View Full Version : The draft
Is it sexist ? Thats the question ... short and simple.
I feel that it is. Anything that forces men 18-26 into war should also force women 18-26 into war. After all the are our equals ? I also believe that women now have a double standard that didn't exsist before. Its sorta like they want the cake with the frosting but not the bananas.
Actually, your arguement is flawed. Men and women are not equal physically or in all situations.
You don't want to send your women off to war because when your population shrinks it only takes a few men to bring it back up. However, it takes a large number of women to work with said men to bring it back up.
In the old times, when you had small tribes, at most thousands. Women were a valuable contributer to your society. They would ensure that your tribe would persist, even if it took a large percentage of men to defend your tribe.
The side effect is that the weak 18-26 year olds will usually die, keeping the "strong" ones alive for the most part. So all of a sudden you "clean-up" the gene pool. It's all survival of the fittest I suppose, nothing like a good war to make your society strong. ;)
Draft should certainly be done away with. Noone should need to fight in a war unless they support the war themselves.
Draft should certainly be done away with. Noone should need to fight in a war unless they support the war themselves.
People like you infuriate me; like parasitic leechs' that live off your nation-state and flee at the first instince of any personal responcibility or jeapordy.
For example: If you live in the United States legally, you are a citizen. If you want to enjoy the freedoms and liberties afforded to citizens under the Constitution, you must do your duty to protect said Constitution in the advent that a draft is initiated.
It doesn't matter what or who you believe, if you can enjoy the liberties and freedoms in the good times, you can protect them in the bad.
This is how it works, you get nothing for free here. If you don't like it leave. If don't live here, don't comment.
Dude this isn't back in the day. I 'm sure we can loose a few million women and men and have no problem getting back up to the number of people we have now .
Jon Brittan
26-Feb-2003, 01:24
Vince: "People like you infuriate me"...
We are all supposed to live in democracies, well most of us who frequent this board anyway, which means that the government should represent the views of the people, therefore only decisions which would meet with a large proportion of approval should be passed and therefore the majority of people would agree with the decision and be prepared to back it, leaving those who disagree to be free to not back it. I know this is a very simple view of the system, but in essence that is how it should be.
Anyway, there should be no reason for a draft anymore anyway, we all have decently sized standing armies and we should also all be hoping we have less and less need of them, but we certainly have enough people in active service that there should be no situation in the present day climate where there is any need to "press-gang" people into service, and it's ineffective anyway as a well trained and willing soldier will always be more effective than a rapidly trained unwilling forced into service soldier.
Would you go house to house forcing people to brush their teeth even if they didn't want to given that we all know how important it is to the state of your teeth and how much dentistry costs each countries economy each year?
The draft is an out-dated, innefective, unbalanced and not particularly democratic tool of times gone by.
Tagrineth
26-Feb-2003, 02:02
If I had a boyfriend or husband or whatever, I wouldn't want him to go off to some stupid war that I don't even want to happen, just to become a statistic...
I think everyone with family / close friends in the military always dreads "the call"...
Joe DeFuria
26-Feb-2003, 02:07
I'm going to avoid the question over whether we "need" a draft or not, and get to the more interesting question of whether one should be followed if implemented.
We are all supposed to live in democracies, well most of us who frequent this board anyway, which means that the government should represent the views of the people, therefore only decisions which would meet with a large proportion of approval should be passed and therefore the majority of people would agree with the decision and be prepared to back it, leaving those who disagree to be free to not back it. I know this is a very simple view of the system, but in essence that is how it should be.
Yes, it's overly simple. Our elected officials do legislate and enact laws on our behalf. However, their job is NOT to just do "what the majority of people would agree with." We would have a pure democracy if that was the intention. Their job is to do "what's best for society as a whole."
There is a fundamental difference there. And I disagree fully with the notion that our representatives should do "what most people would agree with." No more than I agree that a parent should do "what his children want him to do." I would agree that representatives should do what most people would agree with, if most people were as informed and knowledgeable of all the relevant issues as possible, in order to make an educated decision. However, the folks in the private sector have their own lives to lead to increase the worth of society, and delegate the task of "being informed enough to make the right political decisions" to their representatives.
Would you go house to house forcing people to brush their teeth even if they didn't want to given that we all know how important it is to the state of your teeth and how much dentistry costs each countries economy each year?
First of all, unless dentistry is government owned, it doesn't "cost" the country's economy any...it contributes to it. ;)
That being said, it's a bad analogy. I'll amend it to make it more relevant:
If our elected officials pass a LAW that says "you must brush your teeth twice a day", then anyone REFUSING to brush his teeth should be willing to pay the consequences. Fine...imprisonment...whatever. Sure...make a public stand against teeth brushing. Go on a "plaque strike", or whatever. ;) The point is, if you don't agree with a law, that doesn't mean you have the "right" to break it.
If a draft were implemented by our elected officials, and you decide to dodge it, then it's your right to do so...no one can "force" you to fight. However, it's my opinion that punishment should be exile from the U.S. So you would indeed have a choice. And you should freely accept those consequences. Fight for your country if that's what your country tells you to do, or leave it.
On a related note....
The same goes for "supporting our troops" if they are engaged in a war that you don't support. They are out there fighting for you, whether you agree with the cause or not. There is NO excuse for not supporting the armed forces for carrying out orders of our elected officials.
If the majority decides to fight and you are in the minority does that exempt you?
And you should be smart enough to realize war no longers does anything to help the gene pool, all it does is allow a few lucky people to survive and the officers.
Tagrineth
26-Feb-2003, 02:18
The same goes for "supporting our troops" if they are engaged in a war that you don't support. They are out there fighting for you, whether you agree with the cause or not. There is NO excuse for not supporting the armed forces for carrying out orders of our elected officials.
Well, yeah, but isn't there a better way to support the war at this point than gambling your LIFE?
