Deferment or not it's still conscription which is taking people against
their will. Another word for slavery no matter how well it's disguised.
Resorting to which is proof the societal system has failed and is not worth
saving. Such systems have always deferred the elite and drawn heavily from
the defenseless masses.

Think a minute. If the prosecution of the wars in Kosovo or Iraq was
dependent on the soldiers voting with their feet (Go Home or Go To War)
Or for that matter if the same was used in WWI, WWII, Korea,Viet-Nam what
would the vote have been?

Hint: In WWII the majority of those in uniform were drafted. Tell you
something?

Now as a professional soldier I looked at it a bit differently. I didn't
come forward for love of anything more than a paycheck. Well . .at first I
did but I learned fast.

So there are three choices.

a. One is military slavery as you seem to be promoting. It's the system
used by failures with big guns and bigger jails to coerce support. Can't
stand alone and needs professionals (see part b) to make sure they toe the
line.

b. One is using a professional military, mercenaries is a good word.
Buying loyalty with money in other words. Not bad if you are the highest
bidder and the end product is fantastically good at what it does. They
don't question the job, they just perform, get paid, and go on vacation.

c. Finally, seeing if what you are going to war about will get voluntary
support in sufficient numbers.

Which is the most democratic? (Small "d".) Which is the most dictatorial?
I know, it's obviously rhetorical.

I'll try again. Which group would you trust the most with a loaded weapon,
in the middle of Kansas?

M.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
You shouldn't be surprised. He was advocating a non-deferment draft,
wherein
those who have privilege aren't exempt. Seems right to me.

"Michael" wrote in message
...
Yes I was surprised that Rangle of all people supported a return to
active
conscription. Another term for slavery. I think what it takes is
either
a
declaration of war by the Congress (and one of the reasons they didn't)
or
a
Presidential order/decree whatever they call it. Whatever, the youth of
the
country are very much on the hook.

M.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
It would take an act of Congress. I believe Rangle (sp?) has
introduced
such legislation.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:09:54 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

What do you mean 'if we still had the draft?' The Selective
Service
System
is alive, well and ready to be used when needed. All 18 and older
males
are
still required to register for universal conscription. When cannon
fodder
is needed . . . . .re-activating the system is but a computer push
button
away.


We do not currently have a draft, and it would take a bit more than
a
push of a button to create one.

BB

And, I still like the idea. I think that the privileges or citizenship
require
some sacrifice. Serving in the military seems reasonable to me.

"Michael" wrote in message
...
Deferment or not it's still conscription which is taking people against
their will. Another word for slavery no matter how well it's disguised.
Resorting to which is proof the societal system has failed and is not
worth
saving. Such systems have always deferred the elite and drawn heavily
from
the defenseless masses.

Think a minute. If the prosecution of the wars in Kosovo or Iraq was
dependent on the soldiers voting with their feet (Go Home or Go To War)
Or for that matter if the same was used in WWI, WWII, Korea,Viet-Nam what
would the vote have been?

Hint: In WWII the majority of those in uniform were drafted. Tell you
something?

Now as a professional soldier I looked at it a bit differently. I didn't
come forward for love of anything more than a paycheck. Well . .at first
I
did but I learned fast.

So there are three choices.

a. One is military slavery as you seem to be promoting. It's the system
used by failures with big guns and bigger jails to coerce support. Can't
stand alone and needs professionals (see part b) to make sure they toe the
line.

b. One is using a professional military, mercenaries is a good word.
Buying loyalty with money in other words. Not bad if you are the highest
bidder and the end product is fantastically good at what it does. They
don't question the job, they just perform, get paid, and go on vacation.

c. Finally, seeing if what you are going to war about will get voluntary
support in sufficient numbers.

Which is the most democratic? (Small "d".) Which is the most dictatorial?
I know, it's obviously rhetorical.

I'll try again. Which group would you trust the most with a loaded
weapon,
in the middle of Kansas?

M.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
You shouldn't be surprised. He was advocating a non-deferment draft,
wherein
those who have privilege aren't exempt. Seems right to me.

"Michael" wrote in message
...
Yes I was surprised that Rangle of all people supported a return to
active
conscription. Another term for slavery. I think what it takes is
either
a
declaration of war by the Congress (and one of the reasons they
didn't)
or
a
Presidential order/decree whatever they call it. Whatever, the youth
of
the
country are very much on the hook.

M.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
It would take an act of Congress. I believe Rangle (sp?) has
introduced
such legislation.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:09:54 -0800, "Michael"

wrote:

What do you mean 'if we still had the draft?' The Selective
Service
System
is alive, well and ready to be used when needed. All 18 and
older
males
are
still required to register for universal conscription. When
cannon
fodder
is needed . . . . .re-activating the system is but a computer
push
button
away.


We do not currently have a draft, and it would take a bit more
than
a
push of a button to create one.

BB