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).
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 755 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 755 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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 ]
Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although I'm usually a pretty conservative chiquita, I'd likely vote for the "other guy" to stop a draft over this war.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
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?
posted
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
posted
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).
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We are not a democracy in that sense of the word. Politicians regularly enact policies not supported by the majority of their constituency.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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)
