Wirehead Studios

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.89: (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.89:)

Now I'm all for national security and all, but things have been getting out of hand. Many of the new laws just rub me the wrong way.

And now there's this:

A law that would require a mandatory 2-year service in the millitary or an 'equivalent' to be determined by the President, for both men and women.

I understand why countries such as Israel have mandatory millitary service. They're pretty much at war all the time. But the US isn't (although that could change if Bush pisses off enough MORE countries), at least not yet.

That things like this are even thought of, wether they pass or not, really just bothers me.

.....I all of a sudden want to leave this country...

I can see many directions for this, and none of them good.  While a 2 year mandatory military term would certainly instill more discipline within young people and teach them how to fight if there should ever be a land invasion, even if they're in a civilian capacity later, it does beg some serious questions.

First, what need does the President forsee that prompted this?  Is this just a response to the continued threat of terrorism, or is there something larger on the horizon that this is in preparation for?

Second, is this a stepping-stone to the draft?

Third, what are these "other purposes" mentioned in the bill that are not defined?  That's very broad.  If not for defense of country, or to attack another country, what is left?  Quelling civil disobedience under martial law?

I am not sure which is the worse scenario, the idea that some kind of martial law might result from further 9/11'sh attacks, the idea of constant anti-terrorism operations around the world, or the thought of some much larger threat that's being quietly prepared for that nobody else is privy too?  

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm very cautious when it comes to conspiracy theories, but I don't discount questionable actions either.  Everything about this sends up warning flags.  The signs of the times are everywhere.  I wonder just what exactly this one is a sign of...

That bothers me.. And I don't think you can pass it off as simple paranoia..

on the plus side i might get to join the military after all! the navy turned me down for having bad hearing.

HA! This would be a completely idiot move by the government (of course, what isn?t?). Right now, the military is filled with wide-eyed, wanna-be patriots that are willing to do anything for the chance to suck Uncle Sam?s cock. This style of ?discipline? is nothing more than blindly following orders without question, without purpose, without cause. The moment you begin to force military service is the moment you loose control of those very disciplines that make such tyranny so easy. Do you really think that a bunch of people who were forced to join are going to lay back and take the orders they?re given? Hell no, they?re going to be resistant and hard to deal with! I don?t think you want people like that among your ranks, with weapons and specialized training. It?s a recipe for disaster. There?s the incredibly shaky matter of how to actually do this as well. As we know from the admirable deserters of Vietnam, such things do not work too well.

Hey, nothing wrong with being a border-hopping wuss, just look at our last president! /sarcasm  <_<

/me imagines dev/null being "inducted" into the army.
:D

Why Thank you... You're enthiusasm and compliments about myself and others serving in the military during this time is very welcomed.


Now this, we (the active duty members) agree with. Someone said this today: "So if they do this? are they going to court marshall everyone that smokes pot?? [The way it's currently done] The Military justice courts would be full for YEARS.... If they did instill the mandatory service, the Quality and level of responsibility for the average military member would have to drop SIGNIFIGANTLY from what it is now... and the force's strength as a whole, while greater in numbers, would diminish in capability"


--
SrA Richard J Thomas II
OL-B 52 Communications Squadron
52nd Fighter Wing
Spangdahlem AFB, Germany

Well, that's the beauty of cannon fodder - you don't HAVE to train or equip them very well.  All they need to do is stop a bullet from taking out one of the real soldiers that you actually spent money on.

ok ok... so yeha it would work for the army..

but none of the other services that actually require training...

and YES the marines DO recieve alot of training.. i hold them in higher regard then basic army grunts...

You can always use another person to clean the head.
Hey, Congress didn't say it would be mandatory glamorous service, just service.

This is what bothers me the most:

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

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

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

(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.

© 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.

They give too much power to one man over the military. He may become a military leader rather than a social leader at this rate of this bill is passed.

...
The president IS our military leader.  That's part of his job.

 :huh:

Yes, that falls under the title "Commander in Chief".  I think what he means is the potential for a military coup.

