It’s not a question of to have or not to have. It’s a constitutional responsibility imposed upon Americans in Article I., Section 8. of our Constitution, wherein the enumerated powers of Congress are noted and among them are “To raise and support Armies,..” and “To provide and maintain a Navy;”. This plan does NOT meet the definition of “conscription”. It does NOT mandate service or even service by draft as it has a voluntary choice element to it at the inception. What it DOES is to mandate to Law an ‘availability to serve’ . Many under this plan will likely never be called, but they will be available.
My Suggested Plan
1. I would institute a draft “registration”, wherein males ONLY would know that immediately upon graduation from high school they would be required by Law to fulfill a mandatory 3 year military obligation to their nation. This being a necessity to meet that aforenoted constitutional responsibility. NO exclusions and VERY limited exceptions (examples being for those who are convicted felons, physically disabled and/or mentally disabled). The new Law that would create this system would include a statement acknowledging that when it comes to defending our country that role traditionally, and generally, has been a male responsibility.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would become an expunged protocol and homosexuals would NOT be accepted nor tolerated in the armed forces. All males would be required to register with the Selective Service upon entering their junior year of high school . At this time they would be asked on the registration form if they wished to enlist upon graduation in order to get their choice of service. It would be explained that by enlisting they’d be doing so for three years of active duty service regardless of branch of service chosen. It would also be noted that females would only be eliminated from the “Compulsory Military Service Availability” requirement”, NOT from voluntarily enlisting. Females would NOT serve in front-line combat positions in any branch of armed forces.
Rationale: Immature kids and those with behavioral problems would not be dumped on society and into colleges for which they are ill-prepared in the main. They would have the option of serving their obligation in a service branch of their own choice or accepting a draft call, based upon “the needs of the service” at a given time. As to women serving, there is NO need to encumber our daughters and mothers with such a ‘mandatory’ responsibility. In times of war THEY are needed at home. This is NOT an equal rights issue, it’s a ‘who’s responsible for and to what’ issue. Most importantly our male youth would, over the period of time that this is phased in, come to understand that there is an inherent patriotic responsibility that each generation has to assume if a nation is to survive. What I’m talking about here is a ready “pool” of men ready, able and fit to serve, but not necessarily needed at a particular time to serve. That defines why a draft registration process is needed. It’s up to Congress to finally establish levels of manpower needed for each branch of service. Those who were drafted and couldn’t make it through basic training would be discharged with “Unfit for Military Service” certificates that would be their adult start in civilian life, but before that, they’d be given the option to serve in another capacity to be determined by codified public law. A National Disaster Service Corps, operated under FEMA authority, BUT controlled directly by committees of Congress consisting of committees in BOTH houses come to mind as a possible option. The title indicates the ‘limited’ usage of such and oversight is transferred to Congress and away from being a tool of the Executive Branch. Since FEMA is actually an Executive Branch department. This sharing of control respects the Separation of Powers intent in our Constitution. A ‘domestic’ army under the thumb of an Obama-like, social order and social engineering control freakazoid President and Executive Branch would NOT meet that standard. After some few years of existence this registration process would become anticipated routine just like high school following junior high. As there would be very limited exceptions and no exclusions the rich man and poor man’s sons would be accorded equal responsibility in such a system and share common ground, maybe the only time they ever will. Educational deferments would no longer exist. That includes the politicians’ sons. It would make commitment to any war venture not at all a “given” and those whom we elect might be all the more circumspect about how they advise and consent to authorize war when THEIR sons are also being sent off!
2. All males would be required to register with the Selective Service upon entering their junior year of high school . At the start of their senior high school year all would sit for an indoctrination to explain the system and the ramifications of the system on them.
Rationale: The point to be made here is that the total needs of the annual armed forces requirements would be highest in the first few years of the system and likely lessen as some of those who entered decided to stay and make the military a career. In any event…it, the “annual draft”, would only be a small percentage of those ‘registered’, possibly even satisfied by the number who elect to volunteer for the branch of their choice. The number of registered who were not needed to meet the DOD requirements for all branches of service would become the eligible pool in the event of declared war and increased personnel needs. It is THAT POOL that we have NO provisions for now and are in dire need of. It may even make sense to require those in ‘the pool’ to serve their reserve obligation ‘ up front’ and be available for a two to three week period annually while in that “pool”. In that manner a reserve pool has at least a minimal amount of preparedness training when the need to actually serve during wartime comes to pass.
3. Prior to graduation those who wished to elect their choice of service branch would so indicate and also provide a secondary choice. Each year the DOD (Dept of Defense) would determine how many new recruits for each branch of service would be required and those would be selected by a computer generated process that would select from a master alphabetized, by surname, list. If, for example, 10% of the available pool were needed the computer would select every tenth name.
Rationale: Such a system satisfies the armed forces needs and is as fair and equitable as reasonably possible. After such a system had been in place for 5 or 6 years, I submit that enough young people in all branches would have re-enlisedt, indicative of making the military a career. That goes to building a more efficient, well-trained and professional armed forces at the ready at all times. Need to access the draft pool would the likely only occur during actual wartime periods.
4. Those who could not meet the health standard minimum requirements and conscientious objecters judged to be legitimate would be offered the option to serve in a local chapter of the Natural Disaster Service Corps doing bookkeeping, liason or communications functions. The NDSC would be a program setup and administered by the federal government. Stringent standards would be enforced with latitude granted in only single, case-by-case individual reviews and by a review board formed for just that purpose. Board rulings would have to be unanimous and have only a single instance right of appeal.
Rationale: The advantages are obvious as the society needs are satisfied and these young people have a hands-on, one-on-one lesson in reality to help inculcate them with a ‘sense of responsibility’ at a time in their lives where the present experience is diametrically opposite.
Conclusion:
This is a completely equitable and workable plan in my opinion. It should be obvious that I’ve given it much though. I’d appreciate you giving it as much before you criticize it.
The Constitution does NOT impose obligations on individual citizens. In no case, raising armies included, does or should the Constitution give the Federal government the authority to deprive a citizen of his rights. The United States of America, founded on the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment, recognizing every man’s right to Life, Liberty and Property, established a government to PROTECT individual rights. Forcing a man to risk his life, even in such noble a cause as the defense of the United States, contravenes the Rights of Man. This is EVIL.
Obviously you ignored my request to give this subject much thought before responding. That is why your position can be readily discredited and dispensed with.
The Constitution DOES impose obligations upon the citizenry. If it grants the people’s representatives, Congress, the enumerated power to raise and maintain an Army and Navy, WHICH IT DOES…, then by direct extension it stands to reason that those forces will be composed of citizens in defense of this nation. How else do you create and maintain such forces? Evil my *ss! In this constitutional republic, created so the ultimate power of choice is with We the People and not some all-powerful and unanswerable entity called ‘the government’ this body of man, America, did so by the making of a compact in which free and equal men consent to surrender their natural (God given) liberty to make, interpret and enforce the Law to the MAJORITY WILL of We the People as elements of that selfsame government they created. Nations exist as the Rule and Law of Man, not of God.
