Mandatory Civil Service
November 12, 2008 / 2:01 pm • By Dr. Melissa ClouthierRahm Emmanuel has some ideas about what to do with America’s youth. Remember when Bush took office and the Left kvetched incessantly about a draft or mandatory military service? What they accuse others of…..
Can you say indoctrination?
23 Responses to “Mandatory Civil Service”
By Naqamel on Nov 12, 2008 | Reply
You’d think the first African-American President would have heard of the 13th Amendment…
By Jason Gillman on Nov 12, 2008 | Reply
The guy is saying he wants an “Israeli” type of system.
The Dems want SO BAD to employ a Mandatory Service requirement for all because it subjugates each and every one of us no matter our social spot in life.
The 1st commenter is correct. And frankly.. be ready to stand your ground.
By Mr. Chuckles on Nov 12, 2008 | Reply
If I remember correctly the 13th amendment refers to slavery. I think this is more similar to a draft, which seemed to be ok with the country until the Vietnam war became so unpopular. I wonder how popular the war in “eye-rack” will remain if a draft is instituted. Shrewd GOP’ers managed to evade any question about it, and they strung out our soldiers just long enough to avoid making it an issue. Problem is, some of the troops are now on their 4th or 5th tour, and the ground forces in Afghanistan are woefully inadequate according to the leadership there. How convenient for Bushie that he is leaving office, and how ironic it would be that the very people who cheered us on into war would now resist military service. The right wants to stay the course in Iraq, just so long as they don’t have to go. Let’s see how patriotic everyone is when they have to suit up and dodge bullets. But hey, don’t worry. Just watch out for those IED’s when your picking up the rose petals that Cheney and Rumsfield were talking about and you’ll be just fine.
(and no, I don’t support mandatory gov’t service, even as an ex-servicemember).
By Naqamel on Nov 12, 2008 | Reply
13th Amendment: Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Google is your friend. Note that it also bans involuntary servitude except as a punishment. So, if I commit a misdemeanor, I can get Community Service, but I can’t be forced to do it otherwise.
It’s not similar to a draft, as it would be universal. A Hitler Youth organization, if you will.
By Mr. Chuckles on Nov 12, 2008 | Reply
Naq,
I get the involuntary servitude part as well as the universal issue, however a draft is still involuntary servitude (hmmm, slavery?), even if it is not universal in scope. I don’t like the idea of mandatory civil service or a draft either way, but the truth of the matter is that sooner or later this is going to come up in regards to staffing Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush put off the inevitable, assuming we’re gonna keep partying middleastern style. Personally I think Emmanuel is floating this “civil service” balloon as a litmus test for how an actual military draft might be received by the public. I don’t believe they have any real intention of instituting this program.
By Mat on Nov 12, 2008 | Reply
Ah yes, the Obamajugend is already starting to fly, or is it the Obamastaffel? Never mind, it would have to be some odd acronym, since it’s leftist, like the NKVD (although I do like Obamajugend myself) I do wonder, however, if the national security force will bring back the goosestep?
Hmm, I see the left is now starting to feel warhawkish. Now we need a draft. Feeling big and bad. The draft was too good for the masses when the Republicans were in power. Now that the messiah is in charge, we’re all united in the heroic war effort. Yeah right…
I doubt the soldiers really want someone who isn’t willing to join voluntarily, at least the ones I know don’t. We don’t need a draft to fight this war. What we need is a sound war plan (and yes, that does involve killing some people, I know this makes the left cry tears of sorrow…I take that back, they won’t cry if it’s our soldiers killed, only the poor innocent enemy) and little interference from the political leadership.
Naturally, that won’t happen on Obama’s watch, so we’ll have part 2 of a politically correct war with whole new awesome and even more restricted ROEs! Go get ‘em Chuckles! Lead, Oh Dear Leader, Lead!
