is it a good ideal to bring back the draft?

[Cicero]

If not enough members of that society care enough about it to fight for it, then it doesn't deserve to survive. I'm speaking strictly in terms of a defensive war, of course.

Again, you can carry this nonsense to ridiculous extremes. If not enough people care to pay taxes, if not enough people care to vote, if not enough people care to obey traffic laws et cetera. By your logic we should just do away with all laws and see if enough people "care enough" to maintain society.

Indeed. This sort of logic leads directly to tragedies of the commons. What we're willing to do or give as our fair share when we know everyone else will commit just as much is typically far more than we're willing to give when we seem to be standing up alone.

As a case in point, I'd be willing to go to Afghanistan as part of an army numbering in the millions, but wouldn't volunteer to join our present force of roughly a hundred thousand.

I know I certainly wouldn't fight unless my home and family were under a genuine threat of destruction.

That was the attitude of the 1930s-Era Right Wing. As a result, the United States' entry into WWII was delayed several years and more than six million people died that may have been saved.

Far more than six million persons died unnecessarily. twenty-four million Soviets might have been saved (14% of the entire country), twenty million Chinese persons, six million Poles, nearly ten million Pacific Islanders, and, yes, perhaps eight million Germans. All told, nearly eighty million persons died. I find it hard to believe that early action couldn't have saved most of them.

Fear mongering? Um, I think when these subhumans fly planes into buildings it can be a bit concerning.

And what's wrong with honoring our veterans?

I do agree that we don't need the draft at this point. We should just completely pave over the entire Tora Bora region and be done with it.

Because nothing so clearly condemns the massacre of innocents as the massacre of a bunch MORE innocents, right?

People live in the Tora Bora region, and 99% of them had nothing to do with 9/11.

Obviously you missed the part where they're "sub-human", i.e. Muslim, or, perhaps, simply not American.

One could make an argument that when persons make themselves monsters, they become less than human.

 

[JuanBolio]

Again, you can carry this nonsense to ridiculous extremes. If not enough people care to pay taxes, if not enough people care to vote, if not enough people care to obey traffic laws et cetera. By your logic we should just do away with all laws and see if enough people "care enough" to maintain society.

So you believe that the state has the right to force its people to fight and die to further its existence, possibly against the will of the people? In that case what are we but slaves of the state, making democracy a farce? I have no more right to force you to fight for me than you have to do the same. What moral benefit is there in a draft?

That was the attitude of the 1930s-Era Right Wing. As a result, the United States' entry into WWII was delayed several years and more than six million people died that may have been saved.

That was right to do. One should not fight unless directly attacked.

 

[Cicero]

I'm afraid I can accept no compromises here. Forced military conscription is legalized slavery

It is not. Slavery is "the state of being a slave" or "the practice or system of owning slaves." A slave, in turn, is either "a person who is the legal property of another" or "a person who works very hard without proper renumeration or appreciation." Neither of those describes a conscripted soldier.

There is a case to be made against a social contract which includes conscription (though I disagree with it), but this particular argument is definitionally untrue.

Fair enough. But, the distinction is semantic. Not that I'm disagreeing with your statement of linguistic fact, but morally it is no different. To me, having your freedom taken from you without criminal charges having been leveled and being put to work doing disagreeable and dangerous tasks is slavery. Legally, semantically, maybe not, but it is really the same thing, whether we choose to define it officially as such or not.

No, it really isn't, because that's not what slavery means. I think you might mean that it is still subjugation, of which slavery is a subcategory.

Society is an abstraction, it has zero rights outside those attendant its constituent citizens.

Certainly, this is true. We delegate powers via social contract for just this reason (Our current social contract in the United States being the New Deal, the most recent derivative of the United States Constitution).

In violating the fundamental rights of its citizens - rights which are recognized by society, not granted - the government has abrogated any and all claim to legitimate authority.

In the abstract, this is also true. (Too, it's accurate of many nations, such as Iran, and, sadly, Afghanistan.) But individual - even sectional - declarations of such abrogations are dangerous and often unjust. The contract applies to a people, not to persons individually. Unless the people in general consider contract void, the rebel is in violation of the contract, and the government is not.

The only reasons not to oppose the institutional and individual instruments of such injustice with lethal force are pragmatic.

Are they not also compassionate?

 

[Deranged Nasat]

One could make an argument that when persons make themselves monsters, they become less than human.