What concerns me isn't Bush getting all this power, he's already got it and that "Dumb Texan" has outmaneuvered his political opponents at every turn.  He doesn't need a power grab.  Any sitting president can invoke a few little known executive orders set up under the Carter administration, declare a "National State of Emergency" and it would basically BE a military dictatorship that could not be questioned by the Congress for a period of 6 months.  All controls of territory, property, people, etc, would be placed under FEMA, answerable directly to the President.  This was set up during the Cold War as an emergency measure should the US come under Soviet attack, but it's never been taken off the books.  Bush could have used this to clamp down after 9/11 if that's what he wanted to do.  To the anti-Bush crowd, well sure he still can, so we'll just have to wait and see on that.  I remember the anti-Bill Clinton crowd being concerned about Clinton using that same set of orders to do the very same thing.  Isn't paranoia grand?  :rolleyes:

My concern is what happens when the NEXT President is in office if this were to pass.  Hillary 2008, anyone...? :omfg:

all I can say is, if Hillary ever comes up on the ballots, I'm voting AGAINST.
I don't have anything against women presidents, but I DO have issues with Hillary's agenda.

Yeah. Like the fact that she's a MORON!

That worries me the most.  We train you, you and you, the rest of you will learn in the field.
A fine example will be to look at Vietnam..

The President is commander-in-chief of the military. If this law were enacted, these powers would be his with or without those magic words.

I'll start out by saying that read NONE of the replies... I only read the topic title and Con's opening post.

Mandatory military service... sca-rooo that. I'm fine with supporting our troops; even though I might not support the choice that caused our troops to be in a certain location (Iraq), I will support our troops even though said decision was made.

There is no way in Hell they'd get me to join the military though. I'm mostly a pacifist when it comes to war type talk when brought up in serious conversations or situations. That's why I even resent the draft. Should it ever happen, and I get picked, I'll probably wind up in jail or something for my refusal to go to war. No one's going to force me into joining the military... I'd sooner die.

And besides... I have long hair, and I LIKE my hair. I will NOT get it buzzed off for something as stupid as fighting in a war.

Ah, a point that rings true for me as well. It would take quite a lot before I considered cutting my hair. Of course, I guess the term long is all relative to your perception on the topic, as mine is well past my shoulders *shrugs*

However, I've always resented that "I support the troops" junk. Really, I think bringing them home, away from some waste land were they have no true purpose, would be a much better way to show your support and gratitude, as opposed to keeping them in said location and merely hoping they survive.

I'll go one step further than supporing the troops and say that  I support what they are doing.  Yes, undoubtably some evil company is going to profit from the whole thing and that probably contributed to the decision to do it, but in the mean time, a whole bunch of people have been liberated from a maniacle power that did not have their best intrests at heart.  If you look, you will see that most of the present troubles and resentment leveled against the Us troops currently there are not really springing from inside the country but imported to Iraq by people who, once again, do not have the best intrests of the Iraqi people at heart.  They are still just innocent bystanders caught up in a pissing match between us and people who don't like us.  How much easier do you think the mission would be if we didn't have to worry about sabotage and ambush?  How much faster do you think the US Army would leave if they didn't have to defend and kill?  Do you really think the majority of Iraq wants to kill us in our beds?
I do not think that the 10 year (or whatever) embargo against Iraq was cool as it only hurt the people that we should have been helping.  This should have been done long ago the first time.
You say that there is no purpose there, and you've defended that in the past with your reasons, but I think liberation is one of the most important thing we can give to countries like this - the ability to choose thier own future.   Would they be better off if we had never come?  Short term, probably - there wouldn't have been any interuption in the basic services that they see now, but long term, I don't see how anybody could doubt it.
As for induction, I can see it both ways, but that's probably since I wouldn't mind going.

That sounds like a generally decent statement, however, I do not think the US hold any general interest for the well being of the Iraqi people either.


I don't know if I'd call what we've given (or are going to give) them "liberation", nor will they be able to choose their own future.

At the very least, we've liberated them from being tortured and thrown into vats filled with sewage waste.
I don't think lots of people realize just what was going on over there.  As a human being, I would have to ask how this country, and every other country, could not do it.
Maybe the Army leadership doesn't have the purest of intentions, but I think most Army personel standing on the sand over there does.  
In the end I'm sure that there will be some kind of controlling intrest from the US there but the people will have a much louder voice than they ever dreamed of.  It's hard to extoll the virtues of the present Govt, but I really don't think that the US would be able to just hold on to Iraq with an Iron fist without taking it on the chin from a world view stance.  I'd like to think that it would turn out similar to Germany and Japan post WW2.  Occupation with increasing independence.

:offtopic

From dev/null: "Of course, I guess the term long is all relative to your perception on the topic, as mine is well past my shoulders *shrugs*"

To me, 'long' means past the shoulders. Otherwise it's either 'short' or 'shoulder length'... :) Granted there is an in between there I guess.. but I dunno what I'd call it.

