is it a good ideal to bring back the draft?

[Deranged Nasat]

If it is wrong to not join up to fight every international injustice in the world, then we should ALL be in the army.

Sadly, there are many who think exactly that. Most nations remain extremely militiaristic and see their young men as nothing more than potential soldiers, which is exactly what I'm condemning here.

Ironically, of course, many such as myself consider compulsary military service itself an injustice.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

with some of your people! i like to ask what will it take to fight! not untill the bad guy is at your doorstep? you fight a war over there so they can"t get here! you must take the bad part of living in this country to get the joy of freedem! and a hell of lot of people die so you can sit down on your buit and said anything your want on that computer you have! you think they do not want to stay home! but they did there duty and i and you should all thank them! and if you are draft you can 2 thing do you duty or run be put in jall! god bless the usa

Why isn't this getting through?- if you have forced military service, YOU ARE NOT FREE. "The joy of freedom" is not compatible with a state that can arbitrarily take you from your home, family and work and place you either in harms way or in prison if you resist. Any talk of "freedom" in such a state is manipulative propaganda and not reality. Why can't you see this? The American government may drum it into you that you are "free" but you are clearly not. And if you must take the "bad part" to enjoy this supposed freedom, why doesn't this apply to women? Ah, I forgot, they don't have a "duty" do they?

And here we go again with the "duty". This sort of thinking should have died out a hundred years ago.

Also, you are paranoid in the extreme. "Fight over there so they can't get here". Ah, yes, the barbarian hordes of the foreigners. Well, guess what? They are involved in drumming into their young men the idea that they have to be soldiers and fight to protect against you. And you are far more likely to invade them than they are you. Where do most of these terrorist groups in the middle East originate? Who funded them, armed them, interfered with local politics continuously? The USA. This supreme lack of conscience or historical insight on the part of the USA grows very tiresome. Cry "god bless the USA!" and wave the flag, and all shades of grey vanish, don't they? Whatever action Uncle Sam has planned for his soldiers today becomes justified, and the enemy becomes, as you put it, "the bad guys".

 

[iguana_tonante]

Italy had a draft until about five years ago: all able-bodied male over 18 years old had to do one year of military service. I delayed my call to arms until I graduated from university, then I asked for civilian service and spent one year at the university library dishing out books and making photocopies. Yay for the draft and the easy ways for dodging it.

 

[Rii]

with some of your people! i like to ask what will it take to fight!

Against my government? A draft would do it.

 

[Mysterion]

what is your take! good or bad ideal?

Bad idea.

Where my perspective comes from: About ten years in the US Army (1980's-90s).

I wouldn't want to have to go into a real-world situation (combat, etc.) with a bunch of people who didn't volunteer to be there, and don't want to be there. I want to know that the guy next to me is at least as motivated as I am.

 

[T'Girl]

I said that most people would need the imminent threat of invasion to be motivated to fight, and immeditely followed that with my statement that I would require a threat of destruction against my home and family.

What would qualify as"destruction". And would the tank have to be on your one street, for you to do something?

Do you have some sort of problem reading whole paragraphs? The very next sentence that you cut out said:

. I was including any credible threat to the sovereignty of my country or the lives of it's citizens

So no, I would not be waiting for the tanks to roll down my street.

--- I apologize to Pingfah if you believe I was trying to distort your meaning to take advantage, I don't quote peoples entire posts, but instead make a brief reference to the section I'm questioning. Especially if the quoted post is only a short distance or a few positions above mine. I do read whole paragraphs, and your posts in general very carefully.

--- I was asking you to clarify what you meant by using the term "destruction", the meaning does differ from person to person, also "credible threat".

Deranged Nasat : ...if you have forced military service, YOU ARE NOT FREE

--- Military service member do continue to possess rights, becoming a soldier doesn't end your being a citizen. Even if you enter the service through a draft. You are aware that as a civilian you do not enjoy total, unrestricted "free" exsistence within your society? There is not this bubble of sovereignty surrounding each of us on our daily travels.

Rii: Against my government? A draft would do it.

--- Yes sir, YOUR own government, the one you participate in, the one that you've sent representatives to, the one that you yourself are a part of.

Quote:

T'Girl: All that said, personally I'm for a all volunteer force.

