Except, when you think about it, half of them would succeed with flying colors in the military. And they wouldn't be any worse off than your average joe that joins up anyways--most of the people I know who are in the army either were in jail before they joined, or were heavy into drugs beforehand.

You'd be surprised the kind of people you know that you don't know **** about.

See the only benefit in most states is an express ticket to jail. It's a crime to not sign up.

All hail DJ_Yoshi who is a master of military knowledge.

the supreme court already said the 13th amendment does not apply to selective service

I'm in no way surprised. I'm in the army and I see how many of those type of people fail miserably and end up either getting kicked out for various reasons or get out at their first opportunity. They also have to lie to get in. The fact is that there are actually standards to join the military which, by definition, means that it is a fact that the military is full of higher quality people than the general population. The military does accept some criminal histories. Generally a person with one felony can apply for a waiver to come in. I believe more than two misdeamenors requires a waiver. Good people can have these issues, that's no surprise. We just don't actively recruit for those types.

No one has been prosecuted for failing to register with the SSS since 1986.

It doesn't matter if nobody has been prosecuted it's still a crime.

I think the ROE for Iraq will get changed before there is a draft.

Their's not really any way to make the ROE lighter. If someone attacks you you get to kill them.... seems ok to me.

Yeah, but when someone is obviously JAM, walking around a neighborhood threatening civilians and we can't do **** about it until they fire on us? Bull****.

Or the whole Mosque thing.. Ridiculous.

Yeah, and their argument was something along the lines of "fighting in wars is a citizen's supreme and noble duty." That's just silly. Involuntary service is involuntary service.

We'd have to build 100 times as many prisons as we have now to house them all. No, it's not a crime.

Murder is 100% legal if you never get caught and are never prosecuted.

All I'm saying is there's a reason they don't prosecute for this anymore.. at the end of their prosecutions in January 1986, 13% of all males were not registering. That percentage was lower before then, but the prosecutions were causing even more men not to register.

They realized they had absolutely no power whatsoever to enforce the ridiculousness. How do you imprison ~8% of your total population? It can't be done..

Me personally, I like voting and can't be drafted anyways because I'm too deaf and uncoordinated.


Awesome.


But if there were a war I believed in, I'd probably try to BS my way in.

I didn't register for the draft!

Ahahah oh god you didn't seriously just say this.

While that's a simple way of putting it, there are a lot of people who argue about things when they are completely uneducated on the subject or lack the first hand experience to know what's really going on.

Yes there are. And always will be, but he's saying that they shouldn't have the right to argue about it.

'Cause, you know, freedom of speech is bad, and god forbid that people are allowed to have their own opinions.

It's not about having an opinion. It's about having a legitimate ground to stand on with that opinion.

But there are people who know what they're talking about even if they don't have direct experience with it.

That's like the difference in being booksmart and having common sense.

You can read all day long about something, but you never truely know it until you've experienced it.

It's still asinine to not let the general public have an opinion about the war, whatever you say

Did I say anything about the war?

This applies to a lot of things.

Hardly. It's pretty easy to know enough about a subject to have a level-headed opinion about it. By your logic, teachers shouldn't be able to teach history because they weren't there.

Right, they can teach what is known. But how do you really know something unless you've experienced it?

You can know all the facts about every war ever fought, but you can't understand War unless you've seen it.

You can't fully understand what happened at specific times in history without being there.

Understanding war isn't the point. I don't know anyone who wants to experience war. But they can sure as hell say "war is bad, we don't like war. Stop it"

I don't know. Maybe War affects people in ways I haven't thought of.

It's obviously we both have very conflicting views and we're not going to get anywhere by arguing this, so I'll just back down and say I'm wrong.