Conscription = Slavery ?

[xxlt]

(12-04-2016, 06:27 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm not a military guy, but I don't think conscription, in itself, is slavery or even a bad thing. Much depends on what sort of military you are conscripted into and for what purposes. E.g., British style impressment in the 18th and early 19th century might qualify as slavery or involuntary servitude.

In the US context I don't think it ever has been slavery. People are not bought and sold. They are paid. They have time off. There is time limit for service. The goal is not some master's profit but preserving the conditions under which the rest of society, including possibly the conscript's family, can remain free. 

We can have discussions like this because the US has not really been under existential threat since the height of the Cold War, and we've not been engaged in a hot war that was an existential threat since WWII.

Until recently, Germans had universal male conscription. Those who did not want to join the military could serve the country in other capacities, such as ambulance drivers.  I don't know why that would be bad in the US, where so much of the population is so far from sacrificing anything to keep their 1st-world lifestyles.  Perhaps people would take politics more seriously if they had some skin in the game.

I heard Charlie Rangel argue for this years ago. I think it is an idea with merit.

But here is an idea I really think has merit. You want to win hearts and minds and have people love and respect America? Give the Peace Corps a budget that is 10% of the DOD budget. For 2016 the Peace Corps budget was $410 million, the DOD budget was $585 billion. 

Our culture, simply put, glorifies and funds war. I would like to see the results if it glorified and funded peace at just 10% of the rate it funds war.

[xxlt]

(12-05-2016, 01:03 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: So, some seem to think that it is ok to force someone to do something against their will as long as they are compensated financially ?

Well...... that kind of blows rape out of the water, I guess.

Indeed. Our glorification of sex is exceeded only by our glorification of violence. The lengths we go to in justification of each is remarkable.

[*bfine32*]

(12-05-2016, 02:50 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Wars are won with technology and industrial might.  The modern generation of the UNited States would still kick ass in a war.

The older generations who think they are so tough would be wiped out by today's soldiers with their advanced technological weapons.  

Somebody didn't watch Battleship.

[Belsnickel]

(12-05-2016, 09:49 AM)Au165 Wrote: I agree with you if it is to defend the country, however in cases where we go to other countries that have not declared war on us this is where I have a problem. We should never even think to draft when we decide to play world police. We need to look at our current military staffing before we make the decision to be world police not after then decide to use a draft to make up the gap.

I would say that of the 4 times we have seen our government use conscription since 1789, I agree with 2 of them. The Civil War and WWII. I agree with your position, conscription for actual defense of our nation is a different thing than the conflicts we have been engaged in since WWII, which we got ourselves into by playing world police.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

I served, but I don't think the draft should be a thing unless it is to defend the land of the United States against foreign invaders (not Civil Wars). The draft isn't slavery though, because as others stated, you are paid.

If you can't get/entice enough soldiers for a war elsewhere, then there's a decent chance that the US shouldn't be in that war anyway. (Hey there, WW1.)

On the topic of women that you brought up, I am also back-and-forth on the whole women in combat positions. I know women can find themselves in combat regardless of their MOS being a "combat MOS" or not, but still. Pretty sure all studies have shown all-male combat units performing better and there's the worry of lowered physical standards. Will that 110lb woman be able to carry you, if your life depends on her doing it?

But in the end I go back to... if you're going to draft men, and women demand equality, then there needs to be full equality, which would include the draft.

One thing I would probably prefer is if a draft happens, the soldiers become part of the National Guard, with that state's federal income taxes being redirected to pay for it. So then the raised soldiers would technically be the state's military, rather than the federal government's military. But then, I am all about transferring power from the federal to the state level because the lower level of government it is, the more likely they are to know your needs and interests.

[Rotobeast]

(12-05-2016, 02:07 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I served, but I don't think the draft should be a thing unless it is to defend the land of the United States against foreign invaders (not Civil Wars). The draft isn't slavery though, because as others stated, you are paid.

If you can't get/entice enough soldiers for a war elsewhere, then there's a decent chance that the US shouldn't be in that war anyway. (Hey there, WW1.)

