More on the coming military slavery bill

[fastpat]

Warming up the machinery again.

Dusting Off the Machinery of Slavery
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo at 08:10 PM

According to today's Washington Post, "The Selective Service System is planning a comprehensive test of the military draft machinery, which hasn't been run since 1998."

The Secretary for Veterans Affairs said that "society would benefit" if "the U.S. were to bring back the draft." (Assuming draftees are not a part of "society" of course).

"A day earlier," the Post noted, "President Bush said he is considering sending more troops to Iraq and has asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to look into adding more troops . . . . The Army wants to increase its force by 20,000 to 30,000 soldiers . . ."

Yesterday, Army generals said that with the volunteer army the best they could hope for was only about 6,000 new recruits a year.

The draft "brings people together" for "the common purpose of serving," said Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson.

Sounds like slavery to me. Slaves are "brought together" for "the common purpose of serving" their slave masters. In this case that would be the Party of Lincoln and the cowardly and wimpy Democrats in Washington, led by Congressman Charles Rangel, who will reintroduce his bill to reinstate the draft sometime soon.

From the WP:

Agency to Test Military Draft Machinery

By KASIE HUNT
The Associated Press
Thursday, December 21, 2006; 9:45 PM

WASHINGTON -- The Selective Service System is planning a comprehensive test of the military draft machinery, which hasn't been run since 1998.

The agency is not gearing up for a draft, an agency official said Thursday. The test itself would not likely occur until 2009.

Meanwhile, the secretary for Veterans Affairs said that "society would benefit" if the U.S. were to bring back the draft and that it shouldn't have any loopholes for anyone who is called to serve. VA Secretary Jim Nicholson later issued a statement saying he does not support reinstituting a draft.

The Selective Service "readiness exercise" would test the system that randomly chooses draftees by birth date and the network of appeals boards that decide how to deal with conscientious objectors and others who want to delay reporting for duty, said Scott Campbell, Selective Service director for operations and chief information officer.

"We're kind of like a fire extinguisher. We sit on a shelf" until needed, Campbell said. "Everyone fears our machine for some reason. Our machine, unless the president and Congress get together and say, 'Turn the machine on' ... we're still on the shelf."

The administration has for years forcefully opposed bringing back the draft, and the White House said Thursday that its position had not changed.

A day earlier, President Bush said he is considering sending more troops to Iraq and has asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to look into adding more troops to the nearly 1.4 million uniformed personnel on active duty.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, increasing the Army by 40,000 troops would cost as much as $2.6 billion the first year and $4 billion after that. Service officials have said the Army wants to increase its force by 20,000 to 30,000 soldiers and the Marine Corps would like 5,000 more troops.

[Moneyguy1]

I do not think the "draft" would be as detremental as you think, pat.

I see it as an opportunity for a lot of underchallenged, spoiled young adults to receive some discipline in their lives and do some good for their fellow citizens. If not as a uniformed military person, as a paid worker on projects where there is a social need; the poor, the sick, abandoned or abused children, etc. It might just reduce the crime rate as well over time.

The Coast Guard changed me from a young person with no goals into someone who became focused, accumulating three college degrees, and becoming a more involved citizen. Rather than fighting the system, I became part of it and worked for change from the only position that really counts...the inside.

Railing from the outside and wringing one's hands rarely results in positive change.

[on-ramp]

if politicians believe in the war so much, why don't they send their kids to fight...

[Seahawk]

The draft is a non-starter. It would be an unmitigated disaster.
When they ran the test in 1998, did the Post, uh, post it?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
I do not think the "draft" would be as detremental as you think, pat.

It's slavery, Bob. Further, it puts those enslaved at risk that those not enslaved aren't faced with; death, dismemberment, and long term mental health problems.

This time around, fascist Charlie Rangel is including an additional type of slavery, forced employment within government make-work programs.

I see it as an opportunity for a lot of underchallenged, spoiled young adults to receive some discipline in their lives and do some good for their fellow citizens.

