quote: Senator says US may need compulsory service to boost Iraq force
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A senior Republican lawmaker said that deteriorating security in Iraq (news - web sites) may force the United States to reintroduce the military draft.
(The rest of the article is actually somewhat interesting.)
So. I made a thread a few months back about how the administration was looking for people to staff selective service boards. Now this.
Is this just a ploy by a Republican senator to force the Bush administration to resolve Iraq? Or could he honestly believe that a draft would be helpful to resolve the situation in Iraq?
Regardless of fairness, a draft would not help matters in Iraq. I have to say that if it gets to the point where we have to choose between a draft, or pulling out all together, or giving control to the UN, I am going to have to go with bowing and scraping to the UN if we have to, whatever it takes to get more nations involved. Anything but a draft or pulling out completely.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
I agree. I don't believe that we should be in any wars that we can't get enough volunteers to fight.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Aside from being a violation of our rights, I think a draft is going to do nothing but decrease the quality of our forces. We don't need quantity in this war. We need forces that are well trained, and won't mess things up.
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
Personally, I believe that the draft is a good thing, not just for the Iraqi situation, but also for our nation as a whole. Many people are too quick to judge and second-guess the actions of our military. We take our liberties for granted. I firmly believe that we as a nation need to learn what it is like to fight for these liberties that we have before we can enjoy them. Not to mention the fact that we are more and more becoming a nation of obese, TV addicted, morons. Maybe the fear of getting shot at will motivate our youth to get out and stay in shape.
Edit: Isn't boot camp for quality control?
[ April 21, 2004, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: J T Stryker ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
But you can't outrun a bullet.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
I think I have a problem with substance abuse. Time to get help pretty soon.
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
But you can learn to shoot the one aiming the bullet.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I don't really disagree with you, JT. I think we have far too many people for whom war is an abstract quantity, but who will support it because doing so is part of being an ass-kicking American.
On the other hand, since I do support the war and want what's best for Iraq and the US, I can't support a draft.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Some of us already know how.
Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
I don't really care what a senator says about how the military should have more soldiers, I'm curious as to what the military leaders think about having a draft, I know three years ago the military's official stance on a draft was that they didn't feel they needed one. Satyagraha
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
quote:I agree. I don't believe that we should be in any wars that we can't get enough volunteers to fight.
I personally believe no war is worth fighting unless everyone (man,women, and child) is willing to fight for it. If it is not big enough to require the ultimate sacrifice, is it big enough to kill for?
I really don't feel that way strongly. I did support the reasons to go to war, but I have had the thought from time to time whether war is justified if it is not a big enough issue to send everyone out.
If Hitler cut throuhg all the armies, THAT would of been a justified war for EVERYONE to get involved.
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
How do we know that by having a draft, the quality of our soldiers will go down, won’t the draftees have to go through the same training that our current volunteers do?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Yes, but they won't have initiative that you get with volunteers.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
*cough*Vietnam*cough*
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Dude, if I get drafted my first priority is to survive. That may mean that I be the best fighter for America I can be. But should a situation ever arise where the most beneficial course of action to me is not aligned with the action most beneficial to the USA, guess who loses? Do you really want an army of people like me?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
You think?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:How do we know that by having a draft, the quality of our soldiers will go down, won’t the draftees have to go through the same training that our current volunteers do?
Well, let me put it this way: If they somehow got me out there, I wouldn't care one bit about winning the war. I'd care about not gettting hurt. I'm not going to sacrifice anything for a war I already consider wrong.
There are a lot of people like me.
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
mackilian- Isn't getting shot at enough initiative?
Anna- We failed in Vietnam for many different reasons; the draft was one of the smaller ones.
Danzig- No, I wouldn't want to have an army of guys like you, but I’m betting that the guys who aren't patriotic enough to serve their country and give there lives for it, will leave their country as soon as the receive their notice.
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
quote: by Annie
*cough*Vietnam*cough*
*cough* WWII *cough*
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
*cough* we won it *cough*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Strkyer, what makes you think that assisting the U.S. in its war of aggression in Iraq constitutes "serving our country?"
Frankly, I'd have more motivation to shoot a bureaucrat who forces me at gunpoint to go fight a foreign war for him than I'd have to shoot a random foreign enemy who's never done a thing to harm me or my country.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I took a look at Senator Hegel's record. While I don't support the draft, at least he served in Vietnam, apparently in actual combat. So at least his statements about Americans making sacrifices and understanding what's really going on isn't just code for "Those #$%#$% young people need to make themselves useful [even though I didn't serve when I was their age]." I have a lot more respect for people who are/were willing to follow the same rules they want to force on others than for those who would not want to live under their own rules.