LittlePenny
26-Feb-2003, 02:34
Vince, it's nice to see you are willing to die for your country, but would your politicians do the same? If you know your history then this debate is over, or atleast your anger is misplaced.
Joe DeFuria
26-Feb-2003, 02:59
Well, yeah, but isn't there a better way to support the war at this point than gambling your LIFE?
I don't understand what you're saying.
I'm not saying or implying that if this country goes to war, then you should support a draft. Is that what you think I'm saying?
I'm saying two things:
1) is that if a draft is imposed, whether you support it or not, you should do your duty if called upon.
2) If our troops go to war, you should "support" them whether or not you support the war. And honestly, outwardly showing disapproval of the war once it's begun, doesn't do much good for the morale of the troops. All it serves to do is make them think what a bunch of thankless SOBs we are...
K.I.L.E.R
26-Feb-2003, 03:25
This is how it works, you get nothing for free here. If you don't like it leave. If don't live here, don't comment.
You sir/madam should come down to Australia where more than half the population of kids are living off other peoples taxes. ;)
Refuse to get a job even if offered one.
2) If our troops go to war, you should "support" them whether or not you support the war. And honestly, outwardly showing disapproval of the war once it's begun, doesn't do much good for the morale of the troops. All it serves to do is make them think what a bunch of thankless SOBs we are...
Yes, supporting people != supporting their actions. :)
My mum didn't approve of me doing something but that doesn't mean she still does't support me. :)
Vince, it's nice to see you are willing to die for your country, but would your politicians do the same? If you know your history then this debate is over, or atleast your anger is misplaced.
I wouldn't judge anyone. :)
There are and aren't many pollies who would give their life for the country. You will not be able to judge which ones would\wouldn't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I could save the world with my death, I won't. My faith in humanity has degnerated to the point that I would kill everyone off the face of this earth (not animals as my faith with them hasn't degenerated) with a weapon of mass destruction if given the chance. (assuming the weapon only kills humans ;))
Of course, it still isn't my place to judge weather people deserve it or not, that would be a completely different question.
If you would kill everyone else off the world, I think I know where you can start :twisted:
Well I'm a very selfish man and don't care about people half a world away. I would be fine if we nuked the middle east. But since that wont happen well if need be i will go and die for this country. But only because this country has my parents , gand parents , old and little sister and about 240 family memebers that i see at least twice a year . So if my going and dieing save them so be it. But i don't think just because I am a male i should go. I think both sexs should go off and die. Yes i know that means my sister would have a chance of going off and dieing but i know she would gladly accept it if it would save family memebers . I believe in this war with all of my heart but I don't think its going to end everything . I believe that all aid should be taken away from other countrys . Get out of thier lives and let them kill each other. Use the billions we hand out and use it to feed our homeless and teach our kids. Then find a way off this planet and let those that want to kill each other keep it
The draft shouldn't exist. Not because that might be popular. But to come to the realisation that your country is in danger and you as a citizen need to defend it is a personel decision. The draft for Vietnam for instance was WRONG.
For example, I and I'm sure lots of Americans agree that Vietnam wasn't such a threat that Americans should be up in arms and so on. The government mad a BAD decision and FORCED everyone to follow. This could be seen even in foresight, that's why so many protested. The government shouldn't make a mandatory call to arms, but rather state that we're about to get fucked side ways and we need YOUR help. Of course, you're going to want to say that in eloquent legalese. ;)
The point is, as a citizen I'm willing to defend my country, but if I feel that my country doesn't need defending (ie. I disagree with the government) I shouldn't have to do what they say.
Joe, I agree with one of the themes of your PoV good leader(s) don't always make popular decisions, even in a democracy.
that doesnt allow escapes for any reason like college where rich kids can get out of going... of course then theres the issue of conscientious objectors...
Draft is damned if you do and damned if you dont... if rich kids went to war wed see less impetus towards war as is seen in the generals today vs the politicians who never served... but a draft that works to create an enlightened political class cant have exceptions...
Well, yeah, but isn't there a better way to support the war at this point than gambling your LIFE?
The ideology Tag, is that just as you're entitled to this countries freedoms and liberties guaranteed under the Constitution - your role as a citizen is to protect the Constitution should you're elected leader deem the draft necessary.
Of course, especially in todays contemporary battlefield, there isn't a significant need for the so-called "grunts" to go slug it out - and of course there are "other" ways of advancing the cause (eg. Education), but the point I'm trying to make is that conscription in itself is a legitimate and necessary part of this Republic, since it's humble creation.
But to come to the realisation that your country is in danger and you as a citizen need to defend it is a personel decision
Bold are mine as they illuminate a specific word: Citizen.
cit·i·zen (st-zn)
n.
A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation
Personal decision? Where did you learn this? I suggest you go read up on citizenship, just a hint. This isn't a "I was born here, I'm entitled" type of proposition. It's very Black & White, either your a citizen and do you're duty or revoke your citizenship and move the hell out.
Because, It's unfair for people like my buddy Joel to be out in the Gulf on an Amphibious Ready ship or wherever he is now, ready to die protecting your ass and your family while you cower in the corner mumbling about "not agreeing personally." Thats bullshit, utter bullshit. If you can enjoy the freedoms, you can die protecting them if the time comes.
Vince, it's nice to see you are willing to die for your country, but would your politicians do the same? If you know your history then this debate is over, or atleast your anger is misplaced.
This Republic has survived almost 230 years. Under a policy of conscription we have given birth to the greatest democratic entity the world has seen. We've ended slavery, preserved the democratic principles we hold dear against the agressive foes of Fascism, Despotism, Communism and Tyranny. Twice have we liberated Europe from the dominion of evil under this policy in the past century.
I think you're looking for an excuse; quite frankly I don't give a f* what anyone else does or doesn't do. The question in the event of a draft would be, "Whats's your excuse?"