Ah, the nanny state concept. That's a bad idea, Bob. It gets folks used to looking to government for all manner of solutions to problems, frequently caused by another government program. Who is willing to pay government to engage in mental "adjustments" on the young any longer, taking them in involuntarily. No one with any sense.

If not as a uniformed military person, as a paid worker on projects where there is a social need; the poor, the sick, abandoned or abused children, etc. It might just reduce the crime rate as well over time.

We don't want government involved in those types of programs any longer, Bob, they're all complete disasters as it is, imagine for a moment an agency that's about 40% efficient today, staffed with people forced to be there. What would you do with them when they're chronically sick, late, or simply don't show up? Forced military service?

The Coast Guard changed me from a young person with no goals into someone who became focused, accumulating three college degrees, and becoming a more involved citizen. Rather than fighting the system, I became part of it and worked for change from the only position that really counts...the inside.

Railing from the outside and wringing one's hands rarely results in positive change.

Bob, the Coast Guard didn't do that, it's part of the normal maturation process. The military constantly takes credit for that, because they take in 17-20 year olds, and few older. The story would be remarkably different if the minimum age were 21, which should be anyway, even better, make it 25 yo to get in.

The other issue is that the military takes a number of productive years of your life away, which are never to be had again. While those that don't become enslaved have those years to put to good use getting ahead in their lives, having never left their jobs, don't have to worry if there's a job waiting on them on return from service.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Seahawk
The draft is a non-starter. It would be an unmitigated disaster.
When they ran the test in 1998, did the Post, uh, post it?

I don't know, but it seems to me I remember some kind of clusterfornication.

The entire selective service should have stayed dead back in the '70's like everyone wanted.

It would have except for those that think the young in America belong to the state.

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by on-ramp
if politicians believe in the war so much, why don't they send their kids to fight...

Some of them do. Some of them have fought themselves too.

Though of course you are right about most of them.

[Lothar]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
I do not think the "draft" would be as detremental as you think, pat.

I see it as an opportunity for a lot of underchallenged, spoiled young adults to receive some discipline in their lives and do some good for their fellow citizens. If not as a uniformed military person, as a paid worker on projects where there is a social need; the poor, the sick, abandoned or abused children, etc. It might just reduce the crime rate as well over time.

I have to agree with Pat. Underchallenged, spoiled young adults will quickly change their tune when they can't find a job or get paid very little based on their poor job skills and lack of work ethic.

Further, make sure that laziness is never rewarded by means of a government program. That means no welfare, no EITC. If you are lazy and worthless, work it out on your own. You're not my problem or any other taxpayer's problem.

The last thing this country needs is the government getting any bigger. Plus, adding more disfunctional workers to an already disfunctional government doesn't sound too appealing.

[Wrecked944]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
The Coast Guard changed me from a young person with no goals into someone who became focused...

FWIW - Going to college did the same thing for me.

[m21sniper]

The draft is just another name for state slavery. What's more, it is detrimental to the quality of the military.

The draft is a lose-lose situation. Besides, when i was serving the US Army alone(100% volunteer) was as big as the ENTIRE military is now. So we don't need the draft to double the size of the military. Just time and sufficient recruiting efforts. A draft is as unneeded as it is unwise.

[Moneyguy1]

I know my viewpoint is not a popular one, but if we are to live in a "free" country (sorry, pat, it still is relatively free compared to other countries), one should be ready and willing to invest something in preserving that type of life.

College did it for you...I am pleased to hear that. I tried college after High School and was not ready for it. Now one can say that my experience was one of natural maturing, but I am convinced that the time I spent in the service taught me how to (as contradictory as the two things sound) follow orders and think for myself. I came back ready and eager to do something with my life. I learned respect and I learned to have faith in my own abilities.

Just my feelings on the subject.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
I know my viewpoint is not a popular one, but if we are to live in a "free" country (sorry, pat, it still is relatively free compared to other countries), one should be ready and willing to invest something in preserving that type of life.

America is still among the most free countries, but the best way to see this is that America is among the "least sick men", but sick nevertheless.