On the topic of women that you brought up, I am also back-and-forth on the whole women in combat positions. I know women can find themselves in combat regardless of their MOS being a "combat MOS" or not, but still. Pretty sure all studies have shown all-male combat units performing better and there's the worry of lowered physical standards. Will that 110lb woman be able to carry you, if your life depends on her doing it?

But in the end I go back to... if you're going to draft men, and women demand equality, then there needs to be full equality, which would include the draft.

One thing I would probably prefer is if a draft happens, the soldiers become part of the National Guard, with that state's federal income taxes being redirected to pay for it. So then the raised soldiers would technically be the state's military, rather than the federal government's military. But then, I am all about transferring power from the federal to the state level because the lower level of government it is, the more likely they are to know your needs and interests.

I'm pretty much in agreement with you.

I think IF a draft was started, the people should only be asked to defend their home state from possible attack.
I doubt many would object to protecting their immediate area, making my original question nearly moot.
But, that's not the way it had been in the past.

I'm just bothered by the concept of only having "freedom", when it's convenient
Did SO many people voluntarily spill their blood, so others might be FORCED to do the same.

I would volunteer, if our country were attacked.
However, I would not put a rifle in the back of a young person and force them to the frontline.
I honestly don't think we'd have to though.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[*bfine32*]

Why are those opposed to being the "World's Police" more than happy to be the 'World's Flop House"?

[Rotobeast]

(12-05-2016, 10:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why are those opposed to being the "World's Police" more than happy to be the 'World's Flop House"?

I'm sure most would guess that I'm not in support of being the "World's Flop House".

I'm not overly keen on reckless immigration and I'm pretty critical of our nation's amount of lackadaisical folk.

[HarleyDog]

(12-05-2016, 02:50 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Wars are won with technology and industrial might.  The modern generation of the UNited States would still kick ass in a war.

The older generations who think they are so tough would be wiped out by today's soldiers with their advanced technological weapons.  

Technology gives you a strategic advantage when fighting on foreign soil. But, I guess war couldn't happen here right? Other nations have technology also. We are not the strongest military in the world any longer. Strength is in numbers. China would be that country that could give us a run for our money. So is Russia. Both have technology beyond your dreams. Our society struggles to make it a few hours when a cell phone is misplaced. Throw an EMP into the mix and know you have disabled the techies of the USA along with the entire power grid. We don't need to discuss nuclear weapons I guess? If we unleash a massive amount on a super power, do you think there will not be any in return or vise versa?

In the end, and sometimes in the beginning depending on the strategy, ground troops are the most vital weapons you have. Unless your ultimate goal is to wipe out a population from existence. Even then, they are the exterminators. Technology isn't shit but a strategic advantage. That is, unless your adversary has equal to, or better technology than you. Then it's checkmate!

[fredtoast]

(12-05-2016, 11:36 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: . We are not the strongest military in the world any longer.

This is a myth created by the neo-con republicans that live from the proceeds of war and the military industry.

The United States accounts for 40 percent of all military spending on earth.  The US alone spends more money on the military ($1.6 trillion) than the next 7 largest countries combined (China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, UK, India , France, Japan).  There is no other country that is even within sight of having the military might of the US.  No country would even attempt to try and cross the oceans to attack us.  

The fear mongers have gotten to people like you because they want to spend more and more on the military.  

[Rotobeast]

(12-05-2016, 11:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is a myth created by the neo-con republicans that live from the proceeds of war and the military industry.

The United States accounts for 40 percent of all military spending on earth.  The US alone spends more money on the military ($1.6 trillion) than the next 7 largest countries combined (China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, UK, India , France, Japan).  There is no other country that is even within sight of having the military might of the US.  No country would even attempt to try and cross the oceans to attack us.  

The fear mongers have gotten to people like you because they want to spend more and more on the military.  

I agree with this.

Heck, just do a quick search on the number of aircraft carriers per country.

Also.... military technology that we had 10 years ago would scare people, even now.

[fredtoast]

(12-05-2016, 10:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why are those opposed to being the "World's Police" more than happy to be the 'World's Flop House"?

How does taking in 5% of the world's refugees make us the "Worls's Flophouse"?