Having said that, I agree that in this particular war it's more important to have good strategies, healthy relations with the Iraqi citizens, and superior technology than to have more warm bodies over there. Especially warm bodies who don't want to be there. It seems like that would just be putting our troops in more danger to send less experienced people who did not choose this life.
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
Tom- #1 It's not at gunpoint, you can choose prison (at least one very famous boxer that I can think of chose prison)
#2 This "war of aggression" is a step to riding the middle east of its terror affiliations
#3 Serving your country is being willing to give your life so that those who are too old, sick, or otherwise unable to fight, don't have to. If we allowed terror networks to continue, our wonderful nation would be just as unstable as Israel, and then every last citizen would have to worry about becoming a victim of war.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
In a fight, for most soldiers, the most important thing is to not let down your buddies. Help each other, and don't look like a coward yourself.
Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, Mom, the flag, and a good cause matter too, but one's unit is the most important thing, and military training is meant to create that group identity.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
#4 They won't draft you in Canada and hey, we're just a stone's throw away!
Party at BtL's house!
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Regarding #3...
I'm not sure, but I think I might possibly rather live in a country where I had to worry about terrorist attacks instead of living in a country where my own government has the right to force me into slavery. Especially when that slavery has a higher-than-normal probability of getting me killed or maimed and might be something I have moral objections to. At least the terrorists don't have the support of the general public, while the government does.
As for WWII, the reason we needed the draft is that we were facing a techologically equal enemy. Additionally, there was a high attrition rate because the war was so bloody. Not to mention that we could have been in serious trouble if we had lost WWII. I doubt this war is quite as important--Saddam is gone, and while the region is instable, it does not threaten our very existence. The war in Iraq is so different from WWII that I doubt that many lessons learned then will be relevant now. If we are going to draft people, we have to make sure that our immediate survival depends on it. There's no other excuse, and even then I think that a nation whose citizens aren't willing to serve in the military when the country is about to be overrun deserves to be destroyed.
Posted by Rohan (Member # 5141) on :
"The goal of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other b*****d die for his." George S. Patton.
How does that relate to this thread? I don't know but it seemed like it should fit in somehow.
p.s.took out the cuss because this is a family site. Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
shigosei- are you say that you'd rather die while walking you children to school, then to receive the honor of fighting for your country (even if you're being pushed into it)
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I'm saying that if I have to die, I would rather die as a free citizen than because my government decided that I should be die for it, no matter how noble that death may be. I don't believe it's noble at all if I'm forced to do it, either.
If I thought it necessary, I would volunteer. It's not dying for my country that I object to, but rather involuntary service. It's very unlikely I would get anywhere near the front lines were I to be drafted, but I firmly believe that the government has no right to force me to work for it, whether in combat or at a desk job.
[ April 21, 2004, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Shigosei ]
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
I will support a draft when the child of a president, a senator, or the CEO of a Fortune 500 company stands the same chance of getting sent to the front lines and getting shot at as someone who comes from a lower-middle class or poor family.
I submit that we do not live in such a country at the present time.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> This "war of aggression" is a step to riding the middle east of its terror affiliations <<
And we all know how well that's working out for you folks.
Edit:
Regarding the draft... no. Just no. It's bad enough to fabricate reasons for starting a war; it would be even worse to force your soldiers to die on account of these fabricated reasons.
[ April 21, 2004, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
Stryker-being willing to die for your country and being willing to kill for it are two different things. And it is possible to fight for liberties without actual fighting.
[ April 21, 2004, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Toretha ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Stryker, are you in the military currently? Just curious.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Amen, Toretha.
Personally, I would leave before being drafted. Call me unpatriotic, call me a coward if you will. But I will not kill, and I will certainly not die for a cause I do not believe in. That is MY right.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
How can you justify living in a country with so many wars in its past, Human? You are already drinking foreign blood by living in the status quo.
That said, I hope a draft doesn't become necessary. This latest deployment extension is rather worrying.
I used to have the "willing to die but not willing to kill" philosophy. Can't say there's anything wrong with it, except that I no longer feel that way.
