SilencerTalk

And you thought Charlie was all dishonest and stuff. Shame on you! Doesn't look like it will go anywhere.

H.R. 5741: Universal National Service Act Submitted to the House of Representatives on July 15.

Summary
To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

For context, Congressman Rangel has introduced this bill many times in the past. Each time, it has received very little support, and Rangel knows it has no chance of being passed. For more, see his press release.

http://rangel.house.gov/2010/07/rangeldraft0716.html

I'm surprised it took them this long.

Obama has been talking about something like this since he was campaigning.

cant say I agree with it....volunteering in the military is something I greatly respect in those who serve, and something I regret I've never done (I chose college and graduating at age 27 instead of age 31).

If its forced upon everyone, with no choice on if you serve or not, and no choice if you want to delay college by 2-4 years its no longer a volunteer military. I believe our military being a volunteer force made up of patriots who are doing what they want to do for the country is one of the reasons we have, arguably, the best military in the world. FORCED service, IMHO, will not see the same honor, service, and efficiency with a number of people these days trying to get out or avoid going in, who would have been called draft dodgers during Vietnam.

and whats this last phrase in the summary about "..and for other purposes"????

Talk about a waste of 2 years of ones productive life to servitude and slavery at the government's whim.
Fuck them.

Irony: a self-proclaimed halfrican american president and a retarded legislator pushing for government slavery.

-T

+1 with Tyris

Slavery to social security and land serfdom via property tax, and now a proposed 2-year slavery period for national service. Land of the free and home of the brave is an empty slogan.

I could support a bill making military service a prerequisite for running for congress.

I'd rather see an IQ test or employment in the private sector for a profit generating company.

-T

No. Bad idea.

Military service is but one experience in a pool of ventures that may generate a great man. It certainly isn't a requirement.

If this is a condition of "amnesty" for illegal immigrants, I'll keep listening.
The candidates should serve where their needed or suited for the task, however.
Don't like it? Go back where you came from and apply for your visa with a US criminal history.
Of course this would be branded as "indentured labor", not a demonstration patriotic duty.

Is military service a path to citizenship anyway?

Rethink this......there's already reported accounts of gangs in california sending their people to the military for training......you want to provide military training to the drug runners who already have illegal FA weapons and pound after pound of drugs?

I say noone but a citizen of this country who volunteers should be in the military....just my opinion tho.

You are right, offering a contract to validation would only be a contract broken.
The government knows it cannot correct the injustice, so further burdening the Just is its only means of funding its own whitewashing. Progressive policies to compensate progressive failures. We will be neither saved or permitted the freedom to save ourselves.

Such a move is completely needed in a country like ours with a strong nuclear Triad.

For national DEFENSE, all you would need is a strong nuclear force, a small conventional force, and a decently sized navy. What we have today is national OFFENSE. Fighting in places we can't pronounce, for people who don't really like us, dying and getting maimed while accomplishing little to none, in places that never have been stable and likely won't be for a long time. Nuclear weapons made large standing armies obsolete, yet we still waste money on them.

If we were Israel, then I could see a case being made for it, but the US? Hell no.

"They're doing their part. Are you? Join the Mobile Infantry and save the world. Service guarantees citizenship. "

Good point.

So much truth concentrated into 1 paragraph! Warms my heart!

Note that the detractors will whine bitterly when you start to pare back the army and relieve hundreds of thousands of their military-welfare.

-T

I have strong feelings on this one too, and much of what I would say has already been said. So, instead, let me take a different perspective on this.

We have a high unemployment rate and tons of people on welfare but Obama wants to take productive members of society and force them to drop what they're doing, stop earning money in a free-economy, and start making a fraction of their normal pay off the tax-payer's dime. Something doesn't make sense here.

Wow that is a good angle of looking at it.....less tax revenue, more tax burden

A nice way of putting it. There is no need for it in the US because our military is already too large.

It is needed in places like Israel because they can't afford a large standing army and thus need to have a citizenry that has ample military training for the DEFENSE of the country because they face a large number of legitimate enemies that wish destruction on them.



Bad for another reason is that the military is supposed to be under CIVILIAN control. Make military service mandatory and you indirectly make the military the government.

It makes it easy to "eliminate" any political opposition. Lets say that someone is known to have political aspirations and has political leanings that go against the Status Quo. It would be incredibly easy to have that person get dishonorably discharged for whatever reason. Put them in a no-win situation and then screw them over when things go bad. Thus the military chooses who goes to congress and the presidency.

It also makes candidates like Peter Schiff and Rand Paul impossible.

Meh, Rangel introduces this bill every session. IIRC he's even voted against it at least once.

It's purely a political tactic - formerly to embarrass the Bush administration over claims of the armed forces sending poor minorities off to die, now it's probably a wacky attempt to divert attention from his impending trial.