H.R. 4752: Universal National Service Act of 2006 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Blackthorn · 07-04-2006, 06:36 PM

I found this legislation on GovTrack and thought for a moment about my own age and how I would feel about being drafted at this point in my life. I'm right on the edge of being ineligible under this proposed legislation but I would certainly serve in whatever capacity I was called.

The real key difference in this legislation is that the age range is being proposed to be changed from formerly 18 to 25 to newly 18 to 42.

Keeping in mind that we have an unfinished and almost forgotten war ongoing in Afghanistan, a $40B per month war in Iraq, and trigger happy KJI's missle testing that happened in North Korea just today (July 4th - coincidence?), and the Iranians enriching Uranium for "energy purposes only" (yeah right, and I'm the Pope) -- how do you feel about the selective service and the possibility that you may be drafted?

GovTrack Link

Quote:

109th U.S. Congress (2005-2006)
H.R. 4752: Universal National Service Act of 2006
Introduced: Feb 14, 2006
Sponsor: Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY]
Status: Introduced (By Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY])

NOTE: This text was automatically converted from PDF format. Formatting glitches are a result of that process.
BLACKTHORN NOTE: I attempted to reconstruct this so that you may more easily read the text included here. Please visit the link to see it in it's native format.

109TH CONGRESS
H. R. 4752
2D SESSION

To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FEBRUARY 14, 2006 Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL:

To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, 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 2006''.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.--The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. National service obligation.
Sec. 3. Two-year period of national service.
Sec. 4. Implementation by the President.
Sec. 5. Induction.
Sec. 6. Deferments and postponements.
Sec. 7. Induction exemptions.
Sec. 8. Conscientious objection.
Sec. 9. Discharge following national service.
Sec. 10. Registration of females under the Military Selective Service Act.
Sec. 11. Relation of Act to registration and induction authority of military selective service Act.
Sec. 12. Definitions.

SEC. 2. 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 Act unless exempted under the provisions of this Act.

(b) FORM OF NATIONAL SERVICE.--National service under this Act 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 homeland security.

(c) INDUCTION REQUIREMENTS.--The President shall provide for the induction of persons covered by subsection (a) to perform national service under this Act.
(d) SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE.--Based upon the needs of the uniformed services, the President shall--

(1) determine the number of persons covered by subsection (a) whose service is to be performed as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; and
(2) select the individuals among those persons who are to be inducted for military service under this Act.

(e) CIVILIAN SERVICE.--Persons covered by subsection (a) who are not selected for military service under subsection (d) shall perform their national service obligation under this Act in a civilian capacity pursuant to subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 3. 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 Act 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 Act 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.

(c) EARLY TERMINATION.--The period of national service for a person under this Act 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. 4. IMPLEMENTATION BY THE PRESIDENT.

(a) IN GENERAL.--The President shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this Act.
(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 for a person's national service obligation under this Act.
(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 Act, 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 Act 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 Act, including questions of conscientious objection.
(6) Standards for compensation and benefits for persons performing their national service obligation under this Act through civilian service.
(7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to carry out this Act.

(c) USE OF PRIOR ACT.--To the extent determined appropriate by the President, the President may use for purposes of this Act 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. 5. INDUCTION.

(a) IN GENERAL.--Every person subject to induction for national service under this Act, except those whose training is deferred or postponed in accordance with this Act, shall be called and inducted by the President for such service at the time and place specified by the President.
(b) AGE LIMITS.--A person may be inducted under this Act only if the person has attained the age of 18 and has not attained the age of 42.
(c) VOLUNTARY INDUCTION.--A person subject to induction under this Act may volunteer for induction at a time other than the time at which the person is otherwise called for induction.
(d) EXAMINATION; CLASSIFICATION.--Every person subject to induction under this Act shall, before induction, be physically and mentally examined and shall be classified as to fitness to perform national service. The President
may apply different classification standards for fitness for military service and fitness for civilian service.

SEC. 6. 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 Act 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 Act may be made for--

(1) extreme hardship; or
(2) physical or mental disability.

(c) TRAINING CAPACITY.--The President may postpone or suspend the induction of persons for military service under this Act 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 Act shall continue after the cause of such deferment or postponement ceases.

SEC. 7. INDUCTION EXEMPTIONS.

(a) QUALIFICATIONS.--No person may be inducted for military service under this Act 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 Act 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. 8. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION.

(a) CLAIMS AS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR.--Nothing in this Act 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 3(a) and subject to such regulations as the President may prescribe.

