In honor of Muhammad Ali, Sen. Rand Paul will introduce bill to end Selective Service
86 replies, posted
[QUOTE]LOUISVILLE — U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, will soon be filing stand-alone legislation to end the practice of registering for the Selective Service.
The bill titled ‘The Muhammad Ali Voluntary Service Act’ will be presented to Congress in honor of the famed boxer who refused to serve in the Vietnam War.
On April, 28 1967 the heavy weight champion was stripped of his title for refusing to be inducted in the United States Army. Ali, a Muslim and conscientious objector, was convicted of draft evasion — a conviction that would later be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“One thing I liked about Muhammad Ali is that he would stand on principle even when it was unpopular,” Paul told reporters in Louisville on Monday. “You know, the criminal justice system I say now has a racial justice disparity, selective service had a racial disparity, because a lot of rich white kids either got a deferment or went to college or got out of the draft. I’m opposed to Selective Service.”[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://mycn2.com/politics/in-honor-of-muhammad-ali-sen-rand-paul-will-introduce-bill-to-end-selective-service"]Source[/URL]
Did you really need someone famous to die just to introduce this bill?
All conscription should be abolished anyways because it has no place in modern times.
[QUOTE=orgornot;50470829]Did you really need someone famous to die just to introduce this bill?
All conscription should be abolished anyways because it has no place in modern times.[/QUOTE]
He's always been against it and has been planning to launch some sort of bill to end it for a while.
[QUOTE=orgornot;50470829]Did you really need someone famous to die just to introduce this bill?
All conscription should be abolished anyways because it has no place in modern times.[/QUOTE]
Don't you get it, now with a famous name applied to an idea that they can no longer dispute, makes the document all the more important?
I mean when your name is on it, people will remember the time you saved humanity from tyranny once and for all! ( from at least one of the cataclysms out of Holy shit wtf is that there!! )
Good. Draft is wrong. People shouldn't have to fight wars they don't agree with.
[QUOTE=orgornot;50470829]Did you really need someone famous to die just to introduce this bill?
All conscription should be abolished anyways because it has no place in modern times.[/QUOTE]
It's not conscription dog.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50471051]It's not conscription dog.[/QUOTE]
How isn't the draft conscription? "Well technically you volunteered for it" even though the alternative is prison? Yeah that's conscription.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50471051]It's not conscription dog.[/QUOTE]
It may not be conscription [I]per say[/I], rather its the system that allows the government to implement conscription rapidly.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471055]How isn't the draft conscription? "Well technically you volunteered for it" even though the alternative is prison? Yeah that's conscription.[/QUOTE]
Boohoo you have to sign your name down in case of an apocalyptic world ending war.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50471058]Boohoo you have to sign your name down in case of an apocalyptic world ending war.[/QUOTE]
When it's been invoked in the past it wasn't for apocalyptic world ending wars???? Just because it's not likely to be activated because we have plenty of soldiers right now doesn't mean the call can't be made in the future.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471065]When it's been invoked in the past it wasn't for apocalyptic world ending wars????[/QUOTE]
You can't argue WW1 and WW2. We did not have the same size, force projection, and well trained Military we did during Vietnam. Vietnam was a big learning period for our military and country and I highly doubt nothing short of WW3 would lead to the draft again.
That's not the point, the point is that people shouldn't be forced to register for the draft in order to fight a potential future war that they may or may not support fundamentally, and if someone doesn't want to be a soldier they shouldn't be forced to be one
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471082]That's not the point, the point is that people shouldn't be forced to register for the draft in order to fight a potential future war that they may or may not support fundamentally, and if someone doesn't want to be a soldier they shouldn't be forced to be one[/QUOTE]
Well I agree in most cases unless it's something like WW3 where the security of the country is in grave danger.
If that was to happen, resistance to an invasion of the continental US would largely come from our many armed civilians, which would make fighting a war here very difficult - more difficult than if they were all uniformed servicemen
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50471051]It's not conscription dog.[/QUOTE]
It literally is.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50471058]Boohoo you have to sign your name down in case of an apocalyptic world ending war.[/QUOTE]
Except for the last time it was used, hence the thread.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50471075]You can't argue WW1 and WW2. We did not have the same size, force projection, and well trained Military we did during Vietnam. Vietnam was a big learning period for our military and country and I highly doubt nothing short of WW3 would lead to the draft again.[/QUOTE]
So we're counting on the government to learn from the past and never employ the draft except in case of 'apocalyptic world ending war'.