But even if it does it is better tahn being the world police which requires us to spend 40% of the world budget on military spending and getting a lot of fine young men and women killed.  Personally I am tired of seeing US troops die for citizens of other countries and US taxpayers go deeper and deeper in debt to pay for it.

[*bfine32*]

(12-06-2016, 12:06 AM)fredtoast Wrote: How does taking in 5% of the world's refugees make us the "Worls's Flophouse"?

But even if it does it is better tahn being the world police which requires us to spend 40% of the world budget on military spending and getting a lot of fine young men and women killed.  Personally I am tired of seeing US troops die for citizens of other countries and US taxpayers go deeper and deeper in debt to pay for it.

Yet, when you compare our Military Budget to other countries based on percentage of GDP we don't even crack the top 20 in the world. Matter of fact the 3.3% we spend on Military Budget falls well short of the 15.2% we spend on Welfare entitlements.

What are we going in debt to pay for again? 

[fredtoast]

(12-06-2016, 12:57 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yet, when you compare our Military Budget to other countries based on percentage of GDP we don't even crack the top 20 in the world. Matter of fact the 3.3% we spend on Military Budget falls well short of the 15.2% we spend on Welfare entitlements.

What are we going in debt to pay for again? 

First of all your numbers are off.  Care to post a link?  We do not spend almost 5 times the military budget on "welfare entitlements".  Defense/homeland security/veterans benefits accounts for about 20% of our federal budget.  Medicaid/medicare/social security account for a little over 50%

Second of all every penny we spend on another country is wasted when we could be spending it on our own country.  I'd much rather give money to US citizens that throw money down a hole in a foreign country.

Thirs. lets talk ab out all the fine young US men and woment who are dying or getting crippled for some for the benfit of a foreign country instead of the US.

[Dill]

(12-05-2016, 01:03 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: So, some seem to think that it is ok to force someone to do something against their will as long as they are compensated financially ?

Well...... that kind of blows rape out of the water, I guess.

Don't get the rape reference. Do rapists pay their victims?

The question was whether conscription in the service of one's country was slavery, otherwise known as becoming some private individual's property to serve that person.

While I've got your ear, Roto, I'm just wondering how you would respond to this dilemma.  Imagine that the US stayed out of  WWII and the UK and Soviet Union were defeated by '43. By '46, Japan and Germany are poised to invade the US from Mexico and Canada.  There is a chance we could repel the invaders in a two front war; we have the manpower.  But our military is too small to defend both fronts, in part because we don't want to "enslave" citizens to defend their country. And we don't have enough volunteers.

Would you submit to the invasion because it's not ok to force someone to do something against his will? 

If China and Poland are any indication, Japanese and Germans imposed something much harsher than conscription on subject populations.

Please don't say "we're not under threat right now." I am just asking a question about a principle. What would you do in this hypothetical case?

[*bfine32*]

(12-06-2016, 01:29 AM)fredtoast Wrote: First of all your numbers are off.  Care to post a link?  We do not spend almost 5 times the military budget on "welfare entitlements".  Defense/homeland security/veterans benefits accounts for about 20% of our federal budget.  Medicaid/medicare/social security account for a little over 50%

Second of all every penny we spend on another country is wasted when we could be spending it on our own country.  I'd much rather give money to US citizens that throw money down a hole in a foreign country.

Thirs. lets talk ab out all the fine young US men and woment who are dying or getting crippled for some for the benfit of a foreign country instead of the US.

1)Got my numbers from National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/425340/welfare-vs-defense-numbers-kevin-d-williamson

2)So are you saying you must be a US Citizen to receive aid from out Government or is that just your preference?

3)Let's talk about violent crime and murder committed by Immigrants (legal and otherwise).

It pretty much comes down to which mentality you support: Stop it there or stop it here. 

[Rotobeast]

(12-06-2016, 02:17 AM)Dill Wrote: Don't get the rape reference. Do rapists pay their victims?

The question was whether conscription in the service of one's country was slavery, otherwise known as becoming some private individual's property to serve that person.

While I've got your ear, Roto, I'm just wondering how you would respond to this dilemma.  Imagine that the US stayed out of  WWII and the UK and Soviet Union were defeated by '43. By '46, Japan and Germany are poised to invade the US from Mexico and Canada.  There is a chance we could repel the invaders in a two front war; we have the manpower.  But our military is too small to defend both fronts, in part because we don't want to "enslave" citizens to defend their country. And we don't have enough volunteers.

