The draft

[Sabastian]

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.

 

[Mod]

Re: A question for the american ultra right wings

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 . 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]

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.

 

[Vince]

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.

 

[pax]

Hmm

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]

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.

 

[Humus]

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.

 

[Vince]

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]

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 .

later,

 

[Saem]

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]

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.

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,

 

[Xmas]

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'.

 

[V3]

If you're Iraq's citizen and Saddam drafts for this upcoming war, what would you do ?

 

[Sabastian]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Humus]

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.

 

[Humus]

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.

 

[Vince]

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]

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.