No. Once again we face the core problem: so many people seem to think they have a right to place value on the lives of others. You feel you can say "I morally disagree with them, therefore they are now less than human and their lives have less meaning", just as you feel you can say "these young men shall be conscripted, because I've decided their lives matter less than whatever goal and outcome I have in mind". All life is precious. All sapient life is sacred. No-one has the right to come along and start devaluing other people based on their own moral concerns. Is that not the attitude we oppose in those we stand against? That is what we are fighting. If you see these people as "less than human" you are no different in attitude than they, and your fight with them ceases to be moral and becomes simply territorial and nationalistic. Which is the exact sort of conflict that a nation with a military draft is waging.

 

[Cicero]

Again, you can carry this nonsense to ridiculous extremes. If not enough people care to pay taxes, if not enough people care to vote, if not enough people care to obey traffic laws et cetera. By your logic we should just do away with all laws and see if enough people "care enough" to maintain society.

So you believe that the state has the right to force its people to fight and die to further its existence, possibly against the will of the people?

You suggest a dichotomy between the state and the people which does not exist in the United States. We are, specifically, a nation of the people - the people are our only sovereign entity, and the States and the United States act as our representatives and exercise our powers with our permission and in our stead. We, as a people, believe that we have the right to compel ourselves to action and service of several kinds - to pay taxes, to render jury service, to fight in time of need.

This belief has two fundamental assumptions. First, that such a compulsion would be exercised fairly and equitably, and never unnecessarily. Second, that the will of the people is supreme, and that it can never be contradicted except where the people accede. Put more plainly, no state could endure which did not have our consent.

In that case what are we but slaves of the state, making democracy a farce?

Democracy is not an element of the United States social contract. We guarantee to ourselves a republican form of government, not a democracy. (This is the point, for instance, of our system of purposely inefficient checks and balances. The United States system is designed to protect rights, not to project the majority will.)

I have no more right to force you to fight for me than you have to do the same. What moral benefit is there in a draft?

Fairness. A draft ensures that every person does their part. In the American system, you don't enjoy freedom that someone else's life has bought unless you would be willing, if needed, to buy someone else's freedom with yours.

That was the attitude of the 1930s-Era Right Wing. As a result, the United States' entry into WWII was delayed several years and more than six million people died that may have been saved.

That was right to do. One should not fight unless directly attacked.

Of what does a direct attack consist? If I am in Chicago, does an attack on Columbiaville comprise a direct attack on me?

 

[Deranged Nasat]

It is not. Slavery is "the state of being a slave" or "the practice or system of owning slaves." A slave, in turn, is either "a person who is the legal property of another" or "a person who works very hard without proper renumeration or appreciation." Neither of those describes a conscripted soldier.

There is a case to be made against a social contract which includes conscription (though I disagree with it), but this particular argument is definitionally untrue.

Fair enough. But, the distinction is semantic. Not that I'm disagreeing with your statement of linguistic fact, but morally it is no different. To me, having your freedom taken from you without criminal charges having been leveled and being put to work doing disagreeable and dangerous tasks is slavery. Legally, semantically, maybe not, but it is really the same thing, whether we choose to define it officially as such or not.

No, it really isn't, because that's not what slavery means. I think you might mean that it is still subjugation, of which slavery is a subcategory.



Certainly, this is true. We delegate powers via social contract for just this reason (Our current social contract in the United States being the New Deal, the most recent derivative of the United States Constitution).

In violating the fundamental rights of its citizens - rights which are recognized by society, not granted - the government has abrogated any and all claim to legitimate authority.

In the abstract, this is also true. (Too, it's accurate of many nations, such as Iran, and, sadly, Afghanistan.) But individual - even sectional - declarations of such abrogations are dangerous and often unjust. The contract applies to a people, not to persons individually. Unless the people in general consider contract void, the rebel is in violation of the contract, and the government is not.

I never agreed to any "contract" agreeing to uphold laws and contribute to my people and yet be treated as a government plaything. That is not a reciprocal, symbiotic relationship. It is exploitation. I expect my society to serve me as I serve it in return.

As for "the people in general", they tend to be under the sway of social conditioning and propaganda that works in the favour of the current government and the nationalistic, jingoistic ideals on which any nation is ultimately founded. My life and its worth are not a matter of majority rule, particularly when the majority simply buy into what their society's educational institutions and government feeds them in terms of "duty" and social role/expectation without any sense of an equal relationship.

And what would you call a forced labourer if not a slave? The refusal to recognise government-imposed forced labour as essentially equivalent to slavery is a way for governments to continue justifying the exploitation of the people. Look at international labour laws and their legalizing of forced labour (against men between 18 and 45, and no more than a quarter of those in the community). The laws serve the governments, not the people.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

[
Fairness. A draft ensures that every person does their part. In the American system, you don't enjoy freedom that someone else's life has bought unless you would be willing, if needed, to buy someone else's freedom with yours.