The point is, as a citizen I'm willing to defend my country, but if I feel that my country doesn't need defending (ie. I disagree with the government) I shouldn't have to do what they say
The point is, you don't know what the hell it is to be a citizen. I'm ashamed at this rebellous, leftist, segment of the contemporary generation in the United States (Europe is so lost it isn't even worth mention) and their outlook on topics such as this.
It's like, you want the Protection, Oppertunity, Freedoms, Liberties, and Happiness afforded under our Constitution. You will use and abuse the Constitution's privalleges to the fullest. Yet, you will only defend it if you agree with it. What bullshit.
K.I.L.E.R
26-Feb-2003, 06:24
Yeh, great. Everyone decides to ignore my post. It's like I'm not even posting. Argue with my post somone. :)
I'm bored. :cry:
Reverend
26-Feb-2003, 06:24
Vince, I gather such discussions at this site garner the most passionate responses from you. You're entitled to your opinions - as everyone else is.
More often than not, nobody gives a flying f*ck what the hell a dictionary or some draft is supposed to say or define.
The sane folks say "I want to live in this country".
Not "I want to die for this country, in this country or elsewhere".
Of course, you're probably (used almost sarcastically) more passionate about your citizenship than most are, and you're entitled to that opinion/stance.
Just stop f*cking knocking others by comparing them to "leeches", not here in our forums.
I said before (when I was head) that I would ban political discussions here because they usually make more enemies than friends. I cannot do this now... but I am giving fair warning to all that unless you, the "regular" folks, act as polite politicians, I will start with the edits and deletions without explanations.
Be polite and respectful of difference in opinions, especially in this particular area of discussion.
K.I.L.E.R
26-Feb-2003, 06:27
Vince, I gather such discussions at this site garner the most passionate responses from you. You're entitled to your opinions - as everyone else is.
More often than not, nobody gives a flying f*ck what the hell a dictionary or some draft is supposed to say or define.
The sane folks say "I want to live in this country".
Not "I want to die for this country, in this country or elsewhere".
Of course, you're probably (used almost sarcastically) more passionate about your citizenship than most are, and you're entitled to that opinion/stance.
Just stop f*cking knocking others by comparing them to "leeches", not here in our forums.
I said before (when I was head) that I would ban political discussions here because they usually make more enemies than friends. I cannot do this now... but I am giving fair warning to all that unless you, the "regular" folks, act as polite politicians, I will start with the edits and deletions without explanations.
Be polite and respectful of difference in opinions, especially in this particular area of discussion.
You are warning ALL of us? I'm being polite. At least I think I am.
The point is, you don't know what the hell it is to be a citizen. I'm ashamed at this rebellous, leftist, segment of the contemporary generation in the United States (Europe is so lost it isn't even worth mention) and their outlook on topics such as this.
It's like, you want the Protection, Oppertunity, Freedoms, Liberties, and Happiness afforded under our Constitution. You will use and abuse the Constitution's privalleges to the fullest. Yet, you will only defend it if you agree with it. What bullshit.
Other countries figured out that slavery thing faster than America, nothing to brag about there. I'm not rebellious either, I just think differently. I'm not a dogmatic right winger.
Oh look at that, I can throw around labels too in an attempt to weaken an arguement through fallacy.
There is an implication in your words. The government will make the right decision. I disagree, though there is a representative democracy, that doesn't mean it's the rule. That is to say it will not always represent individual, the majority of individuals, all the individuals or the truth all the time or any of them at any point in time. The government isn't always working for the best interest of the poeple, it's fairly easy to hide stuff from those that either trust the government too much and from others who are too busy tuned into tunnel visioned media.
Crusher
26-Feb-2003, 08:17
I see no reason women can't be drafted.
For one, the "women are more necessary than men for rebuilding the population" thing is bullshit. It's bullshit for two reasons, the first being that our population isn't going to need rebuilding after any modern war. We've got what, 300 million people in the U.S.? How many died in World War II, 300 thousand? 0.1 percent of our current population. And that was with massive close range infantry combat in numerous countries all over the world. That kind of fighting doesn't even exist anymore. The second reason it's bullshit is that it takes exactly 2 people to create a child. One man, one woman. They're equally important to the reproductive cycle. The fact that the man can impregnate multiple women during one gestation period is irrelavent both because such conduct is viewed as immoral and irresponsable in our current society (and if we're willing to give up morality like that as a result of war, what are we fighting to protect?), and because a small number of men impregnating a large number of women significantly reduces the size of the gene pool. And if your population is going to decrease to the point where you need to start worrying about rebuilding it, you're going to have to worry about genetic implications as well. Not that it would ever get to that point. Also, you wouldn't want a massive flood of children in the same generation. Especially in this day and age when there's a shortage of skilled teachers, educational funding, and when most families don't have a stereotypical housewife to take care of the children like they did in the 50's.
The other reason I see no reason to exclude women from the draft, is that being drafted doesn't mean you have to be an infantry unit toting a rifle on the front line. There are plenty of non-combat roles in the military branches, and women are just as capable of doing most of them as men are.
But honestly I'd rather not have a draft. I don't think it's necessary. I think the financial incentives for recruits draw more than enough people into the military as it is. Just look at all the reservists we have getting activated in anticipation of this conflict. There are already over 200,000 full time and reserve troops in the gulf region. If we need more people than that to liberate Iraq, we don't need to draft more troops, we need to figure out why our tactics are getting the all of our troops killed.
In an age when technology has taken over the majority of combat, the draft is an ancient war relic that we can do without. If the government is really desperate for support, they should draft dollars, not people. Ask people to buy bonds, etc. so we can build more smart bombs and cruise missles. Why throw lives into a war when you can just as easily throw money and have the same impact? I think you'd be suprised how many people would rather buy $5,000 worth of savings bonds than be drafted, or have their loved ones drafted.
epicstruggle
26-Feb-2003, 08:58
The voluntary army of the US is the way to go for the near future. If for some reason we have a situation where we need to have an army into millions-ten of millions, then we might need to look at the draft. Right now i want my army to be composed of people who want to be there. So lets not ruin the army by putting people who dont want to be there. I know this will cause the army to be full of low income people, and not have as many rich influencatial people, but so what.