Your criticism is wrapped up in pure and irresponsible emotion. Every nation, being an independent entity of people conceived to identify itself as such a unity of people, has the right and the obligation to protect and defend itself. If everyone thought that was “evil” then ONLY the evil would survive to rule over those too cowardly to commit to their own freedom. “Contravenes the Rights of Man”??? What a load of bull that is. With that belief you are a sitting duck for any assault upon your freedom. Why do you suppose the Second Amendment to our Constitution came into being? I can accept and tolerate “reasonable” criticism, but yours fails to reach that standard. This society and all societies recognize the right of man to self-defense and state such in Law. Stop shovelling trite sounding hogwash with no basis in reality please. History shows man that there is indeed a resident Evil in mankind and his makeup, To fail to acknowledge that and take steps to defend onesself against such is to be grossly irresponsible in denial of reality.
Hmm! No response.
I offer this as closing food for thought since you made mention of “Enlightenment”.
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”(1)
Just in case you fail to recognize that, it’s the Oath of Allegiance that a person wishing to be naturalized as an Amercan citizen must take. It follows in Law that this Oath applies to born or native citizens also. You “will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law”. Interesting, isn’t it. What I propose is what I’d like to see as Law. in the portion just prior to the excerpt I noted a citizens swears to ALSO “bear true faith and allegiance” to our “Constitution and laws of the United States of America”. Read it again and see.
Hope that clears up that minor detail.
(1) Oath of Allegiance for Naturalized Citizens, Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Ouch, Robert. Evil? I wouldn’t go that far. At times in our nations history we have instituted a draft. A draft saved the world during WW II, and hardly qualified as “evil” during that time of dire need.
Having stated that, I do not agree with this article, nor any plan loaded with government mandates over its people. That might fly in communist countries, but not in a free republic. And while I concede the need for a draft during WW II, that is only because of U.S. non-intervention policies and a very weak military in the 1930’s, making a draft an absolute necessity, then.
This article bases “draft registration,” not on military unpreparedness, but rather on ensuring all men (rich or poor) participate in the national defense, citing congress’s responsibility under the constitution to raise and maintain a military. That responsibility in no way infers a draft. It charges congress to meet the national security requirements, objectives, and readiness levels to meet anticipated threats. Yet at the same time, it doesn’t exclude a draft, which as our history has shown, has been required in order to meet unanticipated threats, due to whatever reason, such as our weakened state and wrong policies leading up to WW II, or to unpredictable future events (insert any doomsday scenario.) Which would truly be a doomsday scenario, considering that our all-volunteer military (including our nuclear forces) AND our reserves, and our state national guard(s) would need to FAIL before a draft would be instituted.
America today has the world’s best military. There is no doubt we are numero uno, completely negating the need for a draft registration based on a position of military weakness. Our current system (while flawed) is capable of fighting two major wars on different continents. Our military alliances with NATO increases our capability abroad.
Our closest threat is China, Russia, and rogue nations/terrorist organizations with rogue nuclear missiles. Each of these potential threats are getting stronger, yet all of them combined spend far less on their military infrastructure. None are capable of going toe-to-toe, and the only credible threat is that of a rogue nuclear missile, to which the U.S. response would lay waste to it’s maker. While this point might be obvious to some, it is relevant, since our predominance rules out the need for draft registration based on sheer military superiority.
Another point made in this article is the obligation placed on ALL males to register for the draft, with few exemptions, in order that no person escape this obligation, by whatever loophole or means. For what purpose? Just so rich people participate, politicians sons participate? I would much rather have a “rich” genius working at Corporation X, developing the next enemy-killing-machine, than wasting his time doing pushups at bootcamp, if called to serve. The point is proper allocation of human-resources, and in a free society, each individual is free to pursue their own self-determination, not to be interrupted by ideas of noble service. Imagine if the creator of facebook (on the eve of discovery) was called into military service. Now multiply that by thousands of lives permanently interrupted, forever altered, forced into military service. “No Thanks.”
In addition, this article somehow suggests that draft registrants are free from government control, when in fact every registrant is a soldier-in-waiting under the President of the United States. Furthermore, it excludes women in any mandated capacity, and sends male “rejects” to other departments to handle whatever emergency situation that may arise. All of which increases the size of government, thereby increasing tax dollars to pay for it. As for excluding females… this isn’t 1900. Women (by law) are allowed to serve in combat zones, and one day (assuming we survive the obamanation) we will have a female commander-in-chief. If any draft is required in the future to save the republic, women had best be part of it, machine gun in hand or not.
In America, our greatest freedom is to be free from government. Attempts at throwing mandates on free people only enslaves the ignorant masses, not the free-few. America will always be a mixed bag of patriots and slimeballs, the latter of which describes people like Natalie Maines, who represents the opposition. For without a vocal opposition, tyranny rules.
Max. You are so wrong in comprehension of the why of my position and the reality of the stressed military in America today it borders upon delusional. The only way to deal with your comments is to invalidate each one of significance, one by one.
As to the paragraph starting with… “Having stated that,…”
“government mandates over its people”??? Hard to conceive that any American citizen, with a modicum of intelligence, sees the need to maintain a standing armed forces in defense of this nation as per the Constitution as a government mandate over it’s people. Why do you think that a Department of Defense exists and that various branches of the armed forces exist? To be made operational by frigging robots! What part of this can you not comprehend:
“The Constitution DOES impose obligations upon the citizenry. If it grants the people’s representatives, Congress, the enumerated power to raise and maintain an Army and Navy, WHICH IT DOES…, then by direct extension it stands to reason that those forces will be composed of citizens in defense of this nation. How else do you create and maintain such forces?”
You thought “Robert” went too far in declaring it “evil” and then you step up to the mark and repeat your prior assertion that makes you appear deluded as to a necessary word in any free society. R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y. Sorry for having had to spell it out, but you would do what when this nation’s national security is threatened and we do not enough men under arms and trained to respond?
Next this paragraph…”This article bases “draft registration,”..” It does not. You conveniently jumped on one of my comments as to an example of a former loophole that allows certain privileged people to evade their responsibility to their country because of who they are. Did you miss the fact that I also alluded to eliminating educational deferments. My entire post is dedicated to one thing. At all times having a well-trained military force ready to be deployed if and when needed. Your knowledge of the roots of this great nation and it’s foundational structure is sadly abysmal. You might give the Constitution a dedicated read and don’t skip the Preamble or you’ll miss the reference where We the People elected to “provide for the common defence”. Then reread it…maybe you’ll figure out why! Not content at having embarassed yourself by those remarks you piled it on stating, after having noted why we need armed forces, that the Constitution doesn’t infer a draft. Of course it doesn’t. I’ll bet you can’t find a part of the Constitution labelled Separation of Powers provision, but it’s there. The beauty of that magnificent document is that the founders made it up ONLY as a guide to future generations for making public law and treaties. Those three elements, our Constitution, Law and Treaties, define and make up the “supreme Law of the land”. The founders in their wisdom left the detail of how to comply with the various articles and sections to future generations as they saw fit and as circumstance warrants and to do so by codifying such into Law. It’s obvious to me that you fail to grasp that. I’ve studied our Constitution as a student of our origins and comprehend it’s “original intent’. I wonder about people like you in these dire times. In the Letter of Transmittal for our Constitution, the then President of the Congress a relatively obscure fellow named George Washington said this right in the middle of that letter. “Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest.” GET IT? The individual must bear a degree of sacrifice for the survival of the group. So it was in conceiving our Constitution as much acrimony existed, but for the necessity of THE Union (meaning the Union of the States), all conceded some for the greater good. And in spite of this you call the need to maintain a standing armed forces at the ready a ‘government mandate over it’s people’ and Communist in nature. Do you bear any sense of responsibility as a citizen? George meant ALL CITIZENS “must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest”, not a select few to bear the burden of responsibility that belongs to the many. Same applies to military service. It’s a PRINCIPLE. You cannot pick and choose how you will apply it. These FEW serving now are your overworked and overstressed pawns you willingly sacrifice while the majority of citizens fit to serve are given a FREE PASS ON CITIZENSHIP RESPONSIBILITY! GET REAL. I won’t waste my time explaining this again. You compounded your indiscretion of judgement by approving of a ‘GOVERNMENT MANDATE OVER ITS PEOPLE’ back in WWII. DUH! The genius of a hindsight visionary at work again.