:offtopic

I can agree there. I do believe that a large majority of serving persons do have good intentions and generally want to help. However, that doesn't really matter, as they're not the ones in charge. No matter what happens to Iraq due to American influence, I can't help but feel that it'll fail again. Install another puppet government and you'll eventually have another hostile country somewhere down the road. Had some Imperialist assholes not divided up the eastern empire after World War I in the first place, we wouldn't have these problems. But, that's the past. I do seriously doubt that the appropriate amount of care will be put forth to ensure the survival (or at least establishment) of a truly liberated country.

Whatever the case may be, I have yet to see any weapons of mass destruction :P

Bah, at the weapons of mass destruction comment, every element was there for making them, they kept out the inspection crews, to toy with us? hahaha, it may have been a bad idea for using that as a reason to commence with this war, but i dont think it needed much justification in the first place. should have been finished in bush seniors time.

Maybe it should have been finished in Bush Sr.'s time... but it wasn't. And initiating wars off of assumptions isn't a good practice in my eyes. It would have been different if they actually found WMD's, if for only because they said Iraq had them... then so be it.

I'm also not a supporter of forcing our influence onto other nations... sure, the people might not have had the best times... but why should we care? It's not our problem. I'm one for keeping my nose out of other people's business, unless it directly involves me. If anything, in my eyes, all we did was piss off more Arabs.

I don't care if I join the military or not - it could be fun. However, I'd rather not be serving my country for an idiot like Bush. I'm not sure he's worth defending, moreso than the country.

If the Chinese suddenly decide to invade North America, the draft will be considered just. If a politician wants to send the youth of the nation across the sea in order to fight for his economic gain against the will of the soldiers, then quite frankly I'd rather shoot the draftsmen and politicians

Devlar and I agree on something yet again!  This is a record.  I despise politicians.

I remember the original idea behind the US armed forces way back yonder was to NOT have a standing army, but rather have a citizen's militia.  That is, common people armed for defense of the common good.  Such an otherwise peaceful group could defend both against invasion from a foreign land, or defend against a government overstepping its bounds.  Sadly this idea died a long time ago, and the federal government is out of control.  The term "militia" has been relegated to the status of a dirty word in the press that means "right-wing gun-toting cooks", and the concept of private ownership of weaponry has shifted to a constant struggle as opposed to an accepted norm that it was two hundred years ago.  The US military is strong, but the idea of the entire nation being able and willing to fight to defend their land was the stronger idea.  I don't see any way to go back to that, however.  I look at the MTV generation and wonder, besides in a game, how many have the understanding and the nerve to pull the trigger if their lives and the lives of others depend on it, and if they even know which side they should be on if they actually do.  There are few left who are willing to own the heavier weapons, learn how to use them, and be prepared to stand if someday there ever is an invasion.  I am proud that I do know a few who still have such spirit.  Some of them are women, and cripples, and the elderly.  They probably would not last long, so I pray such a day never comes, but still it is better to die with honor than to live as a slave in misery and oppression and fear.  I would that every man in this age show such courage.

Lets face it the invasion occured (just look where all the goods on your store shelves come from) and the government overstepped its bounds (it slipped Patriot Act 2 through and no one noticed)

I think at this point distrust in politicians has become a politican norm.

You might like this, it is a great article
http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html (http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html)
"Cottrol and Diamond quote Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights John Shattuck to the effect that "n the twentieth century the number of people killed by their own governments under authoritarian regimes is four times the number killed in all this century's wars combined."They thus argue:
We have, in the twentieth century, seen the rise of monstrous states capable of deprivations of liberty far in excess of anything that the English Whigs who authored the Declaration of Rights of 1689--or their American successors in 1791--could have envisioned.... That, in the light of the history of the twentieth century, those we rely on for serious constitutional and political commentary have failed to examine the issues of whether the state should have a monopoly of force and whether an armed population might still play an important role in deterring governmental excesses bespeaks a dangerous intellectual cowardice, a self-imposed limit on political and constitutional discourse that causes us largely to ignore one of the most critical questions of our time."

While I don't think that mandatory military service is a bad idea in general (ok, I might not want to do it for my country)  , it does puzzle me.


Are they preparing for a full-scale war?
:huh:
Then again, who wouldn't pull out massive drafting if war occurred.
Strange and visible political move.