Dude, this is like, world speed records of backpedaling. I don't even disagree that the political landscape has changed a lot since the draft was last used, but it's factually wrong to say it's not conscription and it's factually wrong to say it would only be used in dire circumstances. With the size of our standing army we really don't need to maintain selective service for the sake of a potential apocalyptic conflict. The draft is a holdover from the days of a militia military.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471098]If that was to happen, resistance to an invasion of the continental US would largely come from our many armed civilians, which would make fighting a war here very difficult - more difficult than if they were all uniformed servicemen[/QUOTE]
I think that's pushing it a little, don't you think?
[QUOTE=LSK;50471106]I think that's pushing it a little, don't you think?[/QUOTE]
I don't know where you're from but it's not pushing it at all in the South, I can tell you that much. States that have disarmed would suffer in that department. (not that I expect this to ever happen)
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471055]How isn't the draft conscription? "Well technically you volunteered for it" even though the alternative is prison? Yeah that's conscription.[/QUOTE]
Conscription is indiscriminate. Everybody in a certain age group must go into the military, used even when there is no war. The draft is a lottery that we only use during wartime.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471113]I don't know where you're from but it's not pushing it at all in the South, I can tell you that much. States that have disarmed would suffer in that department. (not that I expect this to ever happen)[/QUOTE]
I'm from Georgia, I know a thing or two about the south.. :v:
All I'm saying is that a full on military invasion would be a lot to handle, but there's a whole lot of factors that goes into a scenario like that. I just don't think it would work in the end, kind of irrelevant though, I don't want to get off subject.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471113]I don't know where you're from but it's not pushing it at all in the South, I can tell you that much. States that have disarmed would suffer in that department. (not that I expect this to ever happen)[/QUOTE]
I know you're into guns and everything but you really overestimate the effectiveness of a country insurgency in the United States. Just because you go to the range every week or two doesn't make you an effective fighter.
My issue with Selective Service is that it only applies to men, and you get royally fucked if you try to run away from it. Namely, no federal financial aid to go to college if you skip it.
I might argue for incentives for voluntarily agreeing to Selective Service in the event of a major war, such as tax benefits or preference over the public for federal jobs, but then the incentives become the norm and then you're still fucked if you don't sign up for it.
Just get rid of it and pray the military can do its job right so we'll never need it.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50471123]I know you're into guns and everything but you really overestimate the effectiveness of a country insurgency in the United States. Just because you go to the range every week or two doesn't make you an effective fighter.[/QUOTE]
Also why would a redneck with his bolt action be more effective than a soldier who's trained, has body armor, has the organization of the military, and has advanced weapons? Makes no sense
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50471123]I know you're into guns and everything but you really overestimate the effectiveness of a country insurgency in the United States. Just because you go to the range every week or two doesn't make you an effective fighter.[/QUOTE]
If a bunch of incestuous child-fucking tribals in Afghanistan can hold up to a Nato force of 250k people, then a couple of "old boys" in the deep South are going to do far better.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50471125]My issue with Selective Service is that it only applies to men, and you get royally fucked if you try to run away from it. Namely, no federal financial aid to go to college if you skip it.
I might argue for incentives for voluntarily agreeing to Selective Service in the event of a major war, such as tax benefits or preference over the public for federal jobs, but then the incentives become the norm and then you're still fucked if you don't sign up for it.
Just get rid of it and pray the military can do its job right so we'll never need it.[/QUOTE]
In the event that a draft is likelt, have a bug out plan. Stash a lot of money somewhere to buy a ticket to some foreign country, and basically never come home
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50471130]Also why would a redneck with his bolt action be more effective than a soldier who's trained, has body armor, has the organization of the military, and has advanced weapons? Makes no sense[/QUOTE]
Home field advantage? Knowing your area goes a long way - this is how insurgent forces in the Middle East were so effective against our trained soldiers. Couple that with the fact that quite a few of those "rednecks" are sporting training, body armor, organization and advanced weapons...