Next we have complete delusion at play here. This is getting brutal and I do feel for you. The paragraph starting with…”America today has the world’s best military” AND the next paragraoh , which I’ll call “the cheering section”. For this some authoritative citations to you:
2004 article…Hollow Force – Has Iraq stretched the U.S. military to its breaking point?
Here> https://www.slate.com/id/2099408/
2005 article…’The Salvador Option’
Here> https://www.newsweek.com/2005/01/07/the-salvador-option.html
2006 article…The U.S. Military: Under Strain and at Risk Report, National Security Advisory Group
Here> https://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2122/us_military.html?breadcrumb=%2Fregion%2F150%2Fmiddle_east%3Fpage%3D120
2007 article…Overstretched and Under Strain
Here> https://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc.cfm?doc_name=fs-110-1-146
2008 articles…
“America’s Medicated Army“, Time, 5 June 2008 — About the growing use of anti-depressants by US army personnel.
Here> http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1811858,00.html
“VA testing drugs on war veterans” – The Washington Times and ABC News, 18 June 2008
Here. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/…/va-testing-drugs-on-war-v...
“Recruiting the Bottom of the Barrel” – Asia Times, April 26, 2008
Here> https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9357
2009 article…”I Want You (not to go crazy in the US Army)!”
Here> https://rt.com/usa/news/i-want-you-not-to-go-crazy-in-the-us-army/
2010 article…”Army Reports Record Number of Suicides”
Here> https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/05/eveningnews/main7027340.shtml
2011 article…Joint Mental Health Advisory Team Report
Here> https://www.scribd.com/full/55006827?access_key=key-19u4w6za97y757fyohjd
This is a downright untruth Max:
“In addition, this article somehow suggests that draft registrants are free from government control,”.
PROVE THAT. I NEVER suggested that. They ARE registrants, BECAUSE OF government control (CAUTION: You’re having another governmental paranoia episode). None of us are completely free from government control. HELLOOOOO! You act if any mention of government means totalitarian control of you. Government is essential. Without it you have anarchy. [DRIPPING SARCASM] Your raving paranoia against government is treatable by education, without prescription drugs.[/DRIPPING SARCASM] Wake up and smell this constitutional republic before it’s gone!
In closing you teeter close to the edge of credulity here:
“Attempts at throwing mandates on free people only enslaves the ignorant masses, not the free-few”
Hilarious! I am advocating for a position to be codified to Law, as in The Rule of Law. It’s my right and I do so , because I perceive the current system as being completely flawed. Now, let’s examine this. Say by some chance a Law is passed that mandates my specific plan. So when elected representatives of We the People legislate bills into Law, that Law becomes a mandate. Nothing wrong with that! Excuse me…, but that needs some fine-tuning for your personal edification. Make that a “LEGAL” mandate, accomplished within a representative democracy known as a constitutional republic form, that authorizes and directs a legal behavior and/or action of some kind. Now…we are to believe that by your curious standard that very democratic process “enslaves the ignorant masses” and is fit to be likened to Communism!!!
In my just translated effort at lucid, interpretive meaning those ignorant masses by your definition are all of us. I’m going to make an observation here of constructive intent. Re-read your comments after cooling off. You allow emotion to override reason in making points. Take a few turns around the walk-down cooler. There is no continuity of reason/rationale to your comments. Your comment, upon which I just efforted a translation to reason of, is quite literally off-the-reservation and around-the-bend!
Slinging mud will get you nowhere. I should avoid further debate, and no doubt I will regret pursuing it here. But here goes.
We maintain a standing army, with reserves, by an all volunteer force, and volunteering to serve isn’t a government mandate. You assume that the constitution passes such mandates onto its citizens by direct extension. That sounds exactly like liberal philosophy, such as in promoting the general welfare at enormous taxpayer expense. That is exactly what FDR did by “taxing” all citizens to pay for social security, under the misguided notion that the preamble “We the people” somehow means every Tom, Dick, and Harry born in the United States. It is also the exact same reasoning used to mandate obamacare on all citizens. This flawed logic, that by caveat ‘We the people” can be used by government to create universal mandates, is insanity, and not at all what those words truly meant when they were written. Those words were formed under the new principle of representative government, not by decree, but by a new nation whereby the people held the power over government. They were purposeful words that stated “We the people” were not ruled by a monarchy, but rather we would govern ourselves under a new republic. But sadly, over time, those words have been hijacked by government to enforce mandates, such as the plan advocated in your article.
History is replete with mandated military service. And while you might think draft registration is somewhat benign, it can easily be misused by governments who overstep their bounds. Such as Vietnam. Yet you would justify its historical misuse by pretending it doesn’t, or can’t, happen. Call it paranoia, or call me paranoid, but that isn’t an accurate description. If you want to see real paranoia, look at the TSA: Our government treating all U.S. citizens as terror suspects. Is that being paranoid? You betcha. And it’s flat out wrong.
You might buy in to the hype that our military is stretched too thin, and we are abusing our soldiers with multiple tours. I’m not buying any of it, when you know as well as I that congressional limits on tour lengths made in the 1990’s sharply reduced what was normal “then” to six month deployments. Nothing on the scale of service our WW II heroes endured.
In final closing, it is obvious that you cannot respect the opinions of others without dishing out childish insults in a vain attempt to flaunt your own ideas as being overly superior. Good luck building an audience with that.
Not “slinging mud” Max. Trying very hard to get you to VALIDATE YOUR OPINION, which is unfounded conjecture and thus I treat it as such. I gave you TEN separate sources over EIGHT of the last EIGHT YEARS. They all say the same thing. The “all-volunteer” force you prop up as the answer to the Constitution’s direction to maintain an Army and Navy are stressed beyond belief, overused and overabused and suffering because of it. They suffer so, because the existing system deposits the RESPONSIBILITIES of THE MANY(all who do not serve) on the shoulders OF THE FEW(all who do serve). That MUST change! When young men grow up understanding that they have a very personal civic responsibility as the torch of freedom is passed from one generation to the next…TO SERVE in a cause greater than self, attitudes of the young will change and the nation will be better for it in the short AND long run.
