Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (55179)	7/1/1999 11:28:00 PM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

One argument against a draft is that with a volunteer army the guys want to be there and they make better soldiers. More gung ho. It makes the left nervous when a bunch of guys volunteer to fight and become experts in weaponry, swearing allegiance to each other and fostering their own code and culture. I understand JLA's point, though. Young men and women (particularly men) no longer have a rite of passage. Our old faiths (Judaism and Catholocism) have rites of passage for their young people, but they have been watered down by modernism. Until the 60s a young Catholic took vows to renounce Lucifer and was accepted as a soldier in the army of Christ. I don't know how Confirmation in the modernist Catholic church works today, but I hear its a joke. I think there are still cultures in the world where a young man is given a spear and told he can't come back until hes killed a lion. We need to find our equivalent of that. If those two ding dongs in Colorado had had the proper rite of passage what happened wouldn't have happened.

To: DMaA who wrote (55179)	7/2/1999 1:34:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Okay...I am not committed, remember,but I do wonder if more people should pull their weight, if the expense of an all volunteer force is not a bit wasteful, and if a draft would help to buttress standards. On the other hand, there is the argument that too many draftees would be unsuited to the life, and therefore would be better employed elsewhere; that the draft comes too close to "involuntary servitude"; that the kind of political abuse of the military that we have lately seen would be even worse if it involved people who had not freely contracted to be there; and that the kind of exemptions that are commonly made guarantee a degree of unfairness that voluntary enlistment cures. Did I state both sides fairly? Anybody want to amplify on either side?