--- In the event of a "declared national emergency", I would support the following: A limited duration military draft. For a specific stated threat only. For males only, of a certain age and physical condition. For four years or more. If the events that generated the emergency did not develop with in a reasonable time period the the draft would end. All draftees would immediately be dischaged, they would not serve out their four years. The draft could not be maintained for the convenance of future force size, or possible future emergencies.


T'Girl

 

[Deranged Nasat]

For males only, of a certain age and physical condition.

T'Girl

We have a little thing nowadays called "equality of the sexes". Maybe you should look it up.

And, T'Girl, you must understand that the "threat" never ends. As long as there are two sapient beings aware of one another's existence and within reach of each other, there is always the threat of violence and conflict. You avoid that through peace, through recognition of each other's right to life, to peace, to protection. Sacrificing your people's freedoms on the basis of "the threat" gets you nowhere. A militiaristic nation will always have an enemy. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Seeing your sons as nothing but soldiers encourages conflict, tensions, suffering. It sends a clear message to the world "we are a militiaristic people". Populate your nation with soldiers and your rivals will populate their nations with soldiers in response. And the longer the "threat" is there the more paranoid and militiaristic you become and the bigger the threat becomes, until it consumes you, and your nation collapses on itself. The biggest threat to American freedom today is the Americans themselves. Through a draft you cause more damage to your people's freedom than anyone else could, indeed you sacrifice your freedoms entirely.

When the American colonies broke away from Britain they fought for liberty. Now the Americans fight for nationalism, and they sacrifice their people's liberties to do so.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

The draft, which I don't support at all times, will of course bring in young healthy men. Not old folks, disabled, or women. In an extreme emergency all of that latter group COULD defend their family and people, but the former is the best choose.

"bring in". What a nice tidy euphanism for the systematic and selective/discriminatory application of forced labour and the removal of basic freedoms and liberties.

Well, I think that if someone wants to enjoy the benefits of this country (USA) they have to be willing to do their part. It's already been explained that men and women are inherently physically different and that's why it's the men that are called upon first. If that's discriminatory, it's at least reasonable.

And at least in the real world freedom, along with most everything else, has a price tag. It's not the removal of freedoms. It's ensuring them.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

The draft, which I don't support at all times, will of course bring in young healthy men. Not old folks, disabled, or women. In an extreme emergency all of that latter group COULD defend their family and people, but the former is the best choose.

"bring in". What a nice tidy euphanism for the systematic and selective/discriminatory application of forced labour and the removal of basic freedoms and liberties.

Well, I think that if someone wants to enjoy the benefits of this country (USA) they have to be willing to do their part. It's already been explained that men and women are inherently physically different and that's why it's the men that are called upon first. If that's discriminatory, it's at least reasonable.

And at least in the real world freedom, along with most everything else, has a price tag. It's not the removal of freedoms. It's ensuring them.

Everything people like myself say goes right over your heads, doesn't it?

Forced military service DOES NOT ensure your people's freedoms. It removes them. If I come into your house, tell you I am removing you from your home, family and work and sending you into a dangerous situation and if you resist you'll be punished, are you going to cry "Whoopie! Freedom!"? If you are, then your government has really indoctrinated you effectively.

And once again, why does "doing your part" have to mean military service with you people? It's not about service. It's about your desire to dictate to and control others, and ensure they serve on your terms. A young man is not permitted to serve in his own way, based upon who he is. No, he must serve based upon what you desire him to be.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

"bring in". What a nice tidy euphanism for the systematic and selective/discriminatory application of forced labour and the removal of basic freedoms and liberties.

Well, I think that if someone wants to enjoy the benefits of this country (USA) they have to be willing to do their part. It's already been explained that men and women are inherently physically different and that's why it's the men that are called upon first. If that's discriminatory, it's at least reasonable.

And at least in the real world freedom, along with most everything else, has a price tag. It's not the removal of freedoms. It's ensuring them.

Everything people like myself say goes right over your heads, doesn't it?

Forced military service DOES NOT ensure your people's freedoms. It removes them. If I come into your house, tell you I am removing you from your home, family and work and sending you into a dangerous situation and if you resist you'll be punished, are you going to cry "Whoopie! Freedom!"?

And once again, why does "doing your part" have to mean military service with you people? It's not about service. It's about your desire to dictate to and control others, and ensure they serve on your terms.

People like yourselves? A university debating participant? Umm, okay....

