"Needed: Sense of service and sacrifice" (Mackenzie calls for 'compulsory service'

Great quote. Thank you. I agree. I think that men should fight for the common defense when necessary, and I think that in times of emergent need that it is reasonable to draft men. See the above comments to some misinterpreters or femninists. It is never reasonable to draft women. The men will do the fighting. And it is never reasonable to force men into politically correct servitude. I suspect we agree on all this.

Read my comments again more carefully. We AGREE. I am not against a draft. Men should defend the country if they want to live here. I am against nationalist socialists co-opting the concept of a legitimate draft to force political correctness upon us that has essentially nothing to do with national defense.

I will never agree that WOMEN may be drafted. Keeping our women from having to fight and kill that is one of the things we are defending! It does not mean that women can't fight--it means that they should not have to.

If we ever got to the point that women HAD to fight then we will be fighting on home soil and that's a circumstance beyond what we are discussing. Otherwise we men can and will defend the women, and if a draft is needed for legitimate national defense I agree with that.

National Service is something I've been thinking about for some time. I firmly and truly believe it is needed, but do not know what form it will or could take. It might not be mandatory. It could be voluntary. I don't know. What I do know it, the GI Bill was a terrific piece of legislation. It gave guys who never had an opportunity, a terrific start in life. And they did amazing things.

I also believe we're squandering our youth, as previously stated. Brain power will be the greatest natural resource of the 21st century and we're throwing it away wholesale.

As for women serving in the military, I believe they should have the opportunity, but not subject to the draft. There have been a lot of books written on the subject, not the least of which is Martin Van Creveld's, which clearly lays out that the vast majority of women are not as effective in combat as men. Creveld is a brilliant historian and I tend to believe him.

Man are you sensitive. At best you are talking like a Libertarian. Principled but unrealistic. Hopefully that's it, because if that's not it then the best thing I can call your position is un-American and I won't describe the rest lest you take it wrong.

You are wrong about women and the draft. WOMEN HAVE ALWAYS BEEN EXEMPT FROM THE DRAFT AND THEY OUGHT TO BE. The 80's has nothing to do with it. Radical feminism sucks eggs, but unlike you I am not going to have my daughters drafted just to throw feminist equality mis-logic back in their faces.

No real men think that women ought to be drafted for combat. Feminist men might. Libertarians trying to make a point might. Take that however you want, Paul, but I am not going to let people like you draft my daughters for combat just so you can make a political point.

Oops, did I imply that you think ANYONE may ever be drafted? "My bad," as you clearly are pushing for no draft at all for anyone under any circumstances.

Well, that is the real issue here. You do not think that anyone ever should be drafted, so by gosh, if they are going to draft men then they dang well should have to draft women, right?

Here I am advocating that there should be (1) no non-defense national service for men or (2) women, and (3) no national defense draft for women, but the fact that I agree with a draft for men in time of national need just sticks in your craw. We agree on 3 out of 4 points but for some reason that 4th point that there in fact is a legitimate type of draft for men just sets you off.

In fact, you might as well be espousing your illogic at almost everyone here because ALL I am advocating it that I agree with the status quo. Things are fine as they are! I just do not want to see for political correctness either a non-defense national service, or a draft of women, EXACTLY WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE HERE IN THESE UNITED STATES.

So what is your problem? I think that your agenda is to eliminate a draft completely, right, and to do that you are willing to sacrifice our women and try to act like we have to draft everyone including women or else (what you really want) never draft anyone at all for any reason.

You can have the last word, Paul, because my position is quite clear through this thread and it does not need further clarification. But the best thing for you to do is state your own position clearly for us all to see.

Answer these 4 true-false questions if you dare (I think you answer all false, even the first, but we will see if you are willing to say so in public):

(1) It is a legitimate power of the United States to draft able-bodied military age MEN for necessary national defense, true or false? I say TRUE. What do you say?

(2) It is a legitimate power of the United States to draft able-bodied military age WOMEN for necessary national defense, true or false? I say FALSE. What do you say?

(3) It is a legitimate power of the United States to compel any and all MEN to perform national service not directly related to necessary national defense. I say FALSE. What do you say?

