# Thoughts on Military Conscription - Long Post



## Ball N' Chain (Feb 23, 2017)

Alright guys, 
For starters, I ask that I receive no hate in this thread, rather your own opinionated responses supporting your perspective. In college I got into heated debates about this a lot, granted none of these debates went anywhere productive because they usually occurred at two in the morning with some type of substance in effecting cognition, or in a class with one mainstream hippie type people who cannot see an outside opinion as anything other than preposterous. 

I would like to hear your thoughts on Military Conscription, or Mandatory Military Service. Yes or no? Why, or why not? What do you think the pros and cons are... Anything really.

For me, I go have spent the last 3 years at Florida Gulf Coast University, a college in sunny South West Florida in a city that is in a bubble from anything bad. Literally, there is a 60 percent less crime in Estero per 100k people than in the Entire state of Florida per 100k people. With that said, I have been exposed daily to entitled, selfish, and wholly oblivious young adults who care more about spending there excess college funs on trips to music festivals rather than do anything about the immense amount of problems there are.

While I have my fun in college, I work closely with a group called Honor Flight, which is revolved around WWII and Korean war vets at this point in time. 
I am often sickened by the lack of respect for both America and Veterans kids in my classes have, as open discussions in any Humanity class turns into a bash Trump and America is going to hell riot. (I might be the only conservative in these classes so I get attacked frequently.)

I feel as if Military Conscription would do great to teach my peers to have a little respect in regards to America, and to appreciate the life that we get to live. Obviously there are loops to jump through, such as whether or not women should be involved, as well as people who are not able bodied and so forth.

The way I see it, women should be involved and physically screened to see what they're capable of, as well as all men who are able bodied. Fitness standards should be mandatory, and if you go in obese then you spend your time working as well as reaching for fitness standards. (this would help with obesity in America)

All in all, I believe Military Conscription would promote unity between the American people, decrease unemployment by supplying good fundamentals such as discipline, respect, stress management, and others, as well as provide basic skills in things like basic survival, weaponry, some hand to hand combat aspects, and so forth depending on the job assigned. All people, whether a lower class civilian or celebrity will be part of this, and the most important benefit I also think would be instilled is a higher interest in National Security matters, considering everyone can, will, or has been called in for service, people will want to know and understand what is going on, rather than just sweep it under the rug and focus on bullshit.

To sum it up, I think its time America comes together and supports one another. While Military Conscription in America will never happen due to it going against basic rights such as free will, I truly believe that after the rough patch and uproar, it would be good for our citizens and society. Multiple generations from now, we would be a stronger America because of it, with greater appreciation of the simple things in life. Thats just my thoughts though, what are yours?


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 23, 2017)

It's two generations after your last batch of conscription. Has it made your country stronger? I ask sincerely with your last paragraph in mind.


----------



## Ball N' Chain (Feb 23, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> It's two generations after your last batch of conscription. Has it made your country stronger? I ask sincerely with your last paragraph in mind.



I cannot speak(or type) with direct knowledge in regard to previous drafts in America, but from what I have learned in my US History classes, much outcry from the drafts involving the war in Vietnam surrounded the beliefs that the drafts were unfair, and not random as legislation led many to believe. Also from what I was taught in classes, drafts seemed to target lower class men, and it only accounted for 1/3 of our Military due to immense amounts of voluntary service.

I do believe there would be a major difference in mandatory service throughout the entire population compared to drafts that select just certain demographics based on location and age. I have two friends who I respect and go to college with who carry duel citizenships, and one form Turkey and one from South Korea. Both were called back to their country to give their service, and both had the chance to deny service but never return to their country, and stay in America. Both of them gave their service and from what information they have given me, said it gave them a great sense of pride in both themselves and their country.

Hindsight is 20/20, and I believe with a little customization, and taking small steps at a time, we could have a good system.


----------



## Ball N' Chain (Feb 23, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> It's two generations after your last batch of conscription. Has it made your country stronger? I ask sincerely with your last paragraph in mind.



To answer the question directly, I do not know. The Vietnam veterans I have met through Honor Flight have never disclosed whether they were drafted or not, nor ever said anything bad about America or our Military, and I have not lived long enough to see any effects from any of the drafts that occurred in the United States.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 23, 2017)

I think national service would be a good thing. It doesn't have to be military though.


----------



## Teufel (Feb 23, 2017)

I would not want to work with people who don't want to serve. I have seen enough service members who don't do much rowing in the all volunteer force to envision how much fun the long boat would be with draftees. 

Now if we go to war with a near peer state adversary? Sure but that's a different story.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 23, 2017)

I


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 23, 2017)

Andrew Bacevich has written about how he thinks the draft is the only way the United States can win wars.  For him, it's not an argument about the skill of the armed forces - it's about how the political process facilitates war being waged.  He believes, and makes a strong argument, the only way to ensure national interest, political will, and national commitment are aligned sufficiently to fight and win wars is through the political realities a universal draft demands of a democratic government.

I believe the Havok Journal has at least one interview with him on the topic if you google it.


----------



## Ball N' Chain (Feb 23, 2017)

Teufel said:


> I would not want to work with people who don't want to serve. I have seen enough service members who don't do much rowing in the all volunteer force to envision how much fun the long boat would be with draftees.
> 
> Now if we go to war with a near peer state adversary? Sure but that's a different story.




I wholly agree with that statement, but I feel as if that is a problem that can be fixed. How? I can come up with ten solutions to fix that problem, but then I am sure there would be double the flaws with my solutions. 
I can see myself writing more out of frustration with my peers than with clear, cognitive thought. I am just sickened seeing American flags burned, and listening to ignorance spew from my peers mouths' when they bash America, their own country. The first thought in mind is having them do what is done to keep our country safe, free, and at liberty from the evils around the world. Give them a first person perspective of what goes on in other countries compared to here.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 23, 2017)

Yes to a draft in wartime.  We should have one now.  No to mandatory military service during peace time.  Too expensive and not necessary.  I think some type of highly-incentivized national service opportunity would be a good idea, along the lines of the Aspen Institute's "service year" plan.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 23, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Andrew Bacevich has written about how he thinks the draft is the only way the United States can win wars.  For him, it's not an argument about the skill of the armed forces - it's about how the political process facilitates war being waged.  He believes, and makes a strong argument, the only way to ensure national interest, political will, and national commitment are aligned sufficiently to fight and win wars is through the political realities a universal draft demands of a democratic government.
> 
> I believe the Havok Journal has at least one interview with him on the topic if you google it.



