Anti-Conscription Amendment [Rejected]

[Junkie]

Introduced this with a shred of hope that this Senate doesn't embarrass itself by the time it reaches the people.

I am not sure that I understand this comment.  If you are stating that opposing this amendment is an embarrassment, and I assume you mean intellectually embarrassing, then I guess I am willing to accept the embarrassment.  Here is why I am against the proposed constitutional amendment:

Starting off with an aside.  Currently reading a book about the demise of moderate/progressive republicans from 1960-1980.  Amazingly good so far.  One point the book brings out is that in 1967, the Ripon Society (mainly moderates at the time) wrote a book calling for the end of the draft.  Its basis was the deteriorating effect it had on the military in combat units.  They found common ground with the Young Americans for Freedom (mainly conservatives and libertarians) who believed that conscription is a form of slavery.

They were pitted against Democrats, the most vocal of which was Teddy Kennedy, who believed that a fully volunteer army (especially in a time of war) would result in only the most uneducated, poorest citizens with a disproportionate amount of minorities being in the service. 

I see validity in all the arguments, although, I would point out that since then the volunteer army has not become what Kennedy feared.  In fact, it appears that we have created a seperate society of military members, who all have family members who serve, while the proportion of non-service members that have a serving relative has gone way down.  In effect, the military is becoming increasingly disconnected from the people they serve to protect.  Not really a good thing.

However, my concern is that conscription in time of war will be necessary.  We should not have a peacetime draft, but in times of declared war, with Senate approval, conscription should be allowed.

Thus as to the amendment:

Aye

[Junkie]

Damn glad your here polnut.  We may not agree on everything, but I value your contributions.

[Junkie]

I urge the Senate to defeat the Amendment.  Conscription is not pretty, nor do I support it, but it is a tool that we should have, if the need arises.

You first.

Okay.  I served in the army, but I will admit not in time of war.  Does that make my position that conscription can serve a purpose more valid?  Or is there no way that anyone can validly believe in a need for conscription in your opinion?

[Junkie]

The world is only as dangerous as our desire to pursue an irrational right wing foreign policy allows it to be. I've been a leading voice for foreign policy reform to make this world safer and I do not believe in using fear as a political tool.

False.  The world is not dangerous because of our foreign policy (which is not even remotely right wing).  Our foreign policy is a response to international events, not vice versa.  We are also not using fear as a political tool.  We'red saying conscription is something that should be an option.  Not used, but an option.  It's the supporters of this Amendment, with all their talk of slavery, that are using fear as a political tool.

Well, you're both at least half way there.  Our foreign policy is a response to international events, and it can sometimes "make the world dangerous".  That's all dependent on how we choose to respond, obviously.

Can't this become a "chicken or the egg" type argument?

[Junkie]

I'm voting nay, and will put forward another amendment should this one fail.

I might as well, maybe we could work on it.

As to the amendment, I think it is to restrictive and unworkable, thus I vote

Nay

[Junkie]

Nay

[Junkie]

I am going to re-offer the Polnut amendment without the last Sentence about frontline capacity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We already voted on this exact same amendment before Polnut's.

Is there a reason why the vote should turn out differently this time?

I can think of two reasons why someone would want to reintroduce the amendment.

[Junkie]

Aye

[Junkie]

The Senate is 50% coward. I should have known...

Please explain.

[Junkie]

The Senate is 50% coward. I should have known...

Please explain.

You're the quintessential Moderate Hero.

That would be your opinion.  My opinion is that you are the infected hair on the butt crack of this forum.  Some may believe both, neither, or one of the above.

I would still like an answer to allegations of cowardice.  Who is a coward?  In what way are they cowards?  I stand against this amendment.  I believe that is a bad idea.  I do not think a stand on principle makes me a Moderate Hero, but that is just my opinion.

Really can we have a conversation?  I really hoped that we would move pass this and have held my tongue as long as I could.  No longer.

[Junkie]

I just want to say that I disagree with the opinion that a military draft is slavery.  While I see the parallels that are being drawn, they do not stand in my view.  Military service in time of war is, in my opinion, exactly that, service that may be owed to one's country.  In many it is like taxes, which no one really likes paying, but is something we have to do.  If our nation were to go to war, conscription could be necessary.  One objection I have to the current writing is the use of the term "land invasion," which would mean that in WWII it could not be authorized (or at least not until the invasion of the Aleutian islands).  In terms of the Civil War, an interesting question as to land invasion -- did the South count or did we have to wait until Lee's invasion of the north?

Also, just so we are clear on the facts, we do not have conscription right now.  We are a totally volunteer army.  What we do have is the Selective Service system which provides the option of a draft if needed in times of war (something that has not been needed since Nixon went to the all-volunteer army in the 1970s).  A little fun fact, I was actually in violation as I did not register until I was 20.  Total mistake.  I had joined the army at 17 and was actually serving, so it did not come up until later when applying to colleges.

Yes there are plenty of horrible countries that have conscription (cuba, Iran, North Korea, Venezuala).  But there are also several advanced countries that do such as Israel (although many here would not consider them an example to be followed) Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, and Greece.

Even look at some of the nations that have recently done away with conscription: Germany just went to a volunteer system in 2010, although some draftees are still serving out there time, and the law allows for it to be brought back if necessary. France suspended the draft in 1997, but it is still on the books for an emergency.  The Netherlands went to an all volunteer army in the 90s, but still has the option if needed. 

Some countries such as Australia and New Zealand have abolished conscription.  Hungary did recently, but I think is actually debating bringing back the option.

I am not saying we need a peacetime draft.  I am saying that in time of war, a draft may be needed.  Making it unconstitutional ties the hands of our leaders at a time of crises.  The current wording of this amendment makes the actual use of the draft impossible (which may be the point).

We currently do not have the draft, only the option to use it if necessary.  Many other nations have the same system.  I think the current system in place is just and fair.  That is why I am against this amendment.

[Junkie]

I just want to say that I disagree with the opinion that a military draft is slavery.  While I see the parallels that are being drawn, they do not stand in my view.  Military service in time of war is, in my opinion, exactly that, service that may be owed to one's country.  In many it is like taxes, which no one really likes paying, but is something we have to do. 

Comparing paying taxes and being conscripted into military service is kind of an invalid comparison. I don't necessarily believe taxes should exist, but I agree that they are a necessary evil. Conscription, however, is never justified in my opinion. It's like comparing playing Call Of Duty and actually serving in war. The two are not the same. I'll pay my taxes to the state, but I do not owe my life to the state. No way, no how.

I get your objection.  However, for a free country to exist, its citizens should pay for its government and serve it if needed in time of war.  I know you disagree with my position and that's fine.  I respect our difference of opinion and realize that we will probably not change each other's mind.  Maybe with time and further experience, we will both revisit our opinion on this issue.

I know I am definitly in the minority on this one, and I accept that.  I also want to thank you for engaging in civil disagreement without calling me a coward for holding true to my beliefs (even if you may think that, which of course you can).

I do not like a peacetime draft.  In war it may be necessary, but it should apply to all citizens and not just the less fortunate.  What makes the draft often undefensible is that it appears (although is not always the case) that the less privileged are asked to do more for their country than the more fortunate.

But that is not the debate we are having.  We are discussing whether conscription is an evil in and of itself.  I do not believe it is, but can understand why others may feel differently.  Not too long ago, I voted against the changes to the tabling motion because I believe in principled lone dissent.  On this issue, I feel very principled about my position, as I am sure you do with yours.  This discussion is what makes the game fun for me, so thank you for helping making this a little more fun.

Still against it by the way, for now at least.

[Junkie]

Nay