Do I have an obligation to serve my country in the Military?

[bohdi]

imported post

FogRider wrote:

bohdi wrote:

I relate to people who have been in the military better than I do to people who haven't.

Think of it this way, it's a way to make sure everyone has something, some experience, in common with each other that you can relate to. Sure we can all say we are citizens, but each of us have different experiences as citizens, and view our citizenship differently I think. Boot camp is a great equalizer in many different ways. Hard ships endured are shared, commaradarie is built, trust is gained (sometimes lost) between people that you share this experience with. Especially with people you normally wouldn't associate with outside of this experience 9 times out of 10. If you encounter someone else who's had a similiar experience, you can relate to them on a level even if they are a complete stranger and you have some idea of who they are and what they are made of.

Said another way, if I encountered an anti-gun person who had served in the military I know I could probably have a conversation, a meaningful one and know I would at least have a better chance of being heard and understood, than someone who never served in the military and spent their summers tied to tree's in California protesting logging and guns. There are two sides to this issue just like anything else. Pro's and con's like I said earlier, and it's probably an issue that like guns will be debatable forever.

Differing opinions/experiences is one of the things that makes this country as awesome as it is. A different perspective is not a bad thing to have. All of my experiences and opinions are going to be colored differently than yours, in this case because I have never served in the military. Personally, I would rather have a debate with someone who has not had the same experience as me, as it gives me a chance to see a completely different point of view. It's one thing to talk to someone with a different opinion on the same experience, but I have a chance to learn so much more from someone with an opinion they have formed with different experiences.

I agree, a different perspective is not a bad thing to have, which might sound wierd regarding what I've already posted. There's a time and a place where things have value, even when they might appear to be contrary to what you believe. That doesn't mean they are wrong. Being able to understand that, without taking offense to it, I think is when people really begin to see and comprehend. With folks who have had similar expriences you do run the risk of a "brainwashed" mentality - however I think that people are still individuals with free will (my idealist side is showing) and can still make the determination on ultimately which road to go down even if they have similar experiences yet choose different paths and disagree on a subject. In my opinion that's where having a familiar background (bootcamp experience or similar) adds credibility to someone's arguement that is contrary to your position.

For example, someone who never has been in the military says the military sucks, and they base that opinion on no first hand knowledge, but what they read through various papers (marraiges break up, any number of negative things). While things happen, hearing that from someone who has never been in the military I havea harder time listening to. I'm not saying their wrong, I just suspect their point of view more, than say a vetern of 10 years who's wife cheated on him while he was deployed. Does that make sense?

 

[mpg9999]

imported post

Here are a few words that I think are appropriate:

Dainel Webster in 1814:

"The question (of military conscription) is nothing less than whether the most essential rights of personal liberty be surrendered and despotism embraced in its worst form… Is this, sir consistent with the character of our Constitution? No, sir, indeed it is not. The Constitution is libeled, foully libeled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Carta to be slaves. Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battle in any war in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? Who will show me any constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American? Who will show me any constitutional injunction which makes people surrender everything valuable in life, and even life itself, not when the safety of their country and its liberties demand sacrifice, but whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it?”



Milton Friedman:

“We need a strong military. But strength depends on spirit and not merely on numbers. Our military will be far stronger if we recruit by methods consistent with the basic value of a free society."

and finally, Ronald Reagan:

“I oppose registration for the draft… because I believe the security of freedom can best be achieved by security through freedom. The all-voluntary force is based on the sound and historic American principle of voluntary commitment to defense of freedom…the United States of America believes a free people do not have to be coerced in defending their country or their values and that the principle of freedom is the best and only foundation upon which a defense of freedom can be made. My vision of a secure America is based on my belief that freedom calls forth the best in the human spirit and that the defense of freedom can and will best be made out of love of country, a love that needs no coercion. Out of such a love, a real security will develop, because in the final analysis, the free human heart and spirit are the best and most reliable defense. "







For anyone that interested in the topic, I highly recommend the book Freedom Under Siege by Ron Paul. Chapter 3 is on conscription.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

Doug Huffma[font="Verdana,Arial,Helv"]Comment by: doug.huffman@wildblue.net (2/23/2008)[/font]

[font="Verdana,Arial,Helv"]I am pleased that the value of RAH as philosopher is being discovered, but be careful of with what and whom you agree, RAH was not a 'right winger.'

And I am pleased that the value of 'Starship Troopers' is being recognized despite the awful cartoon-movie. RAH well engaged the topic of enfranchisement and military enfranchisement.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

[/font]
You know Douglas, or Doug if you prefer, I have been reading posts of yours from PDO and this one and maybe one or two others for many years now. You were listed asDouglasHuffman on PDO for probably a decade or more and you always received flak from other posters and I wasn't one of them.I have never directly disrespected you and although I find your writing style different than most and abrasive at times, I have always respected you despite any disagreements. I am not a liar. If the above citation isn't you, then it's my error.I make mistakes, but I don't intentionally misconstrue information for the benefit of looking better on an internet forum. I appreciate intelligent conversation as much as the rest..Just thoughtyoushould know that.

Nope. You got me. I apologize that I forgot both the posting at keepandbeararms.com and PDO. I humbly apologize.

I am pleased that you read and remember me but I am disappointed that I can't associate 'Flintlock' with posts on either site.

 

[BobCav]

imported post

Is Millitary Service an Obligation? No.

A Responsibility? Depends on you.

A Privilege? Absolutely.

 

[AbNo]

imported post

I had fun with it.