In response to my substantial validation of my opinion from multiple source within and outside of government your brilliant reply was this:
“You might buy in to the hype that our military is stretched too thin, and we are abusing our soldiers with multiple tours. I’m not buying any of it, when you know as well as I that congressional limits on tour lengths made in the 1990′s sharply reduced what was normal “then” to six month deployments.”
Just great! They shortened deployments (as if I didn’t now that), BUT then started rotating them back even quicker after short stays back home. Get real! Don’t you know politcal seight-of-hand when you see it? In the face of all those varied origins of opinion I posted, by people of whom many are military experienced more that YOU or I you simply cast it off. Guess what? I could post many more sources in agreement. You are in the minority of disbelievers. Your own irrational, half-truth, rationale comment about tour reduction should embarass YOU. The tour reductions were a direct reaction to the damned problems I documented here and they actually excebated them by foircing quicker tour turn-arounds due to a MANPOWER SHORTAGE. HELLLOOOOO!. Our “volunteer” troops are overstressed and suffering because of THAT. What’s wrong with you! You’re defending an indefensible position.
I intentionally skipped the TSA reference as you are really stretching looking for a life ring to save yourself with.
Your allusion to me making a comparison similar to the Social Security issue you noted is almost childishly out-of-place. Stick to the basic subject if you will.
So in closing upon your comments that last go-’round… I note your closing:
‘In final closing, it is obvious that you cannot respect the opinions of others without dishing out childish insults in a vain attempt to flaunt your own ideas as being overly superior. Good luck building an audience with that.”
Wrong Max! I respect the opinions of others, BUT after I make my case against such and it is fact-based and then I come back and validate it, WHICH YOU STILL HAVE NOT DONE ONCE IN OUR EXCHANGE HERE … then it’s time to take off the gloves and go bare-knuckled style since the ‘soft” method failed to gain your attention. I told you earlier that I’m not contentious, but when others REFUSE to back up their OPINION (defined as conjecture, belief stated without fact-based support for same) and attack my principles and beliefs (constitutional and otherwise) that I’ve documented here I do get contentious. Do not expect me to relent when I know and have made the valid case that I’m correct on an issue and you keep throwing unsupported opinion and off-topic diversions at me.
Before I forget, you made some comments about past wars. In Nam the same crap went on even with a combined force of volunteer and non-volunteer soldiers. More breakdowns than ever seen before and a new term entered the VA lexicon in case you forgot, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (orignally labelled Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome). You alluded to Nam. Whether you and I think Nam was a ill-conceived venture for us or not is NOT the issue. Our ELECTED leaders committed us, right or wrong. I would opine from my view, and it is the same now as then. In WWII that situation did NOT exist. What some had, including my Uncle (just 10yrs. my senior) who was on Iwo was “shell shock”, but for a different reason. The sudden exposure to the Hell of ground war for very young men with NO training in the field. I served in the Navy with a fellow who, as an 18 yr.old kid first time away from home, caught graves registration detail in the mop-up aftermath. You may not be familiar what it is, but it’s retrieving blown apart body parts and assembling them with hopefully the correct dog-tags for bagging and shipment home. The experience so shocked this kid at the time that every hair on his body, including all his eyelashes fell out and NEVER grew back. He was hospitalized(mentally) for 8 years continuously and made it so far back that he was allowed to stay in the Navy when I ran into him. Those kinds of things happened to those of us who made the first trip down that long, dark road that is war and returned, BUT that is NOT the type of stress I’m talking about now. That is the shock of war and when that shock is repeated again and again by too many tours with too little respite in-between the results are what those TEN sources are all about and you “don’t buy into it”. You refuse to buy into reality. Just great! The direct result of a wartime draft, IRONICALLY for your information, because we had failed to maintain a standing armed forces of adequate strength to enable us to be the #1 world power. WE got caught with our pants down and not enough men under arms, nor ships, nor equipment to mobilize for a war on TWO FRONTS back then. Politicians called us the world’s #1 superpower, but never took steps to build the #1 size and ready force! More reality.
Whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not friend, WE HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM. If I didn’t think so I would not have taken much time to put together what I believe is a potential solution just to read my own writing. I’m not egocentric. It is that short and simple to understand and no amount of protestation by you can undue THE TRUTH. The only reason the system hasn’t changed to something similar to my idea is that we are awash up to our necks in common politicians and statemen are becoming as rare as dinosaurs. They’re ALL afraid to speak the truth for fear that the ignorant in the public and their other elected politicians will vilify them for it. Anything remotely close to being the mere mention of the DRAFT is politically taboo!
What I was railing against mostly with you is your suggestion and apparent position that ANY form of induction short of volunteering violates your rights as is a Communist-like policy. I notice that you failed to rebuke or even acknowledge my supporting vaidation in the Letter of Transmittal of our Constitution. That sort of acknowledgement can be found all over our founding documents making YOUR perception wrong. If you cannot see the error of that it’s not my problem, it’s yours. It’s no biggie to admit having been in error.
———————————————————-
NOW…, whether we should have committed to the war ventures we now are is a separate issue and debate. I’m AGAINST nation-building and I see most all of the current involvements as just that. That is NOT what is at debate here and now though. What is, is the REALITY that WE need to have at ALL TIMES a very substantial force of men under arms who are well-trained and able and willing to go where their nation directs them at a moment’s notice. If we do NOT, then we relegate the leadership role in the world to guess who? CHINA! Isn’t that a wonderful option to support! Freedom isn’t free. I know that and so should you.
doc, you define the word “bloviate” perfectly.
I don’t need to dig out a million references, or write a novel defending my opinion, to know I am right on this issue. Take a good look at what you are advocating. Not a single conservative politician in congress is advocating your idea. But many liberals have, albeit under a different name, however their motivation is basically the same as yours… forcing patriotism on every American.
And that doesn’t even address your sexism by excluding women, and confining them to the 1900’s lifestyle you grew up with.
“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the
sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country;
but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”
~Thomas Paine
Keep it up Max, you are only embarassing yourself.
Bloviating is defined as ‘To discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner”.
Again you are inaccurate. I discourse in a proper debating formmaking points and after challenge, when necessary, giving citation for authoritative source.
You, on the other hand, do just what you accused me of and to prove it you just did it again right in that same post comment:
“I don’t need to dig out a million references, or write a novel defending my opinion, to know I am right on this issue.” Imagine Max, the pomposity of one who asserts his opinion wityhout ANY VALIDATION and says it’s right, becuase he is above we mere mortals…he knows he’s right.
I’ve tried to dissuade you from embarassing yourself like this, but you won’t listen will you! As I keep saying I take no joy in nailing you like this with your own words, but I won’t indulge your bloviating and self-righteous, untouchable, unchallengeable attitude in debate.
Btw, your frustration is showing as your final assault is “OFF-TOPIC” here. That belonged on the other Compulsory Military Service topic. Feel free to post it there and I’ll deal with it there. More humiliation for you who are a glutton for self-abuse.
Off topic? Since when is tearing apart your poorly thought out plan off-topic?
