I submit that if you are of military age it is IMMORAL to support the war and NOT volunteer.

[Tyler Durden]

And I mean volunteer for the ARMED FORCES. And it means your PROGENY TOO, MITT.

No more of this "...I can serve the country better by (insert bullshit excuse here)..." PERIOD.

I don't care WHY they believe that they and theirs are unsuitable cannon fodder; THEY ARE WRONG, and if they behave so, then they are HYPOCRITES and worse.

I say this as a USN active and USNR veteran: if you SUPPORT the war and you or your offspring do not serve IN THE MILITARY, then you are unworthy to be a voting citizen.

[wtmusic]

1. Why? I hire a plumber to do my plumbing for me

why can't I hire a soldier to do my fighting for me? (actual response from a client of mine, when confronted) :silly:

[Annces]

2. Agree

If you think war is necessary, then you should have no problem enlisting yourself, or envisioning your children enlisting.

If you would not enlist, then you have no business voting in favor of the war or enabling others to start a war.

[gravity]

3. Umm no

It might be hypocritical, but saying that it's immoral and should be unworthy of voting is crossing the line.

[Tyler Durden]

6. It would be hard to enforce, but I find it entirely reasonable.

The best solution of all is a deferment-free draft.

See how long one of these wars for profit lasts when rich Republican assholes get to serve, along side their kids.

Draft Card = voter's registration card, UNLESS you sign up for and DO community service. LOVE to see a few of those stockbroker's kids doing teacher's aide work in the inner city: that would ALSO stop the war real quick. Plus, if they say NO, THEY DON'T VOTE and THAT would stop the war real quick.

[gravity]

18. I think the whole premise is absurd

Should it be that only people who are in the military can vote for not going to war too? What happens if there is a small escalation, where only a limited number of troops are needed?

The people who choose to serve our country want to do it the most, that's why they volunteered and signed up. Forcing more people into the military who really don't want to be there is not going to make our country in better. The situation in Iraq is getting complicated right now with, since our troops are being stretched thin, so a draft might be needed in this case. It doesn't mean that all military operations should be backed up with a draft though.

I do think most of the chicken-hawks are hypocrites, but the laws you propose are not any better which takes away our rights as citizens. If you are worried about war profiteering, then pass laws that make war profiteering a crime.

[Tyler Durden]

19. You are not reading the whole concept...

...which can include:

REAL community service of suitable duration instead of Wall Street as an occupation...
PERMANENT HIGHER tax rates for the non-cooperating.

Or whatever else you want to substitute, but CITIZENSHIP is an obligation, and should have a corresponding service to the population.

[gravity]

28. You are punishing people based on their political views

If there is a shortage of troops or community service, then a draft is necessary, but you shouldn't just implement one just to get back at one group of the population.

It's the same with taxes, if we are experiencing a costly war, then raise the top tax bracket to cover the war. You don't have to make it permanent increase for everyone who supports a war but doesn't enlist. What happens if you are a pacifists and don't choose to fight, do you have to pay high taxes too? How do you even determine support for a conflict?

[Tyler Durden]

31. The point of all this is to PREVENT this sort of nonsense in the future

Universal Service (IF the executive retains the "right" to aggressive war without formal declaration) is an absolute necessity.

This has nothing to do with "getting back." We have produced an "elite" in this country that feel they can support whatever sort of nonsense they want as long as it brings them PROFIT and costs them no money or blood. A PACIFIST on the other hand can provide USEFUL and MEANINGFUL service to the community and be then held accountable for citizenship.

As to a PERMANENT increase in taxes...why on earth not? If a group (other than a legitimate group of pacifists, example: the Amish) does not participate in the War or Service, then why should they not be taxed for that "privilege?"

I see nothing unfair in this concept.

[ATK]

29. can't seem to find that in the constitution? perhaps we need an amendmenbt

that makes it against the law to work on wallstreet or hold public office, to included state and local, if you've not served in the miltiary during a time of war.

[Tyler Durden]

37. NO, you're not reading it right.

It SAYS, if there is UNIVERSAL SERVICE/CONSCRIPTION, then if you CHOOSE not to be in the armed forces, you MAY choose some form of community service, and if you DON'T want to do EITHER, you can NOT VOTE or you can be TAXED at a higher rate.

Still seems fair to me.