SEC. 9. DISCHARGE FOLLOWING NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) DISCHARGE.--Upon completion or termination of the obligation to perform national service under this Act, 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 Act.
(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. 10. 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. 11. RELATION OF ACT 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 2006.''.
(b) INDUCTION.--Section 17(c) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 467(c)) 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 2006.''.

SEC. 12. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) The term "military service'' means service performed as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services.
(2) 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 matters concerning the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with respect to matters concerning the Public Health Service.
(3) The term "United States'', when used in a geographical sense, means the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Isands, and Guam.
(4) 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.

analog · 07-04-2006, 07:14 PM

People have tabled such legislation many, many times. It has yet to build any real support, as far as I remember.

Gilda · 07-04-2006, 07:18 PM

Quote:

how do you feel about the selective service and the possibility that you may be drafted?

Eh, they wouldn't want me in the military anyway, as I'm gay and have a physical disability that would proscribe most military duties.

I don't support the war in Iraq, and so would not want to serve in any capacity that would support that effort.

I also find the idea of conscription to be anti-freedom. I do think that men and women should be treated equally in this regard, but I think that equal treatment should mean neither group is forced into unwanted service.

Gilda

mirevolver · 07-04-2006, 07:25 PM

Well with a college degree and a strong ability and background with foreign languages, I would enlist and get myself into the officer program before they could draft me.

But I don't see this as bill getting anywhere. Look at who introduced it, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). This isn't the first draft bill he has introduced. And if I remember correctly the last one he introduced recieved a grand total of 3 votes.

Frosstbyte · 07-04-2006, 07:35 PM

If they instate a draft, I will be happily serving jail time.

Nothing on this earth could make me fight the wars this administration has gotten us in to.

Which says nothing for what analog said.

Willravel · 07-04-2006, 07:44 PM

I'l be gleefully posting from Peru if there is a draft. Anyone and everyone is welcome to join me. I'll bring a few extra futons, just in case. BYOB.

Gatorade Frost · 07-04-2006, 08:20 PM

For those who would go to jail or move to Peru, I have a question - What if we're attacked by North Korea? Would you still skeedaddle?

Frosstbyte · 07-04-2006, 08:41 PM

If North Korea attacks us, we'd lose two-ish cities and then we'd turn the country into radioactive glass. It's pretty simple. There's no war to be fought.

Also, KJI is crazy, but he's not stupid. He knows we'd do that. I think the possibility of North Korea attacking the US proper is all but zero. This is posturing so we don't do to him what we did to Saddam. Same with Iran. Iraq didn' thave WMDs, so we invaded and took over the country. Iran and North Korea have every incentive to give us a reason (wanting to keep LA on the map, for example) to not do it to them.

Edit: I realized I posted all this and didn't answer your question. The answer to the question is I will never fight if I am conscripted. I can imagine outside chances where I would, as indicated above, use my knowledge of foreign languages and college degree to get an officer's commission. So yes, it is possible that I would serve if I felt it was appropriate. I would never fight if drafted.

Willravel · 07-04-2006, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorade Frost

For those who would go to jail or move to Peru, I have a question - What if we're attacked by North Korea? Would you still skeedaddle?

If we were actually attacked by a real enemy, I would volunteer before being drafted. I will not be drafted for any reason, but I will fight to protect my country from a real foe.

snowy · 07-04-2006, 09:23 PM

This piece of legislation isn't about a draft at all. It's about obligatory national service--something plenty of other countries have. If you don't want to be in the military, you can opt into civil service instead.

As for a draft, I'm not in support of it, and it's sexist. If the government wants a draft, they should draft everyone, regardless of sex.

Rodney · 07-04-2006, 10:47 PM

Rangel's just making a point: if the U.S. is going to war, every family should be prepared to sacrifice. If they're not... if they're only in favor of the war if somebody _else's_ son or husband or daugher or wife goes... maybe something like a universal draft would make help them to rethink their views.

Personally, I think universal national service is a good thing, as long as there are other avenues as well as the military for the conscripts to pursue.

Seaver · 07-05-2006, 12:13 AM

This gets proposed every year... amazingly by a Democrat.

Meaning?

It's simply to scare people in not liking the war and hense Bush. No one ever votes for it.

Gilda · 07-05-2006, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onesnowyowl

This piece of legislation isn't about a draft at all. It's about obligatory national service--something plenty of other countries have. If you don't want to be in the military, you can opt into civil service instead.

As for a draft, I'm not in support of it, and it's sexist. If the government wants a draft, they should draft everyone, regardless of sex.