Some facts about your plan for you to consider:
– Your plan is SEXISTS. It excludes women.
– Your plan is HOMOPHOBIC. It excludes homosexuals.
– Your plan is a dangerous throwback to pre-1973 and the vietnam era draft, that war is an excellent example of government MISUSE of a draft.
All of which CONTRADICT U.S. LAW. Seems like you are living in the PAST. Catch up, will ya? Come up with a plan that applies to 21st century CONSERVATIVE Americans.
Oops! There’s that systolic rising again Max. I intentionally closed making an intended error and you could have raked me over the coals for it and enjoyed yourself. I was betting (and proved correct by you) that you’d be so pissed-off by the end of my post that you wouldn’t even notice that what I said in my last paragraph starting with “Btw..”was completely wrong. You are and were on the right topic thread.
I’m glad I did, because you’re revealing yourself for the true liberal that you are.
Emotionally bent out of shape you charged me with the following (My responses enclosed thusly):
“– Your plan is SEXISTS. It excludes women. ”
(It does only as to “mandatory service”. I said they could still volunteer. Hardly sexist, but your bloodshot eyes likely obscurred your vision and you failed to see the “volunteering” reference. Understandable considering your condition.)
“– Your plan is HOMOPHOBIC. It excludes homosexuals. ”
(Sorry Max, you’re wrong once AGAIN. Excluding homosexuals from the military does not define homophobia. Not “homophobic” to ban gays, lesbians, transvestites and transsexuals from the military service. The military is not the same as civilian society. It has different standards and even different law to control it’s behavior and a different system to mete out punishment AND FOR GOOD REASONS. When you join the military you understand that you are relinquishing some of your civilian individual rights, yes..freedoms, for the common good of discipline and the successful completion of the mission. The military cannot long endure your “big tent” and “diversity” and “inclusion” liberal attitudes. Should I really have to explain that difference to you. I do not believe that you ever served in ACTIVE duty. As to being homophobic I do not fear the abnormal folks, but do not accord “abnormal” people the same level of acceptance as “normal” people, although I do tolerate them and in no way condone abuses against them. They made an “abnormal” choice voluntarily to live as they do, which was outside of THIS society’s established values. They are obliged to then live within this society’s rules of behavior. You liberals, never content with stability based on principles and addicted to constant change for the sake of change have made an assault on our value system. Thus, the culture war that is ongoing. You see, YOU…not being a real conservative, wouldn’t know that real conservatives believe in “traditional American values”. Little things like normal means that children have one female Mother and one male Father. How about that! Little things like communal living is the resting place of lost souls. Little things like marraige is sanctifying a relationship between one man and one woman and is the basis for procreation and raising one family together. How very strange and alien! Little things like, not ony for religious reasons, BUT also for MORAL reasons that life is sacred and abortion, the taking of a live once conceived, is murder. Little things like homosexual couples should not be allowed o adopt children and introduce them into a perverted lifestyle. Did I forget that we also believe in Mom and apple pie too!)
“– Your plan is a dangerous throwback to pre-1973 and the vietnam era draft, that war is an excellent example of government MISUSE of a draft.”
(AHHH! So now you DO BELIEVE in a “draft”, but just feel that it was MISUSED in Nam. Another after-the-fact, hindsight rationalization based on vacillation and a lack of principles that causes you to always prevaricate as no position you take is firmed up by principle. You really do define liberals. Oh by the way, I’m proud to be a 1900s guy. It’s those values that helped build America to her gretaness, but it’s yours that is slowly destroying her.)
“All of which CONTRADICT U.S. LAW.”
(What law? Show us. Prove it.)
“Seems like you are living in the PAST. Catch up, will ya? Come up with a plan that applies to 21st century CONSERVATIVE Americans.”
(HA! Nice to end on a bang Max. Conservative Americans are conservatives Americans throughout. When you use the term “21st century CONSERVATIVE Americans” it’s like accepting the terms of “fiscal conservative” and “social conservative”. Those are LIBERAL divide-and-conquer terms. A conservative is conservative in all things or he/she is NOT a TRUE conservative. They become like you. Wake up! Did you ever hear liberals calling themselves “fiscal liberals” and “social liberals! Of course not. Wake up and smell the political air. You Max, sad to say, are a CINO.)
And then I’m a homophobe for not wanting “abnormal” folks in the military. Not a homphobe Max, a realist. The military is not the same a s civilian society. It has different standards and even different law to control it’s behavior and a different system to mete out punishment. When you join the military you understand that you are relinquishing some of your civilian individual rights, yes..freedoms, for the common good of discipline and successful completion of the mission. Should I really have to explain that difference to you. Of course, I forgot…you see that as advocating for Communism. YOu are a corruption of a conservative Max. You’ve ignorantly bought nto the thinking that there can be social and fiscal conservaatives. You are a liberal and define yourself as conservative out of a sense of guilt and use a fiscal conservative positioning to restore your self-image
Do you have any idea of what the phrase “traditional American values” means? It’s generally what most conservatives believe in and it doesn’t include trying to make military policy follow public policy and attempt to expunge the word “abnormal” from our lexicon.
I read your reply a few days ago and just shook my head at how conservatives like you are giving conservatism a bad rap. I’ll only address a couple of points where I see your fatal flaws are as a person.
You said: “YOu are a corruption of a conservative Max.”
Really? You don’t even know me. Yet you claim a position of moral superiority? How ignorant and arrogant of you. I don’t know who you are, but more and more you are sounding like a mix between Jerry Falwell and Fidel Castro.
You think: “And then I’m a homophobe for not wanting “abnormal” folks in the military. Not a homphobe Max, a realist. The military is not the same a s civilian society. It has different standards and even different law to control it’s behavior and a different system to mete out punishment. When you join the military you understand that you are relinquishing some of your civilian individual rights, yes..freedoms, for the common good of discipline and successful completion of the mission.”
Really? Just what is it that homosexuals do that heterosexuals don’t? Fact is both are capable of serving with HONOR, including WOMEN. Or would you have them relinquish their sexuality at the door? How PRIMITIVE of you.
And: “All of which CONTRADICT U.S. LAW.”
(What law? Show us. Prove it.)
Well, genius, it is against U.S. Law to discriminate against any person based on race, creed, gender, age FOR EMPLOYMENT. Look it up yourself.
This is for your Jerry Falwell side: America wasn’t founded by people like you. Sure the majority of them were religious, but not all. And they each respected one another. You can take your HOLY RIGHTEOUSNESS all the way to hell, since you believe in such a place.
Max, I bear you no malice and remind you that it has been YOU that are embarassing yourself and I’m but shining the light of truth on such.
Here we go again, from your post of July 14th:
POINT: From your last postback comment.
“You said: “YOu are a corruption of a conservative Max.”
