is it a good ideal to bring back the draft?

[Locutus of Bored]

And if the people there aren't with us they are against us.

Earth, Mussolini, 1938.

Actual

Uh, yeah, that was also an actual frequent quote by Mussolini, amongst others. "O con noi o contro di noi." "You're either with us or against us."

Either: you are for us - or - you are for the terrorists.

I don't immediately see the problem with this phrase, and while some of you have renounced it, you've failed to indicate why. Just wondering - why not?

Because it's never used as simply as that. If it was as simple as opposing terrorism, most people wouldn't have a problem with it. The reality of the phrase is that it means you're with us without question, no matter what we decide to do to fight terrorism, or you're taking the side of the enemy.

It means support us unconditionally when we decide to use torture, when we imprison people indefinitely without trial, when we chip away at your freedoms in the name of security, and when we fabricate evidence to launch a war of aggression against a country that had nothing to do with the terrorists that attacked us.

Do you see no middle ground, no difference between the countries and people that supported us going in to Afghanistan post-9/11 versus those who didn't support us going into Iraq a couple of years later? Did they suddenly become terrorist sympathizers because they could see that Iraq had jack shit to do with al Qaeda or US threatening WMDs or any other convenient excuse drummed up to support our preemptive war?

A straight forward observation of fact. You're here or you're there, that is all. You support the way I believe or ... not.

No. Reality is rarely that simplistic. There is hardly ever only one way to approach an issue.

Terrorists want you to attack the civilians of the countries they inhabit. It drives up recruitment. Sometimes by using overwhelming force you can temporarily suppress terrorist activity, but unless you're willing to engage in serious nation building and education of the masses for multiple generations to come, you're only driving it underground for a while, not eliminating it completely.

If you believe there is a third position, maybe don't care or perhaps don't want to get involved?

Right, because that's a frequent comment you hear in first world nations. I don't care about terrorism. I have no position on terrorism. Terrorism is fine by me. Please, spare me the nonsense.

Terrorist is a label, few want to use the term islamic fascist (there's Mussolini's word), it's not considered polite.

Are you under the impression that people are not aware of the existence of Islamic extremist terrorism and refer to it as such frequently?

But what ever term you prefer, they want to kill or change you. Both against your will.

It's okay to be against them...it really is.

Gee, thanks for pointing out the completely friggin' obvious. I was down with the terrorists until you showed me the one true path.

Are you people for real? Do you actually think that just because we don't go along with every BS security proposal or military quagmire done in the name of fighting terrorism that that means we're okay with terrorism itself? It's such a juvenile worldview.

 

[Crash]

Are you people for real? Do you actually think that just because we don't go along with every BS security proposal or military quagmire done in the name of fighting terrorism that that means we're okay with terrorism itself? It's such a juvenile worldview.

Given the last month of political theater, I'm inclined to think that a lot of people believe precisely this.

 

[FrontLine]

Reading thru these post I keep coming across something. Some seem to think that there are two seperate groups being discussed.

one: The Citizens
two: The Government.

Sorry to burst your us vs. them bubble son, but you are part of the government of this country. You have never been sovereign, seperate or completely private. Once you hit eighteen the whole thing get dumped in you lap.

This should have been explained to you in school. Being a citizen automatically come with rights, restrictions, rules and reponsibilitys - a package deal. You don't get to pick and choose the parts you agree with.

There is a distinct difference between a responsibility and an obligation. Compulsory national service would be an obligation. Feeling that everyone has a responsibility to, in one way or another (Military service, AmeriCorps, etc..) pay back to their nation for the benefits they get from it, is a completely different animal as the individual is still free to chose on their own if they wish to or not.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Reading thru these post I keep coming across something. Some seem to think that there are two seperate groups being discussed.

one: The Citizens
two: The Government.

Sorry to burst your us vs. them bubble son, but you are part of the government of this country. You have never been sovereign, seperate or completely private. Once you hit eighteen the whole thing get dumped in you lap.

This should have been explained to you in school. Being a citizen automatically come with rights, restrictions, rules and reponsibilitys - a package deal. You don't get to pick and choose the parts you agree with.