This version specifies women also and alters the existing codes to include women. I agree that the draft should be sex neutral, but I don't think anyone should be drafted or forced to do any work against their will.

North Korea invading the US is about as likely as Bolivia invading, and no, I wouldn't fight, as I'd be worse than useless. It isn't always about the US--they may be saber rattling at South Korea, which I think makes much more sense.

Gilda

tecoyah · 07-05-2006, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

If we were actually attacked by a real enemy, I would volunteer before being drafted. I will not be drafted for any reason, but I will fight to protect my country from a real foe.

This is my answer as well. I can certainly see myself fighting an invasion to protect this country, and indeed killing if required (though I would never be the same person again, I am willing to accept this). I refuse however, to be compelled into a forced mental disorder because an old man in Washington thinks its a good Idea.
Having never been in a position to take the life of another person, I cannot say what it would do to me, but I do know it would change me in ways I do not care for. We can all look at this as some far off possibility, and play the bravado game for the sake of our collective Ego, but when it comes down to it.....Warfare means Killing. I for one, do not take even the slim chance of having to do so.....lightly.

Seaver · 07-05-2006, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Having never been in a position to take the life of another person, I cannot say what it would do to me, but I do know it would change me in ways I do not care for. We can all look at this as some far off possibility, and play the bravado game for the sake of our collective Ego, but when it comes down to it.....Warfare means Killing. I for one, do not take even the slim chance of having to do so.....lightly.

I had a very good friend in the Special Forces. He ran many.. operations in the 4.5yrs since 9/11. I've never heard it put any clearer when talking about how killing affects you.

"However you think you'll feel, that's exactly what it feels like."

If you think you'll have no problem with it you wont. Chances are if you think it'll completely wreck you it probably will.

shakran · 07-05-2006, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

This gets proposed every year... amazingly by a Democrat.

Meaning?

It's simply to scare people in not liking the war and hense Bush. No one ever votes for it.

It's not to scare people. It's to make a point. It's real easy to be delightedly in favor of the fact that we're off to kill innocent Iraqis if there's no chance you or your kid will be forced to help out. It's not quite as much fun to think of playing Rambo if your kid is the one getting shot at.

Jinn · 07-05-2006, 06:51 AM

Croatia. I hear their property rates are really low nowadays and you can get a sizeable chunk of land for next-to-nothing. And they've got very nice beaches.

Like the above have said, there's no way I'm going to fight for the ill-cocked idiocy our President got us into. In defense of an invasion, sure. But not a Bushwar.

The_Jazz · 07-05-2006, 08:31 AM

National service is a great idea that doesn't work on a large scale. The Israelis can make it work given that they have a homogenous population that is much smaller than the US. The closest analogy to the US would most likely be Russia, and by all accounts their national service was a disaster under the Soviets and continues now. New recruits are habitually tortured, raped, assalted and robbed by "career" servicemen, with several dozen being outright murdered by their squadmates every year. There is a huge resentment between career and non-career personnel, and I don't see any reason for that kind of friction to be lacking here, given the current all-volunteer force. There's a big grassroots movement in Eastern Russia now to do away with madatory service.

warrrreagl · 07-05-2006, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorade Frost

For those who would go to jail or move to Peru, I have a question - What if we're attacked by North Korea? Would you still skeedaddle?

From what I read, they already have.

ARTelevision · 07-05-2006, 09:29 AM

This would be a good thing.

As it is now, there's no reason for citizens to gain much significant real world experience or maturity because mass media and post-modern culture discourage it and the contemporary workplace does not reward it.

It may even instill a sense of true individualism rather than phoney marketed "individualism." Perhaps it would reanimate a general spirit of patriotism - without which no country can survive.

Gatorade Frost · 07-05-2006, 09:34 AM

I have a few scenarios that I'm curious as to what peopel think about whether they would be drafted/join depending on the case:

North Korea at tacks America. Not necessarily to invade, but they drop a nuclear bomb on San Francisco or LA to hurt the American infrastructure. If we responded by invading North Korea to overthrow the government in response to the attack, would you go? Same question but with Iran.

In that case, I would allow myself to be drafted. I wouldn't join I doubt since there's far better servicemen out there than I could ever be, but if I were called on I would go.

Iraq? If Congress instuted a draft today for more troops in Iraq, would you go?

Personally, no. I support the war, I think it's a means to an end and it could have some pretty great results in the Middle East, but ultimately I wouldn't fight that war. If I were drafted I'd probably head up to Canada for a little while.