I interviewed Bacevich for a journal article while I was in grad school and he said exactly what you outlined above.  My discussion with him, along with further research and reflection, changed my opinion on the utility and necessity of a draft... and a war tax... and a formal declaration of war.  If we had a draft, we wouldn't be in Year 16+ of the GWOT.  One way or another it would be over by now.


----------



## carlo amedio (Feb 23, 2017)

Well I think I can spare you my opinion on the morality and logistics of it all since I have never served and your probably here to hear the thoughts of those who have, but I have a suggestion:

If the goal is increasing levels of patriotism rather than getting more bodies in the military, why is the military the only solution, why not just have a class about patriotism? stick it right into high school, just like health class and make it elective so we don't pull a 1984 here, I can even tell you where to best put it, health is a semester long, then students take CCG wich is IMO just filler, replace the CCG class with nationalism class (better name to be determined later). The course work can be how to treat the American flag and some basic American history, highlighting the best and most important parts so we don't have to see any more embarrassing videos making fun of Americans for not knowing shit about America ETC... just giving kids their freedom vaccine (the better name has been determined) before they  go out into the world.
I mean the only country I can think of doing what you're suggesting is Israel, and that's for a different reason, courses that teach nationalism would be cheaper and there are far fewer moral and logistical concerns. Just my 2 cents, worth what you paid for it.


----------



## AWP (Feb 23, 2017)

carlo amedio said:


> If the goal is increasing levels of patriotism rather than getting more bodies in the military, why is the military the only solution, why not just have a class about patriotism?



1. Where was that goal suggested?
2. You just described indoctrination, a favorite of Communists and fascists everywhere.


----------



## carlo amedio (Feb 23, 2017)

AWP said:


> 1. Where was that goal suggested?
> 2. You just described indoctrination, a favorite of Communists and fascists everywhere.


1. I assumed that was the problem he was trying to address when every complaint he had about his peers stemmed from a lack of patriotism on their part, maybe I was mistaken, hopefully, he or you can clarify if I am

2. I understand this concern wich is why I suggested that the class would not be mandatory. There is also a massive gray area between teaching and indoctrinating. "*Teaching is all about communication of information, ideas or skills that can be questioned or discussed and the facts that are taught in teaching are supported by evidence, whereas indoctrination is about communication of beliefs that are not supported by any evidence and the receiver is supposed to accept it the way it has been taught without any argument or questioning.*" Difference between Teaching and Indoctrination | Teaching vs Indoctrination I think this is a good write-up on the topic.

 To label this indoctrination right off the bat is jumping the gun IMO, then invoking communism and fascism is even further a reach. I believe that one important thing to make clear is that one should never be loyal to the government, but rather both should be loyal to the country. That is patriotism.

So is this indoctrination? That depends on how the class is structured, as it does with every other class, one noteworthy difference being this class would not be mandatory. There would of course be examples of individual classes practicing indoctrination due to failure on the instructor's part, but far more egregious examples of this already exist and despite our best efforts always will so long as teaching is done by people, that is not a systemic flaw it is an individual one.


----------



## Ball N' Chain (Feb 23, 2017)

@TLDR20 I agree, there can be alternatives. 

@Marauder06 In the War we are in now, what good what a draft do? I asked with genuine curiosity. It seems as though Commando Units taking out high profile members of terror groups like ISIS. A draft is not likely to bring in a bunch of guys who have the physical and mental fortitude of being a Spec Ops service member in any branch. Would a draft also call for a different approach to the war?


----------



## Ball N' Chain (Feb 23, 2017)

carlo amedio said:


> 1. I assumed that was the problem he was trying to address when every complaint he had about his peers stemmed from a lack of patriotism on their part, maybe I was mistaken, hopefully, he or you can clarify if I am



Yes, I was definitely complaining about my peers, but the basis of my post was to gather opinions on Military Conscription in the United States. I welcome your opinion on that.


----------



## AWP (Feb 23, 2017)

carlo amedio said:


> To label this indoctrination right off the bat is jumping the gun IMO, then invoking communism and fascism is even further a reach. I believe that one important thing to make clear is that one should never be loyal to the government, but rather both should be loyal to the country. That is patriotism.
> 
> So is this indoctrination? That depends on how the class is structured, as it does with every other class, one noteworthy difference being this class would not be mandatory. There would of course be examples of individual classes practicing indoctrination due to failure on the instructor's part, but far more egregious examples of this already exist and despite our best efforts always will so long as teaching is done by people, that is not a systemic flaw it is an individual one.



I reject that 100%. If you think the masses will differentiate between the two you are very naïve. "Teaching" is used as the standard in authoritarian regimes (if you prefer that term though Communists and fascists are arguably the greatest offenders in the last century) while the term "indoctrination" is avoided altogether. Structuring the class, materials....none of that matters because the only ones using the qualifier of "teaching" will be those forcing the courses down our throats.

Your argument holds zero water against the canvas of history.


----------



## carlo amedio (Feb 24, 2017)

AWP said:


> I reject that 100%. If you think the masses will differentiate between the two you are very naïve. "Teaching" is used as the standard in authoritarian regimes (if you prefer that term though Communists and fascists are arguably the greatest offenders in the last century) while the term "indoctrination" is avoided altogether. Structuring the class, materials....none of that matters because the only ones using the qualifier of "teaching" will be those forcing the courses down our throats.
> 
> Your argument holds zero water against the canvas of history.


let me ask you something, is our current public school system teaching or indoctrinating? Is it possible to have an education system that teaches rather than indoctrinates? I'm having a little trouble understanding your argument, it seems to be that if we put into place my suggestion we will have an authoritarian school system forcing beliefs down students throats to control them. I'd like to know if that is accurate so that I don't waste time
responding to arguments you never made.


----------



## carlo amedio (Feb 24, 2017)

Guzzo said:


> Yes, I was definitely complaining about my peers, but the basis of my post was to gather opinions on Military Conscription in the United States. I welcome your opinion on that.


Well, it seems I misinterpreted you, I still believe what I said and I think my proposition would be more effective in every way, except of course strengthening the military(arguably). Honestly, I think a draft is only morally acceptable under dire circumstances, let alone mandatory service. 



Guzzo said:


> we would be a stronger America because of it, with greater appreciation of the simple things in life. Thats just my thoughts


 
Another reason I assumed you suggested this for the purpose of increasing patriotism was because it doesn't seem to make sense to have that system if it's not necessary and you don't want to increase patriotism. forcing someone to serve for attitude adjustment seems not only like a convoluted and ineffective method but also an immoral one.


