Oh my God...

[mousme]

Gacked from firewillow, who got it from bansidhe.

"Congress brought twin bills, [....] forward this year, [...] "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."

:::Edit:::

Yet another viewpoint, still gacked from firewillow.

Will be watching her LJ and other news sources for new links as they appear.

And yes, I know many countries have mandatory military service. That doesn't make it a good thing, IMHO. That's why some countries, like France, got rid of theirs several years ago.

To quote Calvin & Hobbes: "Dad, how does soldiers killing each other solve the world's problems?"

Comments

[palmir.livejournal.com]

Check firewillow's post for another link; I should've checked the Thomas database myself (thomas.loc.gov; holds the text and status and all other bureaucratic data about what the legislature's doing), but basically the article at congress.org is more than a bit off track.

[mousme.livejournal.com]

Thanks, willdo. :)

[joane.livejournal.com]

Haven't read the entire article, but even if the headline is accurate, the mandatory military service is standard in a huge number of countries. I gave serious thought to serving in the Israeli military for a few years, but discovered that I'd lose my Canadian citizenship if I signed up. As long as children of the elite can't buy their way out, it's not a horrifying idea. [shrugs]

[vureoelt.livejournal.com]

The irony here being that most of the militant U.S. war mongering politicians were draft dodgers. I think that's the point, more than anything else.

[joane.livejournal.com]

To quote Calvin & Hobbes: "Dad, how does soldiers killing each other solve the world's problems?"

That's a very pretty sentiment, and I wish I could stand behind the condemnation of military force that it implies, but I can't. This year, especially, I've been made more and more aware that random hatred of anything labelled "the Other" is a standard part of the human psyche. Until that changes (and I do believe that it can be changed, eventually), we have to be ready to defend the things we love. If that means an expanded military and mandatory service, so be it.

Life and freedom are too precariously held to be able to turn a blind eye to the existence of those who want to kill us. We may believe in peace and try to practice love and kindness, but if our enemies believe in war, we have to be prepared for when they come over the walls.

[mousme.livejournal.com]

but if our enemies believe in war, we have to be prepared for when they come over the walls.

Also a noble sentiment. Protect the country from the evil invaders who want to do us harm. Unfortunately, as often as not leads to "pre-emptive" protection, and we go over our own walls and attack them before they can attack us.

I'm in a quoting mood today, so I'll quote Sir Peter Ustinov, parodying the Americans, circa 1960: "We are capable of massive retaliation, and we can even retaliate before the enemy has time to strike!"

I know that this isn't a perfect world, and that people aren't going to throw down their guns tomorrow and live in peace. I just don't see how a country like the U.S., which already has a huge military infrastructure, would feel the need to institute something like mandatory military service. Granted, the extra information I was given at first appears to have been flawed, so I'm not going to harp on this forever.

It just doesn't make sense to me, from a North American viewpoint.