The American draft system has always been and remains gender-specific. Your young men are legally required to register for the draft or face penalties including fines, prison, passport and other benefits taken. Your young women don't face this. "Every person does their part"? No. Your above statement contradicts itself, because it is not the case that the American system is fair, because some people DO ebjoy freedom without requirement to be willing to sacrifice themselves.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Do we really need this conversation on the anniversary of 9/11, which really started the fear mongering of bringing back the Draft. Also, aren't the wars kind of calming down? Of course we haven't found Bin Laden yet (What's taking so long, and that's one of the negative things about today in that we honor veterans and make speeches feeling sorry for ourselves instead we should be asking questions like what has been done since). There is no need for a draft really.

Fear mongering? Um, I think when these subhumans fly planes into buildings it can be a bit concerning.

And what's wrong with honoring our veterans?

I do agree that we don't need the draft at this point. We should just completely pave over the entire Tora Bora region and be done with it.

Because nothing so clearly condemns the massacre of innocents as the massacre of a bunch MORE innocents, right?

People live in the Tora Bora region, and 99% of them had nothing to do with 9/11.

Then they should have no problem giving the bad guys up, no?

 

[Cicero]

One could make an argument that when persons make themselves monsters, they become less than human.

No. Once again we face the core problem: so many people seem to think they have a right to place value on the lives of others. You feel you can say "I morally disagree with them, therefore they are now less than human and their lives have less meaning", just as you feel you can say "these young men shall be conscripted, because I've decided their lives matter less than whatever goal and outcome I have in mind". All life is precious. All sapient life is sacred. No-one has the right to come along and start devaluing other people based on their own moral concerns. Is that not the attitude we oppose in those we stand against? That is what we are fighting. If you see these people as "less than human" you are no different in attitude than they, and your fight with them ceases to be moral and becomes simply territorial and nationalistic. Which is the exact sort of conflict that a nation with a military draft is waging.

Aside from your comments about the draft, I agree. (I see the purpose of a draft as running almost precisely counter to what you propose.)

Compassion is, of course, our greatest strength. Aside from being dead, I know of nothing which should stop a monster from becoming human again; monstrousness in persons refers specifically to inhuman cruelty or wickedness, and I find that a fair description of the actions of the terrorists of 9/11 (or 7/7 and many other less bloody days); it is not a condition which is inescapable or irredeemable.

 

[Cicero]

I never agreed to any "contract" agreeing to uphold laws and contribute to my people and yet be treated as a government plaything. That is not a reciprocal, symbiotic relationship. It is exploitation.

The relationship you describe is exploitative, but it is not descriptive of the relation between the United States and the people of the United States. (I'll not speak for another nation.) We are reciprocal to each other, and the playthings of no government.

And what would you call a forced labourer if not a slave?

I would call it subjugation generally (from the Latin subjugate "brought under a yoke"), and be its just name specifically.

The refusal to recognise government-imposed forced labour as essentially equivalent to slavery is a way for governments to continue justifying the exploitation of the people. Look at international labour laws and their legalizing of forced labour (against men between 18 and 45, and no more than a quarter of those in the community). The laws serve the governments, not the people.

I would argue that they serve the people, but affect them inequitably. Unless you refer to conscription - which is not equivalent to slavery,but to a different category of subjugation, if any - I'm not familiar with such a law, inasmuch as one applies within the United States. Beyond the Geneva Convention and the North Atlantic Treaty, I've paid little attention to the details of international law (perhaps to my detriment).

[
Fairness. A draft ensures that every person does their part. In the American system, you don't enjoy freedom that someone else's life has bought unless you would be willing, if needed, to buy someone else's freedom with yours.

The American draft system has always been and remains gender-specific. Your young men are legally required to register for the draft or face penalties including fines, prison, passport and other benefits taken. Your young women don't face this. "Every person does their part"? No. Your above statement contradicts itself, because it is not the case that the American system is fair, because some people DO ebjoy freedom without requirement to be willing to sacrifice themselves.

It is consistent with my comments earlier in this thread. American law prohibits this discrimination, which is unfairly and unjustly enforced (specifically, the 5th Amendment to the Constitution disallows the repudiation of rights by broad classification, including sex).

If I may advocate for the devil, when we pursued conscription, women were not treated as equal citizens. As persons who were denied full freedom, perhaps requiring such a sacrifice of them would have been as unjust as not requiring it would be today.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

It is consistent with my comments earlier in this thread. American law prohibits this discrimination, which is unfairly and unjustly enforced (specifically, the 5th Amendment to the Constitution disallows the repudiation of rights by broad classification, including sex).