[colinmom71]

40. What you're proposing then...

Becomes a de facto poll tax, and I'm reasonably certain that poll taxes have been rendered to be unconstitutional not to mention violative of equal access to due process under the law... Also, as you're describing your proposal, as someone mentioned above, you're essentially making certain political opinions to be subject to official review and judgement and then basing the *right* to vote to be fungible according to one's political notions. This is what some neo-conservatives are quite willing to do to those of us who oppose their political opinions...

Besides, it's unreasonable to consider such a proposal to also have no recourse for deferring service. Requiring conscription into the armed forces or mandatory community service in order to vote does not take into account that not all persons are able to make the commitment to either "choice", such as persons with disabilities, single parents, sole household wage earner, etc. I know that my own family situation would not allow either my husband or myself to be able to commit to either option. But according to what you propose, we would both lose our right to vote because the arbitrary commitment to the armed forces or community service is prohibitive for us...

Voting is primarily a right (and also a responsbility) of the citizens of a free society by virtue of their citizenship of said society. It is not to be held subject to the whims of political popularity or movements... I understand your frustration with the current political climate, but this proposal is not the right solution.

[Tyler Durden]

42. It depends on how you hold "rights" and "responsibilities"

In my cosmology, "Rights" imply "Responsibilities" that cannot be re-assigned. Can you "OPT OUT" of Jury duty? NOPE. Same thing, just on a larger scale, and there is PLENTY of recourse: what this does is it makes the citizen RESPONSIBLE for the actions of the franchise, and gives two completely non-involving "OUTS."

I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but I don't see in a RESPONSIBLE free society that there is any other alternative. To say otherwise gives the "right" to march other citizens off to war without taking any responsibility on one's self.

Disabled, CO's, and Single Parents are OBVIOUS exclusions to such a rule.

[Thothmes]

51. Vote

Doubt this would stand Constitutional scrutiny

[Tyler Durden]

62. Of course not.

This is a hypothetical moral discussion that would require restructure.

Then again, I AM a Socialist, and that's the sort of thing that floats my boat.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Hypocrisy is immoral.

Last I checked.

[pampango]

20. But not illegal and does not disqualify one from having and

expressing an opinion (though it should affect the weight we give to such opinions).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. Nobody mentioned law.

They just said it was immoral.

[TahitiNut]

4. As long as we call ourselves a 'democracy' and our nation supports military forces ...

... then every citizen should be subject to national service and share the risks and burdens equitably.

To take postures contrary to this seems to have the same stink as people who shit on the floor and 'hire' others to clean it up - a kind of plantation elitism.

I strongly subscribe to the principles of peace and diplomacy ... but I lock my doors. I'll be happy to not lock my own doors and defend myself and mine when we actually accomplish a crime-free society. Likewise, there will be no wartime use for a military force when there's no war - and then we'll only have a peacetime force like the Coast Guard that (per tradition) maintains aids to navigation and performs search and rescue operations. Until then, we must equitably share the fruits of our own governance, whether sweet or sour, if we're to call ourselves a 'democracy.' I do not see an ethical alternative. (Even COs serve as medics.)

[pampango]

5. We are all free to be hypocrits, including/especially politicians.

I may not be hypocritical on the war, just as, in an opposite sense, some RW'ers in the military are not hypocritical, but I am sure you can find other issues where I am. There are many issues on which I may wish to express an opinion, but do not wish to participate in the implementation of a policy, building roads, implementing the expansion of medical coverage, higher spending on public education, etc.

[Tyler Durden]

9. You can participate in non-lethal issues through TAXES.

Putting one's "...ass in the grass..." should not be optional, and believe me, 13+ years in the military has made me a confirmed pacifist.

[pampango]

32. Fair enough, but I participate in war by paying taxes, also.

To force me to put my "ass in the grass" and be a lousy soldier makes no more sense than forcing me to work highway construction or teach elementary school, when I would be lousy at both, just because I support both concepts and am willing to pay taxes to support them.

I understand that support for war would be much less, if supporters were forced to be soldiers. But the same case could be made by RW'ers against some of our causes. If I favor national health care or superior public education, the RW will chime in that I should work in the public health care sector or teach school, if I care so much. My response might be that that's different because my life would not be on the line, but that is weak.

A case could be made that it should be more appropriate to force me to back my political beliefs with action, e.g. working in education, precisely because I would not even be risking my life. Is it less hypocritical to force a war supporter (favors violent conflict) to enlist (lethal risk) or to force me (favoring a particular educational policy) to work in public education (with a low level of personal risk)?