Right over my head? MY desire to dictate and control people? I don't desire to control anyone. My only terms revolve around living in reality and not an intellectual fantasyland. Again, nothing is free. Don't want to live in a country with a draft? Feel free to move to one without one.

 

[Pingfah]

--- I apologize to Pingfah if you believe I was trying to distort your meaning to take advantage, I don't quote peoples entire posts, but instead make a brief reference to the section I'm questioning. Especially if the quoted post is only a short distance or a few positions above mine. I do read whole paragraphs, and your posts in general very carefully.

--- I was asking you to clarify what you meant by using the term "destruction", the meaning does differ from person to person, also "credible threat".

That's OK. It's very hard to say to be honest because we are talking complete hypotheticals. There are infinite forms any conflict could take. I can't list every conceivable scenario for an attack on us and tell you whether I think it's a credible threat and serious enough for a draft.

When it happens, i'll tell you if I think it's serious enough to warrant a draft

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Well, I think that if someone wants to enjoy the benefits of this country (USA) they have to be willing to do their part. It's already been explained that men and women are inherently physically different and that's why it's the men that are called upon first. If that's discriminatory, it's at least reasonable.

And at least in the real world freedom, along with most everything else, has a price tag. It's not the removal of freedoms. It's ensuring them.

Everything people like myself say goes right over your heads, doesn't it?

Forced military service DOES NOT ensure your people's freedoms. It removes them. If I come into your house, tell you I am removing you from your home, family and work and sending you into a dangerous situation and if you resist you'll be punished, are you going to cry "Whoopie! Freedom!"?

And once again, why does "doing your part" have to mean military service with you people? It's not about service. It's about your desire to dictate to and control others, and ensure they serve on your terms.

Right over my head? MY desire to dictate and control people? I don't desire to control anyone. My only terms revolve around living in reality and not an intellectual fantasyland.

You wish to force your nation's young men to accept a concept of self-relation, self-image, purpose, duty, etc, that you dictate for them; that of soldier, whose obligation is to join your forces. Guess what? Outside of nationalism, which is where I live and you don't, many young men don't want that. They offer you their intellect. You don't want their intellect. They offer you their skills as caregivers. You don't want their skills as caregivers. You want them to be soldiers. You seek control and dictatorship over others in the most absolute way. They must, you say, "be willing to do their part", which you insist is military service. And you insist that they do this because they are young men. Well, here in the 21st century our sons get to choose what they are and what they do based upon self-understanding and our respect for their self-discovery. We all serve humanity in our own way. You, however, are not happy unless you get to dictate the terms of their service. You are militiaristic, so all young men must be soldiers. No.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

[ Don't want to live in a country with a draft? Feel free to move to one without one.

I already live in a draft-free country, and thus enjoy a viewpoint not clouded by blind nationalism. However, here's the thing: I don't care about British people only. I'm not content to say "well, I and my fellows have these freedoms, who cares about the Americans, the Russians, the whoevers". I care for all my people, all humanity. And here's another point- even though there is no draft here, backwards and conservative people still try to dictate to me how I should view my self in terms of my sex and age. There is no country on the planet where we don't struggle against these attitudes. If there were, I would emigrate there and ensure my sons were raised in an environment of respect and love. We're all in this together, and the enemy is not "the other nation", but instead is anyone who would seek to remove liberty, to dictate to and control others and deny them self-representation, self-discovery, instead forcing them into certain roles and encouraging certain self-images only. Respect for each sacred life and each individual soul. You do not demonstrate this. You demonstrate the attitude that freedoms and individual service can be discarded in favour of forced service on other's terms. On the terms of a government to which the citizens are playthings.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Everything people like myself say goes right over your heads, doesn't it?

Forced military service DOES NOT ensure your people's freedoms. It removes them. If I come into your house, tell you I am removing you from your home, family and work and sending you into a dangerous situation and if you resist you'll be punished, are you going to cry "Whoopie! Freedom!"?

And once again, why does "doing your part" have to mean military service with you people? It's not about service. It's about your desire to dictate to and control others, and ensure they serve on your terms.

Right over my head? MY desire to dictate and control people? I don't desire to control anyone. My only terms revolve around living in reality and not an intellectual fantasyland.

