Milton Friedman helped end the draft with sound logic and economics. Let’s not let idiotic emotion and hyperbole resurrect it. Our military need release from a LOT of government restrictions in order to better execute its mission – including a revamping of the guard and reserve structure.

Our nation was born from free soldiers and should remain defended by free soldiers.

PS – Mr. Holmes, temper your rhetoric with facts or keep them to yourself. You disgrace this nation, Constitution and its people – all of its people.

Would you be willing to spread the word about http://www.draftresistance.org? It’s a site dedicated to shattering the myths surrounding the selective slavery system and building mass civil disobedience to stop the draft before it starts!

Our banner on a website, printing and posting the anti-draft flyer or just telling friends would help.

Thanks!

Scott Kohlhaas

PS. When it comes to conscription, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!

How Orwellian. Fairness is making every 18-year-old a nigger.

Actually, my point was that there would be no draft if the law makers had to send their own children to IRAQ. Having the lawmakers go themselves is also a great idea. Sending 18 – 20 year olds to kill others when they can’t even legally buy a beer or go to Law Vegas and place a bet is sick.

Let’s draft the 35 to 50 year olds (especially those who never served) and that would stop any talk about starting the draft.

I find it amazing that 15 out 19 of the 9/11 terrorist were Saudi, and NONE were from IRAQ, yet there are still Americans who think IRAQ was involved.

The idea that fightening them over there somehow keeps them from coming here is a deadly joke.
Bush has made it easy for them to kill another 3000+ Americans by sending them to the Middle East. If IRAQ had no oil we would not be there. If the President of any other non-super power country invaded another country without being attacked first they would be tried for war crimes.

Steve, yes, you’re right. I hadn’t recognized who had sponsored the Universal National Service Act (HR163 and HR393). I have to confess, I had believed it to be a Republican-sponsored bill. When word of those bills hit the streets in my town, our local college held a forum to raise awareness of it. The overwhelming majority of people in attendance (including myself) were there to find out exactly what was being proposed, and determine how best to fight it. I don’t think person one realized that it had been initiated as a way to deter the continuance of the ‘War’ on terror, with the thinking that forced service will make people think long and hard about military actions.

As you pointed out, Rangle (no W, but an easy mistake) proposes the draft not to help the militaries bolster their numbers to perpetuate our little overseas holidays, but to stop unnecessary active conflict, and to make the military more representative of the entire American populous, rather than the low-income/lower-middle classes that it represents currently.

Rangle’s view, I believe, is a far cry from the views of the likes Lt. Gen. Lute, who call for the draft as a solution to the current enlistment problem, which is putting a dent in the ability to continue the war. Just the other day I remember hearing an Army ad offering around $50g in sign-on bonuses. “Wow, they must be getting desperate” I thought, remembering 10 years ago when that number was (literally) ten times less.

It’s not the fault of the offspring of their parent’s decisions. They are soveriegn individuals like anyone else. If anything, such a draft should require the lawmakers themselves to serve.

I do understand where you are coming from though. If there is a draft it should be fair (unlike the Veitnam era). No one should be immune based on his or her attendence at a college, family influence, income level, or anything else. A draft should not violate the principle of equal protection.

Next would be the children of the officers of the major corporations, followed by those children of families who earn over $200,000 per year. If we still need more troops, then pay those lower income families $500-$1000 a day like the corporatons pay the 1000+ contractors who have died in Iraq.

So, let’s have a national referendum. I am sure the American people would approve the new draft law. Do you think Congress would approve and the President would agree?

Do you think any of the current politicians running for president would agree to support this new Draft law? Can you imagine Mitt Rommey voting to send his 5 sons to the Iraq war, or Clinton sending her daughter to Iraq. So why don’t they ask this kind of question in the Presidential debates, and to those who want to start the Draft.

As of 2004, at least 6 Republican representatives had their sons and/or daughters serving in the military. I have not found a complete list but this is what I found so far. The following representatives had their sons and/or daughters serving in the military in 2004:

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, (CO)
Rep. Ed Schrock (VA)
Rep. Joe Wilson (SC)
Rep. John Kline (MN)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (CA)
Rep. Todd Akin (MO)

While this is not exactly a long list, its inaccurate to say that “Not a single Republican in Congress has a son or daughter in the armed services.” You are also being unfair by denying the service of these young men and/or women. Whether you support the war or not, you should at least be honest in your argument.