[ATK]

7. I submit your poll is flawed on the basis of

if you're going to take the position that only those who've served can support a war, then how long will it take for someone to take the position that only soldiers, former or current, can have a say in whether we fight wars? Afterall, only a soldier, especially a combat veteran, has seen both war and peace.
In addition, saying that peoples' children should serve because of the views of their parents is absolutely ridiculous. we have a volunteer military and each person gets to make a choice about whether they want to serve in that military or not. My choice to serve wasn't because my parents supported vietnam or because my father fought there. I did so because I felt it was my way of contributing something to this country. For some people, the Military is not what they want to do and that should be respected, no matter what the views are on the war.

afterall, don't we say Afghanistan is the "right" war? and how many people who take that view have enlisted to serve in afghanistan.

not a sermon, just a thought.

[Tyler Durden]

13. Those who WILL serve.

Meaning certified COMMUNITY SERVICE. Do your weekends for a couple of years cleaning up the freeways. Instead of "...serving the country on Wall Street..." you get to be a teacher's aide in the inner city (PAID of course).

There are hundreds of ways this service could work, but if you opt out of Service, military or otherwise, you should not be able to participate in the franchise.

So what if it's ridiculous? Should rich parents be ALLOWED to "gravy train" little Buffy and Tad because they don't want to get their hands dirty?

OK, FINE. Then DOUBLE THEIR TAX RATE and limit their deductions. Surely that's fair?

[ATK]

24. I thought this was a free country where people made their choices

as they saw fit?
How about you just start advocating laws that say you can't vote unless you served in the military or take the position that people can't have an opinion on abortion unless they've had one?

and Buffy and Tad can make their own decisions in life, can they not?

there are far less people with miltiary experience than there are those without...

[rasputin1952]

49. I knew Buffy and Tad, Buffy and Tad were friends of mine...

Buffy and Tad believe that others should fight, because they are "too imporant to go themselves", even though neither of them has ever had to work for a living...after all, "war is for the little people, they keep us safe."

[porphyrian]

8. Immoral and unworthy, maybe, but you're not suggesting revoking citizenship or voting rights...

...are you? I can agree that such a stance is hypocritical and reprehensible, but I don't agree on making military service requisite in any way.

[Tyler Durden]

14. If they can SUPPORT the war, then they HAVE TO SUPPORT THE WAR.

It's called "Taking Responsibility."

There can be other ways than being a soldier, but I think it is far past time that we let an elite use us and our children for cannon fodder.

[porphyrian]

23. I guess you'll have to clarify what you mean by "support."

I think every American has a right to be willfully ignorant, hypocritical and a cheerleader for a war they have no intention of ever participating in directly. I think they're wrong and stupid, but I would never support forcing them to participate any more than I would support forcing them to vote. Call them out, shame them, stop fucking electing them for sure, but eliminating freedoms is not a solution.

What we need to do is immediately accuse, try and convict those responsible for lying us into this war, which is tantamount to treason and certainly an impeachable high crime.

[treestar]

35. Forcing them is not the issue but just saying, they are immoral

Let them take the verbal heat at least.

[porphyrian]

36. I'm for that. Hell, I'll call them traitors. - n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. "military age"

That's like, what, upper fifties now?

[Tyler Durden]

15. With universal service, that could top at say 30.

No?

[ProudDad]

55. I found this

Q. What is the maximum age to enlist in the Military?
From Rod Powers,
Your Guide to U.S. Military.

A. The maximum age of non-prior service enlistment, under federal law used to be age 35. In 2006 the Army convinced Congress to change this to age 44.

Regardless of federal law, the military services are allowed to impose more strict standards -- and they have. The maximum age for non-prior service enlistments for each of the services are:

* Active duty Army - 42
* Army Reserves - 42
* Army Natinal Guard - 42
* Active duty Air Force - 27
* Air Force Reserve - 34
* Air National guard - 34
* Active duty Navy - 34
* Navy Reserves - 39
* Active duty Marines - 28
* Marine Corps Reserves - 29
* Active duty Coast Guard - 27
* Coast Guard Reserves - 27

Age waivers are possible for those with prior military service.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/f/faqenlage.htm

[Catherine Vincent]

11. A lot of young republicans that supports this war but won't enlist themselves

thinks the soldiers that are in this war now are there because they VOUNTEERED to join the service.