Overall, I'm against a draft in the military sense. I feel that there should be a required duty to spend 2 years doing some kind of work for the government - Depending on education I guess depends on what you'd do - And you'd have the option of joining the military reserves for 2-4 years or working a civilian job for 2-4 years part time. I'm not 100% sure how that would work itself out, but general idea that I think there should be a required time of work done for the country, but not necessarily in a military fashion.

With the trying to make you think "Huh, what if it were my children instead of some one else's child out there?" That seems like a very poor way of going about things. Nobody in the military was forced into the military with a gun to their head, it was their choice, they joined, signed up knowing that they might end up going to war. It's not like people join the military just for kicks and not ever think that "Hey, I might end up going to war..." I can still support the decision to go to war, but I don't feel I need to be in the military to feel that way. To say that you do is absurd to me.

Willravel · 07-05-2006, 10:23 AM

GF, I'd need proof. If there was proof, then I'd defend my country. The bottom line is that I have no reason to trust the word of the government or news media right now, so why would I want to kill people because of their word? *If* Iran made the mistake of launching nuclear weapons on the US, and there was actually proof, then I would defend my country. If there was a sudden nuclear attack, and then Bush came on saying words like "evildoers", "terror", "9/11", and such, then I'd be skeptical. The 9/11 paper trail still hasen't even ben released (the one that Condee promised would be made public in an announcement right after 9/11). It's an issue of trust, and if trust isn't there, then trust isn't there.

lurkette · 07-05-2006, 12:09 PM

I think national service at 18 or 22 (post-college) would be great, if you could opt out of military service and instead perform civil service like working in poor and underserved communities. Build houses for the poor, teach or be a teacher's aide in poor schools, work with literacy programs, whatever. Like Americorps, only mandatory. I think it'd be a great idea to expose young people to the range of need in this country, and to introduce them to the rewards of service to others.

However, it sounds like this is not a "public service" bill but a draft. Good luck passing a draft for THIS war. Or any other, really.

Gilda · 07-05-2006, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorade Frost

North Korea at tacks America. Not necessarily to invade, but they drop a nuclear bomb on San Francisco or LA to hurt the American infrastructure. If we responded by invading North Korea to overthrow the government in response to the attack, would you go? Same question but with Iran.

No, and I'm the last person they'd want in such a situation.

Quote:

Iraq? If Congress instuted a draft today for more troops in Iraq, would you go?

No, for above stated reasons.

That said, I've been in public service by my own choice my whole life. I taught public school for seven years and work for a state university now. I wouldn't support a way in any way, but I think I've done my part to support my country.

It isn't that I object to service, it's mandatory service that I find objectionable.

Gilda

xepherys · 07-05-2006, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

and no, I wouldn't fight, as I'd be worse than useless.

Why is it that there's an assumption that draft = fight? Draft can equal supply, or intelligence or accounting or HR or legal or nursing or any number of other things. You wouldn't become a state-side resident medic and help injured soldiers? You'd rather flee to another country? For shame! It's one thing to be against killing others, it's quite another to take your anti-violent beliefs out on injured soldiers who may have had no other option. Enlist with a contract clause to never be deployed overseas. In times of need, the appropriate general officers will sign off on just about damned anything if it means more warm bodies. Sounds way better than being drafted and FORCED into something you don't want to do.

As a side note, this bill wouldn't affect me as I'm already enlisted and have done more than two years as it is. As for my boys... I'd love to see them required to be in civil service of some nature for 2 years. In fact, if I have the means by which to do so, I will make their higher education contingent on it after they graduate, even if just for one year or for summers during college (if non-military).

snowy · 07-05-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

As a side note, this bill wouldn't affect me as I'm already enlisted and have done more than two years as it is. As for my boys... I'd love to see them required to be in civil service of some nature for 2 years. In fact, if I have the means by which to do so, I will make their higher education contingent on it after they graduate, even if just for one year or for summers during college (if non-military).

Well, after they graduate college, they're eligible for the Peace Corps, and they receive an educational award after finishing their tour of service that can be applied to student loans or additional education. Americorps is much more flexible in that you do not sign up for a 2-year stint, but rather choose positions to apply for, all of which have different requirements (in education and length of time). They also have an education award after fulfillment of the contract.

Make them sign up for a program such as the Peace Corps or Americorps, and they'll get more out of it--and you'll have to do less work.

xepherys · 07-05-2006, 01:08 PM

I'm all for Americorps if that's what they want to do, as I am with the Peace Corps or the Marine Corp. Civil service is civil service, and I'm a fan of it all!