There is a distinct difference between a responsibility and an obligation. Compulsory national service would be an obligation. Feeling that everyone has a responsibility to, in one way or another (Military service, AmeriCorps, etc..) pay back to their nation for the benefits they get from it, is a completely different animal as the individual is still free to chose on their own if they wish to or not.

Exactly. Some variety of service to the whole is essential; we must serve society as it must serve us. We all do that in different ways, based on who we are, our personalities, skills and talents, and personal dreams. For some people, this will be a desire for military service. For many others, a wealth of other means to serve. Forced military service is not in any way about "the need to give something back". You can do that in many ways. What forced military service is about is exploitation, and an outdated view of young men's "purpose".

 

[iguana_tonante]

Either: you are for us - or - you are for the terrorists.

I don't immediately see the problem with this phrase, and while some of you have renounced it, you've failed to indicate why. Just wondering - why not?

[...]

It's okay to be against them...it really is.

People may be against islamic terrorists, but that doesn't automatically mean that we are with you.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

Same thing in the Cold War; you're with us or against us. *sighs* America hasn't changed at all.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Some might say that terrorist is a tactic, not a people. Terrorist is a label, few want to use the term islamic fascist (there's Mussolini's word), it's not considered polite. But what ever term you prefer, they want to kill or change you. Both against your will.

You do realize that there's very, very, very little in common between islamic radicalism and fascism, right? It's just that fascism is a scary word so people use that to describe another scary thing.

It's okay to be against them...it really is.

I'm against them. It's also OK to not be with a group that happens to be against them.

 

[JuanBolio]

Reading thru these post I keep coming across something. Some seem to think that there are two seperate groups being discussed.

one: The Citizens
two: The Government.

Sorry to burst your us vs. them bubble son, but you are part of the government of this country. You have never been sovereign, seperate or completely private. Once you hit eighteen the whole thing get dumped in you lap.

This should have been explained to you in school. Being a citizen automatically come with rights, restrictions, rules and reponsibilitys - a package deal. You don't get to pick and choose the parts you agree with.

In the mid 1960's the republicans started pushing for a removal of the draft, took them about eight years ... don't want a draft, vote for them. Mid 1990's the democrat's started a move to bring it back under Clinton, Charlie Rangel (D) new york is still it champian, Obama believes not only in the draft, but also "national service" a draft for non-military service.

How do you all feel about that?

All that said, personally I'm for a all volunteer force.

Nor did I get to choose whether or not to be a citizen of this or any country, nor am I presented with viable alternatives.

 

[RJDiogenes]

The "social contract" of mutual defense is one I never signed. I and everyone else I know were born into this country and others like it, its laws and mores and traditions forced on us by birth, with the only option being uprooting ourselves and traveling to another land were circumstances are not better, possibly worse. This is not a system which people should be forced to risk their lives to defend. If they want and choose to, that's one thing. Force is something else entirely. If people feel the military needs more manpower for a particular conflict they should enlist themselves and try to convince and persuade as many people as possible to do the same.

So your argument against the Draft is, "I didn't ask to be born?"

You've placed that statement outside of the context of my original post, which is quite misleading of you. This isn't the 1930's, and as I stated in my post, my point is that you and I have access to a wealth of information that the everyman in the 30s did not.

I don't think it's out of context. You said your home and family would have to be under attack before you would fight; that pretty much rules out the defense of allies.

So to sum up, i'm not saying I wouldn't fight, i'm saying that with the proliferation of communications the government can no longer trick me into shipping out to fight a country that was never capable of striking us in the first place.

You seem to be saying that the Draft can be used wrongly, not that it is wrong in principle.

No, I wouldn't do any of those things because 1) I don't smoke, and 2) I didn't say that. Please watch your quotes RJ

Sorry! Juan attributed my Quote to you, and I sort of perpetuated it by not paying attention. I didn't think that you said that.

 

[JuanBolio]

So your argument against the Draft is, "I didn't ask to be born?"

If you want to be mindlessly simplistic and completely miss the point, yes.