On another note, we live in a republic not a democracy.Kudos to vince and joe for stating as much. I wish people would learn this in school. (or shows how bad the school system is if they dont know this.) I dont want my govermnent to be run by polls. Look at what at the top shows in the US right now: "are you hot", "joe millionare", "american idol". Come on i dont want life and death decisions to be made by these people :). Id rather it be made by some smart SOBs.:)
later,
Leeches, eh? Vince, are you aware that you are dangerously close to Nazi terminology?
Anyway, I am kinda curious what sort of animal you would compare a person to whose family connections provided him with the opportunity to heroically defend Texas against the Vietcong while poor man's kids had to die in the jungle.
Simon F
26-Feb-2003, 09:17
Is the draft sexist ?
Are you refering wind? Then I think men and women get it equally except that women are far more discrete! :D
DemoCoder
26-Feb-2003, 12:12
The draft is an anachronism. In today's Western world, people are no longer interchangable components. We are highly specialized and trained for 20+ years from early age and end up doing a few things very well, and most everything else, poorly.
It wouldn't make any more sense to draft an obese or scrawny computer science geek and send him into battle than it would to draft him as a heart transplant surgeon. The military is far more efficient having those guys work on building software for planes, missile defense, or curing diseases, and in general, keeping the economy going so that the US can afford its awesome arsenal. The idea of making everyone a soldier reminds me of that utterly stupid Marxism 2.0 "participatory economics" stuff there everyone is forced to be a janitor, ceo, assembly line, and other positions, all for fairness and balance. Thus, everyone does a crappy job cause no one builds any expertise.
Our military isn't designed to be fair or democratic. It is designed to fight and win wars, and if that means, some must people fight, and other people must make coffee, then that's what we have to do. More lives will be saved because of it, despite the "unfairness" of it. Even within the military, is it unfair that the Marines are sent in on much more dangerous missions than people sitting on naval destroyers? Are people who join the coast guard, yellow bellied cowards trying to avoid the frontlines?
The draft produces cannon fodder. People who don't want to fight, are sent on a crash course thru a few weeks of training, dropped off in combat, and if they survive, they go back to being civilians. There is no long term benefit or knowledge retained.
Our professional/volunteer army works way better. #1, it produces people whose entire career is military training, thinking, and fighting. #2, the people who join, atleast many of the US'es best troops, are highly motivated. The guys in the Special Forces, or Rangers, Airborne, etc divisions are not there for salary or college tuition, they are there because they like that stuff, just like there are people who like extreme sports for the thrill.
Just look at the US Military recruitment commercials. They are tailored to people who like base jumping, and Vin Diesel.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html
guess the cia still thinks there can be a draft if worse comes to worse...
woo canada can weild an army of over 8 million!... I suddenly feel... POWERFUL... muhahahaha!
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 8,361,475 (2002 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 7,139,068 (2002 est.)
epicstruggle
26-Feb-2003, 13:22
here is the stats for china:
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 370,087,489 (2002 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 203,003,036 (2002 est.)
:shock:
later,
no disrespect to china but what are they going to do come at us with bambo sticks ? Mabye in another 10 or 20 years we will have to worry about thier massive numbers but not now. They can't arm themselves.
I asked this question because I'm a 21 year old male and I feel like I'm starting to become more discreminated(sp?) against than women. Heh I also have another question to ask but i will wait till piss people off another day :-)
Joe DeFuria
26-Feb-2003, 13:45
I said before (when I was head) that I would ban political discussions here because they usually make more enemies than friends.
Actually, I think you said that you'd ban religious discussions. Look like you're branching into political ones too?
Methinks that at least politics and religion are a more valid reason for having "heated" discussion, than say, game consoles. Perhaps that discussion group should be the first target for heavy handed moderation? ;)
Simon F
26-Feb-2003, 15:04
no disrespect to china but what are they going to do come at us with bambo sticks ?
Cue Monty Python sketch on defending yourself against someone attacking you armed with a banana....
It wouldn't make any more sense to draft an obese or scrawny computer science geek and send him into battle than it would to draft him as a heart transplant surgeon.
This is missing the point, being that in the highly unlikely scenario that the Constitution is in danger of elimination via external force - all citizens, as citizens, have a responcibility to defend the state. Of course, nobody is advocating instituting the draft now or for anything less than a true national threat.
As for you're example, during Vietnam several of the most preeminent theoretical physicists and mathmaticians were drafted and served their duty. Most were given leave, but they went threw basic, ect.
Saem, you have some problems with comprehension of our societal structure in the United States that need to be resolved before you can have an educated debate on this topic. Here's a start: The US is a federalist republic.
Leeches, eh? Vince, are you aware that you are dangerously close to Nazi terminology?
Um, alrighty. Compare me to a Nazi again... A leech is a parasitic animal that lifes off a host entity, at the expense of the host entity without any upside to the host entity.
This is what he's advocated, except the host entity is a nation-state. Don't like the comparason, then don't get mad at me - perhaps it's time to look inside and see what, and who, you really are.
More often than not, nobody gives a flying f*ck what the hell a dictionary or some draft is supposed to say or define
Ohh, I see. So, nobody gives a "Flying f*ck" concerning their civic duty and allegience to their country if it could have a negative impact on their own life? But, give me some more social-programs and more freebees that the government provides. I love the position Rev, says alot.
Just stop f*cking knocking others by comparing them to "leeches", not here in our forums.