By Mat on Nov 12, 2008 | Reply
Actually, we may need the draft, after I saw this article:
http://rightwingnews.com/#post13436
Yeah, this might put a dampener on the war effort (assuming there is one when the messiah takes over, but hey, why should national sovereignty matter?).
Assuming this is correct, half the guys won’t re-up. I am sympathetic to this, since why bother to lay your life on the line when a good portion of the population on the left doesn’t give a rat’s ass whether you die anyway? Well, either that or actively cheering the other side on (but don’t question their patriotism). Oh yeah, I can see what an Obama administration will do. It’ll be a repetition a la Clinton. Cut the budget to the bone (Tomahawks? We don’t need Tomahawks), but get us involved in every tidbit little struggle. Yeah, spread the military out until it’s unusable, that’s the ticket.
What do you say Chuckles? We’ll get drafted and we can march arms-linked into the machine gun fire like the Red Army did in WW II, singing the Dear Leader’s praises. Of course we won’t need bullets, since we can use the bayonet (bullets cost money). And forget about artillery support, cuz there won’t be any shells (even more expensive than bullets). Same goes for air support, since fuel will be so expensive we’ll have our jets grounded (crap, that means we won’t even be mechanized). How about horses for cavalry. Oops, forget about that, since fodder is pretty expensive. Looks like we march to the front. Onward draftees!
By Mr. Chuckles on Nov 12, 2008 | Reply
Naq,
It’s truly amazing how blinded you are by your hatred of all things left (or percieved left in your case) of Limbaugh, Hannity, ad nausuem to the point that you can’t even read a sentence and discern it’s obvious meaning. Again, I AM NOT IN SUPPORT OF A DRAFT OR MANDATORY SERVICE. Clear enough? I postulated that Emmanuel is testing the water with this civil service crap, not that I was in support of it (try reading what I wrote and stop projecting for a change).
Your revisonist history regarding the issue of the draft and Bush is laughable. Bushco did everything that they could to avoid the “D” word, including extended tours, draining NG resources from states and calling up 56 year old former Vietman era vets (I know this because my neighbor is one of them who got called up). If you had been awake the last 5 1/2 years you would know this. Some of the “leftnuts” including Charlie Rangel called for a draft but Bushco quickly squashed the idea. Hmmm, maybe because it might be unpopular to have middle class kids coming home in coffins for a dubious cause?
Let me make this clear for you since you seem to have some sort of mental disorder - Tourettes maybe? I am not leftist, nor suddenly “warhawkish”, nor am I a chickenshit armchair patriot like yourself. Nope. Did my time, bro. You didn’t. You pussed out because, as I remember, you had some sort of “medical issue” or something that kept you from joining the Marines. Oh, how dissapointed they must have been not to have your brave leadership. Trust me, right now they would take even you, so march on down there tough guy and show us how to get it done. Hell, the Air Force will take you with your “issue”, and since you’re so much smarter than the rest of us I’m sure they will give you an instant commission. Just try not to interpret any written documentation in front of them since you will probably get it wrong.
P.S.
Which president has cut funding for veteran’s benefits more than any modern leader?
Hint: It’s not Clinton
By Mat on Nov 12, 2008 | Reply
Um Chuckles,
I’m not Naq. Totally different person.
By Trish on Nov 12, 2008 | Reply
Chuck, honey–
Presidents can’t decrease or increase funding for any program. That job sits squarely on the shoulders of Congress.
By Glynn W. on Nov 12, 2008 | Reply
Let the ChickenHawks know the truth Mr. Chuckles. Whatever they call themselves . . .
By MissJean on Nov 12, 2008 | Reply
I wonder if they’ll take a page out of other youth brigades; e.g. parents can opt their children out of participating, but it will bar them from educational resources and certain opportunities.
By Mat on Nov 12, 2008 | Reply
Ah, there’s the super leftnut. I was wondering when he was going to chime in.
Chuckles, so I dislike the left. So what? Most of them are fanatical numbnuts. I’m sure they dislike me just as much, so it’s even. And no, I’m not an unthinking disciple of the conservative commentators. But feel free to believe so if it suits you.