If not, then the argument is that I never signed up to be a part of this society. Nor did anyone else. We shouldn't be forced to fight for it either offensively or defensively if we'd rather not. Obeying traffic laws and not murdering people is one thing. Going to war is something else entirely.

 

[Colonel Green]

I'm sure many people, including some here, feel exactly that way. I'm not one of them however.

And yet comments like paving over Tora Bora is the same mindset as those people that did commit these horrific acts on 9/11. The mindset of hold a whole nation or culture responsible for the crimes and actions of a few.

We're not the terrorists. They are. And if the people there aren't with us they are against us.

You propose that we use violence against innocent people in the hopes of deterring others from certain actions. Isn't that the definition of terrorism?

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Are you people for real? Do you actually think that just because we don't go along with every BS security proposal or military quagmire done in the name of fighting terrorism that that means we're okay with terrorism itself? It's such a juvenile worldview.

Given the last month of political theater, I'm inclined to think that a lot of people believe precisely this.

Well, given that one person here equates terrorists to "freedom fighters" it's not hard to draw the conclusion that some people at least feel the USA has it coming to it.

 

[T'Girl]

The USA is NOT a direct democracy. The average citizen on the street is NOT a part of the American government, jingoistic "we're the land of the free" nonsense aside.

I hope you don't mind if I take this in bite size piece. And because you stated you're attending Cambridge, I will make the assumption you are British, pardon if that is an error.

Correct, America isn't a democracy, we are a republic. At 233 years the oldest single democratic republic in the world. We are indeed the 'land of the free', that freedom didn't come all at once and it was hard won - sometimes with blood. And both nationalistic and patriotism are more accurate than 'jingoistic'.

In a nation of 307 million, I don't believe direct government is a workable idea.

The government is indeed distinct from the citizens, ..

I understand England is different. The bulk of our elected folks come from the middle class, some are rich true. And all of our resent presidents are millionares, but we do elect them, congress doesn't pick them, as in England's system.

... making them playthings of the powerful (which is what young men drafted have always been)

We, of couse, are protected by a volunteer citizens military. In my own family my father, mother, two uncles are veterans and my two oldest bother are both in the army - both have been to Iraq. They've protected the people, land and nation - oh yes, and the government too. Freedom isn't free sir. (was that jingoistic)

I escaped the indoctrination ...

Maybe only from one side.

No-one has any right to turn to someone else and say "you have a responsibility to sacrifice your freedom, safety and life for me".

With respect, you have fewer freedoms than I. But ones you do possess came from where? Police yes, most came from soldiers, many of whom were drafted and gave their lifes - for you.

... and the subjugation of people like myself .

I can understand your fear, I'm at a large university myself, and it feels very safe here. Standing in front of others, protecting them could easily result in you being harmed. But the ones behind you would at the same time be safer by your deeds.

The individual must serve the whole and the whole must serve the individual.

No apologies, I'm not a socialist.

And to be fair, there is probably much about your culture I don't understand either. Our government is only a small part of who we are, for every fantastically rich individual, there are many hundreds of the rest of us. We are the country and the government. And from your post, it seems we are also very different from you.

And we love you anyway.

.

T'Girl

 

[JuanBolio]

Are you people for real? Do you actually think that just because we don't go along with every BS security proposal or military quagmire done in the name of fighting terrorism that that means we're okay with terrorism itself? It's such a juvenile worldview.

Given the last month of political theater, I'm inclined to think that a lot of people believe precisely this.

Well, given that one person here equates terrorists to "freedom fighters" it's not hard to draw the conclusion that some people at least feel the USA has it coming to it.

Some people DID. That's why we were attacked. Plenty more people do today, thanks largely to our often senseless retaliatory actions.

Freedom isn't free sir.

America hasn't been in a war that had a damn thing to do with American "freedoms" since 1945, if then. Perhaps 1865.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Given the last month of political theater, I'm inclined to think that a lot of people believe precisely this.

Well, given that one person here equates terrorists to "freedom fighters" it's not hard to draw the conclusion that some people at least feel the USA has it coming to it.