College did it for you...I am pleased to hear that. I tried college after High School and was not ready for it. Now one can say that my experience was one of natural maturing, but I am convinced that the time I spent in the service taught me how to (as contradictory as the two things sound) follow orders and think for myself. I came back ready and eager to do something with my life. I learned respect and I learned to have faith in my own abilities.

Just my feelings on the subject.

We invest in preserving the American way of freedom by being free and thinking freely; military or government service slavery isn't the way to instill the embodiment of freedom into anyone. It does in fact say that you can be free at the whim of the state, and if the state says you can't be free then you aren't. State slavery says that you belong to the state whenever and where ever it wants.

The only time "giving to society" is meaningful is when it's a gift given freely, coercive taking does nothing to demonstrate that violence is an acceptable way to do business.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
The Coast Guard changed me from a young person with no goals into someone who became focused

I knew there was something I admired about you...Coasties are the finest kind.

I have one save off the coast of Oregon (my ship was enroute to the Portland Rose Festival) with the CG...while they are not combat pilots, they are GREAT pilots. Nobody does it better, in the air or at sea.

[Moneyguy1]

Thanks Sea...I remember my years in Uncle Sam's Yacht Club with great affection...even the time at Camp Lejune learning how to pilot landing craft. The thought was a scary one when looking back at the odds of living when ferrying gyrenes into shore..

Hunting down drug runners, even in the 60s was lots of fun, but the worst was dragging for some poor soul washed overboard during a gale. Kinda reduces your love for crustacians for awhile if you get my drift!!

Semper Paratus!!

[Sunroof]

Back in the Nam era, if you decided to skip a semester of college as I did your status changed from a 2S (student) to 1A (your screwed!). So, to take a semester off of college cost me an induction notice and congradulations, your Uncle Sams property! Being against the war like so many, Canada back then was just a "rumor" and the only way yo really save yourself was to go into one of the "softer" services (USCG, Navy, Air Force or Merchant Marine Service). The lines at the USCG recruiting offices were as long as waiting to buy Beatles concert tickets! I spent four years in the Air Force and wound up in Nam anyways (68-69/Tet Offensive era) and am grateful to this day with my earlier enlistment decision. It damned well might have saved my life. The draft had a major impact on so many who although opposed the service were forced into it and wound up as the "grunts" on the front lines. I know, because I transported them around, loaded their bodies and cried at the dedication of the Vietnam Memorial for the 58,000 who never made it home with me.

Having served in Nam, finished my college education and soon to enter my 60's as one of the great boomer generation, I would only back a draft if this country's very survival was at stake. After all how many Sampan's did we stop from invading the coast of California?! Vietnam afterall was never set free. The draft may take the so many off the streets, but for what? As for maturation through the service? I share a great comradary with fellow veterans whom I honor, and I agree it instilled self descipline, but I think a year or two on a remote New Mexico commune back then enjoying peyote buttons, growing my own food and making love to all the senioritas would have sufficed.

Bob

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Sunroof
I share a great comradary with fellow veterans whom I honor, and I agree it instilled self descipline, but I think a year or two on a remote New Mexico commune back then enjoying peyote buttons, growing my own food and making love to all the senioritas would have sufficed.

Bob

Yes, and that time would have been significantly more productive for you, and all those guys of our (USAF '67-'71) generation would have been productive instead of on the Black Wall.

[Sunroof]

Lets call it, "in the bush versus, not in the bush"! Thats where most lives were lost. Many Naval personnel lost thier lives in the Delta. We all were reminded daily by the Vietcong of their presence by the 122 mm rocket fire into our bases. No one was really safe, but the Air Force ground folks suffered fewest losses. Productive? Yes.......but, my goal was just to survive, get out and finish college. The G.I. bill was great but the homecoming was horrible! Any association with the war made you an outcast back then, because the generations mantra was, "make love not war" and I was branded despite my non-combat job a 'village burner", child killer" and "war monger". It was tough for us all to regain our footing on return yet I understood my peers and their dislike for the war. Afterall, what did it proove? what did we gain? and look what we lost. Those questions seem to be alive and well today as we contemplate our actions in the middle east.

Bob
So,