P.S. I do agree that the draftees should be selected based on groups that have not yet largely contributed (C.O.s excepted, of course). I remember with amusement the guys I knew who were eager to go to Canada during the Persian Gulf War.
[ April 21, 2004, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
This draft bill at least is about trying to stop us from going to war at all. The idea is that if the bill passes, powerful people who can no longer keep their children away from the front lines will be less likely to vote for wars. So for those of you who want us to fight a lot of wars against terror, you may wish to reconsider your support of the draft. This bill could very well be the end of the war against terror if it passes.
The odd thing about this bill is that requires everyone, of both genders, to serve. Because of this, the service may be military or civilian. If it's civilian service, why stop at 26? You can't just force young people to work for you if there is no compelling reason that older people cannot perform this job either. If it's fair to interrupt my college education, why is it wrong to make Granny in the nursing home sew uniforms for the soldiers? Not every single person over 26 has served their country, so why can they compel me to serve them when they did nothing for their country?
You need my services, you ASK. You do not use your power to force me to do something you never did (those who served in the military excepted, of course).
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Over my DEAD BODY!
/irony
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
If drafted I would join up. Perhaps in the military bands, but even if I chose the front lines I think a level head + good shot could help matters. For example, I wouldn't let my platoon-mates bludgeon unarmed civilians to death or use their Abrams as a toy car crusher. My diplomatic skills would (should?!) be of more use, but if it came down to sniping bad guys in Fallujah who were trying to throw Molotovs at us or innocents, may God have mercy on their souls.
quote:If we allowed terror networks to continue, our wonderful nation would be just as unstable as Israel
We don't need Yet Another Iraq Thread, but the irony here is too thick. What could possibly convince you that following Israel's example would lead to peace? Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Look, relax. Nobody's going to get drafted. Anybody who's had family spend any time doing military recruiting after going to one of the academies knows military recruiting is easy, even in a time of war.
Congressional budget limitations put caps on how many members each branch is allowed to have--recruiters spend as much time turning away people to keep them under their limits than begging people to join up. If the congress wants more people in the army, they can just up the number of recruits they allow each year.
Granted, this means the added soldiers will be of lower quality--they do try to pick the best, and put aside the less capable--but it will beat a group who didn't want to go in the first place but got drug in on a draft.
We honestly won't need to bring in any type of draft to settle this conflict. If anything, this congressman may have just been putting a worse case scenario out there so the Bush administration would seem competent when things didn't get that bad. (Look! We avoided a draft!)
Or, as is more likely, he may be one of the blowhards who believe that mandatory military service would be good for all young people, teach them discipline, patriotism, etc, and he thinks this war is a good chance to get some backing for his ideas.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Actually, you would benefit more from the EO and Harrasment trainings and having to follow the rules as such than anything dealing w/ patriotism.
Edited to add: Dicipline?!? Heh, I am in the military. We had a water fight down in the hole today. Twas 90+ degrees. we had fun.
[ April 22, 2004, 03:37 AM: Message edited by: Stan the man ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
A draft is the worst idea ever, PERIOD. Our military prides itself on being a professional army of volunteers. It makes us better than the attitudes conscripts bring with them.
[ April 22, 2004, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Think of a draft as like paying an extra tax-- no one wants to do it, but it may be neccessary.
Drafts, in general, I don't have a problem with; drafts for this particular war I do, because the administration has bungled it so much, I'm not sure that I trust our reasons for being there.
I love that Saddaam is out. But if it's a war where a draft is instituted, a clear and present danger to America must be shown to merit it. And I don't think that has been done here.
Despite all the country music to the contrary.
[ April 22, 2004, 07:16 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
No, I’m not in the military. But I plan on joining after I graduate.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think a lot of the threats to draft are just ways of scaring people. If they wanted to institute a draft, they don't need to pass a new law to do it.
Though I'm not sure why this Republican senator is proposing it. Maybe he feels we are spending too much money in Iraq. Either way, the proposals for a draft are just disingenuous manipulations of our emotions about death and patriotism. But if you're really het up, write your congress people. If a draft happens, which could at any time with no warning at all, vote with your actions.
Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
Well...perhaps the threat of a draft will bring home the reality of this war to this countries generally apathetic young voters and perhaps they will actually get out there and VOTE.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
The CNN on-line poll today shows most respondants do NOT favor a draft.
