Would You Support a Draft for a Humanitarian Service Corps?

A draft with NO deferrments and get everyone from 18 to 50, and you'd be on to something. Make it BROAD BASED. No exclusions, especially for kids of congressmen and senators and even some of THEM, too. Start with the Chickenhawks. Send 'em to fat farms to get in shape, or put them to work on KP duty.

Exterminate al-Qaeda, imprison Bin Laden and then you'd have accomplished something.

MILITARY draft. I should be specific. And YES I include myself if necessary, but I'm 'way past 30. KP duty for me too I guess if I can't shoot that well? At least I'm honest about it.

God you people are retarded. First, if you think the US has these problems (kids need more discipline, the US has a bad image overseas) -- look no further than the baby boomers/gen Xers. You're the ones who have sat by and let the country go to shit. You're the ones throwing wars in Iraq. You're the ones that have sat by while corporations have taken complete ownership of our representative government. You're the ones thinking sticking your kid on a pill will fix 'em. You're the ones who, now, want to have 17-30 year olds fix the problem by stripping them of their own liberties for a couple years and set to work in a government system overseas.

How brilliant is it to force our youth to Africa? A large congregation of Americans in unstable areas is just asking for a terrorist attack. Now, I know, I know...we're fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have o fight them here...but sending our youth (note: the bodies you're gonna need to draft after we open up another front in the war on terror after our Americorps camp in Ethiopia gets blown to shit) to the third world is just poor decision making.

You want to help America's image abroad? Actually vote for someone who isn't the "less of two evils." Want to make kids 'better'? F***ing raise the little bastards and teach them some personal responsibility. More than anything else -- start setting a damn example. Obese, greedy, politically ignorant/divided, and sue-happy, all while watching Social Security dry up -- who is this generation to tell anyone what to do?

Obviously this is a very good idea IMO.

I think humanitarian missions will do better in Africa, South and Central America, and certain parts of Asia. However there are a lot of barriers. For a large scale program you're going to need lots of security. You can't just send kids, who know even less about how to defend themselves than basic infantry does from an EFP.

You will encounter many problems. MS-13 is a big one. I can't say how hard this hurdle will be in Latin America. Africa you have various health and terrorist issues. In Asia you have a rough combination of the three mentioned above, just replace MS-13 with Hong Kong drug syndicates. Not only will you have to train these kids with weapons, which will limit its scope, but they will have to be combat able, which means they will have to run, jump, hope, and skip to safety. Now, most folks on this board, no problem. But take a look at america. Its not a pretty picture. Good luck with a Lawyer's obese child to do it, or a doctor's pretty daughter. Put both of them through grueling training so they can at least run a 10k in 50min or lift 50 Ibs. America isn't capable. A lot of kids are, most of them are athletes and minorities. In that light, this would just be another vehicle for the military in the long run. Not a bad idea, but getting the rest of the country to agree with you, now thats the problem.

But yeah, it would be nice to have these liberal little pricks learning what the real world is like. And how good America really is. And how good the fat bastards have it.

RunDaddy wrote:

The way I see it, you couldn't draft middle aged people into the service corps for many reasons, not the least of which many are Moms and Dads by then. Also, they are at very highly productive points in their careers and it would be far more disruptive to the economy.

The draftees would form the 'worker bees' of the corps. Mid and senior level managers would be Humanitarian Careerists. That's not to say you couldn't hire mid level and senior managers from industry, etc.. You could also imagine that a small number of draftees would like it so much they would choose to make it a career, thereby seeding the mid level management tier to some degree.

Many young people are parents too, maybe not in your or my set, but certainly there are plenty of people under 23 who have kids and families and/or are married. Are we going to give an exemption to them?

Many young people work: heck, plenty of people in my college went straight to Wall St. and started pulling down 6 figures right away. Others went straight to law/medical school and zipped right into careers. Extremely productive people at a young age. Are we going to exempt them?

The problem with "universal" service is that it never gives the benefits to those who need it most. Are you going to waste some aspiring brain surgeon's time in their mid-20s when they may be contributing more to society than a 35 year old guy who has fathered 8 kids by 6 different women?

And if you can't disrupt middle aged people's lives to do something important, then why would you disrupt a young person's life?

Screw that - if you want your kids, and your town's kids to be productive members of society, then raise them right. Make your own kids volunteer, and set up programs in your town that allows - and maybe even recruits - kids to do service projects.

Stop wishing or waiting for the government to do the job that parents themselves need to do. Want a disciplined, patriotic, loyal, kid who helps others? Raise 'em right. Want others in your town? Well, be a role model for them, and SHOW them, and get them involved.

I don't think the OP said it was going to solve every problem imaginable.

And what exactly have you done for your country except complain?

You come across as a raging prick. Probably the first guy we should stick in a village in the Congo. They'll love you there.

Never in a million years would I support anything as ridiculous as this. Ease your conscience on your own time.

We should force all the teenagers to work in this Humanitarian Force the OP is talking about. For their first project, they should build a 50 ft. high wall across the U.S./Mexican border with electrified razor wire at the top.

Bleeding from the Head wrote:

And what exactly have you done for your country except complain?

You come across as a raging prick. Probably the first guy we should stick in a village in the Congo. They'll love you there.

I've been to f***ing Afghanistan. I've done my military service. I've taken the time to actually research my important political positions. Trust me, I'm not worried about how much I've 'done for this country' (which I come to hate more and more as I realize that the biggest duty I have to it to, hopefully, silence assholes like you who just get all offended when the truth finally comes out).