I’m well aware what the draft situation was. And no, I don’t believe I said you favored the draft. What I said is that if there is a draft, we’ll all be in the shit with no funding to back it up. Bear in mind, of course, that Barney Frank blatantly stated that the military was going to be cut 25%. Hence my comments on the lack of, well, everything for the military. But go ahead and be outraged if you wish.
Yes, I’m well aware of what Bush has done in eight years. I don’t agree with some of the stuff he has pulled (I could write a post just listing what I had problems with), but I would argue that at least there was funding for the military. He wasn’t like Clinton, who had the military go from one conflict to the next, all the while butchering the budget that was supposed to support them. Hence the lack of Tomahawks when they were needed in Kosovo. Cripes, how do you think 9/11 was pulled off anyway? Clinton gutted the intelligence network (note: Jamie Gorelick is coming back for a second run under Obama, look it up) Military hardware is great, but since they are made of these things called raw materials, they do need to be replenished every now and then. Unless of course you want what the Red Army had on the eve of Operation Barbarossa. Since you were in the military, you should know this, but apparently the Democrats do not. The fact that Obama has essentially made statements of funding a national security force that is just as well funded as the military even more disconcerting.
Mind you, I don’t agree with many commentators that Obama will have to match the budget of the military with this new private army that he wants to create. Far from it. He will gut the military, create the Obamajugend, and that will be that. And no, I do not agree with your blase notion that it’s a trial run. I think he’s deadly serious about it. This guy isn’t stupid and he has already shown that he can think long term. Just because I think he’s a leftist lunatic doesn’t mean he’s stupid.
Will they undertake the military draft? Depends on how serious the situation is. I personally adhere to the “never say never” philosophy. However, it’s not a question of more troops, but using the troops we have effectively. Until 2007, Bush really didn’t use them in the most efficient sense. But I can’t see how Gore or Kerry would have done any better and judging by Clinton’s track record, I think it would have been worse.
I didn’t have any medical issue with the military. To be perfectly honest, I don’t have the personality to do that (although I did tinker with the idea of joining Air Force intel after 9/11). I would have clashed with too many people and most likely been kicked out (I have little patience for nonsense). It doesn’t mean I have no respect for the military though (in truth the opposite). I personally think that the soldiers should be given a very good battle plan, it should be backed with excellent logistics and carried out. That and no ROEs. All they do is get good soldiers killed while favoring the enemy. I say launch an MLRS strike at a village to wipe it out if it saves one of our soldiers. I have no issue with that. Is it cold? Perhaps, but both sides are out to win, not to play footsies. If someone is to be killed, I definitely prefer it to be the other side.
Bear in mind that I noted logistics, since the Democrats do not seem to have any notion of what that means. You don’t cut the military 25% and not have it affect this absolutely critical category. Cutting the military to the bone seems to be a favorite pasttime with the left. I mean, I don’t see the right making slogans such as “It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.” That kind of thinking is childish and pretty stupid.
So please, spare me the crying game about kids dying and the chickenhawk crap. War is war and people do die. However, there’s a great and huge difference between dying for something and dying in vain (note to the left: try visiting Arlington sometime). I’m simply saying that we should have a properly funded military (preferably without a Waffen OS as a separate army). Hey, I know what’s going to happen. If you want to look the other way, go right ahead.
By Naqamel on Nov 13, 2008 | Reply
Huh. I’ll take it as a compliment that I was confused for Mat. High praise, in my book.
By Mr. Chuckles on Nov 13, 2008 | Reply
Mat and Naqamel,
All apologies for confusing you two. Honestly, you two just seem like the same person.
I think you guys are freaking out. I doubt that Americans will stand for the socialization of this country to the degree that you think it will happen. I for one won’t. Yes, there’s going to move to the left to be sure, but that will generate a groundswell within the GOP base (the real one, you know, actual conservatism. Not this neo-con, spendaholic fundie crap). This will lead back to republican control of congress, and the inevitable gridlock that frankly we need.