Some people DID. That's why we were attacked. Plenty more people do today, thanks largely to our often senseless retaliatory actions.

Freedom isn't free sir.

America hasn't been in a war that had a damn thing to do with American "freedoms" since 1945, if then. Perhaps 1865.

So then you are okay with the terrorism inflicted on the USA on 9-11? After all, some people had it coming to them.

And I beg to differ on your last point as well. We are morally bound to spread freedom across the globe, and to do so certainly helps us maintain ours.

 

[JuanBolio]

So then you are okay with the terrorism inflicted on the USA on 9-11? After all, some people had it coming to them.

Okay with it? Not really, I'd prefer it hadn't been done. I consider it to be a senseless loss of life, but then again almost every group of people on Earth has caused senseless losses of life, America included. It was an act of war - They hit us as hard as they could with what they had, and that's fair enough. Good for them. That doesn't mean I don't think we should bring them down, we should. I just don't have your boner for killing any innocent civilians who happen to be in the same region as they are. To my mind that makes us no better than they are.

And I beg to differ on your last point as well. We are morally bound to spread freedom across the globe, and to do so certainly helps us maintain ours.

Beg all you like. I don't agree. Freedom cannot be given to a people. Something like that being given has no value and will not last. If they want freedom they need to see the value in it and fight for it themselves on their own terms, and think up their own brand of it. Cluster-bombing third world countries and claiming to be "freeing" them is not what I'd consider to be a noble pursuit. Our time and resources would be better spent setting a better example for others to emulate.

 

[CaptainStoner]

^ we are not morally bound to be Crusaders. That belief has repeatedly weakened us. How many examples do you need? Christ, there wouldn't even be a Taliban if we weren't "morally obligated" to help them! You do know we created our enemy, don't you? By the same policy you cite.
If it were a moral argument, we would have a lot of troops in Africa stopping the genocide, not securing oil contracts for the Administration's business partners.

No. Americans are not saying "we had it coming to us", as in, NYC or anywhere else deserved terrorism. Why are you being that simplistic? What they are saying is - we created our own enemy in the Taliban, indeed, brought it upon ourselves through leadership such as you advocate.
Not, "we deserved it because we're fat and we drive SUV's" or some crap like that.

 

[T'Girl]

America hasn't been in a war that had a damn thing to do with American "freedoms" since 1945

While 'freedom isn't free' does refer to America, of course, the phrase also applys to the whole world.

We are morally bound to spread freedom across the globe, and to do so certainly helps us maintain ours.

During the twentieth century America help free as many as one hundred million people, in some cases returning freedom lost, in others giving it to people who had never known it.

They hit us as hard as they could with what they had, and that's fair enough. Good for them.

Politely disagree with you sir. Your egalitarian views are misplaced, all points of view are not equal. The people hurt and killed on september 11, 2001 are and were good decent every day Americans and many non-American folks too. the terrorists on those plane were not protecting anyone that day - just killers in the name of hate. And if they don't want to see us in places like Israel, maybe they should turn their eyes elsewhere. The middle east is vast.

Beg all you like. I don't agree. Freedom cannot be given to a people.

What we can do JuanBolio is hold open the door to freedom. What can be given in an opportunity. The Germans are not nazi peasants, the Japanese not imperial subjects and before you say it, yes it was in our best interests to free these people, and yes many of them (and us) died in the process. But the grand-children of the dead are free today.

Christ, there wouldn't even be a Taliban if we weren't "morally obligated" to help them!

The creation of the Taliban was solely a result of the Russian invasion, the limited amount of military supply we provided neither helped nor hindered the Taliban's formation. Arguably if we had helped the people of Afghanistan after the Russians left, as we are now helping them and the Iraqis, the Taliban might then not appeared.

Why are you being that simplistic?

In this world somethings are simple - somethings - it isn't alway a shade of grey. If America was just a collective heartless bastard, we could nuclear bomb the population centers, most are away from the oil fields. Baghdad is far removed from the fields, Riyadh is too.