----------



## AWP (Feb 24, 2017)

carlo amedio said:


> let me ask you something, is our current public school system teaching or indoctrinating? Is it possible to have an education system that teaches rather than indoctrinates? I'm having a little trouble understanding your argument, it seems to be that if we put into place my suggestion we will have an authoritarian school system forcing beliefs down students throats to control them. I'd like to know if that is accurate so that I don't waste time
> responding to arguments you never made.



Teaching. You may have your one off instances, but these aren't gov't imposed and sponsored messages about patriotism. "How to be a Patriot" is straight out the most oppressive dictatorships in history. Again, look at history for examples.

Yes, I believe your understanding of my argument is accurate. Revisit history again, and if you don't have a grasp on my examples then please take a look at them. When a gov't forces a belief system on its citizens or HOW and WHAT to think about the gov't, that becomes indoctrination. Calling the class "Nationalism" is also very indicative of a fascist/ Communist model. I know that is not your desired end state, rather a name for lack of a better offer, but look at your examples for the class: Patriotism and Nationalism. Classes teaching that are indoctrination and history/ human nature support this. I think you're operating under a perfect world hypothetical, not thousands of years' of history.

Communist countries: USSR, China, Vietnam, Laos, Burma, and Cuba all had "re-education" classes once they were in power. Anyone who opposed the gov't or didn't follow the party line? Imprisoned or executed. Sure, in America we wouldn't do that, but make that argument to your fellow citizens and see how it pans out.

Fascist countries: Germany, Italy, and Japan during WWII had gov't sponsored programs in place. The gov't told you what to think about it and cloaked some of your arguments and nationalism into being proud of your country.

Medieval Europe, Muslim nations, Czarist Russia among others: I don't recall "classes" per se, but if you spoke out against the gov't (typically a king) you were told what to think and how to behave or you went to a very nasty prison cell.

Nations don't like dissent and the less democratic the less a nation will tolerate. That being said you have the formal education programs listed before or codified and gov't enforced ways of correcting your behavior on the street. In every instance this was clothed in being proud of your country and/or leadership.

Have you taken a civics class? It should (it did for me 25 years ago in Jr. High) present things like how to treat the flag, but it also taught (primarily) how our gov't works and why. History is a required class but "highlighting the best and most important parts" isn't teaching. When you pick and choose the topics while ignoring their counterpoints or context you've selectively presented information to meet a desired end state. That's indoctrination.


----------



## Lefty375 (Feb 24, 2017)

Guzzo said:


> I wholly agree with that statement, but I feel as if that is a problem that can be fixed. How? I can come up with ten solutions to fix that problem, but then I am sure there would be double the flaws with my solutions.
> I can see myself writing more out of frustration with my peers than with clear, cognitive thought. I am just sickened seeing American flags burned, and listening to ignorance spew from my peers mouths' when they bash America, their own country. The first thought in mind is having them do what is done to keep our country safe, free, and at liberty from the evils around the world. Give them a first person perspective of what goes on in other countries compared to here.



I find what you propose incredibly scary. I welcome the marketplace of ideas and wish more people would become informed and participate. 

We had a potential flag burning on campus, and we ended up having a civil discussion, and no flag burning took place. I would rather have a flag burning country than a no dissent allowed country. 

Further, one doesn't need a first person perspective to study what we have done right and wrong around the world. To never be critical of your own country leads down a dark path. The good policy stands on its own merit, it doesn't need my unwavering patriotism. I support good ideas because they are such, not because my country is doing them.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 24, 2017)

I am off two minds.  First, I could see the benefit of a draft in a war.  You need bodies.  And if you have a draft in the war, that war WILL end, somehow.  And everyone will have skin in the game.  It's amazing how quickly conflicts will end if everyone feels the pain.

Second, a draft will bring in a metric shit-ton of people who simply won't cut it.  They will scream and cry and whine and pout, and no amount of external motivation will change them.  We have enough trouble with people like this who willingly join now.

I like the idea of national service in some form.


----------



## Ball N' Chain (Feb 24, 2017)

Lefty375 said:


> I find what you propose incredibly scary. I welcome the marketplace of ideas and wish more people would become informed and participate.
> 
> We had a potential flag burning on campus, and we ended up having a civil discussion, and no flag burning took place. I would rather have a flag burning country than a no dissent allowed country.
> 
> Further, one doesn't need a first person perspective to study what we have done right and wrong around the world. To never be critical of your own country leads down a dark path. The good policy stands on its own merit, it doesn't need my unwavering patriotism. I support good ideas because they are such, not because my country is doing them.



I appreciate your feedback, I see from your point and can understand that as well.
Sadly, civil discussions are few and far between in my classes, maybe I am at fault for this, maybe not. Either way, I do hope that discussion and peaceful deliberation rises up in classes across our country, as in my own experiences it is hard to share opposing view points, and it is extremely frustrating, especially when even professors are narrow minded. This is the world I live in though.


----------



## Ball N' Chain (Feb 24, 2017)

Just wanted to thank everyone for their responses to this forum, I can say whole heartedly I have gained a plethora of knowledge, and I enjoy hearing things from perspectives that I do not have. Thank you all!


----------



## Johca (Feb 24, 2017)

Pertinent to conscription reducing unemployment, the history of the Civilian Conservation Corps (A New Deal Program) which had several purposes that included putting massive numbers of young men into being a disciplined outdoor labor working in austere physically demanding conditions at minimum wages.   There was also some education for trade type jobs that came along with it as the target unemployed youth were also minimally educated.

The Civilian Conservation Corps and American Education--Threat To Local Control.

There was also significant US Army oversight and involvement.  The U.S. Army, the Civilian Conservation Corps, and Leadership for World War II, 1933—1942 

Keep in mind the primary purpose behind conscription is to build a massive numbers of enlisted to be boots on the ground and btw not to be (for lack of sufficient descriptor) higher paid and educated NCOs or commissioned officers.


----------



## carlo amedio (Feb 24, 2017)

AWP said:


> Teaching. You may have your one off instances, but these aren't gov't imposed and sponsored messages about patriotism. "How to be a Patriot" is straight out the most oppressive dictatorships in history. Again, look at history for examples.
> 
> Yes, I believe your understanding of my argument is accurate. Revisit history again, and if you don't have a grasp on my examples then please take a look at them. When a gov't forces a belief system on its citizens or HOW and WHAT to think about the gov't, that becomes indoctrination. Calling the class "Nationalism" is also very indicative of a fascist/ Communist model. I know that is not your desired end state, rather a name for lack of a better offer, but look at your examples for the class: Patriotism and Nationalism. Classes teaching that are indoctrination and history/ human nature support this. I think you're operating under a perfect world hypothetical, not thousands of years' of history.





carlo amedio said:


> one important thing to make clear is that one should never be loyal to the government, but rather both should be loyal to the country.