In regards to the military, yes as a former servicemeber I understand the implications of not having enough logistical support, technology, etc. However, during my time in the amount of fiscal abuse was apparent even to me as I had friends who worked in procurement functions. So yes, I think some trimming or at least responsible oversight is warranted. They don’t call them beltway bandits for nothing. National defense does not absolve any organizaton from fiscal responsibility, even the military.
As far as Clinton underfunding intelligence, keep in mind that Richard Clark was practically screaming “imminent terrorist attack!” at Kindasleazy Rice for months before 9-11. It wasn’t a big secret that they were planning an attack, she just needed to listen. By all accounts she was essentially annoyed with the guy and blew him off. Yes, I know that Clinton had an opportunity to kill bin laden, but he was mired in the GOP’s and the media’s quest to know more about his penis. He made a political move rather than a security move, and it came back to bite us, but Bushco blew it off as well when they had the chance. If you’re going to call Clinton out, make sure to include the equally complicit Bush administration.
As far as the “war is hell so get used to it” mantra, please tell me what the noble cause in Iraq is that justifies over 4,000 dead and 27,000 seriously injured Americans (we’ll forget the Iraqi deaths, they’re all filthy ragheads anyway). I get Afghanistan, in fact I think it is completely underfunded, understaffed, etc. (I wish Bush got it instead of diverting rescources to Iraq), but what great principle are Americans dying for in Iraq? Democracy? you’re kidding, right? Given Iraqi history do you really believe that they will ever have true democracy?
By Mr. Chuckles on Nov 13, 2008 | Reply
Trish,
If that’s true, then it makes it all the worse that the cutting of veterans benefits have happened under the republican controlled congress, which by my math would be the last 12 years. Way to support the troops.
By Mr. Chuckles on Nov 13, 2008 | Reply
Correction (before you all pounce)-
12 of the last 14 years (’94 to ‘06).
By Mat on Nov 13, 2008 | Reply
Sorry Chuckles,
I don’t think I’m freaking out. I’m glad you have more faith in the voters than I do. The American people just voted in a guy based more on emotions than any real rationality (though it could also be said that McCain wasn’t exactly lucid at the end). Hugging and crying after someone is elected? Come on, that’s gushing emotional. If my candidate wins, I’m glad and maybe cheer for a second, but I would hardly be hugging and kissing a stranger and then bawl for hours over it. This guy has but two years in the Senate. That’s it. I wish that the Republicans fielded a stronger candidate, but good god. I mean, we might just as well have elected Gumby for president.
The problem is that you’re assuming the Democrats are going to act like the party they have in the past. Sorry, but this party and leadership is heaps different than the one Clinton inherited in 1992. It’s far more to the left and they have a plan to entrench themselves as the majority party for a long time to come. If you don’t want to believe that, well, it’ll happen anyway. Simply burying your head in the sand won’t change that fact.
I believe that I said efficiency is a good idea, but I don’t think taking 25% out of the budget is exactly “trimming.” That’s more like hacking massive chunks out and that will reduce overall effectiveness. If you think otherwise, fantastic. So much for force projection. Cutting the military budget in the middle of a shooting war (unlike the cold war) is not really a good idea in my opinion. Not exactly my idea of “supporting” the military, but at least the left are good sports about it. Go get ‘em babykillers…
I’m so glad the media focused on the hero Richard Clarke. Yes, Bush has a little blame. However, much of the al qaeda planning for the operation occurred on Clinton’s watch, so I’m sorry, that makes Slick Willie far more responsible for what happened. The fact is that the Clinton administration had no intention of dealing with the situation, so where was the vaunted Clarke during 1992-2000 (or was it just more important that he asserted himself during an entirely different administration) As for the offhand penis remark, Obama himself noted during the election that a president had to multitask. So you’re saying that Clinton couldn’t multitask because he couldn’t keep his fly zipped? Great, I’m glad we had him defending the country. I think you pretty much helped my argument there, so thanks.
