join the reserves for a variety of reasons. Some for a sense of duty, others for a supplemental income, and still others for the college tuition. The vast majority realize, especially now days, that there may come a time when they are required to put everything else aside and answer the call to active duty and possibly combat.

So, in answer to your question, I do not believe the draft should be brought back, and I do not believe a draft is a better solution than contract extensions and reserve activations. 100% volunteers is the best way to go under 99.9% of the national defense situations we face.
 

dzalphakilo

Banned
Cityboy said:
Most draftees went to the Army during vietnam. I personally know several former Army Vietnam veterans who did see the problems, and some of those veterans I am personal friends with WERE draftees who did not want to be there but did what they had to do. These were the guys with the peace symbols on their helmets who did what they had to do to survive and get back home alive and did not give a damn about the "mission".

Yet another reason why your post sound like those drafted were not good soldiers.

However, since YOUR dad got drafted during WW2, THAT was a "different generation and a different time for a different cause".

Uhm, "cause", nevermind, won't even go there.

Make up your mind.

I've asked it before, and no, I don't expect you to answer, but if you believe in the "mission" so much, you should re-enlist.

Not all people who enlist in the military seek "military glory" such as yourself (per your words, not mine).

I'm also impressed that you actually took the time to read all of your enlistment papers and understood everything you were reading and signing. Marine Corps, right?
 
Last edited:

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
CityBoy said:
Certainly you're entitled to that opinion, but common sense dictates that willing volunteers tend to put forth a better performance than someone who was forced into the situation, or someone who knew they would be forced into it and went ahead and joined to get it over with.

You forget the times we were living in when the draft was still going on. We were in an undeclared war. Protests every night on the news. The majority of the nation did not believe we should be in Vietnam. If you wore your dress uniform off base you would get jeered or even spat on. Going through an airport was no fun. The looks, the finger, the pure hatred for the service man was appalling. What type of individual would then volunteer to join? Primarily the one who had dropped out of high school or was in trouble with the law or running from a wife or bad family situation. The draftees were smarter. Most has some college. Draftees were chosen for the lead spots in boot camp because they had accomplished more with their lifes before joining. Draftees did what had to be done, did not burn their draft card or run to Canada. So they wore a peace sign on their helmet, the majority of our nation supported that. You say that as if that makes them a commi.

Now we are in an era similar to Vietnam. The war in Iraq does not have the popular support. What type of volunteers are you going to get? Bottom of the barrel. But, even if you get lots of Pat Tillman types, we are now coming up short in meeting our troop requirements. We are burning them out. 3 tours in Iraq for a 4 year old war is to much for most. How do we fill this void? A draft seems the only logical choice.

A draftee, much like any American worker who has a job that was not his 1st career choice, will do his best to do his job. Get through it and move on to whatever is next. The majority of people in our nation do not have what they would consider their dream job. They might be stuck in a situation, but they do their duty to their company. Get their paycheck and work to achieve whatever their goal is. We make the best of the situation. Why do you think the draftee is so different?
 

ddrane2115

Charter Member
SUPER Site Supporter
Here is my public service........if you come in my house uninvited, you will leave dead! I have provided more protection from those that would harm my family than the gov't can on an individual basis, which as a FREE country we SHOULD be able to do.

OK, I am 10000000000000000000000% in support of those that have served, do serve and will serve our country, in time of peace or war. I firmly believe this country owes YOU, not the illegals etc a place to live, health insurance, and a FREE education to better your life and those that are your family.

I did not serve, did not HAVE to, no draft for my age group. Now I can not serve, too old and too broken down, so here is my service, when I see a military man or woman getting something at a stop and rob, buy it for THEM. Offer to get their purchase with yours, nice way of saying thanks.

IF there is a military family in your neighborhood, with one or both spouses serving, cut the yard, fix something, help them out in some way.