I think I already spoke on that, and I never said we should teach people what to think(i might know where you're you got that idea, I'll address it later)
But setting aside this course has an opt-out, you made the claim teaching nationalism or patriotism is indoctrination. This either means you're wrong or indoctrination has a lighter connotation than I thought. Under this definition the pledge of allegiance is indoctrination, and I have been indoctrinated into loyalty to my family because I was taught to love and be loyal to them. Lastly, you claim that our current education system is not indoctrination since


AWP said:


> these aren't gov't imposed and sponsored messages about patriotism.


 but every class is still a government sponsored message. We also teach evolution, and since it's technically a theory and many disagree we offer an opt-out but also Imposed?!!!??!?!
I said:


carlo amedio said:


> make it elective so we don't pull a 1984


That's a far cry from the communist re-education camps you brought up. There is choice here and force there.



AWP said:


> Nations don't like dissent and the less democratic the less a nation will tolerate. That being said you have the formal education programs listed before or codified and gov't enforced ways of correcting your behavior on the street. In every instance this was clothed in being proud of your country and/or leadership.



You keep conflating the government with the nation, they are NOT the same, the government serves the nation and the people and is lower than both. "the formal education programs listed before or codified and gov't enforced ways of correcting your behavior on the street. In every instance this was clothed in being proud of your country and/or leadership." first off, we should never be loyal to our servants- our leaders must serve us and if they do not we must rebel. But as for the rest of this sentence I agree, they told people they were teaching patriotism, but that was never the goal. it was always forcibly brainwashing the masses into loyalty to THE GOVERNMENT and this would not happen in America as the government must be a totalitarian regime BEFORE they change the education system, otherwise dissent would be caved to long before rebellion would be necessary, just look at how we treat the teaching of evolution, the people have a watchful eye on the school system.

My statement:


carlo amedio said:


> The course work can be how to treat the American flag and some basic American history, highlighting the best and most important parts so we don't have to see any more embarrassing videos making fun of Americans for not knowing shit about America ETC...



your reply:



AWP said:


> Have you taken a civics class? It should (it did for me 25 years ago in Jr. High) present things like how to treat the flag, but it also taught (primarily) how our gov't works and why. History is a required class but "highlighting the best and most important parts" isn't teaching. When you pick and choose the topics while ignoring their counterpoints or context you've selectively presented information to meet a desired end state. That's indoctrination.



When I said best and most important parts I should have said most crucial such as date and significant events. In the context I was putting it that was ludicrously unclear. that was why I referenced videos like this:




That being said I would like to ask you to clearly define indoctrination, I think this context was the best usage, here is my definition, tell me if you concur because I think it would be conductive to figure out where we stand in this discussion.

Teaching something to an individual but not allowing them to critique the idea before accepting it.
This is why I see teaching patriotism as moral so long as people are always allowed to ignore/opt-out.


----------



## Isiah6:8 (Feb 24, 2017)

carlo amedio said:


> teaching patriotism



Why does any entity need to *teach* patriotism? Without teaching, isn't patriotism something people opt in by expressing or opt out of by not, based on their own learned experiences?


----------



## Dienekes (Feb 24, 2017)

Did you not participate in grades 6-12? If you did, I'm sure there were at least a couple of American history classes already. It's not that the shit isn't taught; it's that dreads simply isn't paying attention. And no, not every government provided class is indoctrination. Look at math and science, look at English and literature (where I'm positive you read 1984 and got the reference). Are these examples of indoctrination? It's a pretty far cry to say that a government teaching a book about the perils of government overreach is indoctrinating anyone. Also, who in the hell thinks a freshman in high-school has the critical thinking skills to critique a brand new idea being introduced to him let alone in the face of a teacher who has been teaching the same shit for 10 years and has heard it all before. Any kid who could critique such an idea is getting shut down or the principals office.

Opting-out of a patriotism class? Are you kidding me? What high-schooler in their right mind would opt-out of a "love your country" class in the face of name-calling peers especially at that age. To suggest such is lunacy. As far as public education should be a government service, it should teach factual history and civics not "this is what true Americans think". That happened before and it was called McCarthyism which you should look into. Granted, the government could do better. A half-credit of civics and a full credit of American history, maybe two at the most, is not going to create American scholars and could be done better, but a patriotism class is not the answer.


----------



## Ball N' Chain (Feb 24, 2017)

Johca said:


> Keep in mind the primary purpose behind conscription is to build a massive numbers of enlisted to be boots on the ground and btw not to be (for lack of sufficient descriptor) higher paid and educated NCOs or commissioned officers.



So basically the idea of conscription is to have a cheap scape goat in times of war, giving the country the ability to have such massive amounts of soldiers that sheer volume can win out a war?


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 24, 2017)

Guzzo said:


> So basically the idea of conscription is to have a cheap scape goat in times of war, giving the country the ability to have such massive amounts of soldiers that sheer volume can win out a war?



Not "cheap scapegoats," but yes, the idea of a military action is you have_ your_ guys kill more of the bad guys than _they_ kill.  Of course, we don't throw 100,00-man armies against one another like we used to, but that's the idea.  Now we extrapolate the same argument for machinery, but the principle is the same.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 24, 2017)

Guzzo said:


> Just wanted to thank everyone for their responses to this forum, I can say whole heartedly I have gained a plethora of knowledge, and I enjoy hearing things from perspectives that I do not have. Thank you all!




There's good, bad and ugly about a draft.

The Good: Right now there is a huge disconnect between the few who serve and the majority who don't. When the draft was in effect, even in peacetime, a much larger percentage of the population had military training and understood what it's like to serve their country, and most accepted it as their duty. There was a much larger pool of people who understood military terms and military life. Draftees and even conscientious objectors have earned the Medal of Honor.

The Bad: Conscripts don't always make the best soldiers.

The Ugly: Unless the war has popular support, you're going to end up with a bunch of fucktards in the ranks who will engage in everything from obstructionist behavior to disobedience of orders. I wouldn't have wanted to work with draftees in Vietnam and thankfully most Marines were volunteers.


----------



## Ball N' Chain (Feb 24, 2017)

The good only stands to be true in a society unalike the one we live in now. With so much focus on personal freedoms, using bathrooms of choice, and letting people express themselves as they please regardless of natural orientation, Conscripts would be absolutely devastating. 