I had this conversation with our German foreign exchange student just a few days ago. He says in Germany, all boys, once they graduate from high school, must do a year in the German army. Mandatory. He says that is bad because guys who really don't want to be there make their army "a bunch of wimps" (his words). He personally thought the American way was better, because only people who really want to fight and are willing to do it are in the services fighting.
Farmgirl
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I believe, actually, that there is an option for civil service if you don't want to join the military.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
*twitch* There are no words....
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
A few years ago we housed a German graduate student who was doing an internship at my dad's work. He was totally not the type I'd imagine in the military, but he talked on end on his mandatory experience in the German national guard. He seemed to get alot out of it.
I don't think it's a bad idea to have mandatory military service. It's like how we send Mormon guys away for two years...yes, they're primary purpose is serving the Church, but they're also growing up and building character.
My dad's a WWII buff, and I think he said something about how Quakers didn't have to serve in combat positions in WWII. They still had weapons training, but they served as janitors, medical personell, etc. Heck, those dumb army commercials can't stop talking about how there are 100 or so different jobs available.
[ April 22, 2004, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Good point, SM. The kid I talked to has not yet, of course, done his required year in the German army. Maybe his point of view will change once he has been then and then out.
Farmgirl
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
quote: I don't think it's a bad idea to have mandatory military service. It's like how we send Mormon guys away for two years...yes, they're primary purpose is serving the Church, but they're also growing up and building character.
But missions are not madatory. If we "forced" young men and women to go on missios, I am sure they would get something completely different out of it then those who are motivated by service and/or rewards (like cars, pretty spouse, or social recognition).
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Even if there won't really be a draft, even the mere fact that anybody considers it an option is outrageous.
As far as I'm concerned, the draft is the equivalent of sending random, innocent young men to jail and to death row, without having convicted them or even accused them of any crime whatsoever. It's a fundamental violation of our rights to life and freedom, and it's a fundamental breach of the contract between government and citizens. Once the government gets to that point, IT will be more of a threat to me and my country than any terrorists are.
Posted by Shlomo (Member # 1912) on :
I am probably about to get flamed, but this needs to be said.
JT, you remind me of Robespierre, with all your talk of "forcing people to love liberty". Like him, you want to force people to do what you feel is best for liberty. But just as he did, you will end up with a bloodbath.
You are welcome to serve in the military next year, and if you choose to, I thank you in advance. But do not force others to conform to your line of thinking. Some do not want to fight. Some would fight, but not in this war. Not everyone would fight in this war, as you would.
On the other hand, a draft would make people realize the horrors of war. Especially when it leads to slaughter. People would learn that waging war is not like playing Halo. But they would return from their lessons scarred for life. Why, exactly, would we be fighting? To protect our children? I'd rather an occasional 9/11 than another 10-year long, never-ending one. If we made service in Iraq compulsory, we would destroy what we wish to protect.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
The only reason we had a draft during Vietnam was because we never stopped drafting after WWII. The draft started because of a threat to national survival...and we just didn't get rid of it. Then we had Korea and Vietnam...and THEN we finally got rid of it...when we finally realized that we had no more use for it. Volunteer military is the best anyway. And our national survival is not at stake.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:No, I’m not in the military. But I plan on joining after I graduate.
Which is in how long?
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
Coming from a country where service is compulsory, I'm happy to be a girl.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
It's compulsory in Spain, too (well, not quite the same as Poland, I believe, but civil service is a requirement with few exceptions).
So, Kama... is Poland a much better country (than it could be) because of it, do you think? The only Spaniards I know (only two) didn't give me anything to go on—one didn't care and the other was a girl.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think that there is nothing morally wrong the the draft, when it is necessary.
I don't think this is one of those times. And if it is, then I think we need to back off on some of the fronts.
I also don't think the idea of compulsory 1 or 2 year military service is a bad idea. I'd have to think about it, but I could possibly support that.
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
quote: On the other hand, a draft would make people realize the horrors of war. Especially when it leads to slaughter. People would learn that waging war is not like playing Halo. But they would return from their lessons scarred for life.
That is why I support the draft. I didn't mean to come across as trying to "force people to love liberty". I want to force people to picture how truly horrible war is.
I plan on joining the military in 2 years when I graduate. I'm joining because many good men have given their lives to save our nation in it's times of need. I feel that it is only fair that I take the same risk for my liberties as the WWII veterans did for theirs. I know that to some, probably most of you this sounds foolish. But if the WWII veterans were not drafted when needed, we all would probably be speaking German right now.