TexanAvenger · 07-05-2006, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

If we were actually attacked by a real enemy, I would volunteer before being drafted. I will not be drafted for any reason, but I will fight to protect my country from a real foe.

Perfectly stated in my mind. I will not act in a war that I cannot support, but will readily defend my country in one that I must.

The US may be fucked up pretty badly and I may not like how it is being run in the least, but somewhere near its heart there are still, though twisted and roughed up, the values that we can back... And that makes it worth defending. We would have to defend it from destruction so that we could take the time afterward to fix everything that we fucked up in the past few decades.

If it comes to it, I'll fight with that thought close to my heart.

MSD · 07-05-2006, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackthorn

how do you feel about the selective service and the possibility that you may be drafted?

I feel that I can serve my country in better ways that fighting in the field. I don't feel any emotion toward the prospect of a draft, as it simply won't happen. If such legislation is passed, those who voted for it will quickly learn the extent to which the electorate will hold them accountable for their decisions.

xepherys · 07-05-2006, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

I feel that I can serve my country in better ways that fighting in the field. I don't feel any emotion toward the prospect of a draft, as it simply won't happen. If such legislation is passed, those who voted for it will quickly learn the extent to which the electorate will hold them accountable for their decisions.

Really? The electorate? As in their constituants? Those people that don't even bother to vote? Yeah, the politicans have a lot to fear from the public these days... the grand apathetic American public. :-/

TexanAvenger · 07-05-2006, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

Really? The electorate? As in their constituants? Those people that don't even bother to vote? Yeah, the politicans have a lot to fear from the public these days... the grand apathetic American public. :-/

One would think a draft would... well, beat... the apathy out real quick.

Gatorade Frost · 07-05-2006, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

Really? The electorate? As in their constituants? Those people that don't even bother to vote? Yeah, the politicans have a lot to fear from the public these days... the grand apathetic American public. :-/

A lot of people don't vote for a plethora of reasons, most likely one of them being that either way they vote them themselves won't be effected much. I could have voted for Kerry or I could have voted for Bush, but either way wouldn't have mattered a bit to me in the long run. When I am personally affected, via a draft, yeah, I think I would vote be a lot more inclined to vote. I sincerely doubt I'm the only person who feels that way.

Elphaba · 07-05-2006, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorade Frost

When I am personally affected, via a draft, yeah, I think I would vote be a lot more inclined to vote. I sincerely doubt I'm the only person who feels that way.

No personal offense intended Gator, but I wish that you were. I am not eligible for the draft, but I will vote to prevent it from happening to you. I would ask you to vote in what you believe is right, whether it directly affects you or not.

Gilda · 07-05-2006, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

Why is it that there's an assumption that draft = fight? Draft can equal supply, or intelligence or accounting or HR or legal or nursing or any number of other things. You wouldn't become a state-side resident medic and help injured soldiers?

I'm not qualified for any of those things. Nor is anyone in my family.

Quote:

You'd rather flee to another country? For shame! It's one thing to be against killing others, it's quite another to take your anti-violent beliefs out on injured soldiers who may have had no other option.

How would I be doing this? Am I harming anybody by not treating injured soldiers right now?

Quote:

Enlist with a contract clause to never be deployed overseas. In times of need, the appropriate general officers will sign off on just about damned anything if it means more warm bodies. Sounds way better than being drafted and FORCED into something you don't want to do.

Well, there's high praise. I'd be a "warm body", not a person with individual worth. Then again, that would be little different than how things are now.

And by the way, I have served the people of my country as a teacher.

Gilda

xepherys · 07-05-2006, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

I'm not qualified for any of those things. Nor is anyone in my family.

That's why the government and/or military provides training. Even if you have a degree in the MOS you choose, you still go through the same training as someone whose never done it before. How many people do you think are qualified to be infantry before enlisting?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

How would I be doing this? Am I harming anybody by not treating injured soldiers right now?

Well, statistically it's possible. Most Army and VA hospitals are in desperate need of volunteers and medical professionals. The lack thereof could be hurting someone. I'm not trying to argue that you SHOULD do one of these things, but rather that dismissing them outright seems a bit cold.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

Well, there's high praise. I'd be a "warm body", not a person with individual worth. Then again, that would be little different than how things are now.

And by the way, I have served the people of my country as a teacher.

