> > It is every mans' duty to serve his country. My
> >pops went, and was two months away from Vietnam.
> >He
> >served his country. Frankly, I think every
> >able-bodied American man, and every able-bodied,
> >single, American, woman(unless she has a worried
> >pop) should enlist, or if he is drafted, he should
> >go willingly. Not only is it his duty, but will
> >benifit(spl) him in many ways; he will gain
> >discipline, become pysically stronger, and be able
> >to endure harsh mental conditions. So one may
> >consider an able-bodied American man that does not
> >join any branch of the Armed Forces a draftdodger,
> >even though technically, he is not dodging the
> >draft.
>
> This is a ridiculous assertion. It may be a personal belief, but it's nothing more solid than that. There are thousands of ways to serve your country that don't include military service. And anyway, part of the greatness of the US (and I assume you're from the US, since you've asserted twice now that your father nearly served in Vietnam) is that nobody is *required* in the course of normal events to do anything to "support" the country except pay taxes when applicable. Certainly it is considered a duty of all Americans to serve if called. That includes mundane things like jury duty (which is why it always ticks me off when people intentionally try to get out of jury duty instead of just going and doing their service) as well as the types of service you're thinking of.
>
> Personally, I thinks service to one's country is best when it's not coerced. I have nothing but my own beliefs to back this up (but hey, that didn't stop you from asserting things, so why should it stop me?) but I feel that our armed forces are better off being all volunteer than they ever were when part or all of their ranks were filled with conscripts. I feel this way because in theory the army now has only the people who *want* to be there and who consciously *chose* to sign up, rather than dragging any random guy kicking and screaming off the street and giving him a rifle.
>
> I think by leaving it up to the conscience of each person, we end up with a far superior fighting force than if we had any form of conscription. I know personally when the aftermath of 9/11 made it clear we were going to have some sort of armed conflict in Afghanistan, I did a lot of soul searching about what my personal duties were to my country. I decided then that the best course of action for me to take was a simple wait and see. If the war turned out to be another Gulf War, over in hours with only a small amout of American casualties, it wasn't worth my four or six years away from my civilian "duties" for me to sign up. If it turned into a more protracted conflit along the lines of Vietnam, then I would feel obligated at some point to serve a tour.
>
> But my point is, it was *my* decision. My country has intentionally left this decision in my hands for better or for worse. My own conscience will tell me when it's time to serve. If the current war escalates and turns into a more bloody, full scale conflict, will I sign up, or will I continue to find ways to rationalize not going? I honestly don't know. But to me the deciding factor will be how I will feel about myself if we have a Vietnam-level conflict and I sit out the whole thing rationalizing away. At some point the thought of having to live the rest of my life knowing that others served and died while I stayed fat and happy and secure will make me join, I'm sure of it.
>
> But again, this is a *personal* decision. The entire reason why we have a standing army is so that we don't have to throw one together with randomly chosen, ill-trained people every time there's a conflict. Those who choose to be warriors or those who are called go and do the fighting. Those who don't must look at themselves in the mirror every morning and try to convince themselves that it was for the better that they didn't. For some, this may not be hard. Many people are commited pacifists, not wishing to get involved in *any* conflict. I think this is a stupid philosophy, but I understand that there are many people who are not otherwise cowards who are commited to it and could easily deal with not having served during a war because of that. For each person who doesn't serve, there will be an explanation as to why. Some will be fully legitimate. Some will reek of cowardice. But that's for each man to live with.
>
> I personally feel this system is superior to any form of conscription. It assures that the people who are on the battlefield are by and large the people who are willing and able to be there. I feel that any form of conscription short of universal conscription is a bad idea, and I don't particularly like the idea of universal conscription, either, although I'd be for it a lot quicker than any other form. My personal belief is that everyone ought to be ready to take up arms if called, but short of that, it's a personal decision to serve or not. I believe it's a personal choice each person must make, and each person must live with the consequences of having made that decision. If a person can live with voluntarily not having served during a period of war when he was otherwise able to do so, then I may not look at that person with the respect I might otherwise, but I don't have a say in the choice that he made.
>
> -- Dave

All right, I came on too harshly and only put on one side of the argument. Say a guy is a really devout Christian. Say he's studying to be a priest. He should go off and become a priest. But then say there's this guy that doesn't know what to do. he just graduated from highschool. He's not sure where to go to college. He's not sure if he's ready for college. What he should do is go and join the Army/Marines ect. An able bodied American man that doesn't have his heart set on a certain profession and is already really good at it or studying it seriously, that isn't married and doesn't have kids(though many fathers do go to the Army), should go join.