I was watching Starship Troopers and to be a Citizen you have to serve. Do you think serving should warrant more rights than those who don't?

AN John Filidoro — Mon, 05 Jun 2017 10:30:43 -0400

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Jun 5 at 2017 10:32 AM

Sgt Wayne Wood — Mon, 05 Jun 2017 10:32:12 -0400

Yeah... but read the book... the movie was trash

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2017 10:32 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Jun 2017 10:32:14 -0400

The startship troopers movie doesn't do the book justice. Read the book!

Response by SGT Edward Wilcox made Jun 5 at 2017 10:35 AM

SGT Edward Wilcox — Mon, 05 Jun 2017 10:35:03 -0400

No, I don't. Our rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, and should not be contingent on any act of service to the Government.

If you were paying attention, you would notice that at one point it was asserted that voting was considered an act of violence because you were forcing your views onto others. That is why it was a right reserved only to Citizens.

The book is much better at conveying the fact that it was really about the dangers of a totalitarian, arguably fascist, government. That gets lost in the movie, since they decided to play up the war angle.

Response by SFC Jerry Humphries made Jun 5 at 2017 10:47 AM

SFC Jerry Humphries — Mon, 05 Jun 2017 10:47:55 -0400

I think what you are trying to convey is way too many of are citizens take their citizenship for granted. In return the Government takes them for granted. The problem is in my opinion we no longer teach civics as it used to be taught. In stead we teach about social justice.

Response by SPC Kevin Ford made Jun 5 at 2017 10:55 AM

SPC Kevin Ford — Mon, 05 Jun 2017 10:55:59 -0400

It would certainly change the complexion of our all volunteer force and as such I would say no. Having said that, I do believe that some sort of service for two years should be compulsory, just not necessarily military service (though that would qualify as well).

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2017 11:17 AM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Jun 2017 11:17:32 -0400

Very interesting question: First (read the book) lol .

In the book everyone has the basic rights, they can hold a business, have jobs, live their lives like we do the only thing they can not do is Vote, that is reserved for a "Citizen" I wont lie there is a part of me that agrees with this thought. How many "wars" have we gotten into because some political hack wants to get a headline. Most of Congress and the House and our current and last President have never served in any capacity other than to take the freedom we provide for granted.

But what's the other side? A government made up of the Political Military, this leads to the Juntas and the Fascist ideology's. We are the Sword and Shield of the Nation, we do not get a say in who to defend or who to attack that is the nature of our lives. You accept this or you get out.

I do like the idea of a 2 year requirement, but what would the cost be? What would the cost to those of us that are lifers be? Its hard enough dealing with the junior people that we get now what happens when they don't want to be here?

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Jun 5 at 2017 12:14 PM

Sgt Wayne Wood — Mon, 05 Jun 2017 12:14:38 -0400

Was in during the draft... ya get what ya pay for... unless the cattle have something to lose...

Response by SSgt James Atkinson made Jun 5 at 2017 6:11 PM

SSgt James Atkinson — Mon, 05 Jun 2017 18:11:42 -0400

Under our present laws, all males upon reaching the age of 17 are automatically considered to be in the military and may be called upon and formed into military units on a moments notice. But, as the law specifically lists males and not females, the law is automatically null and void, and it can not be enforced as it excludes a certain class of citizens (those being females). If our President (and Congress) wished to remedy this tremendous weakness that would remove the word "male" and substitute the words "any gender" where "male" is mentioned under Title 50.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court has ruled that they incorporate males and female by virtue of the 14th Amendment to be one and the same, so what law applies to one, applies to both. Thusly, through Supreme Court rulings, and not by statute anybody in the country, upon reaching the age of 17 is liable for military service until the age of 45. Also, if a person served in the Regular military (opposed to the National Guard) their liability for service increases until they are well past 60 years of age.

One of the benefits of joining the National Guard (not the reserves) is that you can not normally be called back to duty after the age of 45, but people who were part of the regular 4 branches can be called back, and during WWI and WW II a great number of previously honorably discharged disabled veterans were recalled to active duty to teach, operate radios, perform administrative work as so on. Granted, some of these veterans were missing arms or legs, and some were missing eyes, but they did get recalled because of their prior occupation.

There is also the "volunteer to serve" aspect, where an active duty military person can "volunteer" to serve in the event of a national crisis in exchange for high-value training, or arcane training, and this "volunteer" remains a volunteer until the age of 65, no matter their physical disability. In peacetime, the "volunteer" can provide consulting services to the military or provide goods, until such time an emergency is declared and they step back into the military, which they never actually left.

My personal political belief is that on a child's 15th birthday, they owe this country at least 4 years of continuous, unbroken military service, on active duty (6 years if they want technical training), and that until they complete the 4 or 6 years active duty period that they not be allowed access to any educational establishment, not allowed a driver's license, or to vote, etc. Then as part of their military training, they learn to drive, and are given a provisional drivers license, and are allowed to only vote on-base, in federal elections.

Of course, if a person opts to stay in the military after their required 4/6 service, they would be able to make a monthly wage equal to or greater than what they could make as a civilian.

I also feel that the U.S. Military should operate factories that make arms, munitions, ammo, rucks, bayonets, and any implement that the foot borne infantry would use, and when a person completes their required 4/6 years of service that they be issued a full infantry kit, and sent home with it, and be required to keep it in good repair and permit an annual inspection of it, until the age of 65.