I remember when I was a junior in high school, we watched a video documentary surrounding American people during WWII, and young men across the country were happily enlisting to serve, being sent off to training in bunches from neighborhoods. 

Today, I see the bad and the ugly easily and heavily out weigh the good. My opinion has definitely shifted in regard to whether or whether nor Military Conscription would be better for the country. While, as you ( @Ocoka One ) and others pointed out, there are pros, the cons are much more prevalent.


----------



## carlo amedio (Feb 24, 2017)

Dienekes said:


> Did you not participate in grades 6-12? If you did, I'm sure there were at least a couple of American history classes already. It's not that the shit isn't taught; it's that dreads simply isn't paying attention. And no, not every government provided class is indoctrination. Look at math and science, look at English and literature (where I'm positive you read 1984 and got the reference). Are these examples of indoctrination? It's a pretty far cry to say that a government teaching a book about the perils of government overreach is indoctrinating anyone.


  I'm not saying every government taught class is indoctrination, I'm saying that a class that teaches students to be patriotic is no more indoctrination than a class that teaches evolution.



Dienekes said:


> Also, who in the hell thinks a freshman in high-school has the critical thinking skills to critique a brand new idea being introduced to him let alone in the face of a teacher who has been teaching the same shit for 10 years and has heard it all before. Any kid who could critique such an idea is getting shut down or the principals office.


 What? I'm sure not many high shool students will debate the teacher, that is a great point... and true for legitimately every class, but there still exists a choice. also, if a teacher sends a student out for critiquing the teacher's material then the teacher is punished, they don't get to do that unless they have justifiable cause to send out the student



Dienekes said:


> Opting-out of a patriotism class? Are you kidding me? What high-schooler in their right mind would opt-out of a "love your country" class in the face of name-calling peers especially at that age. To suggest such is lunacy.


 so I guess that you have the same stance on teaching sex education and evolution?



Dienekes said:


> As far as public education should be a government service, it should teach factual history and civics not "this is what true Americans think".


 I never said that. I said that the core idea should be to love and have loyalty to their country, not loyalty to the government, not loyalty to the most pervasive beliefs. An anarchist can still love and be loyal to their country, he just holds different views of what is best for the country, so what true American's think if they are patriotic is simply that we should do what's best for America. To not be patriotic is by definition to either dislike ones own country or want what's worse for it, I believe teaching kids to be patriotic is in the same ball park as teaching them to be moral.

pa·tri·ot·ic
ˌpātrēˈädik/
_adjective_

having or expressing devotion to and vigorous support for one's country.


----------



## carlo amedio (Feb 24, 2017)

Isiah6:8 said:


> Why does any entity need to *teach* patriotism? Without teaching, isn't patriotism something people opt in by expressing or opt out of by not, based on their own learned experiences?


For the same reason we need to teach people morality, every American should be patriotic just like every American should be opposed to theft. patriotism is love or support of ones country, it should be innate for an American to be patriotic because to not be requires an individual to dislike their country or not support it.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 24, 2017)

@Guzzo -  the shiny new degree you are bashing @TLDR20 about...  um, he spent more time teaching Special Operations Medicine than he did in nursing school...  think about that, a multiply deployed SF medic with numerous years teaching medicine having the wherewithal to go back to college (and I say back, because the SF medical pipeline makes most college programs look like kindergarten) and get a civilian degree in nursing.

Conscription in time of war has naught to do with the people with whom you attended college, nor does your argument hold water when you are going about the college to military thing in the reverse order as the individual with whom you disagree.  Your major mistakes were taking your arguments 'ad absurdum' and then 'ad hominem'  without taking into account the other viewpoint.  You fell into the same trap as those individuals with whom you took classes at Florida Gulf Coast University, I mean TLDR20 is a graduate of both University of Pineland and UNC...  but that may not compare to FGCU in academic excellence.

Step down off your soapbox, check your attitude and chill - because you are outclassed by your competition, and it's showing.   Just a little advice before you try your holier than thou shit on an instructor after enlisting, you'll thank me in the future - do not underestimate your peers or leaders, real players never show their hand until it's time to rake in the pot.


----------



## Ball N' Chain (Feb 24, 2017)

x SF med said:


> @Guzzo -  the shiny new degree you are bashing @TLDR20 about...  um, he spent more time teaching Special Operations Medicine than he did in nursing school...  think about that, a multiply deployed SF medic with numerous years teaching medicine having the wherewithal to go back to college (and I say back, because the SF medical pipeline makes most college programs look like kindergarten) and get a civilian degree in nursing.
> 
> Conscription in time of war has naught to do with the people with whom you attended college, nor does your argument hold water when you are going about the college to military thing in the reverse order as the individual with whom you disagree.  Your major mistakes were taking your arguments 'ad absurdum' and then 'ad hominem'  without taking into account the other viewpoint.  You fell into the same trap as those individuals with whom you took classes at Florida Gulf Coast University, I mean TLDR20 is a graduate of both University of Pineland and UNC...  but that may not compare to FGCU in academic excellence.
> 
> Step down off your soapbox, check your attitude and chill - because you are outclassed by your competition, and it's showing.   Just a little advice before you try your holier than thou shit on an instructor after enlisting, you'll thank me in the future - do not underestimate your peers or leaders, real players never show their hand until it's time to rake in the pot.



Understood. My apologies for any disrespect @TLDR20


----------



## Johca (Feb 24, 2017)

Devildoc gave a great response correcting the perspective that conscription is get cheap scape goat in times of war.  I'm expanding upon it as being a cheap scape goat is not a driving factor behind conscription and is insulting t0 those who were drafted into military service prior to 1973.

Conscription is based on awareness a large career force standing army during peacetime is expensive to recruit. train, equip, house and maintain.  If you look at post WWI, WWII. and to lesser extent Korean War, Southeast Asia Conflicts and the  current war on terror the obligation to take care of the wounded, maimed, and dead is not cheap.  If initial enlistment bonuses (includes paying off education loans/debts), education benefits during and after enlistment the money spent to entice people to enlist is also not inexpensive.

BTW conscription (the draft) is an option that still exists, but is less relied on due reliance on shifting the initial mobilization of recalling separated from military service back into service and initiating stop loss measures, particularly during and after DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM.   When I enlisted in 1973 the initial military obligation was no more than 6 years of combined active duty, reserve, and inactive reserve duty.  The obligation, since ca. 1980  is now  eight years.