Would you submit to the invasion because it's not ok to force someone to do something against his will? 

If China and Poland are any indication, Japanese and Germans imposed something much harsher than conscription on subject populations.

Please don't say "we're not under threat right now." I am just asking a question about a principle. What would you do in this hypothetical case?

The rape reference suggested that the rapist could throw money at the victim and make the crime go away.

In the OP, I was equating being a slave to government to being a slave to a plantation owner.
Funny thing..... some plantation owners compensated slaves with food, shelter, and sometimes land.
Did that make it ok ?

As far as the two front attack, I still stand by the fact that a draft would not be necessary.
Volunteers would pour into boot-camp.
I don't think an attack would have gotten through Canada and Mexico though.
I never suggested isolationism, so our standing military would have paired with our neighbors to defend the continent.
Logistically speaking, the foreign invaders would have no chance without an alliance made north or south of our borders.
If they took Cuba and other islands, things could be interesting, but would still be a stretch.
We still would have had the naval vessels and aircraft in Hawaii, assuming our lack of involvement kept that event from happening.
I'm also sure we would have really ramped up production of war items, considering countries were being overtaken.

Worst case scenario...... atomic bombs dropped on advancing forces in bordering countries.
God Bless Oppenheimer !

Or...... we could always offer tea, cakes, and join in a chorus of Deutschland, Deutschland Uber Alles !!

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(12-06-2016, 02:17 AM)Dill Wrote: Don't get the rape reference. Do rapists pay their victims?

The question was whether conscription in the service of one's country was slavery, otherwise known as becoming some private individual's property to serve that person.

While I've got your ear, Roto, I'm just wondering how you would respond to this dilemma.  Imagine that the US stayed out of  WWII and the UK and Soviet Union were defeated by '43. By '46, Japan and Germany are poised to invade the US from Mexico and Canada.  There is a chance we could repel the invaders in a two front war; we have the manpower.  But our military is too small to defend both fronts, in part because we don't want to "enslave" citizens to defend their country. And we don't have enough volunteers.

Would you submit to the invasion because it's not ok to force someone to do something against his will? 

If China and Poland are any indication, Japanese and Germans imposed something much harsher than conscription on subject populations.

Please don't say "we're not under threat right now." I am just asking a question about a principle. What would you do in this hypothetical case?

I'm not Roto, However I agree with you and others that conscription is not slavery.  I do believe that it should only be used in an absolute national emergency (I agree with Harley that Vietnam was not one.)  If we are attacked directly, every person in this country should be able to be called upon to defend it.  On the other side of this argument is that I think an all volunteer force is preferable (and the generals agree), because you get a more professional military.  But sometimes you need all hands on deck!

[*bfine32*]

(12-06-2016, 03:00 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I'm not Roto, However I agree with you and others that conscription is not slavery.  I do believe that it should only be used in an absolute national emergency (I agree with Harley that Vietnam was not one.)  If we are attacked directly, every person in this country should be able to be called upon to defend it.  On the other side of this argument is that I think an all volunteer force is preferable (and the generals agree), because you get a more professional military.  But sometimes you need all hands on deck!

And this is why I stated that all able-bodied Americans should be trained in Defense of the Nation. It's a little late to get everybody spun up when the Devil's at the door. 

[Bengalzona]

(12-05-2016, 11:36 PM)HarleyDog Wrote:  We are not the strongest military in the world any longer. Strength is in numbers. China would be that country that could give us a run for our money. So is Russia. Both have technology beyond your dreams.

Harley. I love you, my brother. But that is not true.

We are by far the strongest military power on the planet. It is not even close.

There is no other country in the world than can transport hundreds of thousands of troops to the opposite side of the world and keep them supplied and supported for years, while simultaneously sending tens of thousands to another location on the other side of the world and doing the same thing. Nobody. Britain almost went bankrupt sending their fleet and troops to the Falklands in the early eighties for several months. We have maintained a full fleet in the Middle East for over 35 years just because we like having it there.