[Tyler Durden]

16. Exactly my point...but here's another solution:

Not exactly MORAL, but if the Young rePukes want out, then they can automatically sign up for a life long no deduction 40% tax rate.

I think that's MORE than generous.

[Zywiec]

21. As a member of the Army I wasn't aware of anyone not volunteering.

How did they get into the service if not by volunteering?

[Tyler Durden]

22. Yeah, I can dig that...BUT:

I wish that there were more military people who had the concept of "NOT OBEYING UNLAWFUL ORDERS" a little more firmly fixed.

Being a sailor did not make me a robot or a non-citizen.

[Thothmes]

50. Lawful Orders

What determines if an order is lawful or unlawful will be determined at your General Court Marshal.

[Tyler Durden]

61. This is true: HOWEVER as we said in the service...

If you're GUILTY of a crime, the best place to be is in the CIVILIAN Legal system. However, if you're INNOCENT of a crime (As a Service Member), the BEST place to be is in a Courts Martial.

Been in several as an expert witness. I have to agree.

[Catherine Vincent]

26. What I was trying to say is since they weren't drafted to go,

then they shouldn't have to volunteer.

[BrotherBuzz]

27. I submit that enlisted men stung by stop loss or being recalled through IRR are...

are no longer volunteers, but unwilling subjects with few options. The Devil and his details are always revealed in the fine print.

Officers faced with the same problems have a slight advantage over enlisted men; they can escape the trap by resigning their commission, but forfeit their retirement - more small details.

[jerryme1]

17. I had a similar conversation with a 34 year old war supporter the

other day. He was convinced that the USA was in mortal danger from terrorists, et al. I encouraged him to enlist to save the country and to save himself and his family. He thanked me for my service in Iraq, but then told me he was a coward and that he would not want his son to be involved upon reaching draft age. How convenient? Call yourself a coward and then continue pounding the war drum.

[JNelson6563]

25. Yep, I'm sick of big-talkin' do nothings

In every aspect of the world. My most common experience with big talkin' non-doers is in politics. I'm sick of people on the boards I'm on coming in with lots of criticism or big ideas (that would entail lots of work) and willingness to do nothing at all.

Julie

[Balbus]

30. Well, I'm against the war, so am I IMMORAL because I do NOT

stand in front of tank rolling down the streets of Baghdad or volunteer to be a human shield in Iran? Am I a chicken-peacer? :shrug:

[Tyler Durden]

34. NO! (and love the dancers.)

In this alternative scenario, you could do, say, 1000 hours of service as a Hospital Orderly, a Year as a PAID Teacher's Aide, serve in the Peace Corps...the alternatives could be endless.

But if you don't want to invest time, effort or blood: PONY UP or DON'T VOTE. It is the concept that we can be non-participatory citizens that has caused us to fail as we have.

If you don't want to participate, then DON'T and that means DON'T VOTE EITHER.

This is of course all hypothetical, and cannot apply to anyone at this time: you can't do this sort of thing retroactively.

[Balbus]

46. But I'm also for universal healthcare...

So am I immoral if I don't want to become a nurse or doctor? Or I don't get to vote on this issue should it arise?

And I'm definitely for lowering the crime rate - but I don't want to be a police officer, sheriff's deputy, or a member of the Highway patrol. So whenever I see a new ordinance on my local ballot, I guess I can't vote on that either. :(

[Tyler Durden]

60. Why do people keep dragging this off subject?

The subject is Universal Military/alternative to Military service.

Any other issue is off the subject. You know, there's an easy solution to all of this: PEACE.

[pampango]

67. It is off the subject, only if you are the "decider" of what the subject is.

Some of us look at the OP as involving a statement that you cannot advocate a particular public policy, if you are not willing to work in its implementation in practice.

You contend that this precedent need not be worried about, because you only want it to apply to armed conflict. You can post as narrow an OP as you wish. Sorry if we drag it "off the subject" by looking at the bigger picture, not just at your issue of choice.

[Tyler Durden]

68. I DID post the OP narrowly.

I made it MILITARY due to my pacifist attitude that war must be made obsolete or war will make us obsolete.

By the way, I am insulted in the extreme by the use of "decider." Not a very polite way to refer to another DU'er. Not enough for an "ALERT" but rude none the less.