If the shoe fits - deal with it. I explained the parasitic leech example and how someone who enjoys the freedoms and liberties of a nation-state, yet refuses to defend these same freedoms if the costs are too great in such a selfish manner is comperable to a parasitic animal who drains the resources of a host entity without any upside - if you disaprove, ask yourself why.
I said before (when I was head) that I would ban political discussions here because they usually make more enemies than friends. I cannot do this now... but I am giving fair warning to all that unless you, the "regular" folks, act as polite politicians, I will start with the edits and deletions without explanations.
&
Methinks that at least politics and religion are a more valid reason for having "heated" discussion, than say, game consoles. Perhaps that discussion group should be the first target for heavy handed moderation?
Appearently, if you strategically add "GeForceFX" and "Radeon9700" to you're conversation - it neutralizes any of the other extremely biased and hatefull comments found in damn near ever thread in the 3D forum. Makes sence to me, lets argue venemously if a chunck of silicon thats 10*10mm has a 4*2 or 8*1 architecture - but not about actual, tangible arguments that concern things much greater. :roll:
This is a question for the ones that are ultra right wings? (those who think that if anyone that don't follow every government decision, is a leech or betrayor).
To what point you would think that a person who protest against a govenrnamental decision, in the form of a law for exemple, should be considered a betreyor of this country ?
Like (an absurd situation), if it the US government used the draft only with black people and latin people, shouldn't they complain ? Or should they asked to leave the country ?
Crusher
26-Feb-2003, 16:56
A leech is a parasitic animal that lifes off a host entity, at the expense of the host entity without any upside to the host entity.
That is not the definition of what a leech is, merely your opinion of it. Actually leeches can be quite beneficial to the host. They have been used for ages to cure various ailments, and are still used today in reconstructive and cosmetic surgery.
Your comment also suggests that people who do not join the military in defense of our country do nothing but drain economic resources without any contribution. This is untrue. A person who is not in the military can still be a productive member of the economy, a valuable member of society, and a true citizen of the country. Exactly where do you think the country and it's economy would be without the commercial and educational contributions these people make? And where do you think the military would be without the discoveries and manufactured products from these people? The military doesn't make their own weapons and equipment. Advances in military technology have come largely from those not in the military. To say these people are contributing nothing simply because they don't want to enlist in the armed services is rediculous. But you're probably right, a 35 year old senior engineer would be much more productive trying to kluge equipment to gether under the command of a 20 year old high school drop out, than he would in a private corporation with a government contract to supply the innovative technical equiment required to make that 20 year old high school drop out worth a damn on the battlefield.
Joe DeFuria
26-Feb-2003, 17:46
This is a question for the ones that are ultra right wings? (those who think that if anyone that don't follow every government decision, is a leech or betrayor).
You really think that obeying laws makes someone an ultra-right winger?!
To what point you would think that a person who protest against a govenrnamental decision, in the form of a law for exemple, should be considered a betreyor of this country ?
There is a big difference between protesting a decision, and not following / being in compliance with a decision once it's been made. I think that distinction is being lost somewhere.
I have no problems with people protesting a draft, or protesting any other issue. That is the American way, and is also the "duty" of the citizens to make their voices known. However, I do have problems with people who, once a decision is made / law passed, take it upon themselves to decide whether or not they will follow it.
Example: I think the laws are structued in such a way that I am required to pay entirely too much taxes. That doesn't mean I don't pay them. I DO pay them, and at the same time, protest that payment.
Like (an absurd situation), if it the US government used the draft only with black people and latin people, shouldn't they complain ? Or should they asked to leave the country ?
Yes, that is absurd. ;) But to humor you...they should complain if they think they are being treated unfairly. But they should also follow the law.
Mariner
26-Feb-2003, 18:02
Yes, that is absurd. But to humor you...they should complain if they think they are being treated unfairly. But they should also follow the law.
Continuing the absurdity: apartheid was law in South Africa, segregation was law in the Southern US states and (yes) slavery used to be law throughout most of the world. Should these laws have been followed?
Ignoring that aside, I assume that another possible 'draft' is being mooted in the States? It's the only reason I can think of for this topic so I'll have to guess this is the case or is it just the press talking rubbish as usual?
LittlePenny
26-Feb-2003, 18:27
Vince, I am curious as to what your age is?
Silent_One
26-Feb-2003, 18:33
Crusher wrote:That is not the definition of what a leech is, merely your opinion of it. Actually leeches can be quite beneficial to the host. They have been used for ages to cure various ailments, and are still used today in reconstructive and cosmetic surgery.
leech
n.
Any of various chiefly aquatic bloodsucking or carnivorous annelid worms of the class Hirudinea, of which one species (Hirudo medicinalis) was formerly used by physicians to bleed patients and is now sometimes used as a temporary aid to circulation during surgical reattachment of a body part.
One that preys on or clings to another; a parasite.
Archaic A physician.
v. leeched, leech·ing, leech·es
v. tr.
To bleed with leeches.
To drain the essence or exhaust the resources of.
v. intr.
To attach oneself to another in the manner of a leech.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/l/l0100300.html
Joe DeFuria
26-Feb-2003, 18:35
Continuing the absurdity: apartheid was law in South Africa, segregation was law in the Southern US states and (yes) slavery used to be law throughout most of the world. Should these laws have been followed?
Yes. Laws should be followed, or go somewhere else that doesn't have the law that you will not follow.
But again, you can still protest the law, while at the same time respect / abide by it. You can certainly work to get it changed, but you should abide by it while doing so.
If you detested slavery...don't own slaves. If you couldn't stand the fact that it was legal in "your state", move to another state. Or alternatively, work to change the law.
Sabastian
26-Feb-2003, 19:41
I didn't vote in the poll. My option was not represented.
What is wrong with being sexist? I think men and women are different, that makes me sexist and BTW every other red blooded human being agrees.(With the exception of a few nutty left wingers.) We are all sexist for Christ sakes we are not hermaphidites.(I think that is how that is spelled.)