Yes, well, the kid at McD's serves his country by feeding their fat asses. My company's owner serves his country by running a business that helps the economy. There's a difference between a job and civil service. Nearly ALL jobs are important to some degree or another. Teachers, lawyers, doctors... sometimes going above and beyond your comfort zone not only allows you to better serve your fellow countryfolk (even those that may not deserve it) but also give you new space for personal growth.

Before I enlisted, I served my country, too... as a good citizen. Something we tend to lack these days. Teachers are great! Sadly, we have too many that are not qualified to be teaching their subject or grade or anyone in some cases. Gilda, aside from your posts here, I don't know you. You might be the best teacher in the tri-county area. But just saying, "I'm a teacher, so I serve my country" is a bit trite. Sorry...

Gilda · 07-05-2006, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

That's why the government and/or military provides training. Even if you have a degree in the MOS you choose, you still go through the same training as someone whose never done it before.

I have no idea what an MOS is, but it seems both foolish and inefficient to give everyone the same training regarless of background.

Quote:

How many people do you think are qualified to be infantry before enlisting?

Well, given that that is a job that exists solely within the military, I'd say none.

Quote:

Well, statistically it's possible. Most Army and VA hospitals are in desperate need of volunteers and medical professionals. The lack thereof could be hurting someone. I'm not trying to argue that you SHOULD do one of these things, but rather that dismissing them outright seems a bit cold.

That I'm cold is how most people see me, so you hit on the obvious there.

I don't, however, see how my putting my talents to use where I'm most useful is harming anybody, or possibly could.

Quote:

There's a difference between a job and civil service. Nearly ALL jobs are important to some degree or another.

You do realize that public school teachers are government employees, do you not? I've done my civil service.

Quote:

Teachers, lawyers, doctors... sometimes going above and beyond your comfort zone not only allows you to better serve your fellow countryfolk (even those that may not deserve it) but also give you new space for personal growth.

Absolutely. I see no connection to being forced into unwanted labor by the goverment.

Quote:

Teachers are great! Sadly, we have too many that are not qualified to be teaching their subject or grade or anyone in some cases.

This is true. I'd venture that the same thing is true of every profession, including the military. It's part of why it would be exceedingly foolish to take me from a job that I'm qualified for and good at to do a job I would hate, for which I am not qualified, and which I would do poorly.

Quote:

Gilda, aside from your posts here, I don't know you. You might be the best teacher in the tri-county area. But just saying, "I'm a teacher, so I serve my country" is a bit trite. Sorry...

The same could be said of being in the military, which by the way, doesn't want me or anybody in my family, regardless of our ability to serve.

Gilda

Seaver · 07-05-2006, 08:40 PM

Quote:

I have no idea what an MOS is, but it seems both foolish and inefficient to give everyone the same training regarless of background.

MOS = Military Occupational Specialty. It's your job you'll specialize in while in the military.

It's not foolish, and the military rarely concerns itself with efficiency. It relies on teaching everyone the exact same things, and drilling them constantly so it's second nature.

Gilda · 07-05-2006, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

MOS = Military Occupational Specialty. It's your job you'll specialize in while in the military.

Thank you.

Quote:

It's not foolish, and the military rarely concerns itself with efficiency. It relies on teaching everyone the exact same things, and drilling them constantly so it's second nature.

I disagree, obviously, and I really doubt that that is actually the case. To use Grace as an example, it would be a huge waste of time and resources to treat her and someone who has no medical training the same in a hospital setting.

Gilda

Lady Sage · 07-06-2006, 04:11 AM

Were there a war on my own HOME soil I would fight and take as many of them with me as I could. However, I feel the good old USofA spends way too much time sticking its nose into other peoples business. Think of everything we could have fixed with all that money put into this war.

Last I checked WE fought OUR civil war, if Iraq cant fight theirs, they dont need one. Let them be opressed.

It isnt even the United Nations anymore, it is the nations that want to be protected by the big bad USofA. (Note dripping sarcasm)

Have they ever helped us? Where were they? They didnt help us fight our civil war. They ever pay us back for all the boat loads of help weve sent them?

NO!

Wanna ship food over to some third world hole? Do it yourself, let them live on charity, we have starving people here at home that would kill for a pack of ramen noodles.

Thats all I have to say about that otherwise I will rant and ramble all day long and this is a prime example as to why I stay OUT of the politics forum.

Gatorade Frost · 07-06-2006, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Sage

Last I checked WE fought OUR civil war, if Iraq cant fight theirs, they dont need one. Let them be opressed.

I'll respond to the rest later, I'm just in ah urry and this stood out - Is this dripping with sarcasm?

