Would you support a repeal of the Selective Service Act?

[© Tweed the Younger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_Act

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

Yes

[nclib]

Yes

[Frodo]

No (D) -there is no telling when a conflict may arise that may require the reinstitution of the draft, and any action that imperils our ability to raise mass numbers of conscripts when the need arises would also imperil our national security.   

[NewFederalist]

Yes. Slaves make lousy defenders of freedom.

[adam]

I would rather have soldiers that are truly willing and ready to defend my country. Drafting soldiers that have no intrest in the military could lead to a plythera of bad things.

[KEmperor]

Of course.

[Nym90]

I would support it. I don't think that people should be forced to fight and die for a cause that they don't believe in, and if the government can't get enough volunteers to fight a war, they should seriously reconsider whether or not it really is a good idea.

[Jacobtm]

Yes; the issue of slavery should've been killed with the 13th ammendment.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Yes. Slaves make lousy defenders of freedom.

1980 libertarian party platform

[NewFederalist]

Yes. Slaves make lousy defenders of freedom.

1980 libertarian party platform

Guilty, Boss. Guilty as charged! Ed Clark for President!

[AkSaber]

Of course.

[Ebowed]

Yes.

[dazzleman]

I would support it. I don't think that people should be forced to fight and die for a cause that they don't believe in, and if the government can't get enough volunteers to fight a war, they should seriously reconsider whether or not it really is a good idea.

So you would have surrendered to Hitler then?

[Democratic Hawk]

No (D) -there is no telling when a conflict may arise that may require the reinstitution of the draft, and any action that imperils our ability to raise mass numbers of conscripts when the need arises would also imperil our national security.   

Dave

[MasterJedi]

No (D) -there is no telling when a conflict may arise that may require the reinstitution of the draft, and any action that imperils our ability to raise mass numbers of conscripts when the need arises would also imperil our national security.   

^^^^^^ (except it would be (R))

[Ebowed]

So you would have surrendered to Hitler then?

Why do you support slavery?

[nclib]

I would support it. I don't think that people should be forced to fight and die for a cause that they don't believe in, and if the government can't get enough volunteers to fight a war, they should seriously reconsider whether or not it really is a good idea.

So you would have surrendered to Hitler then?

I can't speak for Nym, but I guess his point is that any legitimate war would have enough supporters that a draft (or selective service) would be unnecessary.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Yes.

[MODU]

No.  In fact, I think the program should be expanded.  Normally I don't agree with "following in the European footsteps" concept, but I think that it would do our nation a lot of good that teenagers serve two years in the service of the nation before heading off to college/careers.  Now, this doesn't necessarily mean serve in the Armed Forces, but they can definitely serve in many capacities which can help them mature while providing us with cheaper labor for entry level work (rather than someone my age at a GS13 level or something).  Put them on the border, national parks, reserve centers, etc . . . freeing up the more expensive personnel with experience to move into another position where their skills and knowledge would be more beneficial to the nation.

[Nym90]

I would support it. I don't think that people should be forced to fight and die for a cause that they don't believe in, and if the government can't get enough volunteers to fight a war, they should seriously reconsider whether or not it really is a good idea.

So you would have surrendered to Hitler then?

No, and Nclib did restate my position pretty well.

Ideally we would have gone to war with Germany earlier, so that we wouldn't have needed as large of a military force as we did. That would have likely made the draft unnecessary.

Once the true threat of Germany was made obvious to the American people, getting enough volunteers wasn't really a problem.

I would definitely support increasing pay or benefits as a way of encouraging people to join the military, but not forced conscription.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Here's a suggestion for those concerned about shortfalls in manpower: Give more .  I'm talking about giving the following for veterans: a full 4-6 year ride on education, preferential rates and availability on Federal Home loans and small business loans, real bonus points on civil service and towards getting govrnment contracts for ones small business. Also allow immigrants to join up with them and their family(just spouse/kids) getting a green card after 5 years loyal and faithful. Also set up a foreign leigion type program.

[Nym90]

Here's a suggestion for those concerned about shortfalls in manpower: Give more .  I'm talking about giving the following for veterans: a full 4-6 year ride on education, preferential rates and availability on Federal Home loans and small business loans, real bonus points on civil service and towards getting govrnment contracts for ones small business. Also allow immigrants to join up with them and their family(just spouse/kids) getting a green card after 5 years loyal and faithful. Also set up a foreign leigion type program.

I agree completely. Those were the types of things I was talking about in the last paragraph of my last post.

Carrots work better than sticks as a way to recruit people to most any cause, and especially to the cause of putting their life on the line.

