...then we will see if today's youth are any more willing than the were in the '60s.

A draft of both men and women (hello Barb & Jenna) with no deferrments for college or anything else, and national service for all of those with "bad knees." Lets see how popular that is with the "support-our-troops car magnets" crowd. How quick can we get our troops out of Iraq?

What percentage of kids in the 1960's fled the draft? What percentage were as successful in getting deferments as our current Vice President? And, here's the real apples to apples comparison, what percentage were volunteers?

Milton Friedman had a very elegant and impassioned argument against the draft.

"In the course of his [General Westmoreland's] testimony, he made the statement that he did not want to command an army of mercenaries. I [Milton Friedman] stopped him and said, 'General, would you rather command an army of slaves?' He drew himself up and said, 'I don't like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves.' I replied, 'I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries.' But I went on to say, 'If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher.' That was the last that we heard from the general about mercenaries."

Remember, this was the time when an all-volunteer Army was deliberately and incorrectly characterized as a mercenary force,

Rather than a draft, simply institute "the Heinlein option" -- those who wish to vote and holding public office have to serve the country in some capacity first, either in the military, or perhaps a longer term in civilian service. The difference between this an a draft is, a draft defines everyone as a citizen and then demands service, while this asks for service, and then grants citizenship to anyone who answers the call. No need for deferments or running off to Canada to escape the draft, and no aging chickenhawks sending other people's sons to war without having made a similar sacrifice.

"The difference between this an a draft is, a draft defines everyone as a citizen and then demands service, while this asks for service, and then grants citizenship to anyone who answers the call."

Citizenship should never require this type of service. Longer term for 'civilian service' as if that is somehow less important than military service? Please. If someone is disabled do they automatically get a deferment? and get to be a citizen anyway? Hmmm let's wait and see how many new deferments/disabilites enter into this when suddenly rich kids have to serve.

And voting should hinge on this? Not one of Heinlein's better ideas. That would require a Constitutional ammendment and will never fly.

I might as well take the points in order:

>>Citizenship should never require this type of service.

Perhaps, but it's preferable to a draft, which removes the element of choice entirely.

>>Longer term for 'civilian service' as if that is somehow less important than military service?

No, as if it were somehow less *dangerous* than military service. If serving in the army is more likely to result in death or serious injury, it makes sense to require a shorter period.

>>If someone is disabled do they automatically get a deferment? and get to be a citizen anyway? Hmmm let's wait and see how many new deferments/disabilites enter into this when suddenly rich kids have to serve.

No deferments, 4F or otherwise, since service isn't mandatory or limited to kids just out of high school in good health. If Stephen Hawking could teach from a wheelchair while suffering from ALS, surely someone with sufficient intelligence and motivation could serve this country in some capacity if they really wanted to.

>>And voting should hinge on this? Not one of Heinlein's better ideas. That would require a Constitutional ammendment and will never fly.

Yes, it would require a constitutional amendment, and while it may have flaws, it is a fairer system than selective service. Drafting young men too poor to go to college, and whose only reward is to get shot at in a foreign country, is worse than allowing them some choice in the matter, and some benefit for serving.

And as a constitutional amendment, it could fill the anchor-baby loophole and remove the congressional urge for amnesty, since immigrants would have the same opportunity to earn citizenship as those born on our soil.

I once knew a young woman who was born here, but her parents had come from Mexico while young and poor. Her father enlisted in the Marines in the 60's and after some length of service, was allowed to move to the front of the line for citizenship. Does this still exist?

If so, perhaps we should offer this option to our illegal population.

Not that I am opposed to your suggestion, but: The Roman Empire did exactly that; offered non-Romans citizenship after a period of service in the Roman army. That really worked, now didn't it. It both allowed Rome to remain an imperial power, subjugating other peoples for the glory of Rome, while at the same time sowed the seeds of the destruction of Rome. Is that the path we should pursue?

Yes sir. Barb and Jenna should go. And young Chelsea? Or perhaps our dear ex-Pres Clinton could make up for his last deferrment which caused some other young person to go in his stead. Or are you just about sending people you don't like?

Are you saying that giving non-Romans citizenship destroyed Rome directly, or that it boosted the imperialism that destroyed Rome? If the former, why? If the latter, you're probably right, though the unwillingness of Romans themselves to serve, the weakening of the Legions by excessive donatives and the involvement in Imperial succession that earned them those donatives probably played as great or greater parts.

Of the myriad missed chances Bush had leading up to and during the 'war' on terror, the greatest tragedy of them all was failing to call on the nation to stand up and sacrifice for it. Instead, he did it on the cheap, and you usualy get what you pay for.

After Sept. 11th, 2001, the nation was ready to roll. If Bush had called, we would have responded. Conversely, if Bush had simply asked Congress for all the expanded power he's taken, they would have given it to him freely.

Instead we've had *repeated* tax cuts during full scale war. All funding has been through emergency appropriations bills and none of it is even officaily on the books yet. We've short changed our troops on support and gear, pelase don't say we haven't. And it was done under the premise of making war as painless as possible for the general population. You know, the 99.9% of the country that's not serving in Iraq.

Conversly, we've had a perverse power grab that was wholey unnecesary and done the way it was for no other reason than they thought they could. They didn't even ask, they just took it.

The only lessons learned from Vietnam, and I've been saying this for years, is to never have a draft, and hide the cost of war from the populace. Hell, let's pay them off with tax cuts for good measure.

The time for a draft was six years ago. That Bush thought so little of his fellow Americans that he wouldn't even ask us to stand up for our country is striking to me. It's emblematic of all his base shortcomings. He simply doesn't understand how normal people think.

Once you make serving the law, it is no longer a matter of patriotism.

Rome was a dominating world power for over 500 years, and that was just the time frame they were 'autocratic.' They were a power before that, to a lesser degree.

Pretty good run as far as world power are concerned.

Do people here really believe that the US will dominate the world forever? History will be a harsh mistress to you then.

We'll never fall like Rome did, we'll simply wane like most of Europe did in varying stages. China's the next US, and that's a fact.