With all you've posted, can you explain why we haven't? I can, we are decent people, A dozen American guards at a Iraqi prison, were themselfs imprisoned - by their own country. If the 9-11 terrorists could of somehow suvived their attack, you know as well as I do they'd of been treated as heros. Not because they protected anyone, because they killed Americans, christians, jews, buddists and some muslims too.

.
Heroes not for bring freedom to America ---They'd of gloried in the death they caused.




T'Girl

 

[JuanBolio]

While 'freedom isn't free' does refer to America, of course, the phrase also applys to the whole world.

We don't govern the whole world, nor are we responsible for all its people. We CERTAINLY should not have to lay down our lives to improve their standards of freedom and life whether they ask for it or not. Volunteering to help those who ask is another matter.

During the twentieth century America help free as many as one hundred million people, in some cases returning freedom lost, in others giving it to people who had never known it.

Not our job, nor was it always appreciated.

Politely disagree with you sir. Your egalitarian views are misplaced, all points of view are not equal.

Never said they were, but I'm sure they'd say the same of us.

The people hurt and killed on september 11, 2001 are and were good decent every day Americans and many non-American folks too.

I'm sure at least of few of them were downright assholes with probably one or two rapists or murderers thrown in, just going by statistics.

The terrorists on those plane were not protecting anyone that day

Even soldiers rarely kill in the name of protecting others. Usually it centers around money, power, and national interests.

Jjust killers in the name of hate.

As are some of the revenge-minded rednecks we've slapped a uniform on and given a rifle to in the past, and in the present.

And if they don't want to see us in places like Israel, maybe they should turn their eyes elsewhere. The middle east is vast.

Israel is a whole other can of worms that I'm not even going to open up in this thread.

You have valid points. Yes, many of the people we're fighting against are the lowest scum on the face of the Earth. Yes, I prefer my side and my people to them and theirs. However, no one is ever entirely good or evil, and that goes for us and them. There's always more than one way to look at things, especially conflicts.

What we can do JuanBolio is hold open the door to freedom. What can be given in an opportunity. The Germans are not nazi peasants, the Japanese not imperial subjects and before you say it, yes it was in our best interests to free these people.

Freeing their people was not what the government had in mind when it went to war with them. Defeating their military might and replacing their governments was. We've just as readily set up cruel dictatorial regimes in many parts of the world, so long as that regime would play ball with us and be our little lapdog. Based on its actions I'm forced to the inevitable conclusion that the United States government doesn't give two shits about the freedoms of other peoples, and only about those of its own people when that freedom isn't socially, economically, or politically inconvenient.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Are you people for real? Do you actually think that just because we don't go along with every BS security proposal or military quagmire done in the name of fighting terrorism that that means we're okay with terrorism itself? It's such a juvenile worldview.

Given the last month of political theater, I'm inclined to think that a lot of people believe precisely this.

Well, given that one person here equates terrorists to "freedom fighters" it's not hard to draw the conclusion that some people at least feel the USA has it coming to it.

I wouldn't call them "freedom fighters" since many of them are fighting for the reinstatement of or the establishment of a new religious theocracy. But they are also fighting to remove an occupying force, which happens to be us, and thus should not be treated any differently than German soldiers in WWII or Iraqi soldiers in the First Gulf War.

Simply being called a terrorist by the US doesn't automatically make one a terrorist unless you're part of or directly in support of a terrorist organization and/or engage in terrorist tactics like suicide bombings, car bombs, and blowing up buildings with the specific intent of causing mass civilian casualties.

Targeting occupying soldiers directly and trying to avoid civilian casualties where possible (admittedly the lesser used tactic in Iraq), regardless of whether you personally think the soldiers being targeted are freedom-spreading good guys or not, is not terrorism. Insurgency is an adequate word in that case.

No one here has said the US or the people killed on 9/11 had it coming to them. That same demonizing of the people you disagree with is part of the problem and they reason why simplistic black and white "Your either for us or against us" comments don't hold water. One can oppose terrorism yet also disagree with some of the tactics the aggrieved party uses to respond to terrorism.