Here is a good read

[SteelSoul]

Go here

http://thomas.loc.gov/

Search for hr163 and s89



Bet this is inacted after the elections no matter who is the prez


I served my time from 90-96 so I am safe

SS

[lord1234]

and that is when i leave the country:)

[CaptaiN_JacK]

Not only will it stunt people's futures, it will also cost the government a huge amount of money to train, house, etc. all the people that would serve. We already have a huge army, why would we need more? Why don't we put all that money in foreign relations, it will help us in the long run.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Not only will it stunt people's futures, it will also cost the government a huge amount of money to train, house, etc. all the people that would serve. We already have a huge army, why would we need more? Why don't we put all that money in foreign relations, it will help us in the long run.

I won't argue that this law would be fiscally expensive, but I disagree with some of your points...

(a) How, exactly, does two years of community or military service "stunt" someone's future? Other than the potential for loss of wages from a higher-paying job they might have had. They'll be richer for the experience.

(b) Most of these people will probably not go into the military, but will perform community service for relatively low wages. They won't need to be housed or fed, or expensively trained. I expect a national infrastructure program like FDR implemented to spend his way out of the Great Depression.

(c) The US military is smaller now than at any time since the end of WW2, and the troop cuts of the 1990's are hurting the guys on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, as their tours are extended and follow closely one after another. Canada's tiny little army went through the same stress from too much peacekeeping in the 1990's, and is near collapse. We're pulling almost everyone back from every mission, now.

(d) More money for the foreign service? Maybe you could buy some terrorists off, but you can't negotiate with any of them. And I notice that when a disaster strikes, or people need to rescued, they don't send in the diplomats.

[Warewolf50]

For some reason i dont see this happenign, the public outcry would be so large aginst this law, it woudl never work. No president would choose to enforce. endorse this jsut casue it would pretty much gurentee them defeat in he next election. Pretty much noone in my mind would support their kid who has recently graduatedfrom college being forced inot an either low paying govt job, or inot the military.

[personman]

Hmm, that's crazy.
I dont see how they could do that.. we would have an army of like fricking 150 million.. Thats not exaggeration either.. We could take over the world, what fun is that?

[Automaggin2]

There are a few countries out there that require military service. I dont think its that bad of an idea. I think we would see a major change in the U.S. if this was ever passed. I'm talking about discipline and respect, something many Americans are lacking.


I highly doubt this will pass. And if it does, it still wont take effect for a couple of years. They cant just say "hey all of you graduates, you have to join the military!" So many guidelines and legal issues.

[Pickle]

Sounds like a good idea to me.

[CaptaiN_JacK]

Other countries have this, but they are small and they don't already have the largest military in the world almost.

[brianlojeck]

The only reason any politician would ever support mandatory military service or public service is because they know full well that they can keep their own kids out of the real craphole jobs.

Just another sign of the need for the right to summarily dismiss politicians.

If we're such a damn free country, with such a damn capitalist system, then then need to make military service more attractive if they need more people.

I for one, would have no problem revoking my citizenship, anymore then I would have an issue quitting a job that was no longer worth my while. I could care less who earns my tax money.

[spantol]

I've heard that one of Rangel's intentions in introducing HR 163 was to do just the opposite--to make sure that the folks that vote to send kids off to war have a personal stake in the decision.

The only reason any politician would ever support mandatory military service or public service is because they know full well that they can keep their own kids out of the real craphole jobs.

[Pickle]

I believe Brian is referring to the habit of politicians getting their kids out of military service or gettng them cush spots (i.e. Bush) with their clout.

I for one, would have no problem revoking my citizenship, anymore then I would have an issue quitting a job that was no longer worth my while. I could care less who earns my tax money.

Wow , glad to see your patriotism and love of country runs *cough* deep. Typical Californian.

[Chris42050]

Wow , glad to see your patriotism and love of country runs *cough* deep. Typical Californian.

Not everyone blindly loves the U.S. If this country gets any dumber with these laws (not talking about this one necessarily), I just might think of leaving too. But Im just a typical Californian.

[brianlojeck]

Wow , glad to see your patriotism and love of country runs *cough* deep. Typical Californian.

Born and raised in New York City my friend, spent the first 18 formative years of my life there.

I'll say this, if "the enemy" lands here on our shores, or if someone threatens my home or my family, I and my wife will be right there, fighting in hand-to-hand combat if need be. I'm no peacenik.

I will fight to defend my country. I will not sign a contract to fight to my death to defend the ideologies of a self-absorbed government that cares not a whit for it's people.

[Pickle]

Re: the Typical Californian comment. I knew I would receive flak for this but that is okay because I am uniquely qualified to make this statement as I was born there, live there and currently protect the county in which the before mentioned took place.

I don't expect anybody to blindly love the US. However, that is not even close to what was said. Anybody who states,

I for one, would have no problem revoking my citizenship, anymore then I would have an issue quitting a job that was no longer worth my while.

does not appear to love his country at all.

I will fight to defend my country. I will not sign a contract to fight to my death to defend the ideologies of a self-absorbed government that cares not a whit for it's people.

It can be argued that is same thing.

I'll say this, if "the enemy" lands here on our shores, or if someone threatens my home or my family, I and my wife will be right there, fighting in hand-to-hand combat if need be.

That is entirely different than protecting your country.