<the draft is certainly loaded with political issues...i agree there. but i do not recall anyone ever suggesting it is illegal.
btw the basic mechanisms to reinstate the draft are in place...>
Well, there goes the much vaunted freedom! I say it is no better than slavery, which was of course legal, but still immoral and unethical.
<i believe the draft army more closely resembled our culture, and it was much cheaper. >
That's right! Actually, rather than just press-gang males into the cannon-fodder ranks to serve the interests of those who decide where the military action is required to 'defend our interests and our beloved freedom', why not reintroduce slavery? Then those conscripted could be paid even less.
What? You wouldn't conscript females? Good grief, what about all that feminist stuff and non-sexist stuff we have heard so much about for decades.
Yep, those Afghan Taleban are real bad guys for forcing their ways on other people but conscription to attack other people is all hunky-dory; in defence of liberty of course.
There's no moral high ground in the fight with the Taleban. It's basically a male dominance hierarchy chimp fight for territory, same as for millions of years - GeorgeW even looks like a chimp. If we accept that, at least we won't deceive ourselves about what's going on.
<we all hear freedom is not free. as a combat veteran, i can tell you the real price of freedom cannot be measured in dollars. the dollars will buy the guns and ammo...but you will find it difficult at best and more likely impossible to field a large effective American army based on a pay scale motivator. Americans will not die for a buck...but they will willingly go into battle and die for love.>
So, how come they need to be conscripted? They'll volunteer out of love if the cause is right. Freedom will be free for those who don't have males to contribute and who get a free ride on defence by underpaying for that defence.
Why not try paying instead of conscription? I think soldiers should be paid seriously large amounts of money and held in high esteem. I find it extremely offensive that people can have their lives confiscated in the interests of tightwads who are happy to have others die for their interests.
Sure, to pay enough to attract people would be expensive. So what? Even if it took the total value of the community, with promissory notes on the future too, it would be worth it if freedom is as great as the sloganeers and cliche artists purport.
You couldn't pay me enough to commit military crimes and nor could you force me to commit military crimes in defence of some 'interests' which is the common military action and explanation these days. If you try conscripting me for something I don't support, you declare war on me and you will lose. Will is free, meaning 'free will', not that somebody else can confiscate it. You cannot conscript love. If I do agree that something needs defending, then I would expect those who benefit from the defence to get their money out. If they are not prepared to do that, then why on earth should somebody defend them.
Communism is nearly finished! Please don't recommend 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', in military service or anything else. Compulsory, conscripted, press-ganged military service "for the good of the proletariat and to look after Exxon's oil supplies" is not part of freedom.
If somebody wants military service, let them pay the market rate for it.
The price of freedom can be measured in dollars.
Mqurice |