If I may advocate for the devil, when we pursued conscription, women were not treated as equal citizens. As persons who were denied full freedom, perhaps requiring such a sacrifice of them would have been as unjust as not requiring it would be today.

I apologise if I have misrepresented any of your views and prior comments

As for your "Devil's advocate" argument, I find it flawed. If the men are the ones being drafted, they also lack freedom, do they not? They are being denied freedoms the women have just as the women are denied freedoms the men have. So we're back at square one. Or maybe the problem is that people still won't acknowledge how the young men's freedoms are being denied.

 

[SeerSGB]

Fear mongering? Um, I think when these subhumans fly planes into buildings it can be a bit concerning.

And what's wrong with honoring our veterans?

I do agree that we don't need the draft at this point. We should just completely pave over the entire Tora Bora region and be done with it.

Because nothing so clearly condemns the massacre of innocents as the massacre of a bunch MORE innocents, right?

People live in the Tora Bora region, and 99% of them had nothing to do with 9/11.

Then they should have no problem giving the bad guys up, no?

Define "bad guys". Would you give up George Washington or Abe Lincoln if some foreign power deemed them to be "The bad guys". Whatever these lunatics [the people behind 9/11 and other attacks] did, however insane their rhetoric is, they still are considered freedom fighters and heros to some people.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Because nothing so clearly condemns the massacre of innocents as the massacre of a bunch MORE innocents, right?

People live in the Tora Bora region, and 99% of them had nothing to do with 9/11.

Then they should have no problem giving the bad guys up, no?

Define "bad guys". Would you give up George Washington or Abe Lincoln if some foreign power deemed them to be "The bad guys". Whatever these lunatics [the people behind 9/11 and other attacks] did, however insane their rhetoric is, they still are considered freedom fighters and heros to some people.

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

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

Fear mongering? Um, I think when these subhumans fly planes into buildings it can be a bit concerning.

And what's wrong with honoring our veterans?

I do agree that we don't need the draft at this point. We should just completely pave over the entire Tora Bora region and be done with it.

Because nothing so clearly condemns the massacre of innocents as the massacre of a bunch MORE innocents, right?

People live in the Tora Bora region, and 99% of them had nothing to do with 9/11.

Then they should have no problem giving the bad guys up, no?

Easier said than done. The US has been notorious for not giving up (and even rejected letting US soldiers stand on trial for war crimes at the War Tribunal) bad guys like this guy:

17 January 2006

MANILA -Washington has refused to hand over custody to Manila of four US Marines charged with raping a woman in the Philippines, the foreign department said on Tuesday.


The Philippine government in a diplomatic note to the US embassy in November demanded that the soldiers be handed over to local authorities citing the “extraordinary nature” of the case, the department said in a statement.

A series of informal discussions with US diplomats followed and in a formal reply issued only on Monday, the embassy said it would keep custody of the accused citing provisions of a “visiting forces agreement” (VFA) between the two countries, it said.

The foreign department said it has forwarded the US government’s reply to the Philippine justice secretary and is awaiting advice on how to proceed.

Though it's a message board...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2045920

Here's about the ICC.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/...l-law-8-24/us-opposition-to-the-icc-8-29.html

The United States government has consistently opposed an international court that could hold US military and political leaders to a uniform global standard of justice. The Clinton administration participated actively in negotiations towards the International Criminal Court treaty, seeking Security Council screening of cases. If adopted, this would have enabled the US to veto any dockets it opposed. When other countries refused to agree to such an unequal standard of justice, the US campaigned to weaken and undermine the court. The Bush administration, coming into office in 2001 as the Court neared implementation, adopted an extremely active opposition. Washington began to negotiate bilateral agreements with other countries, insuring immunity of US nationals from prosecution by the Court. As leverage, Washington threatened termination of economic aid, withdrawal of military assistance, and other painful measures. These exclusionary steps clearly endanger the fledgling Court and may seriously weaken its credibility and effectiveness.

Hmmm?

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

Isn't Kissinger wanted by Cambodia for war crimes?

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

I think so. Bush and Cheney as well. *shrugs* Have fun with that.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

Well with Kissinger it's for the bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

Well with Kissinger it's for the bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War.

Statue of limitations?

US soldiers are usually immune to prosecution from any country they are posted in unless the US wants to do it as a good will gesture, which is kind of fucked up.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

As far as i know, there is no statute of limitations for war crimes.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

That's true. I forgot about the Nazis still out there...Which makes me wonder. How far can we go back

You...you were a White Russian! Time to go to jail!

But...I'm 112 years old!