Really? You don’t even know me. Yet you claim a position of moral superiority? How ignorant and arrogant of you. I don’t know who you are, but more and more you are sounding like a mix between Jerry Falwell and Fidel Castro”
Moral superiority? Perception is your failing Max. It’s not a moral judgement to say what I said as an accurate POLITICAL OBSERVATION of belief. You go about posting and stating historically liberal positioned beliefs/attitudes (Third gender advocacy, feminist agenda, etc) and accuse me of “moral superiority” for pointing out the ACCURACY OF REFERENCE of my observation. It has nothing to do with morals at all. but I think you know that and your just flailing about in an attempt to ward me off in self-defense. [sarcasm]I’ve capitalized some “keywords” for your enlightenment and edification. NOW I’m being intellectually, but STILL…not morally, superior.[/sarcasm]
POINT> From that same comment.
“You think: “And then I’m a homophobe for not wanting “abnormal” folks in the military. Not a homphobe Max, a realist. The military is not the same a s civilian society. It has different standards and even different law to control it’s behavior and a different system to mete out punishment. When you join the military you understand that you are relinquishing some of your civilian individual rights, yes..freedoms, for the common good of discipline and successful completion of the mission.”
Really? Just what is it that homosexuals do that heterosexuals don’t? Fact is both are capable of serving with HONOR, including WOMEN. Or would you have them relinquish their sexuality at the door? How PRIMITIVE of you.”
Try as you may Max, even waiting your own self-appointed “few days” for your systolic (I presume) to subside so you could indict me as to my “fatal flaws as a person”, YOU STILL totally miss the cogent point of what CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE. There are, PUUULEASE pay close attention, only two NATURAL and NORMAL genders. They are MALE and FEMALE. Any persons that do not fit into those two choices are aberrations of the norm we call ABNORMAL. I simply intellectually understand the meaning of words Max, you do NOT. Oh to be sure in your mind you do, but in your liberal heart you cannot accept that so you make EMOTIONALLY-DRIVEN liberal concessions, the end result of which is the desire to remove the word ABNORMAL from the lexicon. You can’t help yourself. YOU SELF-DEFINE YOURSELF AS A LIBERAL.
As to legal legitimacy I’ve already explained to you how you relinquish certain individual rights when you enter the military service. You are subject to a different Rule of Law. It now called The Unifom Code of Military Justice. The idea actually originated with the ancient Phoenicians who had very strict laws pertaining to their
military personnel and we codified a similar edict to public law in 1950 some few years before I entered the Navy. [sarcasm]Guess the old Phoenicians were fatally flawed too…just like me huh! DAMNED HOMOPHOBES.[/sarcasm]
You are no longer a civilian subject to civilian law based upon a CIVILIAN code of societal behavior once you swear an oath to military service to your country. Military discipline and the mission become the most important considerations even moreso that individual rights, thus the need for a UCMJ.
Point> And lastly…
“And: “All of which CONTRADICT U.S. LAW.”
(What law? Show us. Prove it.)
Well, genius, it is against U.S. Law to discriminate against any person based on race, creed, gender, age FOR EMPLOYMENT. Look it up yourself.
This is for your Jerry Falwell side: America wasn’t founded by people like you. Sure the majority of them were religious, but not all. And they each respected one another. You can take your HOLY RIGHTEOUSNESS all the way to hell, since you believe in such a place.”
Too bad Max, you failed again. I simply requested that you prove your ouitlandish charge that my position does “CONTRADICT US LAW.” And what did you do Max? You set about reacting like a LIBERA b calling me a “genius” in frustrated anger and go about defining how your perception of my beliefs contradicts CIVILIAN US LAW. Duhhhh! And then your PRECIOUS closing, replete with systolic rising once again and just as predictable a liberal outpouring as night following day, you self-indulge your BLIND, BIG-TENT ATTITUDE and see absolutely no sense to the need for DISCIPLINE in the MILITARY.
CONCLUSION: If you consider yourself to be a conservative it is likely (my completely untrained and amateurish observation) out of some sense of intellectual guilt for being unable to cope with your emotional propensity to liberal views. As a retrospective observation I don’t find that uncommon actually, as many people I’ve come across in the contemporary 50ish age group and even into the early 60s have found themselves so conflicted. It’s a manifestation of having lived through, but also been an internal moving and motivating force of the turbulent and liberal dominated 60s. Be assured though my friend that the solace of contentment is but an acknowledgement away. Admitting to your problem is, as the Chinese philosopher observed, the first step on the journey home. ( No fee for armchair consultations)
doc,
My systolic runs like a rolex, so addressing your issues is comparable to smelling grandmas apple pie on a sunny spring afternoon, with a refreshing glass of sweet ice tea in hand. But thank you for your false read and erroneous judgements, at least that shows your true character, which is proving itself to be less than admirable.
To address your concerns,
You said: “Max, I bear you no malice and remind you that it has been YOU that are embarassing yourself and I’m but shining the light of truth on such.” >>> Shining the light of truth? Apparently you should invest in a Battle Lantern, they aren’t the greatest, but at least they won’t leave you all alone in the dark. As for any embarrassment you believe I am in, for once you are correct. My father would kick my rear if he were alive, knowing I violated one of his rules about never wrestling with pigs.
You said: ” It’s not a moral judgement to say what I said as an accurate POLITICAL OBSERVATION of belief. You go about posting and stating historically liberal positioned beliefs/attitudes (Third gender advocacy, feminist agenda, etc) and accuse me of “moral superiority” for pointing out the ACCURACY OF REFERENCE of my observation.” >>> and how long ago was it that men like me were advocating to free the slaves over your similar stubborn claims of similar political observations? If you entertain a brief history lesson, Northern factory owners and their poorly paid immigrant employees did not want the slaves to be freed, since they knew the sudden release of poor blacks would flood the job market, and would threaten white immigrant jobs by ex-slaves willing to work for peanut husks. In fact, it was the religious fanatics of the day that pursued the abolitionists movement, over your time tested sour objections. To be fair, I do not know what you would have done then. But in light of your written attitudes AGAINST women and THIRD GENDER (? did you make that up?) classes of people, I can only deduce you would have opposed abolition, as well as allowing inferior women the right to vote.. “like a real man!” What Mockery!
You said: “YOU STILL totally miss the cogent point of what CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE. There are, PUUULEASE pay close attention, only two NATURAL and NORMAL genders. They are MALE and FEMALE. Any persons that do not fit into those two choices are aberrations of the norm we call ABNORMAL.” >>> So, in your opinion, conservatives believe all Transexuals, Gays, Lesbians, Hermodaphites (sp), and even women who want to assume traditional male roles (including the presidency) are ABNORMAL. Wow. That is a huge number of people, MILLIONS of abnormal people just polluting your rights as an American to DISCRIMINATE against THEM because THEY are ABNORMAL. So YOU can define their roles in YOUR normal world? All I can say to that ignorance is apparently you never took a biology class, where your genetic makeup in the expression of who YOU are is one of about 70 TRILLION different possible outcomes, from every expressed trait under the sun, including personality traits. But I suppose you dismiss such proof in favor of a GOD who predetermines winners and losers, or at the very least imposes his own form of discrimination, such as producing superior people like you. Regardless of what you believe, the above mentioned gender groups are HUMANS… just like YOU. And are deserving of equal treatment across the board, to be treated equally, despite your clever objections. That isn’t liberal philosophy. Thats simply just being HUMAN, and OBEYING the GOLDEN RULE.