A lot of you also think that the draft is a good thing, just not for Iraq. I can't answer whether we should be there or not, but we are there, we are currently not doing so well, and if our government decides the draft is in order, then in my eyes, it is in order.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
That bothers me on so many levels.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:I plan on joining the military in 2 years when I graduate.
How convenient for you. Or are you expecting some kind of war in two years?
The reason I was asking is because you seem awfully self-righteous without a single stake in what the draft would mean to current citizens who are eligible. I'm not eligible, either—I'm too old unless they make the draft age older (just a little bit, but I don't see it as a possibility).
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
No, I plan on joining whether there is a war or not.
Posted by Shlomo (Member # 1912) on :
JT, I respect your right to join and would appreciate your service. But you're still saying that you would "force people to be pacifists", which isn't much better. You no longer sound exactly like Robespierre; rather, you now sound exactly like Lenin. If this is a step up to you, congratulations. Either way, you sound VERY totalitarian.
quote:...if our government decides a draft is in order, than it is in order.
Also seems quite totalitarian. This is a democracy. We are not here to do the government's bidding. The government is here to do our bidding. Universal conscription is in order when we say it is, not when some scoundrel on Capitol Hill says so.
But, JT, I have a question for you. What happens after a generation of young men return home scarred for life? Where do we go from there? What the HELL will we have accomplished that is admirable and right?
quote: I feel that it is only fair that I take the same risk for my liberties as the WWII veterans did for theirs.
Do you miss WW2? We will fight like it is World War Two when this is the case. 80 million people died in world war two. We had to unleash the fear of a mushroom-shaped apocalypse to win that war. We feared for the very existence of the human race for the next fifty years after World War Two. Do you want to do that again? How do you know anyone will be alive to sign a peace treaty? How do you know the U.S. will win, with the whole world gunning for us, especially if we have squandered much of our power in Iraq to boot?
Again, I do not question your desire to serve in the army....at least, to the extent that any questions I do have are relatively minor. But you cannot say that other people should share your views. That is not democracy. That is dictatorship. That I will not tolerate. So, if universal conscription was enacted, I might march off to war. I just might not be marching toward a foreign capital.
Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
quote: Look, relax. Nobody's going to get drafted. Anybody who's had family spend any time doing military recruiting after going to one of the academies knows military recruiting is easy, even in a time of war.
Congressional budget limitations put caps on how many members each branch is allowed to have--recruiters spend as much time turning away people to keep them under their limits than begging people to join up. If the congress wants more people in the army, they can just up the number of recruits they allow each year.
Yeah I totally agree. There are three reasons this is only a political maneuver and no other.
1) I think its a way for the Bush administration to quiet those people who are saying that our military is too thin. People are so much against the draft that if the thought gets into their heads they will be more likely to blame the people who blamed the adm. than the adm. itself.
2) The draft will never happen. The reason? The administration, for weeks now, have been fighting those who say that Iraq is another Vietnam. What better way to put that out than to come out against the draft and show that this war is minus the most divisive issue of Vietnam. I guarantee that in a few days the Bush adm. will come out against the draft!!
3) The Bush adm. cannot risk alienating even more of the country. Its going to be a tight race in November and this issue, if true, could sink the adm. Thus, it will never happen.
On a side note: I could not live in a country that made me fight a war. The draft is something that is completly useless. In fact, it is to blame for such high death tolls in Vietnam. The reason? So many of the soldiers who went to Vietnam were not well prepared and thus, easy targets for the North Vietnamese.
My two cents!!
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote: So, Kama... is Poland a much better country -than it could be- because of it, do you think? The only Spaniards I know didn't give me anything to go on—one didn't care and the other was a girl.
<-- is a girl
No, I don't think it's a better country. To be honest, I don't see how it helps that all men need to serve two years in the military. They don't see it either, I guess, since for years they've been trying to avoid the army in all ways possible - staying in school and getting an eductation -which is not necessarily a bad thing - producing false doctor's certificates or simply denying to turn up and hiding from MP.
Admitedly, with crappy economic situation recently, the military became a way to postpone unemployment for a couple of years and learn some skills for free -such as the driving license.
Oh, and by the way, all soldiers serving missions in Iraq and elsewhere are volunteers - I don't think the people would agree to send "our boys" TM, if they themselves wouldn't want to. That would be political suicide.
--
What's with the "no parenthesis in HTML tags" thing?