Because the last time I checked the slaves weren't the ones who started the civil war and I'm pretty sure on the scale of oppression they were the ones at the bottom, not the men from the South.

07-04-2006, 07:25 PM	#4 (permalink)
mirevolver Inspired by the mind's eye. Location: Between the darkness and the light.	Well with a college degree and a strong ability and background with foreign languages, I would enlist and get myself into the officer program before they could draft me. But I don't see this as bill getting anywhere. Look at who introduced it, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). This isn't the first draft bill he has introduced. And if I remember correctly the last one he introduced recieved a grand total of 3 votes. __________________ Aside from my great plans to become the future dictator of the moon, I have little interest in political discussions.

07-04-2006, 08:20 PM	#7 (permalink)
Gatorade Frost Rookie	For those who would go to jail or move to Peru, I have a question - What if we're attacked by North Korea? Would you still skeedaddle? __________________ I got in a fight one time with a really big guy, and he said, "I'm going to mop the floor with your face." I said, "You'll be sorry." He said, "Oh, yeah? Why?" I said, "Well, you won't be able to get into the corners very well." Emo Philips

07-04-2006, 08:41 PM	#8 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	If North Korea attacks us, we'd lose two-ish cities and then we'd turn the country into radioactive glass. It's pretty simple. There's no war to be fought. Also, KJI is crazy, but he's not stupid. He knows we'd do that. I think the possibility of North Korea attacking the US proper is all but zero. This is posturing so we don't do to him what we did to Saddam. Same with Iran. Iraq didn' thave WMDs, so we invaded and took over the country. Iran and North Korea have every incentive to give us a reason (wanting to keep LA on the map, for example) to not do it to them. Edit: I realized I posted all this and didn't answer your question. The answer to the question is I will never fight if I am conscripted. I can imagine outside chances where I would, as indicated above, use my knowledge of foreign languages and college degree to get an officer's commission. So yes, it is possible that I would serve if I felt it was appropriate. I would never fight if drafted. Last edited by Frosstbyte; 07-04-2006 at 08:53 PM..

07-04-2006, 09:23 PM	#10 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	This piece of legislation isn't about a draft at all. It's about obligatory national service--something plenty of other countries have. If you don't want to be in the military, you can opt into civil service instead. As for a draft, I'm not in support of it, and it's sexist. If the government wants a draft, they should draft everyone, regardless of sex. __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

07-05-2006, 06:51 AM	#17 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	Croatia. I hear their property rates are really low nowadays and you can get a sizeable chunk of land for next-to-nothing. And they've got very nice beaches. Like the above have said, there's no way I'm going to fight for the ill-cocked idiocy our President got us into. In defense of an invasion, sure. But not a Bushwar. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

07-04-2006, 07:14 PM	#2 (permalink)
analog Banned	People have tabled such legislation many, many times. It has yet to build any real support, as far as I remember.

07-04-2006, 07:35 PM	#5 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	If they instate a draft, I will be happily serving jail time. Nothing on this earth could make me fight the wars this administration has gotten us in to. Which says nothing for what analog said.

07-04-2006, 07:44 PM	#6 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'l be gleefully posting from Peru if there is a draft. Anyone and everyone is welcome to join me. I'll bring a few extra futons, just in case. BYOB.

07-04-2006, 10:47 PM	#11 (permalink)
Rodney Observant Ruminant Location: Rich Wannabe Hippie Town	Rangel's just making a point: if the U.S. is going to war, every family should be prepared to sacrifice. If they're not... if they're only in favor of the war if somebody _else's_ son or husband or daugher or wife goes... maybe something like a universal draft would make help them to rethink their views. Personally, I think universal national service is a good thing, as long as there are other avenues as well as the military for the conscripts to pursue.

07-05-2006, 12:13 AM	#12 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	This gets proposed every year... amazingly by a Democrat. Meaning? It's simply to scare people in not liking the war and hense Bush. No one ever votes for it.