You said: “You are no longer a civilian subject to civilian law based upon a CIVILIAN code of societal behavior once you swear an oath to military service to your country. Military discipline and the mission become the most important considerations even moreso that individual rights, thus the need for a UCMJ.” >>> The purpose of the UCMJ isn’t to permit gender discrimination, rather to uphold good order and discipline. If your argument is that sexual preference interferes with good order and discipline, then you need categorical proof, not lame conjecture based on a perceived moral high ground or some form of religious right. Alas… I await such proof.
Insofar as taking an oath to serve, our armed forces personnel take an oath, not to the UCMJ you wield over the heads of ABNORMAL people, but they take a solemn oath to DEFEND the U.S. Constitution and to obey lawful orders, both of which prohibit discrimination by design. When that “by design” fails, it is because of people like you holding onto ancient rights of a super majority to impose its will over the objections of ABNORMALS.
You seem to take great delight in your conjured up assessment of me. Yet, truly it doesn’t matter what you think of me. Call it what you will. If you think I am a conflicted conservative with liberal ideals, so be it. I need not defend my beliefs to antiquity.
MAX OUT
(As no “Reply” option appeared after your response I have no way of knowing whether this will appear in the proper sequence.)
Your first response as follows:
“You said: “Max, I bear you no malice and remind you that it has been YOU that are embarassing yourself and I’m but shining the light of truth on such.” >>> Shining the light of truth? Apparently you should invest in a Battle Lantern, they aren’t the greatest, but at least they won’t leave you all alone in the dark. As for any embarrassment you believe I am in, for once you are correct. My father would kick my rear if he were alive, knowing I violated one of his rules about never wrestling with pigs.”
I would submit that to any impartial third party not involved reading this response proves you have not one scintilla of evidence to sustain yourself as it’s completely gratuitously self-indulgent.
The next this-away:
“You said: ” It’s not a moral judgement to say what I said as an accurate POLITICAL OBSERVATION of belief. You go about posting and stating historically liberal positioned beliefs/attitudes (Third gender advocacy, feminist agenda, etc) and accuse me of “moral superiority” for pointing out the ACCURACY OF REFERENCE of my observation.” >>> and how long ago was it that men like me were advocating to free the slaves over your similar stubborn claims of similar political observations? If you entertain a brief history lesson, Northern factory owners and their poorly paid immigrant employees did not want the slaves to be freed, since they knew the sudden release of poor blacks would flood the job market, and would threaten white immigrant jobs by ex-slaves willing to work for peanut husks. In fact, it was the religious fanatics of the day that pursued the abolitionists movement, over your time tested sour objections. To be fair, I do not know what you would have done then. But in light of your written attitudes AGAINST women and THIRD GENDER (? did you make that up?) classes of people, I can only deduce you would have opposed abolition, as well as allowing inferior women the right to vote.. “like a real man!” What Mockery!”
Sad Max…at how you continue these attempts at DIVERSION. Angered with my “Idea” you, from the start, mounted your liberal soapbox not to address the plan itself but to champion unrelated ideals and history. So it is yet again. Despite my reminding you that we are talking about a military society and legal structure within a social society and legal structure you continue to offer up irrelevancy as your defense mechanism response.
History with application to the overall civilian society. To gather up emotion energy you presume much about me a to intolerance and also note that persons of “traditional American values” are something akin to “antiquities”. That’s the holier-than-thou liberal disposition rising up in you again Max. Don’t you recognize it? Total and incomplete intolerance for contrarian opinion, NOT based upon actual fact demonstrated by you, but by your imaginings. Seeking some wiggle room for your hysterical EMOTING you IGNORE the TRUTHS I posted about the uniqueness of the legal military structure. mission and responsibilities. If it were up to people like you this nation would never be able to properly be prepared to defend itself.
Next you start off another ill-conceived and totally irrelevant (to the subject at hand) retort. Check out the hyperbole of absurdity in your opening salvo here;
“You said: “YOU STILL totally miss the cogent point of what CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE. There are, PUUULEASE pay close attention, only two NATURAL and NORMAL genders. They are MALE and FEMALE. Any persons that do not fit into those two choices are aberrations of the norm we call ABNORMAL.” >>> So, in your opinion, conservatives believe all Transexuals, Gays, Lesbians, Hermodaphites (sp), and even women who want to assume traditional male roles (including the presidency) are ABNORMAL….”
Do you not understand the written word? It matters not what motivation a person has, anyting outside the bounds of NORMAL is ABNORMAL. That comment, albeit it very acccurate, you revile for it’s straightforwardness. You champion change for the sake of change, because you feel that is an inalienable right though you have great difficulty putting it in that context as inalienable right s relate to “natural” and God- given law.. I, on the other hand, believe that ABNORMAL persons are due the TOLERANCE of the NORMAL persons in society (mind you I’m NOT talking about within the military society now). Now to the sticky-point. Tolerance does NOT means complete acceptance as an equal. We traditionalists, in my opinion, believe in precisely the “natural” law of two genders BOTH from a religious orientation and morality perspective, not necessarily the same. Electing a deviant lifestyle is a VOLUNTARY CHOICE for which that individual, completely familiar with the broadly acceptable behaviors of the society within which he/she lives in, knowingly accepts the consequences of. Personally I believe that these choices have their origins IN PART in some complex genetic error that science has not come to grips with yet. And why? Lack of popular motivation…, because to finance any such study would be a costly and near-overwhelming effort only readily initiated by government. Can you imagine a MAJORITY OF POLITICANS having the guts to mandate such a study into law? I cannot, so nothing gets resolved.
Congratulations Max, you’ve finally come closer to the flame in relevancy:
‘You said: “You are no longer a civilian subject to civilian law based upon a CIVILIAN code of societal behavior once you swear an oath to military service to your country. Military discipline and the mission become the most important considerations even moreso that individual rights, thus the need for a UCMJ.” >>> The purpose of the UCMJ isn’t to permit gender discrimination, rather to uphold good order and discipline. If your argument is that sexual preference interferes with good order and discipline, then you need categorical proof, not lame conjecture based on a perceived moral high ground or some form of religious right. Alas… I await such proof.
Insofar as taking an oath to serve, our armed forces personnel take an oath, not to the UCMJ you wield over the heads of ABNORMAL people, but they take a solemn oath to DEFEND the U.S. Constitution and to obey lawful orders, both of which prohibit discrimination by design. When that “by design” fails, it is because of people like you holding onto ancient rights of a super majority to impose its will over the objections of ABNORMALS.”