(4) It is a legitimate power of the United States to compel any and all WOMEN to perform national service not directly related to necessary national defense. I say FALSE. What do you say?

I don't like the idea of mandatory service. As for the draft... I disagree that women should be excluded. You seem to think that all draftees will be handed a rifle and assigned to infantry units. That's a bogus assumption. As for women in combat... They're serving in Iraq now (in Combat Support and Combat Service Support jobs) and I dare say our Army couldn't function without them. I say if it's OK for women to voluteer, it's OK for them to be drafted.
As to the size of the military... Something needs to be done. We are getting stretched too thin. Some units are spending more time in combat zones than they are stateside. That has to change as these men and women are getting tired. The abundance of talk and lack of action on this issue should be of great concern to everyone.

I will never agree that WOMEN may be drafted. Keeping our women from having to fight and kill that is one of the things we are defending! It does not mean that women can't fight--it means that they should not have to.

If I miscontrued your comments, please accept my apologies; they didn't come across that way to me.

And, we agree with the sentence above. Women served this nation brilliantly in WWII by filling in for them in the factories, the shipyards and as pilots delivering new aircraft. I, too, don't believe they have any business on the battlefield, even though most of them are tougher than men (IMO). Truth to be told, as a wounded soldier, I would rather look up at their beautiful faces from my hospital bed, than have to look at their mangled, dead, bodies after a battle.

Like you, dad, it just doesn't work for me.

Man are you sensitive. At best you are talking like a Libertarian. Principled but unrealistic. Hopefully that's it, because if that's not it then the best thing I can call your position is un-American and I won't describe the rest lest you take it wrong.

Name calling only hurts your position.

You are wrong about women and the draft. WOMEN HAVE ALWAYS BEEN EXEMPT FROM THE DRAFT AND THEY OUGHT TO BE. The 80's has nothing to do with it.

You missed my entire point about how feminists want elitism over men and NOT equality, and how you support THEIR opinion.

Answer these 4 true-false questions if you dare (I think you answer all false, even the first, but we will see if you are willing to say so in public):

Nope, they are 'loaded' questions that each require a detailed explaination on. But since you keep missing the points I make, I think it is a waste of time to go into a more in-depth discussion on until after you understand the basics.

Compulsion and service are notions commonly - but not exclusively - fostered by the left.

Well, duh. It is to be expected that communist ideas would be commonly (though not exclusively, because some rightists, e.g. MacKenzie, are stupid) sponsored by the left.

I don't know how to break this to you, friend, but we all live in some sort of slavery. We are slave to our boss, our mortgage company, our families, the IRS, the HOA, etc.

This idiotic garbage is the same excuse antebellum slaveholders used to justify their "peculiar institution", with bogus assertions that free factory workers were as badly treated as slaves.

There's nothing wrong with having a stake in this nation.

Every citizen already has that. Part of the price is defending the nation against the government.

Virtually every country on earth has something similar.

This is the United States of America, not some two-bit fleabag country like France.

Suppose an all-out world war breaks out

In the event of "all-out world war", it takes two guys per silo to turn the keys. We have more than enough people for that.

We have a stake in it because we stepped up to ensure that others will still have the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

Yep, and when the government gets out of line again, it needs to be slapped down again.

I actually thought it was a the govt's role to fix problems

Then why are you on FR instead of DU?

You talk a good story, but you can't and never have walked the walk. What you know about slavery and the antebellum South would fit comfortably on the head of a pin a leave plenty of room for the Lord's Prayer and the Gettysburg Address.

How many folks like you does it take to proclaim "Let George do it", before there are too many of you and not enough of us? Carter successfully undermined the draft by pardoning all the Vietnam darft dodgers. The question is, what if everyone decides to run away to canada the next time there's a major war or some conflict that you disagree with? Who will defend America? By pardoning the draft dodgers, Carter might as well as painted "sucker" on the forehead of every veteran, living and dead, who went to 'Nam.

It is through the grace of God and the blessings of selfless individuals who are more concerned about the well-being of others and not themselves, that we have as fine a military as we do. There are givers and takers in this world - those who give of themselves for the benefit of others are the givers. Those who are more concerned about themselves are the takers.

You, sir, are a taker.