My point was that an invasion of the mainland USA is so unlikely it's not even worth considering and even if it did happen the draft wouldn't help.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471138]Home field advantage? Knowing your area goes a long way - this is how insurgent forces in the Middle East were so effective against our trained soldiers. Couple that with the fact that quite a few of those "rednecks" are sporting training, body armor, organization and advanced weapons...[/QUOTE]
Effective against our troops but are still getting their shit kicked in. Nothing more than a constant sore in our side. They will never achieve military victory because they are untrained and disorganized. While I don't disagree with the notion that an invasion of the US would be pretty bad for the invaders it would be more beneficial for the US to have people who are actually trained and organized to repel an invasion.
[editline]7th June 2016[/editline]
I'd also like to point out that a threat to the nation's security isn't exclusive to a homeland invasion. World War 2 for example?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471138]Home field advantage? Knowing your area goes a long way - this is how insurgent forces in the Middle East were so effective against our trained soldiers. Couple that with the fact that quite a few of those "rednecks" are sporting training, body armor, organization and advanced weapons...[/QUOTE]
You can't just boil middle east conflicts down to insurgency and home field advantage. There are a LOT of factors going into a war and it's too simple to say the insurgents did well because they knew their hometown. The mujahideen were getting slaughtered by the russians until america stepped in and gave them Stingers
[editline]7th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50471146]Effective against our troops but are still getting their shit kicked in. Nothing more than a constant sore in our side. They will never achieve military victory because they are untrained and disorganized. While I don't disagree with the notion that an invasion of the US would be pretty bad for the invaders it would be more beneficial for the US to have people who are actually trained and organized to repel an invasion.
[editline]7th June 2016[/editline]
I'd also like to point out that a threat to the nation's security isn't exclusive to a homeland invasion. World War 2 for example?[/QUOTE]
9/11 as well. Terrorism is a threat to homeland security and the solution was to invade afghanistan, not repel an invasion.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50471151]You can't just boil middle east conflicts down to insurgency and home field advantage. There are a LOT of factors going into a war and it's too simple to say the insurgents did well because they knew their hometown. The mujahideen were getting slaughtered by the russians until america stepped in and gave them Stingers
[editline]7th June 2016[/editline]
9/11 as well. Terrorism is a threat to homeland security and the solution was to invade afghanistan, not repel an invasion.[/QUOTE]
What makes you think a civilian resistance wouldn't be supported with military assets anyway?
And again this thread isn't even the place to have this discussion. The point is that this scenario is so unlikely as to not even really be worth discussing but even in this scenario the draft wouldn't help and wouldn't really be excusable.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50471146]Effective against our troops but are still getting their shit kicked in. Nothing more than a constant sore in our side. They will never achieve military victory because they are untrained and disorganized. While I don't disagree with the notion that an invasion of the US would be pretty bad for the invaders it would be more beneficial for the US to have people who are actually trained and organized to repel an invasion.
[editline]7th June 2016[/editline]
I'd also like to point out that a threat to the nation's security isn't exclusive to a homeland invasion. World War 2 for example?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, WW2 is a great example. How many unprepared men were yanked out of their lives and forced to die for their country?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471159]What makes you think a civilian resistance wouldn't be supported with military assets anyway?[/QUOTE]
What would be the point of that??? It would make much more sense to draft and train a bunch of soldiers rather than to hand out guns and jets willy nilly like it's the film independence day
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50471166]What would be the point of that??? It would make much more sense to draft and train a bunch of soldiers rather than to hand out guns and jets willy nilly like it's the film independence day[/QUOTE]
Yeah except draftees don't want to fight or you wouldn't need to draft them, training takes precious time, and if you're facing a serious enough threat that you need the draft, you don't even know if the military is going to survive whatever's coming. Civilians have no military footprint; military assets in civilian hands makes for a lot of nasty surprises for an invasion force. An invasion of the mainland US would never happen but if it did it would ultimately fail whether the military was still there or not because Americans would not permit occupation by a foreign power, which makes the draft redundant. Soldiers are targets, civilians are not.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.