As to whether…”sexual preference interferes with good order and discipline” I can only speak from my observational experience and related anecdotal comment by Navy vets I know, some of whom curtailed careers and got out in disgust. The large number of gay dalliances in the Navy on-board ship was greatly exacerbated by the Clintonistas influence of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell or as i call it…the Bury Your Head in The Sand to Reality option. The Navy Dept, being like any military-political structure, which it is, thrives at the higher flag rank end of quasi-political leaders who fight to cover up any truth that hurts the current order of things There are NO definitive studies available as I’ve tried to obtain such in the recent past (two years ago) The same can be said of enlisted to officer sexual fraternization and also the numbers of pregnancies and abortions hushed up since females have been allowed to serve on warships. One wonders how politicians attitudes enable changes in the law for the worse. This kind of brazen influence>, https://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jul/14/active-duty-troops-march-gay-pride-parade-saturday/
which you undoubtedly endorse pressures them and the deviants know it. So we always come back full-circle to what you dodge responsibility for dealing with. The necessity to have military law separate from it’s civilian counterpart to guarantee a ready effectiveness to complete a mission without compromising it by sacrificing discipline for individual rights. You hopefully assure that by taking this oath:
“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” Sodomy, Article 125 of the UCMJ, has recenty been UPHELD as to punishment for good order and discipline reasons whilst the Lawrence v. Texas precedent case has been held to support civilian law.THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE STANDARDS Max despite your annoyance and rejection of the Rule of Law, which has been at the heart of the case I’ve made all along.
Yopur closing:
“You seem to take great delight in your conjured up assessment of me. Yet, truly it doesn’t matter what you think of me. Call it what you will. If you think I am a conflicted conservative with liberal ideals, so be it. I need not defend my beliefs to antiquity”
Correct, it doesn’t. What does matter though Max is whether you are parading yourself about as some kind of conservative on a conservative-oriented site under false pretenses. if you are a liberal, conflicted as most are with poor self-imagesd and doubt OR not, simply own up to that which you are. Liberals are not banned from this site as far as I know. Conservatives by my experience are INTELLECTUALLY TOLERANT FOLKS! You really give yourself away with that irresistable yielding to temptation to file me (and those like me) as “antiquities”. We “antiquities” are those fellas and gals who see the lessons of history of the past, as a guide in the present, for making decisions for the future. A completely rationale and realistic purpose. We eschew all change made for the sake of self-righteous change itself.
“IN PART in some complex genetic error that science has not come to grips with yet. And why? Lack of popular motivation…, because to finance any such study would be a costly and near-overwhelming effort only readily initiated by government. Can you imagine a MAJORITY OF POLITICANS having the guts to mandate such a study into law? I cannot, so nothing gets resolved.”
I’m sure you’ll find a scientific solution, like replacing “Abnormal” genes in the embryonic stage in order to deprive undesirable traits from manifesting themselves.
In the oath, “according to regulation and the UCMJ” does not preempt the CONSTITUTION. Furthermore, you are purposely LYING when you stated “Sodomy, Article 125 of the UCMJ, has recenty been UPHELD as to punishment for good order and discipline reasons whilst the Lawrence v. Texas precedent case has been held to support civilian law.THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE STANDARDS”
They are no longer two separate standards. Try endorsing the TRUTH for a change. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruled the Lawrence v. Texas decision applies to Article 125, thus declawing the previous ban on sodomy. In two cases; United States v. Stirewalt and United States v. Marcum, the appeals court ruled that consensual sodomy falls within the liberty interest identified by the Supreme Court, thus narrowing Article 125 to “factors unique to the military environment” that would place said conduct “outside any protected liberty interest recognized in Lawrence, citing examples of such factors, including rape, fraternization, public sexual behavior, or any other factors that would adversely affect good order and discipline. Of particular note, military convictions for consensual sodomy have been overturned under Lawrence in both United States v. Meno and United States v. Bullock. (From online quoted case files)
So you are flat out wrong. More importantly, this issue doesn’t even effect me, but I can clearly see the wrong, the hate, the second class citizenry that goes on in a moral or religious context to discriminate against these ABNORMAL (your word) gender groups. Consensual sodomy, for example, is no longer a legal obstacle, but your religious or moral beliefs still sub-classify these gender groups into categories not capable of serving in the military with HONOR (my word.)
I think we are done here. You have utterly failed to impress me as a decent human being. I hope your cookie cutter utopia exists for you in whatever afterlife you may, or may not, believe in.
“I’m sure you’ll find a scientific solution, like replacing “Abnormal” genes in the embryonic stage in order to deprive undesirable traits from manifesting themselves.”
The solution is not mine to make Max. I would think that you would support a scientific study on this though and any action would be voiced by the people through their elected representatives ideally. It would go a long way towards explaining and humanely dealing with the “abnormal” GayLesbianTransGender lifestyles.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————–
“In the oath, “according to regulation and the UCMJ” does not preempt the CONSTITUTION. Furthermore, you are purposely LYING when you stated “Sodomy, Article 125 of the UCMJ, has recenty been UPHELD as to punishment for good order and discipline reasons whilst the Lawrence v. Texas precedent case has been held to support civilian law.THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE STANDARDS””
Max, please do not put words in my mouth. I never said it preempts the Constitution.. Anyone reading that oath can see the oath RECOGNIZES the CONSTITUTION while similarly acknowledging the SEPARATE AND DISTINCT military system of law applicable to members of our armed forces. That was the point in my publishing the oath, but that sailed right over your powers of observation.
As to your updated information on Lawrence v. Texas I shall check out what you posted for accuracy and get back to you on that. Assuming it is accurate though, it only shows how the court has again been actively legislating social policy from the bench way beyond the “original intent” of the Constitution. They are using civilian rights to weaken the authority of the military justice system already codified to public law by Congress. Somehow…, as a conflicted liberal/conservative that doesn’t seem to bother you one little bit. It is a fact that the secnd Cox Commiassion, back in 2009 recommended scrapping the old consensual sodomy article of the UCMJ. This is just my point. A civilian appointed commission using civilian social standards to recommend that what is good as civilian behavior is also good as a standard for military discipline. Bull!
—————————————————————————————————————————————————–
“More importantly, this issue doesn’t even effect me, but I can clearly see the wrong, the hate, the second class citizenry that goes on in a moral or religious context to discriminate against these ABNORMAL (your word) gender groups.”
By this issue I’m presuming you are limiting it to the abnormal lifestyle persons I made note of and I may add UNASHAMEDLY SO. Bad law may be legislated against morality, but I do NOT have to suppport it. I have to accept it, but can still work to change it as my right. Your condemnation by your descriptives of me mark you as the narrow-minded bigot you would have others believe I am. You consistently fail to acknowledge that although I believe the GLTG is ABNORMAL and deviant by moral and religious standards I recognize their rights as human beings and tolerate them. I simply do NOT convey the same rights as NORMAL people have to them and do not believe in “special” recognition by bending the law in their direction. Like I said there is a reason we have the words normal and abnormal in the lexicon. They are defining markers for setting social standards. You think that’s stupid and outdated and I do not.
You go so far as to say this about me:
“You have utterly failed to impress me as a decent human being.” Strange how those of such GRANDIOSE TOLERANCE AND DIVERSITY are so INTOLERANT OF DIVERGENT OPINION and need to LASH OUT IN EMOTION-DRIVEN ANGER. I have not done similarly to you…have I!
I’m a conservative and reason out positions logicly and intellectually.
You are a self-righteous liberal, beyond any reasonable doubt, and are imprisoned by your own emotional intolerance of the opinions of others. It defines the affliction that liberalism is. This ends our interchange on this topic with you for me.
Despite your intolerance of me and disdain for me I shall take the high ground. I shall pray for you Max.
Unparalleled accuracy, unequivoacl clarity, and undeniable importance!