Charles Rangel reintroduces Draft Legislation - Page 2

[miriam]

Congressman Rangel introduces this kind of bill every session.  

I would be in favor of it if every person was REQUIRED to participate.  In the registration and draft that I recall, many got out of service by filing deferments for marriage, children, college, and  illness. To be honest, even in the military draft of the Cold War, a man could have gone in as a medic and not had to fight.  There were positions for men who chose not to handle a gun.  

I also recall the draft lottery that took place on the floor of Congress in the mid-to-late 1960s.  

Most of these men who were drafted up to 1972 are or have been our leaders now, and they are in both political parties.  The men who were drafted are for the most part old enough to be grandparents now.

What we have now is a military registration and honestly few men comply with that legal requirement to register for the draft at age 18-26. Supposedly, there is jail time, an inability to get financial aid, and inability to be hired with the federal government. When I worked for the federal government, about half of the male applicants under forty had not complied with the requirement to register at age 18-26, so these men were not considered for employment. Whatever Rangel puts in, has to have teeth in it or it will not be fair. What we have now does not work well and what we had did not work well. We need to learn from our mistakes.

http://news.yahoo.com/last-vietnam-era-draftee-decides-retire-085254385.html

Edited by miriam - 7/9/11 at 9:15pm

[littleplum]

Originally Posted by mar123 

I think the cost of this program in a country our size would make it prohibitive. I have had students do this topic as their persuasive research paper. Most countries that have things such as this (like Israel) are much smaller and far more homoogenous in nature. There are many benefits to a diverse culture such as ours, but one negative (at least when trying to implement something like this) is that it would be impossible to satisfy everyone. And IMO "service" isn't something you get paid for. My children have to complete service hours to graduate from high school. They don't get paid for that. If it is going to be a "job" then call it that. Painting it with the word service is just a feel good political move.

I think that COMPULSORY service should be compensated.  I also had to complete "volunteer" hours to graduate from high school.  It was only  15 hours in my senior year, but it placed an enormous financial burden upon my single parent family.  My mother worked 12-14 hour days, and her only day off was Sunday, the day we spent going to church and catching up on household chores.  It was my responsibility to pick up my sisters from school, feed them dinner, and get them to bed.  She couldn't afford to pay for someone to care for my three younger sisters so I could fiddle fart around scraping gum off the bottoms of desks.  The money that she spent on a baby sitter so that I could do my "volunteer" work, came directly out of my winter wardrobe funds.  I only got two long sleeved shirts instead of five that year.

[mimim]

Originally Posted by miriam 

I would be in favor of it if every person was REQUIRED to participate.  In the registration and draft that I recall, many got out of service by filing deferments for marriage, children, college, and  illness. To be honest, even in the military draft of the Cold War, a man could have gone in as a medic and not had to fight.  There were positions for men who chose not to handle a gun.

I agree with you miriam; everyone would have to be required to do this, with very very few exceptions.

I am fiercely anti-war and anti-violence, yet I support compulsory military service. There is too much complacency about foreign policy and military practices in our culture. If everyone was required to serve, then I believe that a bigger proportion of the population would inform themselves and speak up about how our military is used and how it is run.

[Sarah W]

I definitely do not support compulsory military service. Honestly, I've never met anyone that has (especially in the military). There have been enough issues with the relaxed standards of the last few years; never minds thousands of people who don't even want to be there. And the military is not hurting for personnel at all. I don't think that the Army has missed a quota in years. Now, especially with the draw down, people are literally fighting to stay in.

I'm all for compulsory national service, though.

[miriam]

The reason the military has not missed a quota is because of the bad job market.  Military service keeps young men out of the employment game.  And men who have had military service can use the GI bill for college expenses and buying a home later.  Most men use the VA for healthcare also.