Reinstatement of The Selective Service

By "freedom-pushers", I mean snake and possum oil salesmen.

 

Uhhh, what?

Selective Service does not need to be "reinstated", since it has been active since 1980.

You can't reinstate something that is already in effect, and has been for 34 years.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/proclamations/04771.html

 

Why let State governors get a free pass as commanders in chief of that which is declared necessary to the security of a free State?

Why is it that those of the opposing view have nothing but more government programs and no actual solutions to our simple social dilemmas?

 

No one here is opposed to a military for defense and humanitarian support for example after the Tsunami years ago we sent in the Navy to help and the Earthquake in Japan, we are a major power we should help in mercy missions, but for the rest I'm for defense. This requires a potent nuclear capability, defenses from missiles and a big enough standing force and larger reserves to deter invasion. Our forces and the men and women are very formidable and professional and I don't question their bravery but how they are used. Any intervention like against ISIS should be by the UN with us committing proportional forces to the other Security Council members and then the forces should be a special force for that voluntary in the armed forces, I assume any special forces member would fall into that as would others for foreign service. But keep it modest and made up of full time professional soldiers.

As for the selective service if you reactivate the draft it should apply to women, the disabled who are deemed able to do government service, men and regardless of moral reservations with alternate service for those not in the armed forces. Or make it elective in two year terms from age eighteen to sixty-five so those who have a hard time finding work would get a job with training as needed.

 

Yes, that is a damned good idea.

Now kindly tell me, when was the last successful UN Peacekeeping mission?

For goodness sakes, the UN has been trying to put an end to the Pakistan-India conflict since 1949! And the list simply goes on and on and on, of conflicts the UN has been unable to stop, or have any impact upon, other then to be bullet catchers themselves as they try to act like a traffic cop in a war zone.

And what about the long list of conflicts the UN simply refused to get involved in at all? If it was up to the UN, force never would never have been used against Iraq and they would still occupy Kuwait. And they certainly never did a damned thing in the Iran-Iraq War.

Leave it up to the UN is a good idea, and until the 1980's I would have agreed with you. But in the last 30 years, the UN has shown itself to be unable to really do anything to stop conflict or help forward world peace. They are more interested in passing useless Global Warming penalties and trying to force gun control upon the world.

Nice idea, to bad the reality does not work.

 

I believe mandated UN missions could include some sort of fee for service, even if only to reimburse those funds from the several States' which they came. A subscription to some level of public sector intervention in private sector markets could involve the coercive of use of force through the equivalent to letters of marque and reprisal. It would simply be more practicable if the UN is delegated that power. Ensuring the domestic Tranquility of any State could be accomplish though any Legislature with recourse to that general government.

 

...all you women against the Draft will look good in "Burkas"...and the Homo's will be happy at the chopping block... Muslims don't like gay folks...