You wish to force your nation's young men to accept a concept of self-relation, self-image, purpose, duty, etc, that you dictate for them; that of soldier, whose obligation is to join your forces. Guess what? Outside of nationalism, which is where I live and you don't, many young men don't want that. They offer you their intellect. You don't want their intellect. They offer you their skills as caregivers. You don't want their skills as caregivers. You want them to be soldiers. You seek control and dictatorship over others in the most absolute way. They must, you say, "be willing to do their part", which you insist is military service. And you insist that they do this because they are young men. Well, here in the 21st century our sons get to choose what they are and what they do based upon self-understanding and our respect for their self-discovery. We all serve humanity in our own way. You, however, are not happy unless you get to dictate the terms of their service. You are militiaristic, so all young men must be soldiers. No.

No. I am simply a realist. I too am a caregiver so I realize the importance of it. I certainly think it's a worthy endeavor.

In a utopian society where we could all enjoy our freedoms without having to actually pay for them, yours would be an acceptable view in my opinion. Unfortunately, this IS the 21st century and we live in the real world where freedom does indeed have a price.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

[ Don't want to live in a country with a draft? Feel free to move to one without one.

I already live in a draft-free country, and thus enjoy a viewpoint not clouded by blind nationalism. However, here's the thing: I don't care about British people only. I'm not content to say "well, I and my fellows have these freedoms, who cares about the Americans, the Russians, the whoevers". I care for all my people, all humanity. And here's another point- even though there is no draft here, backwards and conservative people still try to dictate to me how I should view my self in terms of my sex and age. There is no country on the planet where we don't struggle against these attitudes. If there were, I would emigrate there and ensure my sons were raised in an environment of respect and love. We're all in this together, and the enemy is not "the other nation", but instead is anyone who would seek to remove liberty, to dictate to and control others and deny them self-representation, self-discovery, instead forcing them into certain roles and encouraging certain self-images only. Respect for each sacred life and each individual soul. You do not demonstrate this. You demonstrate the attitude that freedoms and individual service can be discarded in favour of forced service on other's terms. On the terms of a government to which the citizens are playthings.

You want to talk terms on which the government considers it's citizens to be playthings? Oh wait, you already have universal health care.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

[ Don't want to live in a country with a draft? Feel free to move to one without one.

I already live in a draft-free country, and thus enjoy a viewpoint not clouded by blind nationalism. However, here's the thing: I don't care about British people only. I'm not content to say "well, I and my fellows have these freedoms, who cares about the Americans, the Russians, the whoevers". I care for all my people, all humanity. And here's another point- even though there is no draft here, backwards and conservative people still try to dictate to me how I should view my self in terms of my sex and age. There is no country on the planet where we don't struggle against these attitudes. If there were, I would emigrate there and ensure my sons were raised in an environment of respect and love. We're all in this together, and the enemy is not "the other nation", but instead is anyone who would seek to remove liberty, to dictate to and control others and deny them self-representation, self-discovery, instead forcing them into certain roles and encouraging certain self-images only. Respect for each sacred life and each individual soul. You do not demonstrate this. You demonstrate the attitude that freedoms and individual service can be discarded in favour of forced service on other's terms. On the terms of a government to which the citizens are playthings.

You want to talk terms on which the government considers it's citizens to be playthings? Oh wait, you already have universal health care.

Well, interestingly, most intelligent Americans I've interacted with and spoken to want their nation to introduce universal health care, too.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Right over my head? MY desire to dictate and control people? I don't desire to control anyone. My only terms revolve around living in reality and not an intellectual fantasyland.

You wish to force your nation's young men to accept a concept of self-relation, self-image, purpose, duty, etc, that you dictate for them; that of soldier, whose obligation is to join your forces. Guess what? Outside of nationalism, which is where I live and you don't, many young men don't want that. They offer you their intellect. You don't want their intellect. They offer you their skills as caregivers. You don't want their skills as caregivers. You want them to be soldiers. You seek control and dictatorship over others in the most absolute way. They must, you say, "be willing to do their part", which you insist is military service. And you insist that they do this because they are young men. Well, here in the 21st century our sons get to choose what they are and what they do based upon self-understanding and our respect for their self-discovery. We all serve humanity in our own way. You, however, are not happy unless you get to dictate the terms of their service. You are militiaristic, so all young men must be soldiers. No.