> 10 U.S. Code § 651 - Members: required service
> 
> [1] *shall serve in the armed forces for a total initial period of not less than six years nor more than eight years*, as provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense for the armed forces under his jurisdiction and by the Secretary of Homeland Security for the Coast Guard when it is not operating as service in the Navy, unless such person is sooner discharged under such regulations because of personal hardship. Any part of such service that is not active duty or that is active duty for training shall be performed in a reserve component.
> (b)
> Each person covered by subsection (a) who is not a Reserve, and who is qualified, shall, upon his release from active duty, be transferred to a reserve component of his armed force to complete the service required by subsection (a).



This transition to a longer initial enlistment  service obligation (8 vs 6) has less connection to political nicety of military being all volunteer and strongly more connected to many types of weapons of mass destruction being available to various governments and the thoughts that a serious conflict will go weapons of mass destruction before conscripts could be drafted and subsequently be sufficiently and adequately trained for utilization availability to be of any use. 

To counter this perspective it should be pointed out our political leadership at the Federal level never expected a long drawn out limited war against an enemy (war on terror) that is not a Nation-State.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 24, 2017)

Guzzo said:


> @TLDR20 I agree, there can be alternatives.
> 
> @Marauder06 In the War we are in now, what good what a draft do? I asked with genuine curiosity. It seems as though Commando Units taking out high profile members of terror groups like ISIS. A draft is not likely to bring in a bunch of guys who have the physical and mental fortitude of being a Spec Ops service member in any branch. Would a draft also call for a different approach to the war?





Guzzo said:


> @TLDR20 I agree, there can be alternatives.
> 
> @Marauder06 In the War we are in now, what good what a draft do? I asked with genuine curiosity. It seems as though Commando Units taking out high profile members of terror groups like ISIS. A draft is not likely to bring in a bunch of guys who have the physical and mental fortitude of being a Spec Ops service member in any branch. Would a draft also call for a different approach to the war?



We are *still* in war now, after 16 years, in large part because we don't have a draft.

In short, a draft would cause the American people to start caring about the war.  We'd either knock it off, or get serious about winning it.  

Your reference to "Commando Units" is a non-sequitur.  No one gets drafted into SOF, it's a volunteer thing.  Moreover, while we will never have "enough" of them, SOF is not what we need more of to win a major war.  SOF is always a supporting effort in major theaters of conflict.  SOF isn't the main effort now.  What we need most in any major conflict is not "more SOF," it is political will.  All the SOF in the world isn't going to win major conflicts if the national will isn't behind it.  

One of the reason "support for the troops" is so high and the war has gone on for so long is because it only affects a very small part of the citizenry in any real way.  When I was in grad school I was shocked to find that most of my classmates had never even met a veteran, much less had a meaningful relationship with one.  So the "war" was/is very abstract to them.  What do they care about how long a war lasts, or how much it costs, or how much it hurts people, if literally none of those things affect them in any meaningful way?  If there was even a chance they could get drafted, then people would be concerned about things like why we're there, what we're doing it for, and how we're going to win.  They'd put pressure on the policy makers, who would have to make the case to the people instead of sending out the all-volunteer force to fight an expensive and never-ending conflict.

This is an article that... someone with a writing style similar to mine wrote about the subject.  This might be the piece that @Il Duce mentioned.  I think it sums up the arguments supporting what I just stated pretty well.  

This is not a new concept.  Fighting a war without exposing your own population to the potential "calamities of war" has been considered a very poor game indeed since shortly after the founding of our country.


----------



## Isiah6:8 (Feb 24, 2017)

carlo amedio said:


> For the same reason we need to teach people morality, every American should be patriotic just like every American should be opposed to theft. patriotism is love or support of ones country, it should be innate for an American to be patriotic because to not be requires an individual to dislike their country or not support it.



Teaching morality is not the same as teaching patriotism.  Who is any person or entity to tell another what they should or should not be? I don't agree with your thoughts and believe that what you describe is what @AWP already said earlier. Thank you for the response.


----------



## carlo amedio (Feb 24, 2017)

Isiah6:8 said:


> Teaching morality is not the same as teaching patriotism. Who is any person or entity to tell another what they should or should not be?


 why are they not comparable? we teach people not to steal because it is important they understand theft is bad, we should also teach people to love and be loyal to their country so they understand it is wrong to hate and betray their country. People can think whatever they want, but they should be pushed by society at large to see loyalty and love for their country as important just like they should be pushed to believe theft is immoral. This is not closing the debate of course, people should be allowed to hate America just like they should be allowed to think theft is ok (so long as those thoughts do not manifest themselves in actions) after all the classical ethical quandary is "is it ok to steal bread to feed your family?"


----------



## Ball N' Chain (Feb 24, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> We are *still* in war now, after 16 years, in large part because we don't have a draft.
> 
> In short, a draft would cause the American people to start caring about the war.  We'd either knock it off, or get serious about winning it.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the response. I can definitely see how a draft would bring nationwide attention to the war. Even if some one was out of eligibility to be drafted, they more than likely have a relationship to some one, whether it be a friend, cousin, nephew, son, daughter, or so forth who may be drafted and that would also bring the attention.


----------



## Johca (Feb 24, 2017)

Morals is about the vices and virtues of character and when extended beyond individual to larger and larger groups of people it's to some degree becomes the appropriate and inappropriate compass basis of determining what is being fair and unfair in interacting with others.  Whatever that consensus is becomes influential in putting in place laws and regulations.

Patriotism is supporting ones country or government or having a devotion to it.   There are several examples in modern history where patriotism caused significant compromise of moral compass of many people.  Point being is in a democracy teaching civics and citizenship is a bit separated from indoctrinating devotion to the government in power or the homeland.


----------



## carlo amedio (Feb 24, 2017)

Johca said:


> Patriotism is supporting ones country or government or having a devotion to it. There are several examples in modern history where patriotism caused significant compromise of moral compass of many people. Point being is in a democracy teaching civics and citizenship is a bit separated from indoctrinating devotion to the government in power or the homeland.


 patriotism is never properly defined as loyalty to the government


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 24, 2017)

carlo amedio said:


> patriotism is never properly defined as loyalty to the government



Carlo

Notice how most people's grammar and punctuation is at least somewhat proper?

Follow suit.


----------



## carlo amedio (Feb 25, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Carlo
> 
> Notice how most people's grammar and punctuation is at least somewhat proper?
> 
> Follow suit.



Ok.


----------



## Dienekes (Feb 25, 2017)

Patriotism is not something that you can teach, and if you have to, it is not patriotism. Blind loyalty is not loyalty. Look to history and the examples of times when patriotism was taught in different regimes and then look at those regimes. The result will show you that though possibly well-intentioned (most weren't), the outcome is always less than ideal.