My vote would have been on .. Yes it is sexist and no doesn't need to be changed........
EDIT: In Canada we have no draft so I guess that really disqualifies MO. But if I were an American I believe that this would be my opinion.
This is a question for the ones that are ultra right wings? (those who think that if anyone that don't follow every government decision, is a leech or betrayor).
You really think that obeying laws makes someone an ultra-right winger?!
No, just "those who think that if anyone that don't follow every government decision, is a leech or betrayor" . See, there's the condition that this person should consider the other a leech or betrayor :P . Although I must say that this is for me a suficient condition, but by no means a necessary condition.
But there's a difference between the methods to deal slavery/apartheid case, and the example I gave. Both are recist, but, as you rightly pointed, the apartheid/slavery can be fought by not following the usual costumes, like a passive resistence.
What about any case as I said, where the person that is being descrimated must follow the law in order to not break it ? Don't focus in my example itself as the basis of my argue, but only that it reflects the case where a group of people feel harmed by any official governmental determination, where they cannot choose a way to protest against it, other them breaking it.
Sabastian
26-Feb-2003, 20:50
Also it ought to be noted that technological advancement actually reduces the numbers the government needs for any sort of millitary campain. So in effect even with draft law in place people have fewer worries about being drafted into millitary situations. If it ever got to the point where people are needed then indeed there ought to be a means for the country to have an effective millitary response, particularly in such a just country as the US or likewise. But as time passes and the technology advances there is less and less need for larger armies and more need for effectively trained soldiers.
Your comment also suggests that people who do not join the military in defense of our country do nothing but drain economic resources without any contribution. This is untrue.
This isn't what I'm saying in the least. I'm only talking against people who are anti-draft and not willing to attend to their civic duty as citizens. Basically, these people who don't know what being a citizen entails.
Thanks to Silent_One and Joe for clearing all that up.
personally I think such issues as for example slavery or Dubya cancelling the next election and declaring himself pres for life and a few other such serious issues would warrant civil war... protest is fine but realistically I cant see how such very bad laws or declarations on the part of gov can be dealt with or realistically would be dealt with in ghandiesque fashion...
I think this applies to any western nation...
Bambers
26-Feb-2003, 22:54
Any kind of call up is almost completely pointless in modern times.
You need highly trained and coordinated troops. A call up for an offensive manouver would be just incredulous imo.
People like you infuriate me; like parasitic leechs' that live off your nation-state and flee at the first instince of any personal responcibility or jeapordy.
For example: If you live in the United States legally, you are a citizen. If you want to enjoy the freedoms and liberties afforded to citizens under the Constitution, you must do your duty to protect said Constitution in the advent that a draft is initiated.
It doesn't matter what or who you believe, if you can enjoy the liberties and freedoms in the good times, you can protect them in the bad.
As if that hasn't been obvious before, you obviously can't see beyond your narrow-minded patriotic ideals. So you are a patriot who would defend the US regardless of what the matter of the conflict is? Pretty irrational stance IMO. Patriotism in general is irrational too IMO, but that's another discusision. I'm certainly not a patriot. I would not fight any war that I don't believe in. That doesn't mean I wouldn't fight in another war that seriously threatens something I value, like your favourite freedom argument. If someone attacked Sweden for a good reason, then surely I wouldn't defend. I don't want to protect a country for the sake of the country itself. Country borders is the plauge, and should be done away with. I support any measure taken to get rid of them or make them softer. As such, I support letting more countries into the EU even though it probably isn't going to benefit Sweden, and in many cases rather the opposite.
This is how it works, you get nothing for free here. If you don't like it leave. If don't live here, don't comment.
Just another way to show how narrow your views are. You automatically assume that this is about the US, or some kind of attack on the US system. As if the draft doesn't exist elsewhere.
The draft is pretty much the only way to get military at all in Sweden, the professional army hardly exists, like only a bunch of high officers is in the army as their profession. The law mandates that everyone 18 years old or more should do military service if called in. Exceptions can be made for medical and to some extent religious reasons. Everyone is mandated to go through tests and be placed into a military position for the case one would be called in, almost no exceptions. Fortunately I was able to hit one such exception and have been liberated from having to join the military under any circumstances until 2049 (and at that time I don't think they would want me anyway ;))
During the cold war this made sense, it was the only way to get a large enough army for threats at that time and during that time pretty much every male went through military service for 9 to 15 months. Today however there are no threats and the military funding has been cut to only a fraction of what it used to be. As such the situation today is that most people don't do military service anymore. So if you really don't want to, it's generally a good enough reason for not having to. But I would like to see that moved into the law. There are enough people who want to do military service anyway to fill what they can afford to bring in.
Very telling Humus... Lets just end with this: We're polar opposites in our beliefs and values. I can't adequately state my opinion of you after that post without getting banned or listen to Rev yet again. I'm sure you probobly think the same of me.
You're there, I'm here; I wouldn't want you here, you wouldn't want me there. Lets just let time see which ideology is correct, as time is the ultimate referee in these matters of nation-states.
PS. How can you be a draft dodger with a clear conscious? Seriously, don't you feel like a scumbag? Why is it fair for other Swedes to die, if the case ever emerged, protecting your freedoms while you sit at home and enjoy said liberties and freedoms because you 'found a loophole." I don't care what American did it or what position they now have, but I'm talking of you. What good is citizenship if you're just going to be a parasite? What your doing is avoiding your civic duty, avoiding the law, and avoiding any type of personal responcibility for your actions - the latter of which is a theme that most Europeans have shown lately. I can seriously have no respect for a person like that, and especially one who talks about it so proudly and put this 'smirky' ;) after it - argh.
epicstruggle
27-Feb-2003, 07:38
Very telling Humus... Lets just end with this: We're polar opposites in our beliefs and values. I can't adequately state my opinion of you after that post without getting banned or listen to Rev yet again. I'm sure you probobly think the same of me.