[ April 23, 2004, 04:46 AM: Message edited by: Kama ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I would oppose a draft for the purpose of boosting the force in Iraq. I don't think we should have been in Iraq in the first place, and I certainly don't want to send more young people over there to die.
quote:I think I have a problem with substance abuse. Time to get help pretty soon.
Danzig, this remark had me ROFLMAO.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Although I'm usually a pretty conservative chiquita, I'd likely vote for the "other guy" to stop a draft over this war.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Hey, I would rather have a diagnosed mental illness than get sent to die in some godforsaken desert, or be raped in prison for refusing to go. I have no moral problems with killing Iraqis (well I do but not enough to refuse to fight on that basis), but I think it is morally wrong for me to put myself in harm's way for Bush's war. I could care less about oil. Apparently you do not have to actually get substance abuse treated even if it is diagnosed, so even the chance of getting out of combat is worth the black mark on my medical records.
I will kill for my country, but I will not die for it.
Edit: JT, as you can see I will probably not flee the country, and certainly not until I exhaust my other options. This is not my war. If I have to be called a coward to survive it, oh well.
[ April 23, 2004, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Danzig ]
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
We will pull out of Iraq before we implement a draft.
And I would not want to serve with draftees. Not the ones that would result from draft today, at least.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I KNOW that this has been said probably a million times, but I just can't understand why a draft would ever be necessary, especially in a democracy. If you have to force people to go, then you are obviously fighting a war that the people don't agree with.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
quote:I KNOW that this has been said probably a million times, but I just can't understand why a draft would ever be necessary, especially in a democracy. If you have to force people to go, then you are obviously fighting a war that the people don't agree with.
Not all wars the public disagrees with are unnecessary. Most people didn't agree with and weren't willing to die to free a bunch of black slaves some years back.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:No, I plan on joining whether there is a war or not.
I'm sure you do.
quote:Not all wars the public disagrees with are unnecessary. Most people didn't agree with and weren't willing to die to free a bunch of black slaves some years back.
No, but they were willing to fight and die for the other reasons behind the Civil War. There was dissent, but even neutral states eventually joined the war—against the South. Some Southern states (more to the southwest) didn't even want to cecede.
Better have your history straight before you begin making reisionist comments.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, although a slim majority of voters in the North probably supported the civil war (more at the beginning than the end), it's a good example of a war that possibly couldn't have been prosecuted without a draft, even though most enlisted men were "volunteers."
Ironically, the threat of the draft was used to encourage men to volunteer. Counties were given deadlines to provide a quota of men; those that failed were subject to a draft to make up the difference. I'm not sure why men were motivated to sign up by threat of draft: were draftees treated worse, paid less, or simply looked down on?
Dagonee
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Not all wars the public disagrees with are unnecessary. Most people didn't agree with and weren't willing to die to free a bunch of black slaves some years back.
GAH.
The PURPOSE of democracy is that the PEOPLE get to determine which things are worth dying for. Who decides that the wars are necessary? Democracy allows the people the freedom to make their own mistakes, or it's supposed to.
My position on drafting in no way reflects my position on the necessity of this particular war. I just wonder who you think should be allowed to decide who dies. In a democracy, the answer should be that the people choose for themselves if they want to die for it. I really don't get how people keep missing the basic ideas behind our system of government.
quote: I'm not sure why men were motivated to sign up by threat of draft: were draftees treated worse, paid less, or simply looked down on?
My guess is kindness. Maybe they went in to keep others from being drafted that had a better reason to stay behind, like older men or family men. Maybe? I don't know. Didn't people in the old days have more of a sense of responsibility for their fellow citizens?
[ April 23, 2004, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
John, I have my history straight, thanks. While I realize people did sign up for reasons other than (to)free (the)slaves, Dag is correct in saying many were coerced to sign up. There were some pretty serious riots in the Northeast cities.
Quite frankly, I think the draft back then was more honest. They told you up front how much you could pay to get out of it.
quote: The PURPOSE of democracy is that the PEOPLE get to determine which things are worth dying for. Who decides that the wars are necessary? Democracy allows the people the freedom to make their own mistakes, or it's supposed to.
Well, I hate to be nit-picky, but we live in a REPUBLIC. Therefore, our ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES decide which wars are necessary. We still have the freedom to make mistakes and its being proven by the people we choose to represent us. Although judging by opinion polls, many people don't think electing the President for another term would be a mistake.