And to the second part of your argument: because the military is all voluntary, none of these individuals were forced to join. Whether or not this is a “good war” or not is beside the point. These young men and women signed up knowing full well that they may be called upon to go to war. They also had to know that policy can change on each election cycle.

A military draft takes that option away. I agree with Tarran’s assessment on this: conscription is slavery. Regardless of whether or not the war is just, no one should ever be forced to serve. A more reasonable alternative to a draft would be to sweeten the pot by giving volunteer soldiers more money, benefits, etc. If civilization is truley at stake, it should not be that difficult to find individuals to serve. If men and women are required to serve at the point of a gun, such a civilization is not worth saving anyway!

Answer:Charles Wrangle, among others. Both sides have draft proponents. Those on the right who advocate in favor of a draft sincerely believe that everyone (not just those with no other choices) has an obligation to serve (e.g. a guy like McCain used to be). Those on the left like Charlie Wrangle (who, unlike Bush, also happens to be a bona fide war hero) who advocate in favor of a draft realize that if a draft were instituted, this ill-advised adventure in the Middle East would continue for about 3 minutes. How did we get into this mess? The real culprits are all of us, not just those who voted for Bush or who supported the idiotic decision to invade Iraq (I never did either). By continuing to live in communities so distant from where we work that we have to commute everyday, by driving alone in a gas-guzzling vehicle everyday, by refusing to use mass transit or to cut out even one unnecessary trip per week, by hiring illegal aliens to tend our gardens and keep our homes, and on and on and on (guilty on all counts). This nation is a shadow of its former self, and we’re going to get exactly what we deserve. We’ll probably wind up being Chinese serfs if things continue going in the same direction. But I digress at the same time as I run out of steam.

“Oh my, all these pro-draft arguments remind me of last day of a college history class where all the liberals argued that the draft was necessary so that everyone had to sacrifice something, and not just those who saw the military as their only hope in life. People seems to forget the basics of liberty. When one argues that the draft is necessary they are arguing that the state owns them. No voluntary contract is signed. That is slavery. There are also many practical reasons for not re-instituting the draft, such as ill fit soldiers and the ability of the government, to wage war more easily. This debacle in Iraq would have been easier to commence with a draft, not harder.”

What “liberal” argues for a draft?? Any and every left-standing liberal citizen I’ve encountered (and my part of the country is primarily liberals) believes fully that a draft violates basic civil liberties, forcing bystanders (or protesters) to become unwillingly active participants in a conflict that if they wished to support, they would have volunteered.

I do, however, agree with the rest of your commentary – that a draft will institute state ownership of people, ill-fit soldiers, drastically increased bureaucratic management, etc. I have never handled a gun, and I don’t intend to point one at an Iraqi because GW tells me to. I certainly don’t intend to allow my life and liberty to be stripped away from me for a “cause” that began with deception, continues unjustly at the expense of innocent lives (both military and civilian), costs the American and global economies billions of dollars per week, and can and will only end with further losses of innocent life, all the while being run a continent away from the leather chairs of a rancher who has ignored the polls of the people for the last 4 years, perpetually deceives the nation in the current state of affairs, and who openly thought an electoral campaign was more worth his time than the very draft he seeks to implement.

Well, as an innocent civilian who supports the troops who signed up to defend the nation (NOT invade countries), and who abhors the war, my time and life will be spent supporting and raising my family. I shall not, ever, be forcefully committed to fighting a war I never voted for, I never supported, and I certainly never volunteered for.

It is not. Not in the least bit.

The draft should be a last resort measure to protect the United States, not a tool to carry out poorly planned and executed foreign excursions for ambiguous reasons (What were they again? I forget..)

Attempts to portray the Iraq war as a matter of national security is blatant propaganda by right-wing individuals and manipulative politicians with hidden agendas. Most specifically, it’s these individuals that are part of the Bush/Cheney/Rove personality cult that has infested Washington since 2000.

Oh wait…we need soldiers who are willing to invade someone else…well, maybe we do need a draft.

(Someone tell me again where the WMDs were?)