[pampango]

70. My apologies for the Bushism insult.

I should not post on OP's that limit responses to yes, no and maybe with no discussion of gray areas and wider implications. That is my fault not yours.

[Tyler Durden]

71. Thank you, but this was framed that way for a reason.

This is a response to the WAR and war in general with the absence of the elite in participation.

If you'd like to have a WIDER discussion, believe me, I would LOVE to. I've got a TON of Socialist leanings to drag out, and I would enjoy your participation.

Wait for it. I'm at work and a little busy.

[slackmaster]

38. Your post fails to give consideration to those who are not physically qualified

Or those who are of borderline physical qualification, or people who are psychologically unfit to serve.

Nice attempt at divisiveness, but life isn't that simple.

[Tyler Durden]

43. Try a dose of Reality Check.

Only an idiot would go with what you're proposing. And no Divisiveness is put forward, unless you're proposing it.

[slackmaster]

44. I'm not proposing anything, just stating an obvious deficiency in your OP

There are many people who could serve if they would, but can't because of factors not within their control.

[Tyler Durden]

63. Sorry, I just felt like I was being politely called an idiot.

Factors TRULY beyond one's control are always considered in a truly compassionate society, which this one is not.

[slackmaster]

65. I mention it mainly because I fall into that category

At one point I was very interested in a career as a naval officer, but my vision problems and one or two other things make me ineligible for military service at any level. I am now also too old to enlist, one more big issue over which I have no control.

My brother is a successful officer, now a Commander and about to take over a much larger ship than he has ever commanded. He is an Iraq veteran, and may well be sent in again.

[Tyler Durden]

66. I'm a Navy Vet. n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

39. Re the last choice

Freedom and morality don't have anything to do with each other. Of course people are free to be chickenhawks (at least in the cowardly-war-supporter, as opposed to pedophile sense). And we are free to judge them immoral.

[NoPasaran]

41. I pretty much agree with you

I don't understand how any person of military age and capable of service who believes that this nation is seriously threatened can possibly justify not volunteering to defend it.

[pampango]

45. I think that there is an element of human nature at work.

Even in WWII there was a draft, because not enough men volunteered to serve in the military. I suppose you could make the argument that men (only in that era) of military age did not believe that the nation was seriously threatened, so they did not volunteer and had to be drafted.

While I strongly oppose a draft, who knows what would have happened in WWII without one. Waiting for men, and now women, to volunteer to back up their beliefs with their bodies is not just problematic now in this war, but has always been so.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. This Silly Illogical Nonsensical Absurd Irrational Unrealistic Argument Again?

Always good for a good laugh I guess.

[madinmaryland]

48. What if the children of a chickenhawk are opposed to the war.

Since they don't support it, should they be required to serve since their parent(s) support it?

I don't think so.

[Raine]

52. Agree especially if you're

shooting off your big mouth about it and calling other people out for a differing opinion. x(

[Canuckistanian]

53. To be precise

Those that term this war the ultimate battle for freedom and democracy - humanity on the edge of destruction, that kind of crap.

THOSE are the people who should be fighting.

And it's obvious that those same people are avoiding serving like the plague.

[ProudDad]

54. Actually, I'd prefer that a military age

person who's for the war should walk in front of a bus, thus depriving the war machine of another piece of cannon fodder.

Once the defective minority has been thinned out of the herd, all wars should cease.

[Colobo]

56. This is a free country. You can support whatever you want

any way you want.

[JANdad]

57. The right loves to spout

off about personal responsibility sooooo...

They voted fuck-stick into office (supposedly) so pony up, gear up, lock and load, let's roll and all that other crap!

[B Calm]

58. My neighbor's son who attends college is a staunch supporter for

Bush and this illegal invasion of Iraq.

I asked the young man if he had plans on going into the military. He must have rehearsed his phony answer. He said he tried to get in but they didn't want him because of his eyesight. I said son, you are not talking to a republican. You are talking to a Vietnam Era Veteran. Where did you do your military physical? He stuttered for words but couldn't think of any.. I smiled and said that's okay, I understand. I wouldn't want to go in the military with Bush as the Commander and Chief either.

[Freddie Stubbs]

59. Does that include the war in Afghanistan, and previous conflicts like Bosnia?

:shrug:

[B Calm]

64. I believe the OP is talking about Operation Iraq Liberation

Operation
Iraq
Liberation

[Tyler Durden]

69. BINGO, and associate WARS of AGGRESSION. N/T