Edited for content - people were not getting free slaves for signing up
[ April 23, 2004, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: Zamphyr ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Zamphyr, no. You don't have your history straight, thank you.
Dag:
quote:Actually, although a slim majority of voters in the North probably supported the civil war (more at the beginning than the end), it's a good example of a war that possibly couldn't have been prosecuted without a draft, even though most enlisted men were "volunteers."
There was definitely a lot of compulsory enlistment, to be sure. Especially in the later years. However, there was more outcry against the South ceceding than there was about slaves, at first. The threat of draft didn't begin until after the fighting began, when it became clear that the South wasn't going to go without a bloodbath. Seriously, would you go willingly into a bloobath you weren't sure you could win? Most of the people during those days were incredibly underinformed and didn't have much stake in federal issues—if it didn't affect their town, in their county, in their state, they didn't want much to do with it.
An argument could be made about that, but not the claim that the people of the North didn't support the war. They supported it, ending right up to their front porch. That's where the compulsory enlistment, for good or bad, came in.
quote:Ironically, the threat of the draft was used to encourage men to volunteer. Counties were given deadlines to provide a quota of men; those that failed were subject to a draft to make up the difference. I'm not sure why men were motivated to sign up by threat of draft: were draftees treated worse, paid less, or simply looked down on?
This is actually a very good question. Different states (and counties) did different things. Lots of them decided to utilize the local papers and flyers (flyers were more popular then... easier to carry around) to rouse public involvement. As I pointed out, the general underinformed nature of the population helped rake in plenty more enlistees—after all, when only giving one side of the argument can be heard, it's easy to demonize the other side (demonization of Islam is a good, though smaller, example of that). In the more metropolitan cities with larger populations, things like the high number of immigrants and some radical politicizing (is that a word) were used to pull in more men. The rest were, as you said, threatened with the draft. There is no one straight answer to what happened overall, though, because each state dealt with it differently. It's probably best to look into your own state's local libraries for some histories about that time to get a better idea. The ironic thing is that not too much unlike right after 9/11, enlisting was easy because large numbers of people given limited information can be easily riled into action. The Military leaders of the North counted on this in the beginning (even though it was industry and more ready economic ability that won them the war).
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Oh, and:
quote:There were some pretty serious riots in the Northeast cities.
There were a few serious riots in the Northeast cities. Not many, and not even common. These were the very conservative Democrats who were basically riling people up because of their political support for the south. There were more 'serious' demonstrations by groups for civil rights in the Northeast—sadly, the groups for women's rights backed black rights heavily, even though they never gained any ground politically until nearly a century later.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I agree with those who say that a draft is immoral. Furthermore, I don't think that a draft will ever be implemented for this war. Senator Hagel's reasons for calling for a draft appear to be rather different than a need for more soldiers. It's the type of soldiers that are volunteering that concerns him.
quote: The Nebraska Republican added that a draft, which was ended in the early 1970s, would spread the burden of military service in Iraq more equitably among various social strata.
"Those who are serving today and dying today are the middle class and lower middle class," he observed.
This is RIDICULOUS and quite frankly infuriating. Does he not realize that these people are volunteers? Who cares if one social class volunteers less than others?
There are wealthy people who do volunteer sheerly out of a love of their country. At the same time, there are many high school dropouts who join the military because it pays decently for that level of expertise and also helps teach you skills. It seems to me that the military offers more financial opportunites for an uneducated poor person than an educated wealthy person. Thus it makes sense that more poor people would volunteer than wealthy people. Why would you want to force people to fight just because their social class doesn't offer enough soldiers? Regardless of your feelings on the draft, that should strike all as prejudiced and immoral.
Additionally, armies need more then men to succeed. They need money to pay for their men and weapons. And since the wealthy pay the vast majority of taxes (around 90% I believe), it seems that the wealthy certainly provide an invaluable contribution to any war effort. (I'm not saying this makes them better. (And if a draft were to be implemented, I believe it should target people regardless of social class.) But it certainly shows that Hagel is ridiculous. I don't know what his motives are, but trying to draft specifically to increase the inlistment of one social class is horrific.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Well, I hate to be nit-picky, but we live in a REPUBLIC. Therefore, our ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES decide which wars are necessary.
Dude, if the representatives do their jobs, they will vote the way that they said they would, meaning the way that the people who chose them would. If things are carried out correctly, then the representatives will make decisions that most Americans agree with, or at least most voters.
