Patriotism is more than a bumperstrip.

"Why not conscript young people, train them in a military way, then assign them to guard ports of entry." Why not train retired people to do this instead, they have time on their hands and are retired and could use the extra money?

You said young people, do you mean men and women?

You forget that we are a free people, not a military state.  This is not Israel or even Saudi Arabia. We do not force people into the military anymore than we force people into college. While military service is for some people it is not for all. MIC and myself did not serve, for different reasons I am sure, but whatever the reason it does not make us any less patriotic than a person who has served.

If my daughters came to me and said they wanted to serve I would not stop them. However, if they said they did not want to I would not make them, whether it be a son or daughter of mine.

Indie,

If MIC did serve I have never heard him make mention of it. If he did I was unaware.

Indie,

I have no ideas why he would or wouldn't have, I just assumed they would have been different than mine because we are two different people from two different backgrounds. No accusation here either.

yes...This includes women, and conscription (mandatory service to the government interests includes, but is not limited to military service)  I think this is what Mr. Rangel proposes rather than a "draft" that is only to the military service in time of war.

Hey...I lived in Syria, and men and women got the same training, and it was mandatory if one wanted to go into higher education.  After the basic training, which lasted 2 years for men, and one year for women, a man could choose to join the military service as a career, and a woman could choose a "non combatant role" in the military service as a career.  In a time of "emergency" all persons were expected to deal with it until it was resolved.  Men could be moved to a battle line, women usually stayed home and defended the young and/or supplied the battle front.  Yes, the women learned to use weapons, small arms and small rockets (the Katusha rocket was the one I learned to handle because it was what they had then...guess my age is telling...huh) drive trucks, simple machanical work, treating wounds...etc.  I think that because I have seen what we can do to each other is the main reason I hate war.

However anyone who refused the mandatory period could not go into higher education, and most employers would not hire a person who did not complete thier training.

Maybe it was that we always had a "threat" at the door and not alot of high tech weapons or money to fight war.  Perhaps it is different here in America but AA I think you have missed my point, and it is this....

If someone proposed that there was a threat to our nation, and that we would have to go to war to resove it,   knowing that his children, nieces and nephews would have the same chance as any other mothers son or daughter to go to war...belive me, the threat would be made very clear to the American people, the objective would be clear, and what completion of the objective (victory) looks like would be known before the first shot was fired.  We as Americans would certianly ask hard questions, and demand precise answers, and if the direction of the war is not meeting the objective, we would hold the administrators of the war, including the congress and our President responsible for changing it.  We would be more engaged in the debate and the conversation of war.

And finally...but most importantly to me...we would not intrust the decision to go to war to a few people.  We are less likely to make a consensous about war simply on fear and misinformation.  Simply put, if my son and or daugher were fighting in Iraq...belive me, O.J. Simpson, Micheal Jackson and K-Fed (whoever that is) would take a back burner in the news. 

Choosy mother's choose INFORMATION over the leading propaganda brand.

Peace be unto you all...

Zanubiyah

I agree with Rangel. Bring back the draft, and find the sons and daughters of the brave American's who favor sending our best and brightest off to die in elective wars, draft their butts, send them to Where;shereistan and Ira? and let them die driving convoy duty. It lets the brave Americans realyy own the whole patriotism thing, and removes their non ownership issue - its easy to be a hawk, if none of your kids are in harms way. But with a selective draft, the load mouth jerks' kids would be the first to go die in Iraq.

And if the kid was 4-f because they had one eye, one arm or ass boils like Rush Limbaugh or bad knees like Pat Buchannon, then we could have a Patriot's ceremony where these brave young men would be sacrificed on an alter to the Gods of War, their honor preserved, and no one could ever question their patriotism.

Zanubiyah

If, and I mean IF this nation were under attack I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone not willing to fight for her. One of the great wisdoms of our founders was the knowledge that an armed citizenry posed a great obstacle to invasion and occupation by foreign forces.

This is why we have a Second Amendment reaffirming our God-Given Right to keep and bear arms for defense of ourself, property, State and Nation - from enemies both foreign and domestic. Our Founding Fathers prefered citizen soldiers over large professional standing armies because of cost and the potential for abuse, as we have seen many times in our short history

If you need an example of what a poorly trained and armed, loose knit bunch of citizen soldiers can do, look no further than Iraq. We, the worlds lone superpower, can't win in Iraq 

Our Founding Father's also gave us a system of government that, if followed, would prevent wars for empire. Korea, Vietnam and both Iraq wars would have never happened if Congress had to do it's job and declare war in an open vote.

A draft is not needed, returning to our constitutional roots will solve 90% of the problem. Thats what the debate should be. 

I think that some of my point is being lost by using the word "draft" instead of "conscription".  I know that the "draft" was used as a way to induct young men into military service in the time of war.  Conscription, to me is different in that it would happen all the time, and not be limited to military service unless there is a national emergency where our nation needed to be defended with weapons.  I feel there is nothing wrong with a civilian using a cannon, or rocket launcher, or a light automatic weapon to defend his hometown, his street, and his neighbours against a threat.

I think it is important to understand the difference between a standing (national military) and a militia.  The people (say like  the Hizb'Allah fighters in Lebanon) are not fighting for thier nation as a first priority.  They are fighting with and for thier neighbours, friends and family in thier own neighbourhoods.  As these small bands are all over the place with the same goal in mind, they make up the defence of thier nation as a whole.  It is much harder to destroy a movement if there is no central control, and the military stategy is designed specificly to the place where the fighters live, what they have to work with, and who they are fighting with.  However, the goal of all the fighters is common.  They train and respond to a specific threat, and when that threat has been beaten back or eliminated, they go back to thier civilian duties.   Everyone has a "stake" in the outcome, so all participate in a common goal.  I think that this is what a "standing military system" does not get, and does not understand why the people fight with such vigor and stamina, as we have seen of recent events.

The second thing I noticed is that most who are against this conscription bill is that they fear they or thier children may have to participate in military acts.  I think it does not matter to you whether you are opposed to war, your religion forbids war, or whatever your reasoning not to fight   I think that one must realize that no matter who goes to meet the threat, we all have to live with it's outcome, no matter what.  We all have benefitted from those who have served this nation, and unfortunatly some have lost thier lives to defend against defined enemies, and some also, who on the surface have said they are our friends, and to keep thier own interests in tact, have destroyed the lives and reputations of others.  I think that those who are opposed to everyone having a stake in thier own freedoms by service to thier nation are just as selfish as those in power now who send other mother's children to the battle lines to defend ideological or economic interests.  

I think that we must all understand the costs and sacrifices of others who have enabled us to enjoy what we have today.  I think that if we did, we would fight harder to preserve it than we do now.  The counter to the fear that as driven this nations policies against the best interests of the liberties, and freedoms of it's citizens is best addressed with a confidence that we, the individual can defend it, and joined by our neighbours, friends and families, we make one nation, undivided for liberty and justice.

So...yes my fellow article writer "Hunter", I agree with you 100%.

Unity in diversity is hard to divide.

Peace Be Unto You

Zanubiyah