You're there, I'm here; I wouldn't want you here, you wouldn't want me there. Lets just let time see which ideology is correct, as time is the ultimate referee in these matters of nation-states.
You know youve just stated why its almost impossible to talk sensibly about war with iraq with people who dont believe in the war. There are people who are just in different camps and no matter how much either camps argue nothing changes.
I believe my president who tells me there is cause for war. Others believe a brutual dictator, dont believe the US president, or they belive there is never a cause for war. No amount of arguments will convince either groups to change position, its the people who are in the middle we are trying to reach.
anyways, im glad your not trying to get in trouble with rev :D.
later,
You know youve just stated why its almost impossible to talk sensibly about war with iraq with people who dont believe in the war. There are people who are just in different camps and no matter how much either camps argue nothing changes.
I believe my president who tells me there is cause for war. Others believe a brutual dictator, dont believe the US president, or they belive there is never a cause for war. No amount of arguments will convince either groups to change position, its the people who are in the middle we are trying to reach.
Could you please quit with the strawman arguements? It's getting really frustrating. Those who don't want war don't believe a "brutal dictator" as you refer to him. Instead they believe that there shouldn't be a war. Do you see the difference. It's not your with us or your with him.
And just to vent a little, this is the reason why it's impossible to talk sensibly about war with Iraq with people who do believe in the war. They are people who just turn it into their camp and our camp, their side and our side.
Stop putting up arbitrary fences.
epicstruggle
27-Feb-2003, 11:47
Others believe a brutual dictator, dont believe the US president, or they belive there is never a cause for war.
@saem: Sigh, you just proved me right. I did not say that everyone who doesnt want war believe the brutal dictator. I offered a choice of three reasons. THats where the "or" comes in, if your not familiar with the english language, then i apoligize for not making my point more clear. Here is the definition of "or" from dictionary.com:
"Used to indicate an alternative, usually only before the last term of a series: hot or cold; this, that, or the other."
Before you accuse me saying all those who are not for war are people who support Saddam, please read what i posted. :roll:
About camps, there really are two camps: either you have war as an option or you dont. Unless you want a police action or whatever they called the korean war. :) I cant see how there arent just two options.
later,
If you detested slavery...don't own slaves. If you couldn't stand the fact that it was legal in "your state", move to another state. Or alternatively, work to change the law.
Uhm, the slaves had no way to move or legally protest against it.
And they were the ones affected by the law.
Regarding something like draft only for black people, I don't think they should follow such a law because the law itself would be anti-constitutional.
On the topic, I agree with most what DemoCoder said. The draft should be a last resort if the country is under attack, and of course only if there's a chance to 'win'.
If you're Iraq's citizen and Saddam drafts for this upcoming war, what would you do ?
Sabastian
27-Feb-2003, 18:37
If you're Iraq's citizen and Saddam drafts for this upcoming war, what would you do ?
In an unjust state like Iraq? Simple answer is to rebel, that is if they are not recruting at gunpoint. In which case you join up and hopefully the US takes you hostage. ;)
Joe DeFuria
27-Feb-2003, 18:51
Uhm, the slaves had no way to move or legally protest against it.
And they were the ones affected by the law.
True. One recourse the had was to try and leave / escape to the north. Which is what many of them did. Which is no different than what I'm saying....if you don't like it....leave. ;)
Granted, I know the situation is different! (They are actively prevented from trying to leave...). But that's what my logic would sugeest that they do.
Regarding something like draft only for black people, I don't think they should follow such a law because the law itself would be anti-constitutional.
I think even entertaining the question is kind of pointless, given the absurdity of it. But then, the Supreme Court would be the judge on the constitutionality of it.
If you're Iraq's citizen and Saddam drafts for this upcoming war, what would you do ?
That's a bit of a dubious question, because Saddam's regime is one that is not democratic in nature. In other words, Saddam ordering you to do something is different than a democratically eleceted and run government doing the same. That's kind of the whole point, actually.
I will say this: if you believe in "Saddam's Government", and you benefit from it, then you SHOULD go off to fight if he calls you in a draft. If you don't, you're basically an ungrateful "leech."
To answer the question directly though: I would personally try and flee Iraq. But then, I would have tried to flee that country regardless of whether there was a draft or not, because I don't believe in it's government.
Sabastian
27-Feb-2003, 19:00
To answer the question directly though: I would personally try and flee Iraq. But then, I would have tried to flee that country regardless of whether there was a draft or not, because I don't believe in it's government.
Hehe, exactly.
In an unjust state there is less reason IMO for the citezens to support the government . The only way that you could argue against this argument is to suggest that the US is an unjust state.EDIT: Or you would have to argue that Sadam is a just tyrant. ;) In such a case one would look like a total moron.
PS. How can you be a draft dodger with a clear conscious? Seriously, don't you feel like a scumbag? Why is it fair for other Swedes to die, if the case ever emerged, protecting your freedoms while you sit at home and enjoy said liberties and freedoms because you 'found a loophole." I don't care what American did it or what position they now have, but I'm talking of you. What good is citizenship if you're just going to be a parasite? What your doing is avoiding your civic duty, avoiding the law, and avoiding any type of personal responcibility for your actions - the latter of which is a theme that most Europeans have shown lately. I can seriously have no respect for a person like that, and especially one who talks about it so proudly and put this 'smirky' ;) after it - argh.
Basially, I grew up in a christian family and was raised with the values that belongs to christianity. While I'm not particularly religious today my values of what's right and wrong in this context is unchanged. I would have serious trouble convincing my conscience that killing is right. The only exception I can see would be that killing someone would save many more. I would feel like a scumbag if I carried a gun.