Great idea is a Kroger or whoever gift card in the door for them........do you really know what military pay is for these folks? In a nutshell, serve your country in civilian life by helping or giving respect to those that would serve YOU in military life.

They deserve it more than those that are here and have done NOTHING but come here from other places not so nice.
 

jdwilson44

New member
If they want people to serve obligatory public service then why don't they re-institute the civilian militia? Not the National Guard - a real civilian militia - like we used to have in this country. Like the founding fathers intended - to have as a check against invading foreign armies - and against tyrannical governments.

Require the people who are serving in the armed portion of that civilian militia keep their weapons at home. Make the "term of service" longer than service that might be required in the civilian militia longer than that that would be required if one served in the federal military. Have portions of the militia that are not armed - but comprise people like doctors, nurses, construction workers, etc. who can help in times of emergency. Have the militia directly report to LOCAL authorities - with no option for the militia to be "federalized" and used out of state or overseas in any fashion.

If any of us truly want this country to return to the constitutional republic that it used to be then we had better start thinking a little outside the box. Given that a good part of our problems with the war on terror is actually being able to monitor and respond to potential terror incidents - and that our southern border is being over-run with illegal aliens - I would think a civilian militia would start to make a lot of sense.

There was a military study group that in fact recommended just such a thing as the best response to terrorism:

http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_8_02_05.htm

The other thing a civilian militia would do is start to bring people together once again in the communities and states. People would serve together and start to feel like they actually had a stake in keeping their communities safe - instead of pasting Call 911 decals everywhere and telling themselves they are safe because they have police at their beck and call.

I am sure our federal government would be totally against something like this - which in and of itself should give you some inkling that it is an idea worth pursuing.
 

Cityboy

Banned
Doc - If I wanted to take your tac, I would say that you are belittling the service of volunteers. Well, are you? You are telling us that draftees were better troops than the volunteers because the volunteers were losers who could find no other employment or were on the run? :confused2:

We Americans love and respect our troops and there are no "hippies" spitting at them at the airport today as you are well aware. However, why would it make a Vietnam era volunteer a loser, and somwhere "below" the draftees for joining up? Are you saying our Vietnam volunteers were stupid?

The point about the peace sign on the helmet was to demonstrate that it is not the best of ideas to force people into these situations. I know some draftees fought gallantly while some volunteers and some other draftees cowered in fear, or ran and hid. I'm sure there are examples of that on both sides, however you are missing the point. The GOVERNMENT put these people in the situation they were in, Doc. I am not belittling or blaming those who did what they had to do under the law.

Please read the next paragraph completely and carefully, Doc -

This seems to be a sensitve subject for you. Maybe you were one of those guys who went ahead and joined up because you knew you were going to be drafted and maybe you were not. I do not know, and I do not ask you to tell me because it does not matter to me because I am not blaming or belittling the draftee for the situation the GOVERNMENT put them in. Do you understand me now?

I'm against the draft, not the draftee. If people don't want to volunteer because they do not believe in the cause, then the politicians need to stand up and take notice, and ask themselves if they are doing the right thing. If involving our troops in whatever action they are involving them in results in decreased enlistments, should we really be involved in it? That is a good question for politicians and draft supporters to ask themselves.
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
cityboy said:
If people don't want to volunteer because they do not believe in the cause, then the politicians need to stand up and take notice, and ask themselves if they are doing the right thing.
Rather naive if you ask me. We have that going on right now. That has not changed Bush's stance in any way. So we back door draft and use up the reservists. My point is you will not get volunteers needed to do the job in an unpopular war. Our troops only stretch so far.

You made draftees sound bad first, I was just tossing it back at ya buddie. Those are my first hand observations.
 

Cityboy

Banned
Doc said:
You made draftees sound bad first, I was just tossing it back at ya buddie. Those are my first hand observations.

You do understand now, that was not my intent, don't you? That's why I tossed it back at you.

Looks like we will have to agree to disagree agreeably on the draft issue.
 
Top