----------



## Johca (Feb 25, 2017)

Correct about patriotism never being properly defined as loyalty to the government as it was laziness on my part as it is closely related to nationalism.  The perspective being offered is patriotism has similarity to nationalism as it is applied to describe a population as having a sense of having a national consciousness.  The perspective being offered for consideration is the sense of national consciousness can be manipulated by the government and even political groups other than the government to the point bad things are done in the name of the national consciousness.  By dad things I am attempting to explain liberties, freedoms, rules of law pertinent to treatments of others get trampled  by being with us (loyal) or against us (disloyal).   What is being explored is there is a point where the moral compass consciousness of the individual can be and will be compromised or influenced by the national consciousness.


----------



## carlo amedio (Feb 25, 2017)

Dienekes said:


> Patriotism is not something that you can teach, and if you have to, it is not patriotism. Blind loyalty is not loyalty.


 Yes it is, talk about all the freedoms we have, talk about past sacrifices that have been made to secure them, teach about the importance of loyalty to the country in which they reside but also make it clear that they may very well disagree greatly about how to best  solve our problems, and of course make sure they know the state, politicians and all of their leaders are not so much their leaders but their servants. I don't know where you get this idea from that one needs a unique experience to love their country.



Dienekes said:


> Look to history and the examples of times when patriotism was taught in different regimes and then look at those regimes. The result will show you that though possibly well-intentioned (most weren't), the outcome is always less than ideal.


You guys keep pointing me toward history, the American government would have to seize control of many things before they could get away with manipulating the school system, and they are currently just as capable of doing so as they would be if we had a class that taught the importance of love and loyalty to our country. 

This argument is basically saying that the government will engage in a massive conspiracy with MANY educators involved to teach children to be loyal to the government rather than the country, none of the educators would object and word won't get out and they haven't done this before because the fact that no class with a determined goal of teaching patriotism existed before was, of course, the determining factor as to whether or not they could get away with it, and this would continue for generation until we end up in an Orwellian nightmare.

Am I calling you all insane for thinking that the government could become corrupt? no, of course not, but the flaw I see in these arguments is that the communist education camps are meant to keep people under control, not get them under control. I won't go back into history because I'm not a history buff but in America the second and first amendment would go long before the education system would be taken over, just look at the way people reacted to teaching of evolution and sex education, if they thought something wrong was being taught it would not be allowed to continue.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 25, 2017)

I am against a draft. Short answer is no. If you don't want to be my beautiful Marine Corps (Infantry) then stay the f out.

However I can go with a National Service.


----------



## carlo amedio (Feb 25, 2017)

Johca said:


> Correct about patriotism never being properly defined as loyalty to the government as it was laziness on my part as it is closely related to nationalism.


 Ok, so I was using the terms patriotism and nationalism interchangeably and that was stupid, it doesn't really affect my argument because I meant patriotism, but still.

As for the rest of your comment, I had to look up national consciousness and re-read your comment about twelve times to understand it (I'm 18) so I'll apologize in advance if I misinterpreted:


Johca said:


> The perspective being offered is patriotism has similarity to nationalism as it is applied to describe a population as having a sense of having a national consciousness. The perspective being offered for consideration is the sense of national consciousness can be manipulated by the government and even political groups other than the government to the point bad things are done in the name of the national consciousness. By dad things I am attempting to explain liberties, freedoms, rules of law pertinent to treatments of others get trampled by being with us (loyal) or against us (disloyal). What is being explored is there is a point where the moral compass consciousness of the individual can be and will be compromised or influenced by the national consciousness.


First of all, the problem you're  talking about is group consciousness, not national consciousness(to be fair I just learned both terms) national consciousness would actually protect those groups as one cannot be "othered" if they share a common national consciousness with the entity who seeks to "other" them. The first step there is for the entity to use group consciousness, for example, Hitler did not start eliminating mentally disabled people under national consciousness as germans, but rather under group consciousness as the superior Arian race.

That being said National consciousness can be twisted against those outside a nation, which is why the first amendment is so important. So long as internally our nation acknowledges the fact that we all want what's best for America, the first amendment will act as a shield from us attacking other nations without justifiable cause. But for that to be the case, a nation needs to be patriotic and have a sense of national consciousness, if we start to see our political opponents as wanting what's worse for America rather than disagreeing on what's best, they will become the other through group consciousness. National consciousness is what keeps us from "othering" those inside our nation, and the first amendment protects us from "othering" those outside our nation.


----------



## Johca (Feb 26, 2017)

Well you did get to group concio0usness and how it coopted Germany as a certain political party gained popularity to actually become the controlling government of a nation-state.  The point being is groups that have power to impose conformity if such is the desire of those in control of the group.  This imposing of conformity is what has the potential of using indoctrination and propaganda to influence a group either knowingly or in ignorance or out of ignorance to act benevolently or malevolently towards those outside of the group.

Here is some events of American History from the 1920s and 1930s.   Considering the numbers of WWI vets involved on opposing side which side would you considering be more patriotic or les patriotic than the other? In the individual level of doing acts and deeds which individuals had the weaker or stronger moral compass?

West Virginia's Mine Wars  -- has a simplified but accurate in that its not even close to being biased to one side or the other.  Pay attention to arrests happening under martial law and origin introduction of the term red necks.

The Bonus Army Invades  Washington, D.C., 1932 -- another event that involved WWI vets, can you attribute which side was more or less  patriotic?  This a particularly interesting event when considering several commanding General heroes of WWII were involved: US army led by MacArthur, Eisenhower, Patton attack WWI Bonus Army.

Patton and the Bonus March of 1932.

McArthur and the Bonus March of 1932.

The objective of me presenting these historical events is moral conduct and behavior is in the self determination control of the individual unless it's knowingly, or in ignorance or out of ignorance usurped by willingness to conform to the whims of a group.   A lynch mob is perhaps the most non-political violent example.  Following through in this line of reasoning civics classes at best have purpose of limiting acts and deeds of group out-of-ignorance or in-ignorance.  Knowingly is differed in my line of thought by the U.S. Constitution that expects changes to be done non-violently through the election/voting process.

Further these events happened after time when conscription had put a majority of U.S. male population into either voluntary or conscripted service.  My earlier example of Civilian Conservation Corps was a between major World Wars based on a military model having purpose of promoting unity between the American people, decrease unemployment by supplying good fundamentals such as discipline, respect, and basic skills needed to get employment in a labor force transitioning towards needing to be educated in how to read, write, and do math.  Prior to WWII less than 30% of the adult population between ages of 25 years old and older had completed high school and less than 10% of the adult population between ages of 25 years old and older had completed four years of college.   120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait

Further there are many organizations having a stated purpose objective of developing and strengthening citizenship that include Civil Air Patrol cadet, program, Jr. ROTC (High School Programs), Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Future Farmers of America, etc, ect, etc.