But as usual you read way too much into my comments. As I said, I wouldn't fight in a war I don't believe in. If I did believe in a certain war, then surely I would contribute in what way I can. You probably wouldn't find me armed in the frontline, because I would be useless at that position. However, I could probably join as a technician keeping computer and communication systems up. DemoCoder made an excellent post about that.
As for the army, it's my strongest belief that these should be trained professionals. Being forced to do military service, especially in time of peace, is certainly not freedom in my books. If I hadn't been liberated from it I certainly would fight for getting the freedom of choise back. Yup, that means I could face getting into jail. My dad has been in jail for that particular reason when he was young and I certainly would do the same if I had to.
Others believe a brutual dictator, dont believe the US president, or they belive there is never a cause for war.
@saem: Sigh, you just proved me right. I did not say that everyone who doesnt want war believe the brutal dictator. I offered a choice of three reasons. THats where the "or" comes in, if your not familiar with the english language, then i apoligize for not making my point more clear. Here is the definition of "or" from dictionary.com:
"Used to indicate an alternative, usually only before the last term of a series: hot or cold; this, that, or the other."
I read it the same way as Saem. Had you not used that "," before the "or" I would probably have read it right. The comma gives the impression that you're not talking about three different options, but rather that the middle part of the sentence is a break for a explanation of something in the middle of a contineous statement. I don't know the grammar term for this.
Either way, you left out a significant fourth option, the option I think most anti-war on Iraq supporters believe in. That is that there may be reasons for war at times, but just not now.
Basially, I grew up in a christian family and was raised with the values that belongs to christianity.
Thats not an excuse. In the United States, for example, the 1st admendment protects people such as yourself - and as such you wouldn't be put in a position in which combat is a primary role, as there are many such positions. But, you would be drafted, and would do your civic duty - this is my point and this is the right and moral choice.
But as usual you read way too much into my comments. As I said, I wouldn't fight in a war I don't believe in. If I did believe in a certain war, then surely I would contribute in what way I can. You probably wouldn't find me armed in the frontline, because I would be useless at that position. However, I could probably join as a technician keeping computer and communication systems up.
And you're a virtual draft dodger and self admitted to it. As such I have no respect for you. I didn't read to much into it, I read what you wrote.
If I hadn't been liberated from it I certainly would fight for getting the freedom of choise back. Yup, that means I could face getting into jail. My dad has been in jail for that particular reason when he was young and I certainly would do the same if I had to.
Hey, as I stated before - to each his own, aslong as you're not in my country putting your selflish beliefs (which is what they are) before my own family, friends and fellow citizens who fullfill their duty as per citizenship - I don't care what you do bud. You're not hurting me and I don't care.
Sabastian
28-Feb-2003, 00:01
Vince while indeed if there was a draft he would be drafted. But I would propose to you that this is extremely unlikely in this day and age. The draft while it ought to be left as a complete last resort and by law fully intact but will not likely ever be implemented again. There is no need to threaten people with it whom don't believe it is right.
I think my stance on the matter is that while many don't agree with the potential that it could be implemented it ought to be left intact as a legitimate form of recourse for a state to take. Those whom think it should be delt with and removed even though it is not likely that it will be implemented are the source of the problem here. Otherwise we would not be discussing it.
Sabastian, I can't agree more with you. Your position, is my position. With the exception that nobody is threatening anyone with it - instead he's pre-empted the draft and he, himself, has committed immoral and unethical actions by finding loop-holes to make himself exempt in the case that a draft was implimented - this is against the most basic aspects of citizenship and it's just plain wrong.[/list]
Reverend
28-Feb-2003, 06:21
Hey, as I stated before - to each his own, aslong as you're not in my country putting your selflish beliefs (which is what they are) before my own family, friends and fellow citizens who fullfill their duty as per citizenship - I don't care what you do bud. You're not hurting me and I don't care.
But what if he was in your country? Is he selfish because he doesn't think of your family or is he selfish because he thinks of his? Which is more important to you, Vince? Your neighbours, fellow citizens or your family? What has your family (=sole-breadwinner-with-wife+kids, compared to a fatherless- unmarried-male) to say about your beliefs? Are you married with kids? Will your current stance change if you were (if you're not now)? Is it "selfish" to kill an enemy soldier or civilian (by accident naturally, which I'm sure you or your fellow countryman soldier will never do because you/he never misses) because you think his government may attack your country?
Vince, your position about what it means to be a citizen is admirable, and I don't really have any beef with this, which is a subjective opinion by my books however (you can beg to differ, which is evidently the case, so no need to expand on this particular part).
However, many folks, while not actually excusing themselves as "citizens" by trying to escape such drafts, ultimately put what they deem to be their ultimate and direct priority in life. And that is (as is the case where I'm concerned) to be responsible to your family first and foremost.
I am a married man with a wife and a 4-year-old kid. If you were to ask me if I would oppose to agreeing to a draft that requires (as opposed to actually "forcing" me, if there is ever such a difference) me to list with the army specifically because the current climate looks to mean my country will go to war, no, I won't oppose such a draft but I would try to escape such a draft. Regardless of whether It Is The Right Thing To Do As A Citizen or not. I want to continue to exist, to put food on the table for my family and to provide love and support to my family. Because there is no assurance I won't come home alive after the war.
I may be ashamed to be a citizen of my country because of this but I will not be ashamed as a man, a husband and a father.
The short of it, of course, is that it is "Family Before Country" to me. It may be right to some, it may be wrong to others (such as Vince).
As stated by some in this thread, this has all to do with the fact that some believe going to war in Iraq is The Correct Thing. And you obviously believe it is The Correct Thing to do.
What is your opinion on 'Nam, Vince? Would you have gone if your country asked you to back then? <I'm assuming you were too young for 'Nam, as I was, even if I was a US citizen>.
ps. Last post here (and not nearly enough because I have so much more to say but my "summary" above should suffice)... I'm sure Vince will have what he regards as valid things to say as a response to me.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.