But hey -- if that's not enough for ya, then don't listen to the facts that I throw out. Afterall, since those dirty arabs came up with Algebra (and what have they done for America?) -- Algebra must not be a good idea, right?

I suspect I won't be hearing anything worthwhile from you at this point.

We got a bleeder!!!! wrote:

You want to help America's image abroad? Actually vote for someone who isn't the "less of two evils."

Perhaps if such a person would run for office, we might. Nobody in the past few elections qualifies

Just because something may be good and noble does not necessarily mean we should force people to do it.

There is nothing good or noble about slavery.

A draft is slavery. "Compulsory National Service" is slavery.

I am not a slave. Period.

We got a bleeder!!!! wrote:

Bleeding from the Head wrote:

And what exactly have you done for your country except complain?

You come across as a raging prick. Probably the first guy we should stick in a village in the Congo. They'll love you there.

I've been to f***ing Afghanistan.

Obviously, it's the internet, so you could just be making stuff up...

However, nice comeback. I find it's usually the ones who have never done anything for the country who are the first ones to point fingers at others.

You make some excellent points. But my idea isn't just about whipping youngsters into being better citizens. Serving the nation engenders some sense of national pride that isn't necessarily achieved through just any type of volunteer service. My idea isn't meant to be a substitute for good parenting. Clearly that is always needed.

But, there is also a national security element as well. In many countries all the average person sees of Americans is through our military presence or what they get through the popular culture lens (Hollywood movies, music, etc..). Today, in Africa and elsewhere, thousands of Chinese are coming to do humanitarian/civic projects at the expense of the Chinese government. Many African nations are truning down U.S. aid because we make aid contingent on human rights/good governance issues. The Chinese ask no questions. I believe the Chinese have an agenda, but the reality is that many in Africa are asking why China is doing so much more than the U.S.. China is growing economically like mad, but it still is a very poor country compared to the U.S.

So how would we decide when and where to send this humanitarian group. Where ever there is mass suffering of a group?

How about this all to familiar scenario. A dictator (or close to it) takes over his country and lines his own pockets and the pockets of his cabinet (and miliray leader - to keep him in power) with the riches of the country while the infra-structure and welfare of the people are forgotten. The situation deteriates over many years until wide spread unemployment, poverty and starvation are prevelant. Now even a small drought or natural disaster in these conditions will mean thousands of lives lost (maybe millions). Do we send in the Humanitarian Corps then, maybe even at the request of the dictator? If so, are we not just enabling the dictator and his cronies to continue their exploitation of the country at the detriment of the citizens. He makes them suffer with his personal greed and policies and we come in and try to help them with aid, allowing him to continue his ways. If we decide no: then how do we explain to the millions in that region that we will not help them and will let them starve to death even though we have the ability and resources to stop it but have decided not to becuase we don't like their leader.

How would you make this decision? And you would have to make this decision very often.

To throw a new wrinkle into the mix. lets say the suffering and dieing is very bad and we decide we can't stand by and have to go in and help. But when we get in there the citizens take the aid and demand that we leave because the dictator (and others) has brain washed them with propoganda that we caused the situation with our foriegn policies. They hate us but a dieing man will still take water when offered to him until he regains enough strength to kick you out. Do the recipients have to be grateful? Or do you nurse a person back to health so he can strike at you later?

All this to say: when its a government doing it, its not as simple as putting together a resource of humanitarians and helping people. When governments and policy is involved its very tricky and murky and gray. That is why humanitarianism has always worked better coming from independent groups without boarders and armies and foreign policies.

I don't mean to piss on your chips or anything, but what on earth makes you think that paying to send a load of unskilled american kids to africa is of any value whatsoever. There's tonnes of unskilled (and skilled) people there already. If you really wanted to make a difference, it'd be a far better use of resources to invest the money you would have spent on low cost capital projects out there, run by the low-wage cost locals.

Meanwhile, the american kids can stay at home, get jobs, earn money, pay taxes, which can then could also be invested far more effectively.

RunDaddy wrote:

Today, in Africa and elsewhere, thousands of Chinese are coming to do humanitarian/civic projects at the expense of the Chinese government. Many African nations are truning down U.S. aid because we make aid contingent on human rights/good governance issues. The Chinese ask no questions. I believe the Chinese have an agenda, but the reality is that many in Africa are asking why China is doing so much more than the U.S.

Then the obvious answer is not to make service compulsory, but to make MORE opportunities to serve. Why not expand the Peace Corps? I'm sure then are plenty more applicants than there are slots available.

From what I remember, the Peace Corps took some major hits in the mid-70s into the 80s when their funding was cut. Every year the stated goal is to increase the number of positions, but it rarely happens.

If you want the U.S. to do more, then we should increase the number of positions. But I don't see any reason to make it compulsory. Remember, we want people going over there who are going to do good, not screw around!

I'd be all for compulsory national service. Draft all 18 year olds and give them the choice: a two year military stint or two years of DOMESTIC humanitarian / public works service. No deferments.

I think we would get a better, less selfish citizenry within a generation. It would provide a little "real world" smack-in-the-face to a lot of coddled kids and would likely produce more mature, empathetic, and sober people. Colleges would get more focused 20 and 21 year old freshmen. Just imagine a nation 20 years down the road where the CEOs and elected officials remember what it was like to be poor / help the poor. I bet it eliminates a lot of the greed and power hoarding we see today.

I bet it eliminates a lot of the greed and power hoarding we see today.

Or they would just find out more creative ways to exploit the poor/needy. A snake in a nursery is still a snake, he just now has access to less defenseless people.