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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Snowshoe who wrote (15783)	1/7/2002 9:13:22 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Would universal selective service make our country stronger? I think a lot of the "Old Farts" on this thread are envious. Remember, when we where that age, we were "young, dumb, and full of come".

To: Snowshoe who wrote (15783)	1/8/2002 1:43:44 AM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

Would universal selective service make our country stronger? I don't think so. We are strong because of our freedom to follow our creative impulses. Speak for yourself, Snow. You're displaying your bias against us 298-lb. weaklings. In fact, I'm pretty sure a Sri Lankan lady's church choir could take me down like a marshmallow. What's great about America is its refusal to purge its ranks of misfits like me. That's not creative. That's silly. But it's a great silly.

To: Snowshoe who wrote (15783)	1/8/2002 10:02:05 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Would universal selective service make our country stronger? I don't think so. We are strong because of our freedom to follow our creative impulses. Hmmm... not to beat a dead horse, but the Swiss and the Israelis have mandatory service, and I don't believe they are particulary devoid of "creative impulses". In fact, I would suggest that most of the creative impulses 18 and 19 year old kids have revolve around using their computers to create fake IDs so they can buy beer for their parties. What is it about "depriving" these 18-19 years old of these wasted years, and giving them a common experience they can share for the rest of their lives with every other American, that you find so offensive? Show me how the rest of society would be harmed, is we just locked away 18-19 year kids for two years on some Island of Hedonism (since that's what most of were seeking during those years)? Considering that young adults of that age are primarily involved in working low-income labor jobs, or pursuing college and/or technical schools, one can presume that there are two "wasted" years that could do with some discipline and real-world training. And I'm not just talking about menial conscription duties, though that will obviously be a part of it. Depending on aptitude and proven skills, those performing their national service might actually find themselves supervising other personnel. And AGAIN, I referring to providing more than just military manpower. I'm focusing on involving young people in construction engineering, health care, and other non-military service. Those pursuing medical or engineering degrees would be eligible for tuition assistance from the government, upon completion of which, they educational "debt" would be payed off by their two years of service in areas where their skills are most needed (rebuilding bridges, highways, and other infrastructure projects). This is really no different than how current medical students are required to perform a period of "residency" upon completing their medical degrees. Except that the government determines the location where they serve, not some private hospital. So do medical residents consider their mandatory service as "slavery"? Hardly. It's just an obligation they have to perform before they are permitted to obtain private medical licensing. Btw, I found your link about "channeling" of great interest. Personally, I find such a program objective to be prejudiced because society determines who risks their lives in the military, while others were deferred so long as they remained in certain job fields. Universal service would required all able-bodied individuals, no matter their societal or financial status, to give several years of service. No able-bodied person would be deferred as this would violate the spirit of the program and create resentment. Again, the formative years of 18-19 are generally wasted years. I ask anyone to tell me that those years of their lives were not spent wondering what to do with their lives, or in seeking a sense of purpose and structure to their lives. That's all that I believe national service would provide.. structure and a sense of confidence lacking in many young people. This is how I felt at that time in my life, and I can't believe I'm so different than most everyone else. I personally come from a heavily Mormon community, where every young man was expected to serve a religious mission upon arriving at the age of 19 (I believe it's currently 18 months). And while not advocating any particular religion, I can say that most of these guys came back much more mature and disciplined than they had been before they left. And since many served overseas, they possessed experiences that most young people would never obtain outside of performing military service. Those who claim that I'm referring to "socialism" or "slavery", are just over-reacting out of emotion. Every part of our lives is at some moment, spent performing an obligation, and not pursuring our personal "freedoms" and dreams. Those with children know this feeling quite sharply. And unfortunately in our society, many young people discover this responsibility before ever leaving high school. And no, I don't believe we can defer those young people who have children.. They would just be required to serve somewhere local to their families. Hawk