It is true that China has more people in their armed forces (2.3 million compared to #2 U.S. which has 1.5 million). But have you looked at a map of China? China shares borders with North Korea, Russia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam. In contrast, we share borders with Canada and Mexico. Four of those countries have nuclear weapons (North Korea, Russia, Pakistan and India). The Chinese have had border conflicts with Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India (4 wars) and Vietnam during your lifetime. The combined size of those nations' armed forces is 3.3 million and dwarves the Chinese. This is to say nothing of their internal conflicts where hundreds of thousands of troops are required to hold down several provinces which would like to break away. Because of their internal and border concerns, they are just not able to exert military power outside of their own borders. Their entire navy is cowed by a single U.S. fleet. And we have six active fleets. Taiwan, an island they would like to re-incorporate, sits just 60 miles from mainland China and thumbs their noses at them.

As far as technology, the Chinese are substantially behind us. Do you know how I know that?..... Because they try to steal our stuff.

Russia has some similarities to China. Russia shares borders with North Korea, China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia and Finland. If you include their enclave at Kaliningrad (which you should because they ain't giving it up in the near future), they also share borders with Lithuania and Poland. Once again, we share borders with Canada and Mexico. Two of Russia's land neighbors (China and North Korea) have nuclear weapons. But Russia hasn't had as many recent conflicts with neighbors as China has, which is primarily attributable to their massive nuclear arsenal (incidently, China has a somewhat small nuclear arsenal) and by Russia's prior reputation as the Soviet Union of rolling large tank or motorized armies over neighboring nations which annoy them (Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Afghanistan 1980, etc.).

But the Russian military today is far different than it was during the Soviet Union days. Their armed forces members number 845,000 now, fifth in the world behind China (1), U.S. (2), India (3) and North Korea (4). During the Cold War, the Soviet armed forces were second in size to only China. But Putin and crew have been pretty shrewd. They decided to concentrate on quality over quantity. They went leaner and meaner. It was a smart move because if you look at their borders, only China is a real threat to them. And China is worried about their own borders as mentioned above. So Russia is less concerned today about defending its borders than it ever has been (except for one thing, which I'll mention later). Therefore, they can maintain a smaller and better quality armed forces and use to do what they have been best at for centuries: bullying their neighbors.

Yes, nothing is more Russian than picking on their neighbors. Be it Georgia, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithunania... heck, even Poland. Most of Russia's neighbors have the good sense to maintain good relations with Moscow and just do what the Russians want them to do. But some have had the audacity to think that they are completely "free". They don't seem to understand that that just doesn't work for modern Russia. That gives the Russians a border headache, and Russia doesn't like border headaches.

But the one thing that really light's Putin's anger is NATO. In the Russian mind, the only purpose of NATO is to hate on Russia. Russian media refers to it as an "aggressive, permanent organization". After all, once the Warsaw Pact shut down, shouldn't NATO have shut down also? Instead NATO has added new nations. Some of them former Warsaw Pact countries. The reason why the Russians have been a pain in the West's ass the past few years is because NATO permitted the Baltic States (Latvia, Estonia, and Lithunania) to join and has been considering Ukraine and Georgia. That is just not acceptable to the Russians. Putin calls the Baltic States "traitor states" to begin with (this is because many from these countries and from Ukraine fought alongside the Germans during WWII against the Russians... half of the troops fighting for Germany in WWII weren't from Germany).

This leads us to why Putin favored Trump during the election. Trump has made remarks about re-evaluating and lessening U.S. commitment to NATO. Without the U.S., NATO is a shell of itself. If NATO is a shell of itself, then Russia can do what it likes to keep neighbors in line. With its neighbors towing the line, the Russians can keep their military small and feel free to do other things (like rebuilding their navy or bombing civilians in Syria).

But I digress.

The Soviet Army is small, but capable. Their technology is probably still slightly less than the U.S., but not much (i.e. they don't try to steal our tech as often as China does). That said, they are not a significant threat to the world outside their bordering neighbors. They are rebuilding a Navy, but they are no where near challenging even one of our fleets. They cannot project forces across the globe the way we can or even the limited way the Soviet Union used to be able to.

Russia and China are defensive countries. We are not.