is it a good ideal to bring back the draft?

[ShamelessMcBundy]

Mmm ... White Russians ... Great. Now i'm all thirsty.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Society is an abstraction, it has zero rights outside those attendant its constituent citizens. In violating the fundamental rights of its citizens - rights which are recognised by society, not granted - the government has abrogated any and all claim to legitimate authority. The only reasons not to oppose the institutional and individual instruments of such injustice with lethal force are pragmatic.

Society is not an abstraction. It's a group of people who have banded together. In our case, we have specifically banded together, for one thing, to "provide for the common defense."

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.

True. It's hard to know how many could have been saved, but it was no doubt many millions.

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?

The government was elected by the people, so Democracy is not a farce. If that many voters are determined that their society go undefended, they can vote in the Halkan Party.

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

So you would stand by and do nothing while your friend is being mugged? You'd step off to the side while your girlfriend is being raped? You'd go out for a cigarette while your mother is being beaten? I'm glad I'm not your friend. I'd rather live in a society where people will answer the call to help when needed.

 

[JuanBolio]

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.

Unwilling draftees should resist, and refuse all orders, thus making the draft an untenable and expensive option.

 

[Pingfah]

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.

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.

There is no credible threat requiring a draft right now, but if there were we as individuals are in a much better position to assess the facts. For instance, when the Iraq war kicked off there was clearly no need for a draft and the public knew that Iraq was not capable of striking us. 80 years ago the public would not have been so well informed as to be able to make that call as easily and a draft may not have been opposed for that particular war as it would be now.

Were global communications as widespread in the 30s as they are now, and the threat recognised for what it was, the attitude of the 1930s-Era Right Wing might well have been different and that delay may not have happened, although I admit that is pure conjecture.

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.

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

So you would stand by and do nothing while your friend is being mugged? You'd step off to the side while your girlfriend is being raped? You'd go out for a cigarette while your mother is being beaten? I'm glad I'm not your friend. I'd rather live in a society where people will answer the call to help when needed.

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

 

[FrontLine]

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.

Well considering how the US already has a treat with the PI that says that US forces will be prosecuted in US Military Courts then everything is being done according to the treaty. The UCMJ is quite harsh in these cases. Convicted criminals go to Ft. Leavenworth where they still make little rocks out of big rocks. This type of treaty is meant to protect service members from being tried in foreign courts where impartiality can be hard to come by and the prison conditions are below what the US will allow.

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?

Good for the US. The UCMJ is quite effective at punishing soldiers after a thorough investigation, not a trial by media. Oh and the DU is about as non partisan as Free Republic.

None of this has anything to do with the draft though...which should not happen.

There is no social contract of mutual defense just as there is no such thing as a social contract. In order to enter into a contract one must do so of their own free will. Being born does not count.

 

[JuanBolio]

There is no social contract of mutual defense just as there is no such thing as a social contract. In order to enter into a contract one must do so of their own free will. Being born does not count.

Precisely.

Often when I make this argument people will say "Well, move somewhere else then". The problem is that there's nowhere habitable on Earth in which one is not subject to such forced "social contracts". If there were a vast tract of land reserved for anarchy and anarchists, I'd move there in a heartbeat. As there is not, I have to make do.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

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?

The way the ICC works is that, if there's a legitimate local punishment, there's no need for the ICC to intervene. The United States is pretty good at prosecuting their soldiers for their actions (granted, higher ups tend to escape punishment, but that's a different story). I've actually heard the argument that we should join the ICC because, unless we change our policies, we won't have to give up a soldier to the court. I seriously doubt that those soldiers aren't being prosecuted by a court's martial.

 

[SeerSGB]

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.

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.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

There is no social contract of mutual defense just as there is no such thing as a social contract. In order to enter into a contract one must do so of their own free will. Being born does not count.

Precisely.

Often when I make this argument people will say "Well, move somewhere else then". The problem is that there's nowhere habitable on Earth in which one is not subject to such forced "social contracts". If there were a vast tract of land reserved for anarchy and anarchists, I'd move there in a heartbeat. As there is not, I have to make do.