It sounds like what YOU think is a fair outcome is the representatives choosing war even though the people that elected them don't want it, and then forcing those people to fight it. There's almost NO situation where that would be good, and I can't think of the exception.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
PSI: No, that's not how it works, should work, or is intended to work. The Congress both represents and leads the people, and its members are empowered to make decisions as they feel best represent their constituents interests. This is also a large part of the reasoning behind the electoral college.
People elect other people to make decisions as that person's judgement best indicates, not based on what the majority thinks. We have the technology now to implement straight polling of the populace -- what need Congress were its only point to enact the will of the majority of the people?
Congress's amazing nature is that it is a body of people, people who may be persuaded, people who form (hopefully) intelligent opinions on issues, and people who vote based on their consciences, knowlege, obligation to their states, and senses of public duty. Not who mindlessly parrot the wishes of the majority.
In fact, Congress was specifically designed to avoid such a situation. If the majority were all that mattered, we wouldn't have a Senate.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: People elect other people to make decisions as that person's judgement best indicates, not based on what the majority thinks.
There is no way to choose someone based entirely on THEIR best judgement. Their platform is nearly entirely based on their opinions on political issues, and people almost always vote for the person whose opinions match theirs.
If a guy stood up and said, "Pick me because I have good judgement" no one would vote for him. You vote for the guy who says he's going to make laws on abortion, or the environment, or education, or whatever it is that you think is important.
What I'm saying is that the people pick the guy because he thinks like they do, and because he promises to do certain things or champion certain ideas. If he doesn't do the things he says he will, or turns around and changes his mind on key issues right after the vote, then he hasn't accurately represented himself at the poles, or the people who voted him in. He hasn't done his job.
So, no, the guy isn't a parrot. But he had darn well better do what he said he was going to...anything else would be possibly unethical, and definitely suicide for his career.
All this is only barely relevant. The point is that, in a democracy, there is almost no reason for the government to do something that the people don't agree with, because that goes against the basis of what democracy IS.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
We are not a democracy in that sense of the word. Politicians regularly enact policies not supported by the majority of their constituency.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:If a guy stood up and said, "Pick me because I have good judgement" no one would vote for him. You vote for the guy who says he's going to make laws on abortion, or the environment, or education, or whatever it is that you think is important.
What I'm saying is that the people pick the guy because he thinks like they do, and because he promises to do certain things or champion certain ideas. If he doesn't do the things he says he will, or turns around and changes his mind on key issues right after the vote, then he hasn't accurately represented himself at the poles, or the people who voted him in. He hasn't done his job.
Perhaps, but I think the people are wrong. They SHOULD be picking the candidate with good judgement, as he should change his mind when the situation demands, he should be willing to choose unpopular policies when the situation demands, and he should be able to handle all possible issues, not just the few the people cared most about during the election. The fact that the people don't vote for the candidate with the best judgement is just a testament to how our system does not result in the best leader being selected.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, how many people who say they have good judgment actually have good judgment?
Besides me, of course.
Dagonee Edit: That would have been a lot more impressive without the punctuation error.
[ April 24, 2004, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I don't! I don't have good judgement!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
mac for President!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, its rather silly to imagine the populace being able to make informed decisions on every issue. Congresspeople who do nothing but that and campaign in their professional lives don't understand every issue, expecting the common man to do so isn't sensible at all.
However, by having a suitably large body of decision makers elected by the people, it is possible to have every decision made with maximum reasonable consideration (this is far from maximum consideration, but a huge improvement over the pittance of consideration most people give most issues).
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Hey, I would rather have a diagnosed mental illness than get sent to die in some godforsaken desert, or be raped in prison for refusing to go. I have no moral problems with killing Iraqis (well I do but not enough to refuse to fight on that basis), but I think it is morally wrong for me to put myself in harm's way for Bush's war. I could care less about oil. Apparently you do not have to actually get substance abuse treated even if it is diagnosed, so even the chance of getting out of combat is worth the black mark on my medical records.
I will kill for my country, but I will not die for it.
Edit: JT, as you can see I will probably not flee the country, and certainly not until I exhaust my other options. This is not my war. If I have to be called a coward to survive it, oh well.
Danzig, I totally understand. You could try CO status, first, if it comes to that...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
- producing false doctor's certificates or simply denying to turn up and hiding from MP.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)