Amendment 13 And A Military Draft

[Cthulhu]

Ending conscription is long overdue. At very least it should be means tested, or left to the families of the politicians that advocate new wars.

I think all federal politicians should have to fight whatever wars are being fought the squad infantry echelon for as long as these wars continue.

We'd be an awesome country then.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[nic34]

I think all federal politicians should have to fight whatever wars are being fought the squad infantry echelon for as long as these wars continue.

We'd be an awesome country then.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Yes, at the very least.

[Robo]

Let the Kings and princes put on their armor and lead the troops.

[ripmeister]

Let the Kings and princes put on their armor and lead the troops.

"I ain't no senators son."

[donttread]

[QUOTE=Robo;2002648]What if the mission is Vietnam? Where's the evidence that volunteers can't and wont meet the demands for credible and justifiable wars that are actually declared by the Congress like the Constitution requires?


Volunteers don't have skills, knowledge and experience and come from all walks of life?


Which founders promoted military conscription? Militias are voluntary armed services.[/QUOTE

How was Nam a "credible and justifyable war? Did you miss the 60's?

[Peter1469]

[QUOTE=donttread;2007477]

What if the mission is Vietnam? Where's the evidence that volunteers can't and wont meet the demands for credible and justifiable wars that are actually declared by the Congress like the Constitution requires?


Volunteers don't have skills, knowledge and experience and come from all walks of life?


Which founders promoted military conscription? Militias are voluntary armed services.[/QUOTE

How was Nam a "credible and justifyable war? Did you miss the 60's?

It was justified using the Containment policy. Unfortunately it was a misapplication of that policy.

[Tahuyaman]

There are both legitimate pros and cons to a draft.

If I had to examine it, I would probably say there are more pros than cons.

. I would say the cons outweigh the benefits.

We don't need a military filled with people who don't want to be there. People who are there based on their free will have a tendency to perform better than those who are there because they had no choice.

[donttread]

Let the Kings and princes put on their armor and lead the troops.

Never saw Bush on a front line or OBL with a bomb strapped to his chest did you. In fact the closest thing we saw to big time leadership on the front lines was when Cheny got drunk and shot his lawyer! But General Lee was often present during battles. I think that if it's important enough to send people in to die the leaders should be right there with them. Then non military solutions would increase I'll bet

[donttread]

. I would say the cons outweigh the benefits.

We don't need a military filled with people who don't want to be there. People who are there based on their free will have a tendency to perform better than those who are there because they had no choice.

If we compel people to fight in wars half way around the world , what exactly would they be fighting for? Certainly not "freedom".

[MisterVeritis]

The state is God. Even cons who claim to be for small government still parrot that horse manure.

Not small government.

Limited government. If you don't want the Federal government to have the ability to draw upon the nation's people then write an amendment and pass it.