07-05-2006, 08:31 AM	#18 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	National service is a great idea that doesn't work on a large scale. The Israelis can make it work given that they have a homogenous population that is much smaller than the US. The closest analogy to the US would most likely be Russia, and by all accounts their national service was a disaster under the Soviets and continues now. New recruits are habitually tortured, raped, assalted and robbed by "career" servicemen, with several dozen being outright murdered by their squadmates every year. There is a huge resentment between career and non-career personnel, and I don't see any reason for that kind of friction to be lacking here, given the current all-volunteer force. There's a big grassroots movement in Eastern Russia now to do away with madatory service. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

07-05-2006, 09:29 AM	#20 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	This would be a good thing. As it is now, there's no reason for citizens to gain much significant real world experience or maturity because mass media and post-modern culture discourage it and the contemporary workplace does not reward it. It may even instill a sense of true individualism rather than phoney marketed "individualism." Perhaps it would reanimate a general spirit of patriotism - without which no country can survive. __________________ create evolution

07-05-2006, 09:34 AM	#21 (permalink)
Gatorade Frost Rookie	I have a few scenarios that I'm curious as to what peopel think about whether they would be drafted/join depending on the case: North Korea at tacks America. Not necessarily to invade, but they drop a nuclear bomb on San Francisco or LA to hurt the American infrastructure. If we responded by invading North Korea to overthrow the government in response to the attack, would you go? Same question but with Iran. In that case, I would allow myself to be drafted. I wouldn't join I doubt since there's far better servicemen out there than I could ever be, but if I were called on I would go. Iraq? If Congress instuted a draft today for more troops in Iraq, would you go? Personally, no. I support the war, I think it's a means to an end and it could have some pretty great results in the Middle East, but ultimately I wouldn't fight that war. If I were drafted I'd probably head up to Canada for a little while. Overall, I'm against a draft in the military sense. I feel that there should be a required duty to spend 2 years doing some kind of work for the government - Depending on education I guess depends on what you'd do - And you'd have the option of joining the military reserves for 2-4 years or working a civilian job for 2-4 years part time. I'm not 100% sure how that would work itself out, but general idea that I think there should be a required time of work done for the country, but not necessarily in a military fashion. With the trying to make you think "Huh, what if it were my children instead of some one else's child out there?" That seems like a very poor way of going about things. Nobody in the military was forced into the military with a gun to their head, it was their choice, they joined, signed up knowing that they might end up going to war. It's not like people join the military just for kicks and not ever think that "Hey, I might end up going to war..." I can still support the decision to go to war, but I don't feel I need to be in the military to feel that way. To say that you do is absurd to me. __________________ I got in a fight one time with a really big guy, and he said, "I'm going to mop the floor with your face." I said, "You'll be sorry." He said, "Oh, yeah? Why?" I said, "Well, you won't be able to get into the corners very well." Emo Philips

07-05-2006, 10:23 AM	#22 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	GF, I'd need proof. If there was proof, then I'd defend my country. The bottom line is that I have no reason to trust the word of the government or news media right now, so why would I want to kill people because of their word? If Iran made the mistake of launching nuclear weapons on the US, and there was actually proof, then I would defend my country. If there was a sudden nuclear attack, and then Bush came on saying words like "evildoers", "terror", "9/11", and such, then I'd be skeptical. The 9/11 paper trail still hasen't even ben released (the one that Condee promised would be made public in an announcement right after 9/11). It's an issue of trust, and if trust isn't there, then trust isn't there.

07-05-2006, 12:09 PM	#23 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	I think national service at 18 or 22 (post-college) would be great, if you could opt out of military service and instead perform civil service like working in poor and underserved communities. Build houses for the poor, teach or be a teacher's aide in poor schools, work with literacy programs, whatever. Like Americorps, only mandatory. I think it'd be a great idea to expose young people to the range of need in this country, and to introduce them to the rewards of service to others. However, it sounds like this is not a "public service" bill but a draft. Good luck passing a draft for THIS war. Or any other, really. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

07-05-2006, 01:08 PM	#27 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	I'm all for Americorps if that's what they want to do, as I am with the Peace Corps or the Marine Corp. Civil service is civil service, and I'm a fan of it all!

07-06-2006, 04:11 AM	#39 (permalink)
Lady Sage Mistress of Mayhem Location: Canton, Ohio	Were there a war on my own HOME soil I would fight and take as many of them with me as I could. However, I feel the good old USofA spends way too much time sticking its nose into other peoples business. Think of everything we could have fixed with all that money put into this war. Last I checked WE fought OUR civil war, if Iraq cant fight theirs, they dont need one. Let them be opressed. It isnt even the United Nations anymore, it is the nations that want to be protected by the big bad USofA. (Note dripping sarcasm) Have they ever helped us? Where were they? They didnt help us fight our civil war. They ever pay us back for all the boat loads of help weve sent them? NO! Wanna ship food over to some third world hole? Do it yourself, let them live on charity, we have starving people here at home that would kill for a pack of ramen noodles. Thats all I have to say about that otherwise I will rant and ramble all day long and this is a prime example as to why I stay OUT of the politics forum.