I don’t believe that I said anything noble about Iraq. There’s generally nothing remotely noble about war. When it happens, you win it as soon as possible by inflicting the maximum amount of damage possible to the enemy while keeping your losses to a minimum (or has warfare changed that radically since the Boomers have taken over?). I would have to say that our enemy probably thinks at least along the same lines (although probably not minimum losses aspect).
I personally think it would have been a great central base to strike out at the other countries. It borders Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. These three countries should have been hammered. What was a purely military situation developed into a silly campaign about democracy. I totally agree that none of those countries will ever have democracy (it’s a concept that works well in the West because it originated in the, well, West). I’m glad we got rid of Hussein, but I consider that more a bonus than any real objective.
As I stated before, I’m more concerned about American soldiers risking their necks than any of the enemy (if you prefer the term filthy ragheads, so be it). Again, your comments kinda proved my point about the left having more sympathy for the enemy than our own soldiers. An enemy is an enemy. When they stop fighting, they end up not being the enemy. That’s generally how war works. It’s messy, true, but then dead people don’t ty to fly planes into buildings or set off IEDs. It may be brutal, but you can’t argue its effectiveness. I’m sure that the al qaeda fighters were quite chivalrous when they slit the throats of those stewardesses when they hijacked the planes. Yeah, I do remember that tidbit of info, even if the leftnuts collectively forgot it.
I can argue that if Iraq was handled effectively (it wasn’t), then we would have lost a fraction of what we have lost thus far. However, 4,000 is a pittance compared to the amount we’ll lose if the messiah unilaterally withdraws from the area, only to send them in again when the region goes up in flames.
This will be a controversial question, since I never served (I’m sure the leftnuts will swarm all over me for being a “chickenhawk”), but how many dead does it take to win a war? 100? 1000? 10,000? Depends on the war. It took 360,000 on both sides to resolve the American Civil War and end slavery. Was it worth the price? It’s not an easy answer.
Let me ask the same thing regarding Vietnam. Bear in mind that I was born in 1973. We lost 58,000 men there. I know that the military was obsessed with body counts. But is that the real measure of victory? We could have bombed the rice fields in North Vietnam, which would have crippled their ability to wage war. It would have also caused millions of casualties. Would it have been worth it? Well, it would have probably saved thousands of American and South Vietnamese lives.
You make it sound that I relish the fact that we have 31,000 total casualties so far. I don’t. I do know for all the chest beating, the hair pulling and the crocodile tears the left loved every casualty that came across that TV screen. I’m angered greatly that we have lost as many because I think a lot of them could have been avoided provided that we actually wage a war the way it needs to be waged. I’m well aware that my ideas make people very uncomfortable. So be it. My question is how many will die due to Obama’s policies? That remains to be seen.
By Trish on Nov 13, 2008 | Reply
Chuck–
The current congress is NOT Republican controlled. Just in case you hadn’t noticed.
By Laurie on Nov 14, 2008 | Reply
This one fortunately isn’t true.
Details from FactCheck (bipartisan).
By GB on Nov 14, 2008 | Reply
http://change.gov/americaserves/
“Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year”
Though it has since been revised to say
“by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free”
That’s only, $63,600,000,000.00 per year
By Mr. Chuckles on Nov 14, 2008 | Reply
Trish,
Like I said, republican the last 12 of 14 years. Thier benefits have been shrinking during this time, and yes, piss on the democrats for not reversing this to enough of a degree the last two years. I have heard of some vets having to pay for thier own plane fare from Germany after they have been medically discharged there, paying for thier own medical from combat injuries, etc. When they do finally get home, many of them have a huge amount of difficulty getting what remaining benefits they have. This is pure horseshit. These people lay it on the line for thier country and are then discarded when they aren’t useful anymore. No matter how I feel about the Iraq war, this is criminal.