No. I am simply a realist. I too am a caregiver so I realize the importance of it. I certainly think it's a worthy endeavor.

In a utopian society where we could all enjoy our freedoms without having to actually pay for them, yours would be an acceptable view in my opinion. Unfortunately, this IS the 21st century and we live in the real world where freedom does indeed have a price.

You keep insisting "the draft is a price to pay for freedom". What is this great threat to your freedom it defends you against? What is such a major threat to your freedoms if not your own government turning its sons into forced labourers? Again, the biggest threat to your freedom is your own people.

Also, I am a realist, too. More so than you, it seems. You simply reproduce flawed means of thinking that were discarded by the realistic decades ago. Nationalism and the young-men-are-soldiers mentality nearly destroyed Europe. The latter is destroying the Middle East, much of Africa, etc. You don't learn, do you? You never learn, and you always repeat the same mistakes over and over.

Well, I've said my piece, at length, repeatedly. I think I'll simply stop now and avoid this thread in future. I wonder how many centuries it will be before our sons are actually truly free? To be honest, if we don't overcome this militiaristic mentality soon, I doubt Humanity has "centuries" ahead.

 

[JuanBolio]

Civil disobedience is fine, as long as you're willing to face the consequences-- and anybody who doesn't want to live by our Constitution should be allowed to flee to Canada or anywhere else. But that doesn't justify any foolishness about a society not being able to call upon its own people to defend itself.

I disagree. Since citizens ARE the government and the society they can choose to sign up and fight, or not to. If not enough of them join and the country loses the war, what more resounding vote that the country shouldn't have been involved in the war to begin with (or did not deserve to win) could you wish for?

Thank you for your service, given what you've posted, I confess I find this a unusal statement.

Don't thank me, I'm doing it for myself. No one else. Besides, unless you're on a freighter patrolling pirate-infested waters, my service is unlikely to end up helping you in any way.

You just stated you're entering military service , unless I misunderstood. is it your intent to sit on the deck if given an order you personal don't agree with? At some point you have or will take an oath to obey ALL orders given to you. Are you planing on refusing to take the oath?

I get this a lot. I volunteered to take orders and obey them, even if I don't like them. Hence, I will do so. There's a difference between civilian and military life. I live each accordingly.

There are dozens of countries with no military forces, just civilian police departments. Many of the independant island nations south of Hawaii have only a handful of cops. I've been to a few of them. You know JuanBolio, we have these things call airplanes now.

I'm aware of airplanes. No need to be sarcastic. My point was that there isn't anywhere on Earth, barring perhaps Antarctica, where there is no form of government imposed on people.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^ To be clear, i'm not saying we shouldn't get involved where peaceful countries are being attacked, just that the government should not impose a draft to fight a battle that has zero implications for our country. We have a good volunteer force for that sort of thing.

If it is wrong to not join up to fight every international injustice in the world, then we should ALL be in the army.

Well, it depends on the scale and nature of the threat. The whole point of a draft is that the volunteer force is insufficient to the need.

Civil disobedience is fine, as long as you're willing to face the consequences-- and anybody who doesn't want to live by our Constitution should be allowed to flee to Canada or anywhere else. But that doesn't justify any foolishness about a society not being able to call upon its own people to defend itself.

I disagree. Since citizens ARE the government and the society they can choose to sign up and fight, or not to. If not enough of them join and the country loses the war, what more resounding vote that the country shouldn't have been involved in the war to begin with (or did not deserve to win) could you wish for?

Again, you're arguing against any form of law. If not enough people pay taxes, we shouldn't have taxes. If not enough people obey traffic laws, we shouldn't have traffic laws. If not enough people want to refrain from killing, the laws against murder should not be enforced. That's anarchy. Anarchy is not a society.

 

[Rii]

you're arguing against any form of law. If not enough people pay taxes, we shouldn't have taxes. If not enough people obey traffic laws, we shouldn't have traffic laws. If not enough people want to refrain from killing, the laws against murder should not be enforced. That's anarchy. Anarchy is not a society.

On the contrary, in asserting that under certain circumstances the state has the right to force its citizens to kill or be killed, that's what you're suggesting, by implying that laws against murder are founded only in a social contract that makes arbitrary distinctions between "good killing" and "bad killing" and are thus subject to abrogation by majority vote. Kill the darkies, society has a right to protect itself!