This message was self-deleted by its author

[DanTex]

352. I'm afraid I don't have a completely satisfactory answer, but I'll give it a shot.

Part of it, like I said in my last post, is just selfishness. Well, not any more, since now I'm past that age anyway, but let's say hypothetically, it's 2002 and "god" comes down and tells me that I could avert the Iraq War by participating in two years of national service. Well, if it's really that stark, I guess I'd have to say yes, but I wouldn't be too happy about it. Because from a purely selfish point of view, the IWR didn't directly affect me very much, certainly not as much as having to spend two years doing something I didn't want to do.

The thing is, in reality, it's not that cut and dry. It sounds really callous to say "no, I wouldn't give two years of my life even if that meant saving thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives". The truth, though, is that the benefits aren't quite that obvious and direct.

There are also limits to how equal a conscription would really be. I, for example, wouldn't be on the front lines. Instead I would be assigned to something like the NSA. You'd still end up with the problem that wealthier, better connected, and better educated people would find ways to avoid having their own lives at risk.

Also, I don't think that two years in the NSA is the best way that I could serve my country. I think a much better idea is to raise taxes on people like me that make decent money, and use it to pay for roads and teachers and the safety net.

In the end, two years of every American's life is a lot. My subjective judgement is that if you add up all the potential benefits, it just doesn't add up to enough to match the value of two years of everyone's life.