[dazzleman]

I would support it. I don't think that people should be forced to fight and die for a cause that they don't believe in, and if the government can't get enough volunteers to fight a war, they should seriously reconsider whether or not it really is a good idea.

So you would have surrendered to Hitler then?

No, and Nclib did restate my position pretty well.

Ideally we would have gone to war with Germany earlier, so that we wouldn't have needed as large of a military force as we did. That would have likely made the draft unnecessary.

Once the true threat of Germany was made obvious to the American people, getting enough volunteers wasn't really a problem.

I would definitely support increasing pay or benefits as a way of encouraging people to join the military, but not forced conscription.

Eric, I don't like the idea of forced service either, but with respect to World War II, here are the realities:

-When the war broke out, the entire US military establishment was less than 500,000 men.  The army had under 200,000 men.  There was little equipment to fight with.  On paper, it would have been better to go to war with Germany sooner, but the wherewithal was not there.

-It took until Pearl Harbor, and the German declaration of war against the US, before the American people accepted the need to enter World War II.  A declaration of war against Germany prior to that, with a volunteer army, would have been a disaster.  It was only because the first peacetime draft was enacted in 1940 that the US was in any position to enter the war at all, and even with that, it took nearly a year after our entry before we indirectly engaged Germany in combat in North Africa.

-Despite soaring enlistments, it was necessary to maintain a draft throughout World War II.  The navy and marines took only volunteers, but the army required draftees to reach sufficient strength.

I don't think a volunteer army works in a major war.  I don't like the draft, but I'm ambivalent about our current practice of putting the soldiering duties on less advantaged young men and women, and I think one negative effect of it is an increasing separation of the military from the rest of society, as fewer and fewer of our citizens have military service.  I also find it alarming that we were able to maintain a volunteer military of over 2 million in the 1970s and 1980s, with a smaller population base, and today we have trouble maintaining armed forces of 1.4 million with a larger population base.

[Nym90]

I would support it. I don't think that people should be forced to fight and die for a cause that they don't believe in, and if the government can't get enough volunteers to fight a war, they should seriously reconsider whether or not it really is a good idea.

So you would have surrendered to Hitler then?

No, and Nclib did restate my position pretty well.

Ideally we would have gone to war with Germany earlier, so that we wouldn't have needed as large of a military force as we did. That would have likely made the draft unnecessary.

Once the true threat of Germany was made obvious to the American people, getting enough volunteers wasn't really a problem.

I would definitely support increasing pay or benefits as a way of encouraging people to join the military, but not forced conscription.

Eric, I don't like the idea of forced service either, but with respect to World War II, here are the realities:

-When the war broke out, the entire US military establishment was less than 500,000 men.  The army had under 200,000 men.  There was little equipment to fight with.  On paper, it would have been better to go to war with Germany sooner, but the wherewithal was not there.

-It took until Pearl Harbor, and the German declaration of war against the US, before the American people accepted the need to enter World War II.  A declaration of war against Germany prior to that, with a volunteer army, would have been a disaster.  It was only because the first peacetime draft was enacted in 1940 that the US was in any position to enter the war at all, and even with that, it took nearly a year after our entry before we indirectly engaged Germany in combat in North Africa.

-Despite soaring enlistments, it was necessary to maintain a draft throughout World War II.  The navy and marines took only volunteers, but the army required draftees to reach sufficient strength.

I don't think a volunteer army works in a major war.  I don't like the draft, but I'm ambivalent about our current practice of putting the soldiering duties on less advantaged young men and women, and I think one negative effect of it is an increasing separation of the military from the rest of society, as fewer and fewer of our citizens have military service.  I also find it alarming that we were able to maintain a volunteer military of over 2 million in the 1970s and 1980s, with a smaller population base, and today we have trouble maintaining armed forces of 1.4 million with a larger population base.

Well, you do raise an excellent point. The lack of a draft pretty much seperates many people from any of the consequences of war. It's easy for a lot of people to advocate war when they don't have to worry about their own kids fighting. The draft at least raises this possibility, which is a positive effect of it.

Regarding WW2, you may well be right. I'm not an expert in military history by any means.

I would argue that a draft would be much less likely to be necessary today than it was in the past, due to the general need for fewer soliders given our much more sophisticated weaponry and better overall technology. So hopefully the draft can be made obsolete through this fact alone, and will never be necessary again.

Perhaps it would be necessary in extreme circumstances, but clearly the burden of proof should be on the government to convince Americans of the need for war, rather than simply forcing them into a war that they don't want to enter. That is my primary objection the draft, the fact that it enables the government to wage war without really engaging in a true debate over the merits of the war or in informing the populace about why it is in our best interest. Of course, the people do always have the right to register their objection in the next election, and to make the support or opposition to the draft an issue in every election.