Exactly. My prior points lead somewhere similar. There is no nation on Earth yet socially advanced enough to see its young men and boys as anything other than potential cannon fodder. Even if a nation- like mine- has no draft, young men like me still face the attitudes and ideologies that justify our servitude every day. If there were a nation where the prevalent cultural ideologies assured my worth and right to life/safety- and my future sons'- I would emigrate there. But there is no such place. All I can do, then, to ensure my future sons are free from these primitive assumptions is to take advantage of my society's flexibility compared to many others and attempt to influence and change its own prevalent ideologies, so as to set an example to the rest of the world. That and resist pro-draft ideologies whenever I come across them.

 

[JuanBolio]

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.

Wiser words have rarely been spoken on this BBS. Bravo, sir.

 

[T'Girl]

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.

 

[Ward Fowler]

Mmm ... White Russians ... Great. Now i'm all thirsty.

Now you're making me thirsty. I haven't had a white russian in a long time. Those things are dangerous. They're easy to drink fast and they have a way of sneaking up on you.

 

[TGTheodore]

Canada definitely doesn't think so.

--Ted

 

[TheLonelySquire]

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.

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.

 

[SeerSGB]

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.

And, again, that's the same thinking in the mind of a terrorist.

Seriously, you're not helping your point. You're just proving that the only difference between a terrorist and a soldier isn't mindset but one of tactics and cultural perspective.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

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

Earth, Mussolini, 1938.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

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:



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?

I seriously doubt that those soldiers aren't being prosecuted by a court's martial.

Some do, some don't.

Also some places have different laws then the US as well.

Japan and South Korea have issues with the US bases there. Sometimes we hand over soldiers, sometimes we don't. Just depends.

BTW I'm not for a draft but it's strange that some of the more peaceful countries have mandatory military service.

 

[T'Girl]

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

Earth, Mussolini, 1938.

Actual

The truth is that men are tired of liberty.
Benito Mussolini
Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy.
Benito Mussolini
Fascism is a religious concept.
Benito Mussolini
Let us have a dagger between our teeth, a bomb in our hands, and an infinite scorn in our hearts.
Benito Mussolini

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?

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

If you believe there is a third position, maybe don't care or perhaps don't want to get involved? Both of those concepts favor the terrorists, simply because they actively do not oppose terrorism. And you've already provided "The Terrorists" with a division in their opponents ... that you again.

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.

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

 

[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.

Well, I'm not part of your country so the direct address of your comment doesn't apply to me, but I must say this: Responsibilities are not for outsiders or majority rule to dictate, particular when the majority simply blindly conform to the ideologies their society's educational institutions have drummed into them. The government is indeed distinct from the citizens, and the citizens are manipulated by those in power. Saying "we're all part of the government" is nonsense, fed to people like you by the government institutions. As you say, "EXPLAINED TO YOU IN SCHOOL". Now, I'm not American, but I did very, very well in school- I am currently at Cambridge University- and let me tell you, state-run schools are nothing more than a means of indoctrinating the young into accepting and supporting a system that promotes a "social contract" skewed towards their service and little in return, making them playthings of the powerful (which is what young men drafted have always been). I escaped the indoctrination because I was always intelligent enough to see right through it and come to my own conclusions.

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.

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". If you think you can justify such acts and the subjugation of people like myself by saying "the majority has spoken, suck it up, because it's your responsibility", then you need to reexamine a few points of basic morality. The individual must serve the whole and the whole must serve the individual. Reciprocation and symbiosis. I serve the whole. I serve society, I have done excessive voluntary work, I have dedicated myself to scholarship to aid in the betterment of my people. All I ask is respect in return- for my people to recognise my right NOT to be rounded up like an animal and sent to suffer on behalf of others enjoying privelege at home. Is this so difficult for people to grasp?

If your "package deal" allows such subjugation, it is not a good deal and your society is without worth.

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

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

Earth, Mussolini, 1938.

Earth, Either major political party in the USA, 1776-Modern Day

Remember, only Sith deal in absolutes. (Hey, wait...that is an absolute!)