----------



## carlo amedio (Feb 26, 2017)

Johca said:


> Well you did get to group concio0usness and how it coopted Germany as a certain political party gained popularity to actually become the controlling government of a nation-state. The point being is groups that have power to impose conformity if such is the desire of those in control of the group. This imposing of conformity is what has the potential of using indoctrination and propaganda to influence a group either knowingly or in ignorance or out of ignorance to act benevolently or malevolently towards those outside of the group.





carlo amedio said:


> National consciousness can be twisted against those outside a nation, which is why the first amendment is so important. So long as internally our nation acknowledges the fact that we all want what's best for America, the first amendment will act as a shield from us attacking other nations without justifiable cause. But for that to be the case, a nation needs to be patriotic and have a sense of national consciousness, if we start to see our political opponents as wanting what's worse for America rather than disagreeing on what's best, they will become the other through group consciousness.


 To expand on what I've said I understand that one group can indoctrinate its members then oppress those not in the group, thus nationalism can potentially be dangerous if the group is America, given a hypothetical totalitarian government. Patriotism, on the other hand, is loving one's own country, not viewing one's country as better than others, thus it is very hard for an entity to use.



Johca said:


> Here is some events of American History from the 1920s and 1930s. Considering the numbers of WWI vets involved on opposing side which side would you considering be more patriotic or less patriotic than the other? In the individual level of doing acts and deeds which individuals had the weaker or stronger moral compass?


 Like I said I'm no history buff, but I will(and have) read any links, but I'm more interested in talking about my specific proposal, rather than comparing it to others throughout history. If a criticism exists of a similar scenario, why not just recycle the criticism so we don't risk getting off track?(more on this thought later)



Johca said:


> West Virginia's Mine Wars -- has a simplified but accurate in that its not even close to being biased to one side or the other. Pay attention to arrests happening under martial law and origin introduction of the term red necks.


 first, I have to ask, is that where the term rednecks came from as we know it today? But that's just a footnote, I'm back on topic now I'll give a quick summary, then delve deeper: Minors are in a terrible workplace, especially in WV, they have terrible wages and the company sells them everything they own at marked up prices. Basically, there is a monopoly on everything, terrible wages, shitty and unsafe working conditions and they work there anyways due to limited options. The UMWA unionizes them and they try many times to fix things unsuccessfully. Each different attempt gets progressively more violent until they start arming themselves. They end up creating a militia and all wear red bandannas(red necks). Then after things get too out of hand for the police federal troops are sent. The army leaders try to work with them, but things get all fucked up, and then the red necks surrender. Things take a long time to get better for the minors, but they do when the government gives unions more power. Ok?Ok.

There were two things you told me to pay attention to. Yes, they were nicknamed rednecks. my best guess is you were trying to say this was how they got "othered" but I'm not entirely sure so I'll just say that that was the name of the militia, maybe the summary you linked me to didn't cover something enough?

You then told me to pay attention to arrests occurring under martial law which is inaccurate, the US has never declared martial law... martial law means the military can arrest and try people. That aside they did arrest minors, but for committing crimes.

You also asked me two questions that applied to every scenario.

Who was more patriotic? Patriotism had nothing to do with this. The minors got dealt a shitty hand and screwed over by a company, they responded by staging an armed insurrection. the company didn't do anything in the name of patriotism, the police did their job, and when things got too bad the military did their job.

who had a stronger moral compass? Well not that it matters, but the mining company. The mining company has no moral obligation to give their workers a good life, the quality of the lives of the minors is not the concern of the company, even if they have a lot of influence over it. The company just needs to keep the minors working while not affecting their free will. They were never denying their workers the right to unionize, rather they were denying their right to do so without the company firing them and kicking them out of the companies property, those minors had no right to work there and the value of every worker is the absolute minimum they are willing to work for. The workers, on the other hand, staged an armed insurrection after the company decided they were replaceable. They did this out of desperation to support their families, but this fact makes their actions less immoral, not moral.

At this time I would like to bring up that we are talking about the logistics of teaching patriotism to the youth... most of what I've responded to has been a bit off topic IMO.



Johca said:


> The Bonus Army Invades Washington, D.C., 1932 -- another event that involved WWI vets, can you attribute which side was more or less patriotic? This a particularly interesting event when considering several commanding General heroes of WWII were involved: US army led by MacArthur, Eisenhower, Patton attack WWI Bonus Army.
> 
> Patton and the Bonus March of 1932.
> 
> McArthur and the Bonus March of 1932.



Another summary: After ww1 the government issued bonuses to soldiers redeemable in 1945, but when many soldiers lost their jobs in the depression they demanded bonuses early. To be fair this was not something they were entitled to just because it was something they deserved. MacArthur claims this is a commie plot to further deplete the budget in a time of economic hardship and out of a false sense of fear for security the veterans are driven out in a brutal fashion and their camps are burned.Ok?Ok.

Who was more patriotic? This event to doesn't really tie back into our discussion IMO. The soldiers wanted money so they tried to get bonuses early, the military drove them out. They were not "othered" as the entire country felt sympathy for them and Hoover was seen as a dickhead for it.



Johca said:


> The objective of me presenting these historical events is moral conduct and behavior is in the self determination control of the individual unless it's knowingly, or in ignorance or out of ignorance usurped by willingness to conform to the whims of a group. A lynch mob is perhaps the most non-political violent example.


I don't understand this sentence. This seems to be an explanation so it's entirely possible my critique of these events being somewhat off topic is false, but I don't understand this sentence. sorry. 


Johca said:


> Following through in this line of reasoning civics classes at best have purpose of limiting acts and deeds of group out-of-ignorance or in-ignorance. Knowingly is differed in my line of thought by the U.S. Constitution that expects changes to be done non-violently through the election/voting process.


 If I understood the one before this I could probably understand this one. Again sorry I'm having trouble understanding you.

The rest of your comment is about other organizations that are out there that teach patriotism, but I won't go any further until I know what you were saying earlier, just wanna make sure I know what I'm replying to.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 27, 2017)

And just how did a tread about the virtues and vices of military conscription become a forum for the razor's edge of nationalism/patriotism becoming jingoism and a force for world domination?


----------



## Gunz (Feb 27, 2017)

Threads devolve. It's science.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 27, 2017)

W


----------

