8 opinions, 7 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
100
1 vote
May 5, 2015

Not Military service, but civil service.

If you grow up for the vast majority of your life in a free democratic society you must realize that what made your country great is the people who live within it and worked to make it that way, in order for it to continue being great and grow and progress as a country those who took from it should give something back.

Civil service, which would include military training, would be a great way for citizens to give back to the countries that they call home and help improve the infrastructure and economy of their country.

No one should be forced to fight and possibly die for a cause they don't believe in, and is a great way to turn people against the government. Additionally I agree with u/Phoenix where (s)he stated under the no opinion, those forced to fight are not fit to fight, as most people forced to do something against their will (unless under extreme coersion) will not do a good job of it and may actually endanger other soldiers that are there for what they believe in.

Some military training should however be included in civil service as it would allow everyone to fight for their country if the need arose (ie an invasion) as well as provide excellent physical and mental training that is applicable to most situations. Additionally it would then allow those that felt like serving the country in war to do so, however I feel no one should be forced to kill or die simply because it's 'their patriotic duty'.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Nov 4, 2015

Very good observation on civil service, which along with the military training you mention might include the option to serve in the military for those who chose to do so.

subscribe
75
4 votes
May 5, 2015

If it were mandatory, this would be a total police state. Look at the Iraq war, Bush used 9/11 to justify it, and sent soldiers to their deaths in Iraq, killing plenty of innocent people on the side. If government could now FORCE soldiers to a war they don't support, then the country wouldn't be America anymore.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
May 5, 2015

NO! We children of the sixties fought for _years_ to end that compulsory military service for you all. We fought and some of us died for that cause. Even those of us who did our military duty fought against the draft and against the unconstitutional war-for-profit that made the draft so necessary. NO, Military service must not be made mandatory. People who are forced to fight are not fit to fight.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
50
2 votes,
May 5, 2015

And nobody seems to care that both Bush and Obama are breaking US law by sending National Guard troops overseas . By law they are not permitted to engage in any military actions outside of our borders .

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
May 5, 2015

-1. National Guard troops have been "federalized" during conflicts since the NG was created; that's part of the reason they exist.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
May 5, 2015

I looked this up .ehow.com/facts_4882119_what-duties-national-guard.html According to the article the National Guard cannot be Federalized unless the country is invaded . There is a difference between the National Guard and the Army Guard and Reserve units . If memory serves me right the last time we were invaded was Pearl Harbor .

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
May 5, 2015

Read this Wikipedia article. Look specifically at the "Presidential Reserve Call Up" section. There's no requirement for invasion; the President can call up the NG any time he wants, the only catch is that they can't be deployed for more than 270 days.

Ehow.com is not a reliable authority on anything. If you're looking for an authoritative source, this PDF from the Army (found in the Wikipedia citations) probably has more info.

subscribe
67
3 votes
May 5, 2015

I vote yes.

The draft is the only thing that caused public outcry over the Vietnam atrocities, as it caused families from the entire socio-economic spectrum to be involved. Right now, the only people enlisting are the poor. And when they come home in body bags, the vast majority of the people don't know about it, and when they do, it's easy to say 'well, (s)he voluntarily enlisted, (s)he knew the risk'.

The truth is though most people enlist to escape extreme poverty, because it's the best option the have. It's not a real free, well-considered choice.

When everyone across the social spectrum knows somebody that will be shipped off across the globe, people will start thinking twice about supporting a meaningless war. People will start to REALLY care about the consequences and the cost.

When we go to war, it should be as nation. Not an economic choice costing us the 'cheapest citizens', like it is now.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
-1
main reply
1 vote,
May 5, 2015

I am forced to agree with this. If everyone is forced to consider that war will affect them personally, we will be more careful in deciding who might be allowed to send us to war.

subscribe
67
3 votes
May 5, 2015

The problem with mandatory military service, or conscription, is manifold. If it was of benefit to our heavily modernized military it would be in place and actively used. Draftees are practically worthless cannon fodder compared to volunteers, and when you consider the logistic load of boots in a combat zone the better economic decision is to pay enough in wages and benefits to attract those volunteers.

subscribe
0
0 votes
May 5, 2015

I stand on the other side of this issue so you deserve an explanation. We all need to serve and should be trained to do our duty when called upon. After the training and when we find our skills developed then everyone knows how to make your service meet the needs of our nation. All Americans should have respect for the people in our past that have sacrificed to keep the freedoms we all share. We should all do our part to protect what is dear to America. To fight for freedom does not require battle time if it comes to that point we have failed to do our part up to that point.

subscribe
0
0 votes
May 5, 2015

If everybody had to serve then yes but I saw how the system was gamed during Vietnam. Most people with money found a way to avoid the draft. Cheney got 5 exemptions but had no problem sending Troops to Iraq and want to send them now. The other problem was you served for 2 years which meant just when you were good at what you were trained for you were out. It is a big waste of money. The worse thing was the way the soldiers were treated when they came back from doing what they had no choice.

subscribe
0
0 votes
May 7, 2015

If anything, military OR community service OR college

subscribe
0
User voted No.
0 votes
Jul 20, 2015

Morally wrong, totalitarian, and expensive.

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: