View Full Version : Theoretical Draft
Now, this is all hypothetical. Imagine you are between the age of 18-25. I use this age because that is the draft age for the USA, and I'm not sure on other countries ages. Your country has just declared war on another country. Your country's current military strength is not sufficient for the upcoming war. They require additonal manpower and require a draft.
You recieve a letter in the mail, saying you've been drafted. What is your reaction?
Big_John
03-11-2006, 04:46
i'd need to know my options in the military (would i be able to be an officer, for example) and the penalties for not showing up for the draft.
i'd need to know my options in the military (would i be able to be an officer, for example) and the penalties for not showing up for the draft.
Ok. Your rank would be based on your education and an evaluation of yourself. The penalty for not showing up would be jail time.
Big_John
03-11-2006, 05:09
ok, well, i'm pretty well educated and whatnot. so , depending on the nature of the war (who we are attacking/why we are attacking them), i'd go with either option 2 or 3.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-11-2006, 05:12
It would depend on the war, I'd have to think it over carefully. I voted 1 because that's closest. I don't care to be a part of a country that attacks another country in a major war that I consider unjust. If it's a just war I'd go for it. I can't understand someone who'd blindly join because it's their "duty".
I'm too old now, but when I turned 18 I turned in my Selective Service card, and I knew what it meant. And I wouldn't sign something like that if I didn't intend to honor it.
I'm too old now, but when I turned 18 I turned in my Selective Service card, and I knew what it meant. And I wouldn't sign something like that if I didn't intend to honor it.
You really don't have a choice. You have to sign up.
I know people who didn't, for various reasons. And you shouldn't do it if you don't intend to honor it.
No worry for me at all. If I am recalled from medical retirement - I will do return to service. But I am disqualified for combat, so its really doubtful that I will ever be recalled.
Besides like Lemur I signed the selective service registration without hestitation knowning what it meant. And he is correct - one shouldn't sign the form if one does not intend to honor it.
master of the puppets
03-11-2006, 05:46
if it comes to war, if i believe it is right, my body then belongs to the just cause of my united states and all those dignified people there-in. the not so dignified ones can be fed to rabid iguanas. but if its a just cause i will fight for my country, real opinion is i love my patriam and will fight for the freedoms and heritage it gives.
How about "I'd fail the physical exam?" I can't hear with one of my ears so I'm exempt from the American military.
Uesugi Kenshin
03-11-2006, 05:58
For the US to put the draft back into effect the war would probably have to be pretty big. I'd serve without hesitation, despite the protests of my mother and probably half of my classmates. I might even head off to basic if I didn't truly believe in the war, but didn't think it was wrong as well. But if I felt it was a totally unjust war or something like that I'd refuse to aid it. I wouldn't run off to Canada or anything though. If I thought it was unjust enough to not serve I'd like to think that I'd be strong enough to stay for the consequences.
Alexanderofmacedon
03-11-2006, 06:06
I'd use my new found military 'friends' strength to KILL CHUCK NORRIS!!!
Die!!!:skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull:
solypsist
03-11-2006, 06:14
i'm outta there. even if the US is invaded, I'm still leaving. this is the only life i have, and i'm not throwing it away because someone else says i need to risk it.
remember folks, "Now I want you to remember that no ******* ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb ******* die for his country." - Gen. Patton.
Alexanderofmacedon
03-11-2006, 06:15
Depends on cause actually...
If it was Iraq, I might move to Canada...
I've always wanted to live in Calgary, Edmonton, or Toronto...
solypsist
03-11-2006, 06:58
it must be an alien concept to many that a person can have a good, fullfilling life without the need for reactionary nationalist patriotism. ~:rolleyes:
liberal mindset? you should try looking into the [non-existent] service records of your conservative congressional chickenhawks.
There you have it folks. The liberal mindset at work. He even managed to take a Patton quote out of context.
solypsist
03-11-2006, 07:06
enjoy your theoretical war, then. i have better things to do.
dying in a war is for fools and the unfortunate. look at the list of people* who fled europe at the onset of WW2 to come to america and what they contributed to this place by doing so. i guess you're calling them disgusting, too.
That someone wouldn't join a draft even if the country were invaded is just disgusting. You don't have to be a reactionary conservative to defend your homeland.
*scientists, artists, doctors, scholars, etc.
solypsist
03-11-2006, 07:18
personal attack? hmmm...
Well, at least you admit you're a coward.
Tachikaze
03-11-2006, 07:28
I would go live in Japan and scout models for soly.
I would leave the US as soon as there was a strong possibility of the draft being instituted. And, indeed, Japan would be my destination.
I'm sure my answer surprises no one.
solypsist
03-11-2006, 07:34
we can watch the war on NHK television after the fashion shoots.
I would go live in Japan and scout models for soly.
I would leave the US as soon as there was a strong possibility of the draft being instituted. And, indeed, Japan would be my destination.
I'm sure my answer surprises no one.
Tachikaze
03-11-2006, 08:07
~:cheers:
Divinus Arma
03-11-2006, 09:09
personal attack? hmmm...
Personal attack? I would call it an observation.
When war is personal to you, a war with your country is the same as a war with your family. If some values are not worth dying for, then life is not worth living. At what point do you take up arms against your oppressors? Or do you bow to slavery and domination at every turn?
I am sure that even you, Soly, would reach a point to where you would fight rather than be enslaved.
What's more, why should your neighbor fight for your liberty if you will only turn your back on him? That is what Cube is talking about. Dropping your selfish ideals and supporting something of meaning to the community a a whole.
Ya, I'm pretty disgusted with your perception of liberty. From your comments, it seems safe to assume that you take everything in this country for granted.
Just look at it this way: Would you defend your home from murderers and rapists or would you let them destroy your home and ravage your family?
If you would, then would you defend your neighbor if he cried for help? Would you want him to help you if you needed it?
These are the values that Americans share. Real Americans. And this is why your liberal elite attitude is so disgusting to so many.
Enjoy your day.
And Big John, you scare the heck out of me. Think about what you wrote man!
i'd need to know my options in the military (would i be able to be an officer, for example) and the penalties for not showing up for the draft.
What kind of leader do you think you would make with an attitude like that? It's a privilege and an HONOR to lead men for their country. A responsibility that should only be entrusted to those willing to sacrifice the most, willing to continue on when all others have given up. When everyone around you is dead, dying, or ready to surrender, the offier is the one who bears the responsibility to his country more than any other. Supposed to be the elite... not desperate for meager positional authority. With an attitude like that, your men would spot you so ****ing fast it would make your head spin. And then guess who will REALLY be in charge of your puppet self?
Man, disgusting reactions to this thread.
THIS IS WHY WE DONT EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER WANT A DRAFT AGAIN. THE QUALITY OF MEN GOES INTO THE TOILET.
Glad to see at least some of you are men of honor here...
Big_John
03-11-2006, 10:16
have fun dying with your honor DA, what a privilege. whatever i "owe" to my country, i can certainly fulfill in better ways than taking a bullet in some far-flung land. to wit, my mind would be of better service to an army in a strategic/tactical role.. not to be modest, but being some sort of common soldier would be a waste of my talent. i guess by "officer" i meant something else, but you know what i'm talking about, i should hope.
in any case, we'll never know what sort of military leader i would make. but i can tell you that i'm pretty good at coercing the weak-minded. take that for what you will.
Banquo's Ghost
03-11-2006, 10:36
What kind of leader do you think you would make with an attitude like that? It's a privilege and an HONOR to lead men for their country. A responsibility that should only be entrusted to those willing to sacrifice the most, willing to continue on when all others have given up. When everyone around you is dead, dying, or ready to surrender, the offier is the one who bears the responsibility to his country more than any other. Supposed to be the elite... not desperate for meager positional authority. With an attitude like that, your men would spot you so ****ing fast it would make your head spin. And then guess who will REALLY be in charge of your puppet self?
I'm glad you made this point so eloquently to save me the trouble.
THIS IS WHY WE DONT EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER WANT A DRAFT AGAIN. THE QUALITY OF MEN GOES INTO THE TOILET.
Also well said. This is why I respect the views of those who do not wish to fight, for whatever reason. Solypsist's reasons, for example, are well-argued and perfectly valid. In war, I would rather lead twenty dedicated professionals than a thousand half-hearted conscripts.
As for the above question, my options don't appear. Not surprisingly really: I served as a captain of Royal Artillery in the British Army for several years before transferring back to the Irish Defence Forces.
Since I am still registered for call-up in both countries, I guess I have to hope we never war each other again!
So I wouldn't be drafted in this scenario, I would be recalled. In detail, I would assert my right to refuse participating in a foreign adventure by the British, but would fight in her defence.
If someone threatened my Irish homeland (we're neutral, so unlikely to get involved in invading other countries) they would have to step over my cold, dead body to do it. As has happened to generations of my ancestors, of whom I am justly proud.
These questions are never simple, are they? :dizzy2:
Tribesman
03-11-2006, 11:07
Volunteer , and get a nice little supply job miles away from any action , then rip off as much money as I could .
War is a dirty dangerous business , why let the arms dealers make all the money ?
Ironside
03-11-2006, 11:40
Now, this is all hypothetical. Imagine you are between the age of 18-25. I use this age because that is the draft age for the USA, and I'm not sure on other countries ages. Your country has just been declared war upon by another country. Your country's current military strength is not sufficient for the upcoming war. They require additonal manpower and require a draft.
You recieve a letter in the mail, saying you've been drafted. What is your reaction?
Swear, complain and draw memories from my previous military service I had due to the increased threat from that other country (in reality I didn't need to do it due to the current relaxed drafting, because the lack of enemies), then I would serve.
You see, the scandinavic countries is quite different compared to the US in this issue.
Here the draft is a fact and during the cold war "every guy" had done some kind of military service and this still lingers enough to make the same system re-appear if the situation is deemed neccissery, with the difference that it would most likely involve "everyone" this time.
Kagemusha
03-11-2006, 11:59
Ironside is right. Here its a citizen´s duty to protect his country against foreign attacks. In Finland only certain medical conditions leave you out of the army. So this staff sergeant in reserve would be shipped in, in the case war would break out.
Paul Peru
03-11-2006, 15:04
We have a draft in Norway. (it may be on its last legs)
As a conscientious objector, I served 16 months of civilian service in lieu of 12 months in the armed forces. In case of war, I'd called on to do humanitarian work or provide some other vital service to keep society functioning. That's what I'd do.
_Martyr_
03-11-2006, 17:48
I disagree with all you people calling soly a coward. Read Sean O'Caseys play The Plough And the Stars, it examines the the themes of loyalty and duty on various levels; duty to one's self, one's family, one's community, one's country, and to one's ideals.
Ultimately I personally dont put too much weight on the notion of a nation. In my humble opinion, Im a human first and formost, with a family and friends and people I love, that just so happens to have been born where and when I was. Nothing makes me more nauseous than teary eyed patriotism and blind nationalism. Take a step back, had the fluke of birth happened in any other way, you would feel exactly the same way about where ever else you were born. Not exaclty a very strong basis for an undying love, devotion and preparedness to kill and to die for an abstract ideal that just devides humanity.
Dont get me wrong, I am fond of where I live, the people and places here are very dear to me, but as a whole I dont really buy the broader, encompassing, almost devine entity of "Ireland" or indeed any nation. Its all just a result of violant human history - wars, murder, assisnations, plunder, slavery and division - not something I am particularly proud of. In short there's nothing at all sacred about a "country", no more than I dont particularly feel excessive loyalty to my bank, ISP or College as institutions, I dont feel that much loyalty to the State. Its the people I care about, not the institution that was created to govern them. I dont have kids yet, but when I do, my loyalty will be squarely to them, not too the State, what good of a father would I be to them dead for an abstract political cause?
Based purely on a willingness to fight a politically motivated war for this abstract (and imo) rather counterproductive construction of modern pollitical and millitary consolodation and centralisation I would dodge a draft. On the other hand, not all wars are politically motivated (I mean this in the sense that Iraq II was certainly to some extent motivated by the strategic value of the large oil reserves, and indeed Iraq's location, and lots of other political factors, not really by an honest threat to the safety of Great Britain or America, but you might disagree) some are indeed wars of survival. In these wars you and the people you love, your very existance is threatened I would fight to the death.
Basically it boils down to this, I would fight and die for people, but not for politics.
In 2 weeks I go and sign up for the draft. No, if called I would go and join without moaning, it would be my duty. The least I can do in thanks to my forefathers for the freedoms they have granted, and maintained. Some things are worth dieing for, and the continuance of these United States is one of the better of them. Whatever you may call it, blind patriotism, evil nationalism, it has brought us to the top in the world and it will keep us there.:unitedstates:
If you are not willing to protect your country then you are not willing to protect the values it stand for... Simple as that. That is of course good when those values are not wholly good.
But at the same time politics should not just be put in the backseat in terms of not serving, but also in terms of protecting people.
If I lived in a country under a despotic ruler who liked to oppress other peoples and dissenters, I would still serve if it protected my people from horrible devastation (think terrorbombing for instance). As noted the people shouldn't as a group suffer because of the regime, and I would protect against that.
Btw, I have served my constription in the Danish Royal Navy.
doc_bean
03-11-2006, 19:01
I'm totally against the draft, it's only justifiable if your country is being directly attacked imo. I surely wouldn't risk my life to secure mining rights for some friend of a politician who's never seen war first hand.
EDIT: this doesn't mean I wouldn't sign on voluntarily if I felt like it was something I had to do. I believe it is a decision every person has to make for him/her-self.
Strike For The South
03-11-2006, 19:07
As long as Im in the USMC and not the air force im good
I am not willing to serve a country that declares war on another country. :shame:
Samurai Waki
03-11-2006, 19:21
As long as we're the defender and not the oppressor... I'd consider it. Really it just depends on the nature of the war, if say we went to war with Iran over a cheese curd shortage I'd turn tail on run to Canada... or Cuba or something, however, if we went to war with South Dakota I'd grab my hunting rifle and be on the front lines before you could say 'lickety-split'. :laugh4:
AntiochusIII
03-11-2006, 20:58
Well, Soly, can you tell me if Tokyo is nice? And can you put me into your fashion show thingy?
Because I'm considering Vancouver...
:laugh4:
What a bunch of brave souls, former soldiers, real soldiers, and aggressive, idealistic adolescents of grand oratory...
Cute. I'd be reading All Quiet On The Western Front from some hot springs while you guys fight, then.
Big_John
03-11-2006, 21:04
I'd be reading All Quiet On The Western Front from some hot springs while you guys fight, then.that book is but one of the reasons i'd be on the lamb in meh-hee-co, or letting the more fervid men die in my stratagems.
:book:
Ja'chyra
03-11-2006, 21:18
I'd go, not to serve my country but to protect my family.
As I failed the medical for the RN when I was 16 it's all a moot point, although I do work for the MoD so I'm still doing my part as best I can.
Kagemusha
03-11-2006, 21:35
Well, Soly, can you tell me if Tokyo is nice? And can you put me into your fashion show thingy?
Because I'm considering Vancouver...
:laugh4:
What a bunch of brave souls, former soldiers, real soldiers, and aggressive, idealistic adolescents of grand oratory...
Cute. I'd be reading All Quiet On The Western Front from some hot springs while you guys fight, then.
Ive read the All Quiet On the Western front and i think its a great book. But maybe we have little bit different wiew of the War. I live in a small neutral country in my case war would mean an invasion against my nation. So i cant just understand why someone would not defend himself and his fellow men homes,women and children.Even if it was futile? What is the reasoning behind that?
Strike For The South
03-11-2006, 21:42
What a bunch of brave souls, former soldiers, real soldiers, and aggressive, idealistic adolescents of grand oratory...
http://www.oratory.com/images/ora_logo.gif
or-a-to-ry, n. [L. oratoria (sc. ars) the oratorical art.]
1) the art of public speaking in an eloquent or effective manner;
the exercise of rhetorical skill in oral discourse;
eloquence. -- Webster's Dictionary --
Why wouldnt you want to serve this eluedes me. What if it was just? Bottom line for me is if I get called Im going becuase well I guess thats the way Im wired. I dont have a good reason actually (well one that would be considered good). Ill do it becuase my country needs me end of story no bitching or complaining about it. They call I go I serve and try to make it home and one peice (Oh and win that to)
solypsist
03-11-2006, 21:57
I am sure that even you, Soly, would reach a point to where you would fight rather than be enslaved.
well yes, i guess - i'd certainly fight to avoid being enslaved by own country by conscription.
What's more, why should your neighbor fight for your liberty if you will only turn your back on him? That is what Cube is talking about. Dropping your selfish ideals and supporting something of meaning to the community a a whole.
i never asked my "neighbor" to fight for me, nor would i expect him to. so he shouldn't expect the same. there are a lot of faulty assumptions going on in that opinion above.
Ya, I'm pretty disgusted with your perception of liberty. From your comments, it seems safe to assume that you take everything in this country for granted.
why not? i wasn't asked if i wanted to be born here (and by default expected to defend some political concept of a nation). i do take everything for granted; to consider my citizenship here anything but coincidence seems rather foolish to me. _Martyr_ pretty much got things straight in his response.
Just look at it this way: Would you defend your home from murderers and rapists or would you let them destroy your home and ravage your family?
this is not the matter at hand. please read the original post. murderers and rapists have nothing to do with a draft and a declaration of war. if the us were invaded, however, my family is fully capable of making their own decisions to stay or go and have the means to do so.
If you would, then would you defend your neighbor if he cried for help? Would you want him to help you if you needed it?
again, this has nothing to do with the draft.
These are the values that Americans share. Real Americans. And this is why your liberal elite attitude is so disgusting to so many.
:shrug:
Big_John
03-11-2006, 22:11
again, this has nothing to do with the draft.
:shrug:
seriously. it's like some of these people didn't even read the original post.
Please guys, trying to the keep the flaming and nationalism to a min. This is not what I had in mind when I created this thread. I probably should have stated this, before hand. All I want is a "simple show of hands" on what everyone would that. That's all.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-11-2006, 23:12
Well I'm at Uni and in the UK that leaves you exempt until we're really up the creek. In 2.5 years I'll be at Sandhurst anyway.
I'd serve, hell I'd do air assault if they asked, and I didn't have glasses.
Divinus Arma
03-11-2006, 23:43
Of course I read the original post.
I, too, have no urge to join a faceless orginzation for the purpose of violence. That would be like Rallying 'round the flag of CitiBank. So, in this, I understand the points of Soly, Big John, and several others.
So really what is it that we are being asked to defend? A bureacracy? Each other? "American" Values or any other nation's values?
Allow me to clarify my position and place it within the appropriate context:
I care first for my family. I will die and kill to protect my family.
I care secondly for my community. I am surrounded by folks who wish me prosperity and join with me in making my community safe. Firefighters, Police Officers, Doctors, even businessmen, lawyers, and politicians among many others; All of these people wish me prosperity for their own reasons. And I too have a role to play in the prosperity if others. In this effort, we share similar values in compassion, trust, and personal responsibility. These values and this effort are symbolized by our flag, and organized by our government- whom we freely choose.
So, it is not some radical blind nationalism that we who would fight follow. It is the value system of our nation, of our communities, and our countrymen. So long as the United States remains free and true to its principles, I shall fight.
Should my country lose its way and become a force for evil, then I will not fight. Not only will I not fight for it, but I would fight against it- because it is no longer my country, but a fraudulent shadow of itself.
The questions every citizen should ask, having had the privilege of being born free, is why am I free? What does it mean to me? Will my children be free?
That, gentlemen, is the inspiration of your tropps who defend your lives "mindlessly". We who have already sworn an oath to defend the constitution, have done so with the values of our nation in mind. I fight so that my family will never have to. I fight so that my children and grandchildren will be free from tyranny and oppression. And it is why our fathers before us gave their lives.
Tachikaze
03-12-2006, 03:12
The following quotes were directed specifically at soly, but I'm a "coward", too, so I thought I'd lend my responses.
When war is personal to you, a war with your country is the same as a war with your family.
A nation is just a political establishment. It's not a holy entity. People treat nationalism like a religion in the US. But, it's not divine. There was life before the US, and there will be life after it's gone.
My family is my family. My friends are my firends. My neighbors earn my respect and friendship or not. They don't get them automatically, although I may help them out of common ultruism. A man living in New Jersey means no more or less to me than a man living in Malaysia, South Africa, or Finland. The people who live in Tijuana, Mexico are closer to me geographically and I am more likely to interact with them.
Another response I might put here is to say that you draw a line at the nation and say that we are a family. Why don't you extend that to the whole world? Why stop at national borders?
If some values are not worth dying for, then life is not worth living. At what point do you take up arms against your oppressors? Or do you bow to slavery and domination at every turn?
What oppressors? The only government that has the power to restrict my rights is in Washington DC.
The only war my nation has been involved in lately the US started. The Iraqis have never even mentioned enslaving Americans, let alone lifted a finger to attack them except in defense.
It is unrealistic to imagine an army landing on the shores of the US, overrunning the shore defenses, fighting house-to-house, then establishing a repressive, totalitarian government. That sounds like 1950s Red Scare. It's a fantasy. It's more likely today that someone will set off a bomb in Disneyland.
What's more, why should your neighbor fight for your liberty if you will only turn your back on him? That is what Cube is talking about. Dropping your selfish ideals and supporting something of meaning to the community a a whole.
I have no special relationship with my neighbors. The people I am closest to outside my family and friends are the foreign students I teach. My inlaws live in Japan, and I am much more likely to want to be with them during a war than here.
Ya, I'm pretty disgusted with your perception of liberty. From your comments, it seems safe to assume that you take everything in this country for granted.
A nation doesn't give freedom; it can only take it away. I was born completely free. The only restrictions I have in my life (that aren't self-imposed) come from my employer, local police, and the US government.
Japan's society is every bit as "free" as the US, if not moreso. This is true of many European countries as well. The students who come to my school are surprised how restrictive the laws are here.
Just look at it this way: Would you defend your home from murderers and rapists or would you let them destroy your home and ravage your family?
If those were my only two choices? Defend my home.
If you would, then would you defend your neighbor if he cried for help? Would you want him to help you if you needed it?
Yes, under many circumstances.
These are the values that Americans share. Real Americans.
I don't care if I'm a real American.
On the whole, I'm more worried about my own government than any foreign one. They are a greater threat to my liberty than anyone else.
The idea of risking my life for George Bush and his corporate friends is redickyulus. If he wants us to fight a war, let him take my place in the draft.
Kaiser of Arabia
03-12-2006, 04:02
I'd probably enlist first, but I'd go and take down 10 enemies before I die (if I was in a situation that required it)
Tribesman
03-12-2006, 04:41
Some things are just a value of measuring one's character.
And it is a sad statement of character that so far 24 people have voted that they would accept the draft with no hesitation .
That is the character of a muppet .
The post said Your country has just declared war on another country.
it didn't say your country had been invaded , it didn't say your familly is going to be ravaged or killed , it didn't say your way of life had been threatened , it just said your politicians want you to fight someone else for them and they have found themselves short of the resources to do it .
Anyone who will accept that without hesitation needs their head examined .
I'd probably enlist first, but I'd go and take down 10 enemies before I die (if I was in a situation that required it)
Indeed.
I'm really surprised at the poll results. The vast majority would serve your country without question. I would have guessed quite the opposite.
Tribesman
03-12-2006, 04:55
I'm really surprised at the poll results. The vast majority would serve your country without question.
Yeah , isn't it wonderful that there are so many sheep that will follow their politicians whims without any thought :dizzy2:
Big_John
03-12-2006, 05:02
Yeah , isn't it wonderful that there are so many sheep that will follow their politicians whims without any thought :dizzy2:moreover, it's quite easy to press a button on an internet poll. i wouldn't take the results to be indicative of reality.
it's funny that people are still trying to twist this into a question of defending one's children when the original post asks about tkaing part in an offensive war. such is the backroom, i s'pose.
moreover, it's quite easy to press a button on an internet poll. i wouldn't take the results to be indicative of reality.
it's funny that people are still trying to twist this into a question of defending one's children when the original post asks about tkaing part in an offensive war. such is the backroom, i s'pose.
I never said offensive. All I said was that your country declared war.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-12-2006, 05:08
That is a gross simplification and you know it. The mere presence of a draft implies that your country is up the creek with no paddle, you're the paddle. You live in your country and so do your family, losing a big war sucks big time for the loser so once you're in one you need to win it.
The question of whether you should be fighting a war goes out the window as soon as it starts, at that point the politicians need to step back, the general staff needs to step up and win as quickly as possible so that life can go back to normal.
Big_John
03-12-2006, 05:14
I never said offensive. All I said was that your country declared war.fair enough. however, my point stands. those of us not jumping at the chance to be drafted are generally expressing misgivings about offensive wars. since your question is ambiguous as to that point, it's a fair concern.
the draft-ophiles counter with the accusation (tacit or explicit) that anyone who doesn't jump up to take a bullet as fast as possible is essentially trying to give their 'women and children' to the enemy savages for sacrifice to the sun god and/or sexual servitude.
such is the backroom, i s'pose.
Samurai Waki
03-12-2006, 05:34
Well thankfully I am the Sun god, and all I give you is rays of joy and happiness and you spit in my face and call me a rapist dog and for that I'll burn you... this summer... just you wait... your taking a nice nap in the back yard and BOOM you'll scream whenever you take a hot shower or turn over in bed. Such is my power.
Offensive wars are probably not. If I were drafted to fight in a war like Iraq or Vietnam I would apply for concientous objector status. Failing that I'd take my jail time and deal with it. Plenty of time to read in there.
An offensive war like WWII I would serve because people are being opressed.
A defensive war depends entirly on context also. Is my government a dictatorship that is cruel? If that is true, and the invaders will restore freedoms, then I would likely side with the invaders.
If the rulers are mearly changing, one dictator for another, I wouldn't fight. Why should I defend Tweedle-Dee from Tweedle-Dum?
If a free nation such as the US were invaded by totalitarian powers I would fight.
Basically it comes down to my beliefs. I would have signed up for the Lincoln Battalion, I would have not gone to Vietnam.
Kagemusha
03-12-2006, 13:00
I'm really surprised at the poll results. The vast majority would serve your country without question.
Yeah , isn't it wonderful that there are so many sheep that will follow their politicians whims without any thought :dizzy2:
Thats not very nice to say Tribesman. Well basically i dont pretty much have choice in the event of war broke out.I have sweared the military outh to my country,to defend it against any enemies foreign or domestic.So if i would betray that oath i could be shot as a traitor.
In case of a civil war the situation would be different becouse necessary there would not be a lawfull government.
About me being a sheep,maybe i am but there are words to describe your position on the matter also but i wont go down that road, becouse it will lead into nothing good.:no:
doc_bean
03-12-2006, 13:17
Thats not very nice to say Tribesman. Well basically i dont pretty much have choice in the event of war broke out.I have sweared the military outh to my country,to defend it against any enemies foreign or domestic.So if i would betray that oath i could be shot as a traitor.
There's big difference between swearing such an oath in a neutral country such as Finland, where you'd only have to serve if you get invaded or there is a *serious* threat (say nukes aimed at you and an ultimatum to surrender), and a country such as the US, which actively starts wars for often dubious reasons (and I'm being polite here).
I'll stay by my view, drafting is immoral. In case of an emergency everyone should be *asked* to sign up. People who don't want to be in the war won't make very good soldiers imho.
I don't find the poll results all that surprising. More than half of the people in the backroom have been in the military, are in the military or want to join at some point in the future. There is a serious glorification of the military, and even war going on here.
Kagemusha
03-12-2006, 13:44
There's big difference between swearing such an oath in a neutral country such as Finland, where you'd only have to serve if you get invaded or there is a *serious* threat (say nukes aimed at you and an ultimatum to surrender), and a country such as the US, which actively starts wars for often dubious reasons (and I'm being polite here).
I'll stay by my view, drafting is immoral. In case of an emergency everyone should be *asked* to sign up. People who don't want to be in the war won't make very good soldiers imho.
I don't find the poll results all that surprising. More than half of the people in the backroom have been in the military, are in the military or want to join at some point in the future. There is a serious glorification of the military, and even war going on here.
You have a point there Doc Bean.But as far as i can remember Tribesman hails from Ireland that is also a neutral country.That was the reason i grabbed his argument.And also like to ad that there is a big difference between drafting and conscription.That comes from a two totally different wiews on how the Countrys military should work.:bow:
I am thinking about joining the army anyway so i have to go option 1,
ask me again in 3 years for a definite answer.
EDIT: I live in norway so a draft would mean an invasion as the only likely scenario.
Kralizec
03-12-2006, 15:38
As a moderately left minded person, I'm disgusted and dissillusioned by some of the responses of people I'd otherwise agree with.
This is not about Bush asking you to die in a foreign land. I agree with people who dodged the draft because they didn't want to fight in Vietnam. This is about doing your share of fighting when the existence of your society is threatened.
I find it ironic how some of you have decided to argue both "I have no duty to serve my country" and "I'd better serve my country by staying alive" - that's almost hysterical.
"I'm smart, it'd be a waste for me to die in the trenches" - what, are you saying that war is a business for semi retarded blockheads who only know how to kill? How about medics, engineers, supporting personel? Or are you to good for that too?
The defense of the homeland is a collective good. If you live there, you can't be excluded from it. If contribution was completely voluntarily, there'd be only a small core of idealists ready to do what it takes and the rest would all be freeriders.
Men like Socrates in ancient Greece and Dante in medieval Italy did their share of fighting to protect their polis, their city. Both were part of a social middle/upper class wich held the political rights and freedoms, and neither ran away from their responsibility to defend their community because they thought themselves to smart. They did not take their comfortable lives and social status for granted. Soly and Tachi live in a society where everybody has the same rights and because of that they now think that their rights have just popped into existence, not a drop of blood was shed for their freedom and that they don't have to do anything in return for it!
You think that you have no obligation to serve a country because you never chose to be born in it. If you don't think your country is good enough to earn your efforts when it is threatened, I suggest you move to another country. But you're only moving the problem. Some of you mentioned Japan- what if you're living there, and it's invaded by China? I suppose they have no right to ask you to defend Tokyo from invaders, because you're not living in Japan by choice?!
If you don't want to fight to protect your home country when it's necessary, move to another that's good enough for you, or sod off and live in the wilderness, where you can wallow in your feelings of self importance freely. Leave society to those who appreciate it enough to protect it.
(I have never been in the military and never will be unless the draft is reinstated. A soldiers life is not an inviting prospect to me and I would not likely be a good soldier, but if my country is attacked and the government starts drafting in hopes of repelling the invader I will not dodge my responsibility. I picked option 2, but in case of an all out invasion I'd serve without hesitation)
Tribesman
03-12-2006, 15:49
About me being a sheep
Read what I wrote again kagemuma .:book:
Well basically i dont pretty much have choice in the event of war broke out
Lack of choice is not the same as acceptance without thought or hesitation .
Then again , you do have a chioce , but not a very nice one ....i could be shot as a traitor.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
there are words to describe your position on the matter also but i wont go down that road, becouse it will lead into nothing good
Go ahead .
It is quite a simple position .
I don't trust politicians , and I will not put my life on the line for them until I have given it some serious thought and have accepted that it is not only unavoidable but that it is also right .
So .....what words do you use to describe that position Kagemusha ?
Kagemusha
03-12-2006, 15:56
About me being a sheep
Read what I wrote again kagemuma .:book:
Well basically i dont pretty much have choice in the event of war broke out
Lack of choice is not the same as acceptance without thought or hesitation .
Then again , you do have a chioce , but not a very nice one ....i could be shot as a traitor.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
there are words to describe your position on the matter also but i wont go down that road, becouse it will lead into nothing good
Go ahead .
It is quite a simple position .
I don't trust politicians , and I will not put my life on the line for them until I have given it some serious thought and have accepted that it is not only unavoidable but that it is also right .
So .....what words do you use to describe that position Kagemusha ?
Sorry Tribesman im not biting the bate. Im sorry for you that you cant trust your politicians.I agree that there are good and bad Politicians,but you have your 1 vote.If your countrys politics are so bad maybe you should move somewhere else, where things are better? but from what i know Your politicians havent been suggesting any invasions lately. Maybe you should run for politics yourself so you could steer Ireland to the right path in your world.:book:
Tribesman
03-12-2006, 16:11
Sorry Tribesman im not biting the bate.
What a cop out :no:
Im sorry for you that you cant trust your politicians.
I don't trust politicians Kage no matter what country I am living in , have lived in or are going to live in .
If your countrys politics are so bad maybe you should move somewhere else where things are better?
Been there done that , going to do it again . So your point was ?
Kagemusha
03-12-2006, 16:17
Sorry Tribesman im not biting the bate.
What a cop out :no:
Im sorry for you that you cant trust your politicians.
I don't trust politicians Kage no matter what country I am living in , have lived in or are going to live in .
If your countrys politics are so bad maybe you should move somewhere else where things are better?
Been there done that , going to do it again . So your point was ?
So basicly you are saying that you have run for politics but you dont trust politics.Do you trust yourself? If you live in a society you have to follow the set of rules that the society has aka laws, that you and the others in your society have to obey.If you cant live by the laws of your society.Then you have a problem m8.Or do you think yourself that you are above those rules?
KukriKhan
03-12-2006, 16:18
I never said offensive. All I said was that your country declared war.
Just as a point-of-order, that ('country declared war') hasn't happened in the US since December 1941. Much to my chagrin.
As much as I would like to vote ... I won't, mainly because I would make different choices depending on the situation.
First off, I'd never accept a draft for an offensive war, and would probably be in a group of people who marched publicly against it.
Now, if it was a defensive war ... it depends on my own sense of right and wrong. If I believe the invasion is wrong, I would join without hesitation, as my family has during WWII, and I would continue fighting as long as necessary. But, if I believe the invaders are right and the defenders are wrong, even if it is my own country ... I would probably commit High Treason and try to ensure as bloodless a transition as possible.
You may think of what I have said what you will.
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 16:29
I find it ironic how some of you have decided to argue both "I have no duty to serve my country" and "I'd better serve my country by staying alive" - that's almost hysterical.
Thats just a blatant misquote. What was said was "I'd better serve my family by staying alive". Nice try though.
It depends. I won't fight for my country if I consider my country to be the ethically wrong one alá Germany in World War 2. My country has to have a just reason for me to join into the fray on their side. In such a case where my country is wrong, I would not fight for my country to defend my people (as someone stated he would, even though his country is ruled by a tyrant), but rather fight alongside the other(s) to liberate my people. It just all depends on how the situation is.
master of the puppets
03-12-2006, 16:32
once again if my family, my country, my rights or my honor is on the line, i will fight, i will die, i will be forgotten, but my country survives and my children and there children will live because i chose to die. such it has been as long as man has lived and so it shall be.
Tachikaze
03-12-2006, 17:03
Men like Socrates in ancient Greece and Dante in medieval Italy did their share of fighting to protect their polis, their city. Both were part of a social middle/upper class wich held the political rights and freedoms, and neither ran away from their responsibility to defend their community because they thought themselves to smart. They did not take their comfortable lives and social status for granted.
I would be much more likely to fight to defend a polis than an empire. I consider the US to be an empire. For me to defend the US is more like Socrates going to war to defend Rome.
These propositions, like the question this thread poses, always put us in a position of resorting war as if it were only only choice. I believe almost all wars could have been prevented before hostilities began. I believe that if the politicians that decided on war as their chosen action had to die in that war, they would try any other means possible. That's what they should be doing anyway.
KukriKhan
03-12-2006, 17:57
My opinion is: government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. If the governed (as a group, or individually) don't want to bear arms, for whatever reason, they should not have to. Then those who do not bear arms, share the fate handed to them by the success or failure of those who do.
If the government's proposed war is so unpopular that not enough warriors step forward, then the war should not be declared, as the majority of the governed have obviously not consented.
And, if the government is so wishy-washy about the cause for war, that they can not find a way to follow the rules in the US Constitution, in formally declaring war... then it ought not be prosecuted at all.
We in the US fought these draft vs volunteer & presidential vs congressional war powers arguments in the 60's and 70's. But despite those fights, and their outcome, here we are still, to my surprise.
Finally, if war is declared formally, and citizen support is high enough to populate the military, then conduct the war with 3 times the resources necessary to insure victory, ala the so-called Powell Doctrine. Doing less is a distinct dis-service to the nation, its citizens, and its warriors.
In sum: Kukri thinks most wars are unnecessary. And military drafts are only due to lazy or weak leadership.
And I didn't vote; I'm 55 and the military won't take me anymore; and I'm unwilling to send a 20-year old to do my fighting for me.
Banquo's Ghost
03-12-2006, 18:10
These propositions, like the question this thread poses, always put us in a position of resorting war as if it were only only choice. I believe almost all wars could have been prevented before hostilities began. I believe that if the politicians that decided on war as their chosen action had to die in that war, they would try any other means possible. That's what they should be doing anyway.
I think you will find most soldiers would agree with you. No-one is keener for a peaceable solution that those who are going to be sent into combat and have already experienced it. (There's always the gung-ho kids who think its going to be like the movies). Nonetheless, as with Hitler, you sometimes face an enemy that is intent on war.
Mind you, when 'politicians' were kings and aristocrats who did fight on the front line, there wasn't a noticeable reduction in warmongering ~:) :shrug:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-12-2006, 18:28
As a moderately left minded person, I'm disgusted and dissillusioned by some of the responses of people I'd otherwise agree with.
This is not about Bush asking you to die in a foreign land. I agree with people who dodged the draft because they didn't want to fight in Vietnam. This is about doing your share of fighting when the existence of your society is threatened.
Bingo. I wouldn't want to go to war. I will join the military because I think it is honourable and because I figure I've got my head screwed on and soldiers under me would be better off than under some glory-seeker.
To all those who say they'd be better used at home with their families.
What if everyone said that?
What if you lose and become an occupied nation?
Persecuted and oppressed, will you then fight in the resistance to free a country you could have fought to preserve?
doc_bean
03-12-2006, 18:32
Mind you, when 'politicians' were kings and aristocrats who did fight on the front line, there wasn't a noticeable reduction in warmongering ~:) :shrug:
You weren't supposed to hurt them (much) though. Just capture them, threat 'em nice and demand ransom. :dizzy2:
doc_bean
03-12-2006, 18:56
To all those who say they'd be better used at home with their families.
You know, not everyone is cut out to be a soldier, you still need people to run your factories, farm your lands and keep the economy somewhat stable.
It seems that most people here have a very heroic view of the draft. Defending the womenfolk against the rapists and murderers and their kind. Wasn't the last time the draft was used in the Vietnam 'I-swear-it's-not-a-war' ?
How would all those heroes here feel if they were drafted to go kill some people who never, ever intended any harm to the families and friends back home you all claim to be protecting ?
War isn't heroic anymore, it probably never was, it's dirty, often unnecessary and often fought out for the egos or wallets of a few so-called leaders. I agree with Kukri 100%, how can a democracy go to war without the consent and support of the governed ? The draft is not part of what a modern democracy should be, at worst it's tyrannical, at best it's populism.
I find it funny that's it's mostly the republicans who seem to be pro-draft. What about the individual freedom you all love so much ? You claim the rich shouldn't be forced to pay for the poor, a sentiment I understand. Yet those able to fight should be forced to fight for those who can't (because they're too old, medically unfit, or whatever) ?
There is a clear distinction between three situations:
1. Your country needs your support to defend the homeland.
2. Your country needs your support to invade or attack another country (which isn't a direct threat)
3. Your country forces you and a bunch of other people to go fight somewhere
i can definitely see why you would answer the call in the first case, and understand why people would join in the second case. But both are clearly different from the third one. In that one the freedom of choice of the individual is taken away, heck, their freedom as a whole is taken away. I don't see how anyone claiming to love freedom could support such a measure...:wall:
Alexanderofmacedon
03-12-2006, 19:10
Now, this is all hypothetical. Imagine you are between the age of 18-25. I use this age because that is the draft age for the USA, and I'm not sure on other countries ages. Your country has just declared war on another country. Your country's current military strength is not sufficient for the upcoming war. They require additonal manpower and require a draft.
You recieve a letter in the mail, saying you've been drafted. What is your reaction?
Gelatinous Cube and Divinus Arma:
So, you said earlier that solypsist is a coward for not complying in a draft when an enemy army is invading the United States:
That someone wouldn't join a draft even if the country were invaded is just disgusting. You don't have to be a reactionary conservative to defend your homeland.
First of all, it's a theoretical draft. I think you're taking this bit far calling people cowards. Second of all in the first post did ghost908 say an enemy army was invading? No. He states quite clearly we are the ones declaring war even though we don't have the man power. Third of all, once again remember that this is not a real war and if a real one did come around, you're saying you'd join no matter the reason?
EDIT: Excuse me if this has been already stated or remedied, but I only read the first page and felt it necessary to post.
Big_John
03-12-2006, 20:25
yet more invasion-scenario-mongering. someone burn this strawman, please?
Reenk Roink
03-12-2006, 20:28
If the offensive war would benefit me, then by all means :yes:...
Otherwise :no:...
Big_John
03-12-2006, 20:35
It's a hypothetical. And hypothetically, many of you have stated you'd abandon your country. It's a shame, since it seems the hypothetical silent majority would do their duty.the point is that the non-silent members of this hypothetical majority construct these long, florid posts about the barbarian hordes at the door-step and how those of us not leading the charge are handing our families over. to strictly impose that context on the argument is to erect a strawman, plain and simple.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-12-2006, 20:54
It's a hypothetical. And hypothetically, many of you have stated you'd abandon your country. It's a shame, since it seems the hypothetical silent majority would do their duty.
The problem is the first post didn't do much to specify what kind of war, and the poll has no option for "it would depend on the war". Without knowing what scenario the voters were imagining when they voted the poll results don't mean anything.
If the offensive war would benefit me, then by all means :yes:...
Otherwise :no:...
They are going to lynch you at U of M.
:laugh4:
Big_John
03-12-2006, 21:03
:no: Now that's a strawman. Barbarian hordes? War is hell, and to allow war into your own home is to allow hell to be unleashed on your friends, family, neighbors, and countrymen.thanks for proving my point. ~:cheers:
Craterus
03-12-2006, 21:04
I'd sign up. I'm no coward! :boxing:
Big_John
03-12-2006, 21:08
i'd sign craterus up. he's no coward. dulce et decurum est, craterus! :knight:
Craterus
03-12-2006, 21:18
Very similar to that famous EB post, Big_John
:laugh4:
Alexanderofmacedon
03-12-2006, 21:37
I don't think Gelatinous read my post...
He didn't say a foreign army was invading us...
doc_bean
03-12-2006, 22:02
:no: Now that's a strawman. Barbarian hordes? War is hell, and to allow war into your own home is to allow hell to be unleashed on your friends, family, neighbors, and countrymen.
Last time there was a draft it was Americans invading homes, unleashing hell on innocent people and killing and torturing their friends, family, neighbours and countrymen...
You're still acting like you'll be involved in a 'noble' war, while if the draft would ever be used again, it's doubtful it will be for defensive purposes...
Another funny thing about this threat is that if you replace 'draft' with 'jihad', all those pro arguments still apply. I guess all those terrorists are noble warriors defending their families, countries and culture...:wall:
Big_John
03-12-2006, 22:06
Very similar to that famous EB post, Big_John
:laugh4:i try. :sweatdrop:
mystic brew
03-12-2006, 22:11
yeah, the poll had no 'depends on the war' option, and no 'conscientious objector one, though the 'serve jail time' comes close.
Also, there are plenty of essential services that would require people to remain at home, like teaching, manufacturing, electricity, gas, doctors, etc.
It's a horrible slander to say that the draft is your measure of heroism. and lest we forget. The actual sharp end ratio of troops in an army is pretty low to the administrators and other support staff.
in this case who is more patriotic? the one who educates the nations youth, or the one who heals their sick? or the one who organises the shipping of berets to units...
The military is a necessary evil...
personally i would be medically unable to serve in a front line unit, so it's a choice of buerocracies for me... *shrug*
Kralizec
03-12-2006, 22:31
He didn't say a foreign army was invading us...
Correct, but this sub-discussion started when Soly said that in the hypothetical case that the USA got invaded, he would still dodge the draft.
The only case I can imagine my government would order a draft would be an invasion or an imminent threat thereof, so I'd yell and cuss about it and then serve. If my government turned imperial and started invading nations at will, I'd refuse.
Last time there was a draft it was Americans invading homes, unleashing hell on innocent people and killing and torturing their friends, family, neighbours and countrymen...
You're still acting like you'll be involved in a 'noble' war, while if the draft would ever be used again, it's doubtful it will be for defensive purposes...
The posts you are replying to are about a hypothetical scenario when your own country gets invaded. What are you going to do? Sit at home and pray that your country gets saved by those who are willing stand up and fight? Send an army of strawmen, like you're doing now?
Big_John
03-12-2006, 22:41
GC, honestly..
you can lead a horse to water, but i refuse to beat that horse to death. something like that..
Big_John
03-12-2006, 22:47
then you are asking the wrong person, as i have never spoken about your scenario specifically. the whole point of my posts has been that the pro-draftees have been unfairly trying to twist the discussion into that of defending against invasion and then leveling indictments. to try to lump all negative respondents in this thread under that rubric is pure BS, and you know it. dead horses and whatnot.
doc_bean
03-12-2006, 22:49
The posts you are replying to are about a hypothetical scenario when your own country gets invaded. What are you going to do? Sit at home and pray that your country gets saved by those who are willing stand up and fight? Send an army of strawmen, like you're doing now?
Uh no, they were about draft-dodging. people opposed to the draft were said to be immoral cowards. The type of war wasn't specified.
So answer this question: If you were an American back in the day and gor drafted for 'nam, how would you react ?
Big_John
03-12-2006, 23:00
I think you're just trying to avoid the larger question.actually, i avoided the smaller question (the invasion one you were asking). but it's just a philosophical aversion to strawmen, nothing personal. ~;)
Reenk Roink
03-12-2006, 23:07
They are going to lynch you at U of M.
:laugh4:
I know...:laugh4:
I should say that waving an OSU flag :2thumbsup:...
I know...:laugh4:
I should say that waving an OSU flag :2thumbsup:...
While burning the MI flag and saving "God Bless George Bush and America!"
Tribesman
03-13-2006, 01:12
So basicly you are saying that you have run for politics but you dont trust politics.Do you trust yourself?
Are you having difficulty with reading today Kagemusha ?
Kaiser of Arabia
03-13-2006, 01:20
Some things are just a value of measuring one's character.
And it is a sad statement of character that so far 24 people have voted that they would accept the draft with no hesitation .
That is the character of a muppet .
The post said Your country has just declared war on another country.
it didn't say your country had been invaded , it didn't say your familly is going to be ravaged or killed , it didn't say your way of life had been threatened , it just said your politicians want you to fight someone else for them and they have found themselves short of the resources to do it .
Anyone who will accept that without hesitation needs their head examined .
By being a citizen of the United State's I beleive the defense of her homeland and interests is more important that my life, or anyone's indivual life. I'd die for her.
It's a sad thing that anyone would even think about deserting their nation in it's time of need. Such men are not even real men, they are cowards. And cowards die many times before their death, real men die just once.
Kagemusha
03-13-2006, 01:40
So basicly you are saying that you have run for politics but you dont trust politics.Do you trust yourself?
Are you having difficulty with reading today Kagemusha ?
My bad tribesman.:embarassed: I miss understood you when you sayed: "been there done that".I understood you were talking about Politics, instead moving to another Nation.So it seems im ideal kind of Bloghead to be a puppet of Politics becouse i cant understand basic sentences in English.Well you play what you got:stupido:
Tribesman
03-13-2006, 02:14
It's a sad thing that anyone would even think about deserting their nation in it's time of need.
What need Capo ? A nation is just somewhere you live , if the people that run the place where you live want you to do something then they had better make a damn convincing case for it .
For anyone to accept things unquestioningly (as in without hesitation in the poll) then that is just blind stupidity .
Politicians make mistakes , politicians lie , if a politician wants to put me in a position where I might kill or be killed then there hell of a lot of questions I want answered before I will make that commitment .
And they had better have some damn convincing answers to those questions .
Such men are not even real men, they are cowards. cowards die many times before their death, real men die just once.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: yeah , and real men smoke Marlboro :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
What is this , the silly catchphrase competition ?:dizzy2:
Kaiser of Arabia
03-13-2006, 02:44
It's a sad thing that anyone would even think about deserting their nation in it's time of need.
What need Capo ? A nation is just somewhere you live , if the people that run the place where you live want you to do something then they had better make a damn convincing case for it .
For anyone to accept things unquestioningly (as in without hesitation in the poll) then that is just blind stupidity .
Politicians make mistakes , politicians lie , if a politician wants to put me in a position where I might kill or be killed then there hell of a lot of questions I want answered before I will make that commitment .
And they had better have some damn convincing answers to those questions .
Such men are not even real men, they are cowards. cowards die many times before their death, real men die just once.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: yeah , and real men smoke Marlboro :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
What is this , the silly catchphrase competition ?:dizzy2:
But what makes you think an average, run of the mill civilian knows what the hell is going on in government? What makes you think they could even begin to comprehend it?
By being a citizen of the United States you have certain duties, and one is to answer the draft if your nation deems it nessissary to call you up. If you are too much of a coward to do your duties, than renouce your citizenship. Being a citizen is a privaladge, not a right, and with it comes responsibilities.
All I know is that if we were ever in battle, I'd rather go solo than have a man like you watching my back. I'd more likely be shot by you than an enemy.
dracosean
03-13-2006, 03:46
I would join the draft after unsuccessfully treing to get out of it. their is a quote by otto von bismark which i like: "Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think hard before starting a war."
-Otto Von Bismarck
war is hell and anyone who doesn't think that is sadly mistaken.
A nation is an agreement. The state provides you with a good life and protection, and in return you pay taxes and help defend the state when the time comes. To breach that agreement is loathesome.
Certainly someone in the US could not look around and say they don't owe the state something? Our high standard of living was achieved not just because of American ingenuity, but because Americans have always held themselves that ancient agreement between man and nation. To pretend otherwise is just selfish, and it shames me to think that these selfish pigs who claim no responsibility to their nation continue to reap the benefits of it.
Is it really? Well you learn something new everyday. It is interesting that a "libertarian" with such a low opinion of central government is so eager to sign up for enslavement by the state and so scathing of those who would not. Especially using the argument that going to war would protect your family and friends. Where do you live? Eugene is it not? Would your fellow citizens be better of with a Paris or a Stalingrad scenario? In the first the state lost and the nation fell but the people lived on. In the second, well...
Yet another badly worded Org poll quickly turned into a cat-fight by certain individuals.
Papewaio
03-13-2006, 04:34
A nation is an agreement. The state provides you with a good life and protection, and in return you pay taxes and help defend the state when the time comes. To breach that agreement is loathesome.
Certainly someone in the US could not look around and say they don't owe the state something? Our high standard of living was achieved not just because of American ingenuity, but because Americans have always held themselves that ancient agreement between man and nation. To pretend otherwise is just selfish, and it shames me to think that these selfish pigs who claim no responsibility to their nation continue to reap the benefits of it.
Hand on heart, flag waving, logical... umm but what does the history books have to say:
Vietnam hippies, WWII objectors, Civil War (which nation were they supposed to be fighting for and protecting?)... lets go right back to the founding of the nation...
Weren't the Americans fighting their nation ... the British Empire over paying taxes. And the Americans of the day had a fairly prosperous standard of living.
The founding fathers had lots of benefits and decided to rebel and set up a nation to avoid taxes...So by your statement the founding fathers of the USA were selfish pigs who claimed no reponsibility to the nation that set up their benefits. What a loathesome bunch of men, those people who rejected taxes that were raised to defend the state. :laugh4:
It seems the ancient agreement is the same as all others... broken when it suits those in power, while those who are not are bound to it so much that they blind themselves to why they are.
Where the devil did I say anything about enslavement? All societies are agreements. If you are not willing to do your part, the government should not have to do its part. I am all for decentralization, but that by no means negates the necessity of the societal agreement--it should simply be on a smaller scale, more suited to its local culture.
Is conscription not enslavement by the State then? On your smaller scale would Eugene burn?
Edit: Biting the hand that feeds is all about perspective. From over here the USA has already done that once, and it was called rebellion.
Papewaio
03-13-2006, 05:07
Are you saying it's time for a new contract? If so, let's see a rebellion, instead of just biting the hand that feeds.
Not every country has been founded on rebellion or warfare.
That's the advantage of democracy, you get to rebel at the ballot box... in fact in Australia you get fined if you don't turn up at the ballot box on the day of voting... you don't have to vote, but the vast majority once there decide that they should, and a fair proportion of those decide that since they will vote once they turn up that they should have a grasp of who and why they will vote for someone.
Are you saying it's time for a new contract? If so, let's see a rebellion, instead of just biting the hand that feeds.
This just came to me, but isn't the nation, in the respects that you are speaking about, just a coincidence of the powerful and powerless? The societal agreement argument seems sound only when applied to more ancient nations; nations that were different from ours in many respects. For one, the culture, the will, the society of the aristocratic class WAS the nation. The aristocrats were the only TRUE people. Under these premises I can see the societal agreement being in effect, just as it would be in the VERY beginnings of a "state" as a small group of relatively equal people.
As for the draft question, I would of course comply, but I would have nothing to identify with (some of you were invoking "justice" here) regardless of whether the war was offensive or defensive, or whatever it may be... and this is I think, largely because of my main statement above. I have no doubt, also, that this "absence of things to identify with" in modernized nations negatively impacts the quality of our daily lives.
Tribesman
03-13-2006, 10:34
Being a citizen is a privaladge, not a right
Really , then what did you do to earn your privilige Capo ???? You got it by being born .
So with all the rubbish about cowards and selfish pigs . What a bunch of unthinking sheep who bleat without hesitation because some idiot in government tells them it is their duty to bleat .
The mentality of the herd .:no:
Tribesman
03-13-2006, 11:12
Herd? I bet you'd say that even if we could prove to you that we come to our "Mindless Patriotism" through a completely independant thought process, wouldn't you?
The option was "without hesitation" GC . That removes the thought process from the situation and is just a knee-jerk reaction based on pre-conception of what you are being asked to do .
They say jump , and you do without thinking if not jumping makes more sense .
You have an agreement with your politicians , and that agreement requires you to question them , not only at election time , but all the time and over everything .
It is selfish pigs (to use your phrase) who accept what their leaders tell them without questioning it and it is cowards who will follow them blindly .
Tribesman
03-13-2006, 11:28
I have already considered the situation at length and find absolutely no reason to hesitate.
So if your government sent you off to Gambia because Gambia had raised the price of peanut oil , there would be no reason to hesitate . Or the people of Paraguay had elected a leader that your government didn't like, there was no reason to hesitate as you have decided to follow your government , because .......well because they are your government and you have already chosen to follow blindly .
Tribesman
03-13-2006, 13:21
My statement applied specifically to a being drafted for defense of the homeland.
Two questions , why is your country being invaded , and why is the government implementing a draft ?
mystic brew
03-13-2006, 14:27
But what makes you think an average, run of the mill civilian knows what the hell is going on in government? What makes you think they could even begin to comprehend it?
A very very good point, that. so doesn't this make it doubly important for the average citizen not to blindly follow the executive?
In the revolutionary war we forwent the hand entirely. If we had decided to stay with you and then continue to cause trouble, it would have been biting the hand that feeds. Accepting the food, but giving the hand a bite on the way out.
Like I said, it is all about perspective. Anyway you failed to answer my questions. Oh, and I would prefer not to be bound by a "contract" based on "common sense" thanks. You wonder why people are arguing against you? Could it be that you are basing your decicision on a contract that only exists in your head and are somehow trying to tell others that it binds them too? I don't criticise you for having this belief, but it blinds you totally. Besides which dying in the dirt is the same whatever your ideals.
Goofball
03-13-2006, 18:05
I can't vote. There is no option to describe what I would do. It all depends on the war. If it was a war that I believed to be just, then I would do my duty to serve without hesitation. If it was a war that I believed to be unjust, then I would likewise do my duty and deny the immoral government that declared it the use of my services.
i'm outta there. even if the US is invaded, I'm still leaving. this is the only life i have, and i'm not throwing it away because someone else says i need to risk it.
remember folks, "Now I want you to remember that no ******* ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb ******* die for his country." - Gen. Patton.There you have it folks. The liberal mindset at work. He even managed to take a Patton quote out of context.
"Liberal mindset at work?"
Really?
I am arguably one of the most "liberal" members of the Org (at least by American standards), and I volunteered to put life and limb at risk and serve in my country's army. So I guess you're wrong on that one, aren't you?
I also notice you went on to throw around words like "coward" in some subsequent posts.
What have you ever done that gives you the right to call anybody a coward? Sure, you talk a pretty good game about "serving without hesitation," but until your money has been where your mouth says you'd be, maybe you should back off on the rhetoric a bit, eh?
Tachikaze
03-13-2006, 18:54
But what makes you think an average, run of the mill civilian knows what the hell is going on in government? What makes you think they could even begin to comprehend it?
In that case, I guess we should trash the whole idea of democracy.
I can't vote. There is no option to describe what I would do. It all depends on the war. If it was a war that I believed to be just, then I would do my duty to serve without hesitation. If it was a war that I believed to be unjust, then I would likewise do my duty and deny the immoral government that declared it the use of my services.
I would agree with you, but the simple fact often isn't so clear.
You could have an immoral government, perhaps even one that started the dman war, but you could at the same time have the enemy willing to waste the civilian lives of all those who agreed as well as those who opposed the immoral government.
So would you then serve to protect against that?
See, morality comes in different sizes and compositions.
Goofball
03-13-2006, 19:21
I can't vote. There is no option to describe what I would do. It all depends on the war. If it was a war that I believed to be just, then I would do my duty to serve without hesitation. If it was a war that I believed to be unjust, then I would likewise do my duty and deny the immoral government that declared it the use of my services.
I would agree with you, but the simple fact often isn't so clear.
You could have an immoral government, perhaps even one that started the dman war, but you could at the same time have the enemy willing to waste the civilian lives of all those who agreed as well as those who opposed the immoral government.
So would you then serve to protect against that?
See, morality comes in different sizes and compositions.
I didn't say my choice would depend on the government. I said my choice would depend on the war.
For example, I believe the Bush administration to have acted immorally on a number of issues. But were I an American and a foreign enemy invaded and that same Bush administration drafted me, then I would willingly serve because the war itself was just, even if the government was a bunch of crooks and lowlifes.
Make sense?
Tribesman
03-13-2006, 22:49
It's not, it was a hypothetical.
Yeah and hypothetically why is your country being invaded ?
And more importantly why is there a draft , surely the only reason there would have to be a draft is if the government was so crap that no one wanted to support it voluntarily .
Come on , you said you had considered the situation.... I have already considered the situation at length and find absolutely no reason to hesitate.
.....So what length of consideration did you actually give it ?
It appears the amount of consideration amounts to ..."err ....yeah ok I'll go with that " :no:
You could have an immoral government, perhaps even one that started the dman war, but you could at the same time have the enemy willing to waste the civilian lives of all those who agreed as well as those who opposed the immoral government.
There you go . Kraxis has added another consideration to be taken into account before people make their descision "without hesitation" .:2thumbsup:
Papewaio
03-14-2006, 01:19
You're making my point for me. Democracy is an especially elaborate system of contracts and agreements. If someone doesn't want to be drafted, they ought to vote for someone who's going to change the law.
Nope, something as major as a draft comming in to law should be decided by referendum. And failing that it should be a major platform of the party before it gets voted in... no "Oh we just got voted in and didn't decide to inform you, but here is the draft".
Sasaki Kojiro
03-14-2006, 02:18
It's in law right now. If it's such a problem, people can do something about it now before it has to be used in the future. I don't see a problem here. :inquisitive:
Democracy doesn't work that well. Your view of it is idealistic.
Tribesman
03-14-2006, 03:01
Once again, when your homeland is being invaded you don't defend it for the sake of the government, but for your fellow citizens.
Why is your homeland getting invaded GC and what are your fellow citizens doing ? Surely they would be flooding to volunteer .
And rather clearly there would have to be a draft
Really , why ? Going by the results in this poll :laugh4: there would be enough volunteers without hesitation that you would not only beat the invasion you could take over the whole world .
Or is it that despite all the bravado and bullshit about cowards and selfish pigs these fine upstanding patriotic citizens might actually have some hesitations when it really comes down to it ?:inquisitive:
Perhaps a point that has not been raised, yet. But what exactly is the use of a draft?
Sure you get to field a lot of manpower, but the military infrastructure would likely be straining to keep up, if able to keep up at all. Keep in mind, your armed force would probably increase to ten times it's current number. Can logistics support ten times as much required food, clothing, and other necessities?
Second, let's look at the quality of the draft. We've got a lot of people, variously motivated (depending on situation), who all need to be equipped and armed. As an additional problem, most of these people don't know the safe end from the boom end of a gun, so they have to be trained. Now, in war time, you would perhaps, get a week's training, and then get shipped off to wherever the war is.
So, all in all, a draft produces lightly armed, unarmored, if sligthly motivated infantry force, in very large numbers. In modern warfare, infantry is mostly useless without support. Additionally what is to prevent the enemy from simply opening a couple of canisters of mustard gas (of course, there's more efficent stuff these days) and slaughtering all these little lambs ... after all, he has smaller numbers of highly motivated, well-trained, professional, well-equipped and armored soldiers, gas-masks come standard. And if our enemy has feelings of morality and refuses to use chemical weaponry (as per Geneva convention) ... then he still has a pretty big advantage, in experienced leadership, veteran soldiers and superior equipment.
A draft is pointless.
Banquo's Ghost
03-14-2006, 08:08
A draft is pointless.
You make some good points, with which I agree. Particularly in the suggested situation of an invasion, where there would probably be no time for training.
Once again, when your homeland is being invaded you don't defend it for the sake of the government, but for your fellow citizens. And rather clearly there would have to be a draft, as some in this thread have said that they would flee the draft even in this scenario.
I am playing devil's advocate here, GC, because I tend to agree with your basic viewpoint, though I believe the without hesitation element is becoming a red herring.
What if your government is a repressive, unrepresentative one? If the invasion is one of liberation, do you still fight it? Do you defend your homeland whatever the leadership, as a matter of patriotism, on behalf of your fellow citizens?
If so, does this help explain some of the Iraqi insurgency?
Keba: good points, but isn't the all-volunteer American Army, to use an over-used media phrase, "over-extended" in manpower as it is? Use of great masses of infantry against a single enemy is, true, not likely (due to the increased lethality of weapons perhaps?), but you must know that America even now has so many areas of "interest" across the world. IF America had been at war with another sizeable nation simultaneously with the war against Iraq, wouldn't there have necessarily been a draft? I'm not commenting upon the likelihood of that happening, just showing that the threshold for a draft is not inconceivably distant. And, no offense to anyone here... all who serve in the military have my respect, but all the reservists and national guard units couldn't have been THAT highly trained. So I think your generalizations are rather weak.
"Additionally what is to prevent the enemy from simply opening a couple of canisters of mustard gas (of course, there's more efficent stuff these days) and slaughtering all these little lambs ... after all, he has smaller numbers of highly motivated, well-trained, professional, well-equipped and armored soldiers, gas-masks come standard. And if our enemy has feelings of morality and refuses to use chemical weaponry (as per Geneva convention) ... then he still has a pretty big advantage, in experienced leadership, veteran soldiers and superior equipment."
This is not fair. Who exactly is this enemy you are talking about? The composition and disposition :laugh4: of the American Army, in a certain respect, shifts to reflect its environment. Why should you in your argument invent weapons, advantages, and superior weapons systems matchups for an enemy but not for the "protagonist"? There is no doubt in my mind that IF ever a draft, arising from militarily appropriate needs, would be instituted by the US, the (lightly trained) troops would be used appropriately.
"Sure you get to field a lot of manpower, but the military infrastructure would likely be straining to keep up, if able to keep up at all. Keep in mind, your armed force would probably increase to ten times it's current number. Can logistics support ten times as much required food, clothing, and other necessities?"
Hell yes. IF a draft of the giant proportion that you suppose here occurred, then we must be in a situation of total war. In that case, yes they would be supported at great expense to the best of the state's abilities within proportionate economic bounds. They would eat like college students and use credit.
Samurai Waki
03-14-2006, 09:03
I would like to point out that the US Army National Guard and Reservist Forces are well trained and capable of going into Combat. I know that when many National Guard Forces went to Iraq the Full Time Soldiers were critical of them because well, they weren't full time Army soldiers and didn't train as much as them. But after a year, the National Guard Units actually had gained the respect of the full-time troops, and in some combat scenarios exceeded them.
Take Iraq for example, Fort McHenry is a little base located outside of Baghdad, originally used by Iraqi Military Forces and converted into an American Base. The US Army didn't want the base, it was small, far away from key strategic points, had terrible facilities, and was bombarded more than any other base in the region, so when the USANG came into Iraq to alleviate the full time soldiers, they designated them that base. Within the year the Army National Guard Soldiers were there, they managed to almost completely eliminate all Mortar Bombardments around the base within 6 months, had almost complete respect from the citizens around the base, had fewer road-side bomb attacks than any other base in the region, and the number of random shootings had went way down since their arrival. Wether it was because the Iraqis realized there were better targets elsewhere, or that their tactics were truelly working remains unknown.
However, the soldiers at Fort McHenry only showered once per 4 months, had recieved rotten food from supply trucks, had almost no modern equipment (such as lap-top computers, satellite phones, and cell phones), had a hole in the ground they called a bathroom, and yet exceeded every US Army Regular Battalion in the area in Combat Situations...
Kind of makes you wonder.
Zalmoxis
03-14-2006, 09:08
Honestly, this does not cover situations where the draftee is neither a native of the country or a citizen of it. In those cases, of course the individual would have a choice.
This is not fair. Who exactly is this enemy you are talking about? The composition and disposition :laugh4: of the American Army, in a certain respect, shifts to reflect its environment. Why should you in your argument invent weapons, advantages, and superior weapons systems matchups for an enemy but not for the "protagonist"? There is no doubt in my mind that IF ever a draft, arising from militarily appropriate needs, would be instituted by the US, the (lightly trained) troops would be used appropriately.
I am not using the US as an example, merely two theoretical states of similar technological levels, manpower, and economical might (if you want real-world examples, let's say, US and EU?). This meaning, the country that pulled up the draft is likely losing ...
Also, I suspect that the goverment sometimes has no choice as to where to send the drafted soldiers ... Stalingrad come to mind in this respect. Drafted soldiers being thrown at an experienced and prepared enemy. The Guards division sent in first had 95% or more casualties (and those guys were motivated).
It is likely that professional soldiers and fully equipped divisions are present, but if they alone were able to handle the enemy ... then there wouldn't be a draft.
Banquo's Ghost
03-14-2006, 09:28
There is no such thing as Liberation by means of Occupation. Liberation has to come from the oppressed, or it is meaningless. That is one of the biggest reasons I am critical of the Iraq war.
Excellent and consistent answer, and one that I am in complete agreement with.
:2thumbsup:
"I am not using the US as an example, merely two theoretical states of similar technological levels, manpower, and economical might (if you want real-world examples, let's say, US and EU?). This meaning, the country that pulled up the draft is likely losing ..."
Ok, so you play out one of the least likely scenarios of all scenarios that would require a draft, and use this to assert that a draft is pointless? :inquisitive:
"Also, I suspect that the goverment sometimes has no choice as to where to send the drafted soldiers ... Stalingrad come to mind in this respect. Drafted soldiers being thrown at an experienced and prepared enemy. The Guards division sent in first had 95% or more casualties (and those guys were motivated)."
Yes, but I was sure it was safe to assume that we are talking in the realm of fully modernized nations. For nations that are 50 to 100 years behind, at a Stalingrad-ish level of sophistication, then by all means you are right... but: "if you want real-world examples, let's say, US and EU?)." :inquisitive:
"It is likely that professional soldiers and fully equipped divisions are present, but if they alone were able to handle the enemy ... then there wouldn't be a draft."
The army doesn't need manpower to "handle the enemy". They need manpower to "complete the objectives". Just because they don't have enough volunteers to complete the OBJECTIVES in general doesn't mean they are in a losing situation, which renders null your point that a draft is pointless. For example, logistics and garrisoning are two areas that must be filled to complete the likely objectives. Drafted soldiers could easily take on this responsibility, and a government COULD have forsight of this. Another example is patrolling and sweeping for terrorists. Finding or at least disabling the terrorists is the objective, and you could need more manpower for the entire operation without being in danger of being overwhelmed by a superior combat force that will wipe away your draftees.
Ironside
03-14-2006, 10:10
I am not using the US as an example, merely two theoretical states of similar technological levels, manpower, and economical might (if you want real-world examples, let's say, US and EU?). This meaning, the country that pulled up the draft is likely losing ...
Actually they're probably winning due to massive superior numbers and an abillity to replace losses that overceeds the opponent considerbly.
Simply put, if you lose 3:1 and has gotten 10:1 in numbers you're still winning. And the when the well-trained falls, he cannot be replaced until atleast a year, while the draftie is replaced with the next troop-transport. And who will run the new tanks coming from the fabric, when the production tripled?
Sure inflating the troops numbers will likely reduce the production capacity, but with war-time economy and relativly undamaged industry, it's not lack of equipment but lack of troops that is the limiting factor for the military strength.
As for countries that already have draft as plan in case of war, logistics is planned for, equipment is planned for, everyone have already gotten training (the reserves needs probably to repeat the training but that is quicker than training from the beginning).
Also do not forgetthat the draftees that survive the first battles are now hardened, and much less likely to die next time. They will quickly rise to be equals of the professionals. Sure it will be costly to get them there, but it will happen.
Also, we are in fact dealing with two different types of drafts.
There is the draft that everybody here talks about. The draft where men a pulled for wartime service right away.
But there is also the draft where people are taught to be soldiers, then sent home to be ready in times of war. I'm one of those. I'm trained, not like a professional, nor have I picked up a weapon since my tour of duty (though I can get called up for training at any time, and I have 2 weeks notice unless of a war), but it would come back to me rather fast. I and my companions would not be some sort of grey mass of untrained infantry. We wouldn't be the equals of professionals either of course. But the point is that there are hundreds of thousands of these quite fair troops who are both motivated and trained.
Divinus Arma
03-15-2006, 08:13
Weren't the Americans fighting their nation ... the British Empire over paying taxes. And the Americans of the day had a fairly prosperous standard of living.
The founding fathers had lots of benefits and decided to rebel and set up a nation to avoid taxes...So by your statement the founding fathers of the USA were selfish pigs who claimed no reponsibility to the nation that set up their benefits. What a loathesome bunch of men, those people who rejected taxes that were raised to defend the state. :laugh4:
Actually Pape, with all due respect, I think you might as well concede your lack of knowledge on this one.
The American Revolutionary War was a war of ideals; One ideal wherein all men are equal and that birthrights yields no favors, the other ideal comprised of noblemen and the masses. Parliamentary representation, percieved abuses of the British Soveriegn against the colonies, taxation, and other administrative affairs all played a part, this is true. However, these administrative squabbles were not the prnciple originator of the conflict. The priniciple ideal that spurred the American leaders to pursue a course of self government was the lack of social equality with the Mother Island.
American colonists were quite proud of their British heritage and felt a deep loyalty their. Acts of British Parliament and of the mercantile class in trading slowly revealed the sense of superiority that the British Islanders felt over the American Colonials. This divide grew into a chasm, where, even up onto the moment, peace was sought. It was upon hearing of Monarch's wishes to destory the uprising long before a declaration of independance was considered that actually prompted this very declaration.
As an example of this growing divide in cultural perceptions, consider the trading practices pre-war. The Americans were feverish for the latest trends and fashions of Europe, but especially of London. Unfortunately due to the time in travel, Americans were always just a tad behind the times. Furthermore, many Americans began to feel greater pressure from British Trading Companies, of which the American's had little ability to choose from. Many of the American leaders fell deeply into debt because of these one-sided trade monopolies, and naturally grew resentful of the British Trade companies. Now in reflection, you and I may argue that the Americans should have simply ceased buying from these trade companies. Well, unfortunately, these same trade companies were also responsible for selling American goods abroad. The exchange should have been mutually effectual, but it only served the growing power of the trade companies. Furthermore, should the American colonials decide to "cut back" on household expenses for British incidentals, the result would have been a furthering in the cultural divide between the Island and her colonies.
The Americans also lacked nobility status. Of course Nobility existed in the colonies, such as General Lord Sterling, the only American Officer to Claim Title, but these men were not seen as the equal of British Nobility of the Island. Try as they might with the gains of wealth, the Americans could not seem to curry favor of equality. And this, more than any tax or administrative detail, drove them to anger. George Washington was named "His Excellency" as unofficial title by the men and officers of the time, a title meant specifically to mock "His Majesty" across the Atlantic. Washington himself the beneficiary of customary English deference, soon decried it after coming to the realization that he would never be the equal in the eyes of the proper English.
And so with this, a cultural divide based on inequality in social status, not of wealth or taxes, but of perceived potential for equality with others, the American colonies revolted against the safety and security of the most powerful empire on the face of the Earth.
The legacy of that cultural divide rests in Americans today. It is a part of the national consciousness and explains our fervent, if not impulsive, pleas for liberty and equality across the world. True to this end, our politics today are dominated on how best to ensure that equality.
I hope this clears up any confusion that you may have about the American Revolution.
Papewaio
03-15-2006, 08:42
I was using GC's definitions and applying them to the case of American Independence.
I fully expect the founding fathers wanting to have social equality for themselves considering their individual wealth levels.
Unfortunately the idea that American seeks equality for all doesn't go far on historical data.
If it was true then surely it should have outpaced the British Empire in outlawing slavery.
That Wilson at the end of WWI would have treated the colonials of the British Empire with equal rights to US rather then as non-entities.
That the US would have intervened against Facism a little bit quicker in WWII.
That the US would not have helped a coup against a democratically elected leader.
That the treatment of African-Americans would have reached parity [in law at least] far sooner.
Also America's own colonial phase seems to debase the idea that they were seeking equality for all.
That American has been a force for equality may have more to do with its economic prosperity then any moral choice of the people. As displayed in the Civil War when given the choice of equality and lack of prosperity the South rebeled. This is a very human choice, and a lot of hatred is fermented when economies go down (Post WWI Germany, South Americans under despots with spiraling inflation, hate crimes in France in poor neighbourhoods).
As the US economy slows down I fully expect to see more hatred of (illegal) immigrants and 'other' ethnic groups. Same thing happens in virtually every country...
Divinus Arma
03-15-2006, 09:35
If it was true then surely it should have outpaced the British Empire in outlawing slavery.
It is a component of American History that regional alliances were sometimes preceived as grater than national alliances. This concept, too, is predicated on the notion of equality, as ironic (heh) as that is. The Southern States felt a similar sense of being "overlorded" by the North long long before the civil war. Virginians despised Enw Englanders. New Englanders disliked Pensyllvanians, etc. Slavery was such a critical issue that George Washington recongized as the one divisive issue that could kill the American Democrac in the cradle. The choice of Washington and leaders of a similar mindset, was to allow slavery to exist with the object being to abolish it at a later time. There were more pressing concerns until the Civil War. The existance of the state was no one where near the secure. The preservation of the union was of the highest import, and so the festering evil lingered.
Would we have acted then against slavery, our fragile confederation would have become fragmented and fought itself perhaps shortly after the revolution. This divisiveness would have been far too tempting for the British to avoid, and the eventual second war with Britain would have occurred far faster. Further, the desire for security may have led some states (New York, being a notable example) to re-ally with the british, perhaps reversing the entire outsome of the revolution.
No. As unfortunate as the burden will always be, 'twas better to have held the evil within than to have secured a national suicide so early in infancy.
That Wilson at the end of WWI would have treated the colonials of the British Empire with equal rights to US rather then as non-entities.
I think it is important to note that strategic perspectives of the time dictated a specific course of action. Wilson was a major driving force behind the league of nations, even though he was eventually cut from under.
That the US would have intervened against Facism a little bit quicker in WWII.
A product of WWI was U.S. reluctance to intervene abroad. Similar global anger at U.S. actions in Iraq have forced us to hand the lead on Iran to Europe. Sadly, Europe has no stomach for confrontation. What shall we do Pape? Clearly, you damn us for interveving when we see it best and you damn us for failing to act soon enough. Same for the world over. Europe waits until it is too late and then begs for help from the United States, all the while cursing us for both reasons. Ridiculous.
That the US would not have helped a coup against a democratically elected leader.
And tell me- what shall we do with the democratically elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or the democratically elected Hamas? Shall we support Israel? No? We should not intervene? But then it will be too late and we will fall into your ethical trap all over again. Our leaders have decided to take strategic action as they deem best and world opinion be damned. You will hate our power either way and criticize our actions in any case. So I say we will do what we want towards the ends we desire through the means we see fit.
That the treatment of African-Americans would have reached parity [in law at least] far sooner.
This is the product of the long standing racism that came with the length of slavery in the U.S. A shame, I agree, but an unfortunate fact. That racism still persists in the south should then be of no surprise.
Also America's own colonial phase seems to debase the idea that they were seeking equality for all.
Colonial phase? What colonial phase? Are you talking about hawaii, the phillipines, guam, and other minor startegic decisions? The colonial phase of the pre-industrial power was based on resource exploitation as well as strategic import. The U.S. has never been a colonial power, conquering regions for the sole purpose of resource exploitation.
That American has been a force for equality may have more to do with its economic prosperity then any moral choice of the people. As displayed in the Civil War when given the choice of equality and lack of prosperity the South rebeled.
I will not disagree that the Slavery was an injustice, but again you lack the facts on this situation. Most Southerns rebeled for similar reasons that America rebeled against Great Britain. The South felt that the North was imposing its moral will against them. Many Southern also agreed with abolishments, but said little because they would be taken by their neighbors as traitorous to the cause. Lee himself had striong feelings against slavery, but felt it was his duty to protect his family and community against an invasion. The South were comprised of true American patriots, not the villains that our history books have made them out to be. These were Americans fighting for their rights, their liberty, and their community. They felt that they were the real America, and that they had been abandoned by the North. The emancipation proclamation was not even issued until after the war had begun and been in force. Your choice is flawed. The South chose social equality with the North over economic prosperity. During the rebellion, the South hardly "prospered" as you put it. Lee and Jefferson Davis knew that the confederacy would face tremendous economic hardship right from the outset. And indeed they suffered. But not for economic power over slaves. They fought for their dignity, communities, and sense of equal social perception against the industrialized and arrogant North. True, slavery was abhorent, and Washington's prediction came true.
This is a very human choice, and a lot of hatred is fermented when economies go down (Post WWI Germany, South Americans under despots with spiraling inflation, hate crimes in France in poor neighbourhoods).
The rise of the Nazis also had to do with National identity and equality. The depression and the impositions following WWI were too much to bare.
I do agree, economic hardship is very deeply tied to community self perception. The poor man often does not ask "why am I poor?" Instead he will ask "Why is he rich"? And then he will greedily hunger after the wealth of another man rather than taking action to stimulate his own wealth through his own means. So it is with the power of socialism.
As the US economy slows down I fully expect to see more hatred of (illegal) immigrants and 'other' ethnic groups. Same thing happens in virtually every country...
You know nothing about the illegal immigrantion problems in the United States. You are completely clueless and have not lived it and breathed it here. You do not see what it does to our communities. The socialists outside of America scream about the unjust favor towards the wealthy. Illegal Immigration depresses wages for regular citizens further by forcing them to compete with illegals who pay no taxes and will work for have as much. You do not see the gangs that originate from these poverty stricken communities that refuse to assimilate into our culture and adopt our language.
If you want to open a thread about Illegal immigration, fine. Let me just say this here and now. Don't you dare acuse me or any other anti-illegal immigrant activist of being a racist. We are white, black, mexican, and asian. The color of one's skin determines nothing in this. They could be white europeans for all I care. The problem is strictly socio-economic. Give me 500,000 uneducated englishmen every year and I would be just as pissed. Australians, French, Japanese... National origin is nothing.
:breathe: :avoid illegal immigrant tirade:
Man I was close to really getting riled up there. In sum, you don't have squat to say about it because you don't live it.
I wouldn't go. I don't have a problem with fighting or dying, I just don't want to wear a white hat.
mystic brew
03-15-2006, 12:03
or a red shirt
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/STObsession.jpg
Tribesman
03-15-2006, 19:18
In sum, you don't have squat to say about it because you don't live it.
oh dear , Divinus has lost it entirely .
In your wish to rant about illegals and how anyone who doesn't think exactly like you do doesn't know anything and could never have experienced anything , you seem to forget to take Pape's location into account .
So Pape , any race riots lately ? I see your government finally gor rid of most of the illegals and overstays from the Olympics , but they are replaced by more illegals and overstays as usual , the detention and deportation camps are packed to capacity , big expansions going on in that sector , the offshore is a novel idea isn't it .~;)
Oh I forgot , you don't have squat to say about it because ...because ...well because you are not Divinus :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Divinus Arma
03-15-2006, 20:32
In sum, you don't have squat to say about it because you don't live it.
oh dear , Divinus has lost it entirely .
In your wish to rant about illegals and how anyone who doesn't think exactly like you do doesn't know anything and could never have experienced anything , you seem to forget to take Pape's location into account .
So Pape , any race riots lately ? I see your government finally gor rid of most of the illegals and overstays from the Olympics , but they are replaced by more illegals and overstays as usual , the detention and deportation camps are packed to capacity , big expansions going on in that sector , the offshore is a novel idea isn't it .~;)
Oh I forgot , you don't have squat to say about it because ...because ...well because you are not Divinus :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
har har my republican american hating friend.
Comparing Australia with no shared land border, to the U.S. with an open border shared with mexico is no comparison at all.
As I have said before, if I lived in el mexico, I would flee to el norte as well. I do not fault the immigrants, though I despise their effects.
Your comments are cul de sacs, inspiring no real debate and meant only to flame. If you would like to share in an understanding of the problem, and join in coming to an understanding, you would appear to be more than the anger and miserable person you are. I am sorry that you must wake up and feel such hate every day.
Why don't we discuss the matter as adults, and perhaps you may see the problem through my eyes. And likewise, perhaps I shall see our problem through your eyes. Then maybe we can learn a bit about each other's unique opinions on the matter and join in coming to a solution that is fair to both Americans and immigrants. :2thumbsup:
Papewaio
03-16-2006, 01:05
So Pape , any race riots lately ? I see your government finally gor rid of most of the illegals and overstays from the Olympics , but they are replaced by more illegals and overstays as usual , the detention and deportation camps are packed to capacity , big expansions going on in that sector , the offshore is a novel idea isn't it .~;)
Oh I forgot , you don't have squat to say about it because ...because ...well because you are not Divinus :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Shhh don't mention that a quarter of the Australian population was born overseas. :laugh4:
Or the ethnic tensions between groups... which btw are probably worse at the soccer matches then at the beach.... :no:
Or that
Among a total of 51,000 people who had overstayed their visas at June 2004, 5,500 were from the UK :no:
Plus straight out illegal immigration that didn't even go through a visa process. :no:
Or that we send SAS to board ships that make illegal entry into our seas. Sometimes it is for North Korean Drugs sometimes it is for Norwegian ferried immigrants. :sweatdrop:
Or the massive detention centers in the desert or shipped off to other countries. :shame:
Or the immigration department sending Australian citizens to foreign countries because they believed they were illegal immigrants. :shame:
Nope we have no immigration issues. Period.
Nor do I ever wind up fellow patrons. Ever.
Yeah, I'm tempted to side with Pape on this one. Australia does have a lot of problems with immigration.
Mystic Brew, that's also a good point.
Tribesman
03-16-2006, 02:17
Nope we have no immigration issues. Period.
Yeah I know , that is why two of my cousins work at Woomera:laugh4:
And some of my friends have been detained there before deportation :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Nor do I ever wind up fellow patrons. Ever.
Me neither .That would be too easy ~;)
Originally posted by Tribesman
So Pape , any race riots lately ? I see your government finally gor rid of most of the illegals and overstays from the Olympics , but they are replaced by more illegals and overstays as usual , the detention and deportation camps are packed to capacity , big expansions going on in that sector , the offshore is a novel idea isn't it .
Oh I forgot , you don't have squat to say about it because ...because ...well because you are not Divinus
Lets not mention the race riots you were having for weeks a couple months ago, bravo. Australlia really takes the moral high ground there. So please feel free to preach down to us from your pedistal.
So might I ask what is wrong with holding someone who has broken a law in your country? Is there suddenly some international law forbiding you to invoke your countries sovriegn right to enforce its laws? I'd like to ask why your friend was detained in the first place? He obviously broke some law, but I see your not mentioning that. Australia also doesnt have a land border with a country that see's illegal immigration as a viable economy for their country either. Illegal immigrants are of corse kicked out, they must come here legally, now thats just a no brainer, happens in every country you go to.
Also since many of you seem to see it neccesary to state when your country got rid of slaves. I see fight to pose a question to those from the UK. When did you get rid of the poor houses? Those in my book qualify as slavery. You worked for money, but you also had to pay food, board and many other things. Often there'd be a negative net gain in money, which qualifies to me as slavery. I'll define my use of the word, slavery to me is forced labor working for no pay. Yall that state the U.S.A. took the longest to get rid of slavery should note that our founding fathers prefered to leave that decision to the states to decide. Many of the northern states banned slavery soon after the constition was ratified.
Tribesman
03-16-2006, 19:04
Lets not mention the race riots ~:doh:
Oh no I would never mention them . Neither would Pape :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I'd like to ask why your friend was detained in the first place? He obviously broke some law, but I see your not mentioning that.
Hey Tex , that detention facility only deals with one thing , so by mentioning it makes it is patently obvious ~:doh:
So might I ask what is wrong with holding someone who has broken a law in your country? Is there suddenly some international law forbiding you to invoke your countries sovriegn right to enforce its laws?
Errrrrr....what are you on about ?~:confused:
Are you having a little difficulty understanding the post you quoted ?
Divinus Arma
03-16-2006, 23:14
Hey, I'm not saying that Australia has NO immigration issues.
I'm saying that Australia has no immigration issues when compared against the U.S.
oh dear, 51,000 over stayed their visas. Golly gee shucky darn.
Wanna trade 'em for the 500,000 illegals that entered our country last year? And the 500,000+ that will enter this year?
Please. Don't make me laugh. Or cry.
mystic brew
03-17-2006, 00:00
australia has, what, 20 million people, and estimates of 55000 illegals...
and the US has population of 280 million, and according to censes of 2000, "Census 2000 results indicate that there between 8 and 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States in 2000." call it 10 for convenience?
so...
the ratio of illegal aliens in the USA is 28-1
and...
the ratio of illegal aliens in Australia is 2000-5.5
:dizzy2:
wow.
that's a serious difference there. I think Divinus might have a point about the size of the problem!
Divinus Arma
03-17-2006, 01:19
Not to mention the children of illegal immigrants.
remember, children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. are given citizenship and are thus entitled to welfare and foodstamps.
The benefit received by each dirt-birth baby is something like $600 cash plus another $200 in food stamps, IIRC.
And catholic culture forbids birth control, so guess what?
MUY MUY MUY MUCHO NINOS E NINAS.
:no:
Papewaio
03-17-2006, 01:47
The 55,000 is for one year and they are purely the visa violations... so that would be what 14* 55,000 = 770,000 (adjusted to USA size) just for those who used a visa.
Not to mention those who get in via other means... illegal immigration via boats where neighbouring countries smugglers get $10,000's per illegal immigrant they smuggler... so that adds to the 55k via visas.
We're just a lot quicker on deporting them out... mind you even if you violate your visa in Aus and are barred from entering again for x number of years... you can come back in before then if you successfully apply for residency :dizzy2:
Sure we have a smaller level of problem, but you are the mightest country in the world with a huge statement saying give us your poor... we on the other hand say ****-*** we only want your rich and skilled. :laugh4:
Your wealth is a lamp to the moths. I suggest you use your talents to figure out how to extract the silk...
Major Robert Dump
03-17-2006, 04:50
I would fight, but only if it were a war on high prices.
Tribesman
03-17-2006, 09:52
And catholic culture forbids birth control, so guess what?
So it wouldn't be such a problem if they followed a different faith ????
Oh dear divinus , are you sure you want to go down that road ?:inquisitive:
remember, children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. are given citizenship and are thus entitled to welfare and foodstamps.
Wow can people become citizens because of where they are living , I thought that would make you really happy , think of all these litte ones being the future draftees for your government when it declares war :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Divinus Arma
03-17-2006, 16:00
And catholic culture forbids birth control, so guess what?
So it wouldn't be such a problem if they followed a different faith ????
Oh dear divinus , are you sure you want to go down that road ?:inquisitive:
Bro, you gotta be kidding. I was making an observation that their religion indirectly contributes to the problem. Go down what road? :inquisitive: What hell are you rambling on about?
[/quote] remember, children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. are given citizenship and are thus entitled to welfare and foodstamps.
Wow can people become citizens because of where they are living , I thought that would make you really happy , think of all these litte ones being the future draftees for your government when it declares war :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:[/QUOTE]
I'm gald we have a hateflamer like you here to make the rest of us look good in comparison. Why do you hate America? What did America ever do to the Irish? Aside from allow millions to emigrate here under LEGAL immigration. The Irish were assimilated into our culture.
These illegal immigrants refuse.
As I said in another thread, the answer is to EXPAND opportunities for legal immigration while simultaneously cracking down on employers and border security. In this way we can assimilate them into our culture and allow them to financially contribute to the infrastructure that supports them. This is fair to both the existing citizenry and those wishing to be naturalized.
Goofball
03-17-2006, 21:06
Why do you hate America?
The same reason he hates freedom.
:balloon2:
Tribesman
03-18-2006, 10:47
Why do you hate America?
Aw that is just so lame Divinus , is that the best you can come up with ? Are you really that lacking in comprehension ?
I was making an observation that their religion indirectly contributes to the problem.
So which religeon would you prefer them to follow ? Immigrants religeon is irrelevant but you wish to observe that it is a problem .:inquisitive:
Aside from allow millions to emigrate here under LEGAL immigration. Just as many emigrate as illegals .Your government is in talks with my government about what to do with all those illegals at the moment .
On another note , look at the temporary work permits , a frigging disaster , take up on those visas has plummeted in the past couple of years .
One of your politicians last year (can't remeber which one at the moment) said that it was a sign of "anti-American" feeling , what paranoid claptrap , the new paperwork is just too much grief for both the applicants and the employers , the same amount of people are going over , but now they don't bother with the paperwork .
The Irish were assimilated into our culture.
What culture ? It is a culture mainly of immigrants .
It contains aspects of all the different cultures that make up America .
Did you notice any festivities yesterday ? Does that mean the immigrants have failed to intergrate into the culture , or that the culture has integrated the immigrants culture .
These illegal immigrants refuse
Really ? how ?
Do they live in neighbourhoods of people with similar backrounds , do they go to schools in the district which as they are in the neighbourhood contain children of similar heritage , do they frequent bars where the clientelle are just like themselves , do they visit restaurants that serve food just like back home , do they celebrate their festivals just like they were back in their old country ?
How exactly are these illegals refusing to intergrate , they are doing exactly the same as the legal immigrants . In fact they are doing exactly the same as those citizens whose families emmigratred generations ago .
Yes illegals are a big problem , but you are throwing out more red herrings then I care to count . If you wish to discuss the problem then stick with the issue of illegals , drop all the mindless rubbish about integration and culture .
Divinus Arma
03-18-2006, 21:29
First of all, thank you for a response with real dialogue. I find comments like these below to be productive to both sides. Perhaps we can both learn something, and even if you do not, perhaps I can.
Why do you hate America?
Aw that is just so lame Divinus , is that the best you can come up with ? Are you really that lacking in comprehension ?
I just wanted a real discussion, rather than flaming. And now, with your comments below, we can do just that.:2thumbsup:
I was making an observation that their religion indirectly contributes to the problem.
So which religeon would you prefer them to follow ? Immigrants religeon is irrelevant but you wish to observe that it is a problem .:inquisitive:
Tribesman, would you say that Islam, as a religion, is not a component of Islamic terrorism? Certainly Islam is misinterpreted by extremists, and that is the problem. I mention this because it is just an easy way to point out that religion can contribute to a problem.
I have no issue with catholicism. There is no religion that I would "prefer them to follow". I just recognize that a lack of birth control contributes towards economic disparity in relation to the rest of the natural population. Lots of kids + no education = poverty. So, it is the amount of children that I see as a hardship for society, not the religion. Is that fair?
Aside from allow millions to emigrate here under LEGAL immigration. Just as many emigrate as illegals .Your government is in talks with my government about what to do with all those illegals at the moment .
You are saying that many Americans illegally immigrate into Ireland? They should be punished and deported back to America.
On another note , look at the temporary work permits , a frigging disaster , take up on those visas has plummeted in the past couple of years .
One of your politicians last year (can't remeber which one at the moment) said that it was a sign of "anti-American" feeling , what paranoid claptrap , the new paperwork is just too much grief for both the applicants and the employers , the same amount of people are going over , but now they don't bother with the paperwork .
I agree this is a real problem. But I think I have offered a viable solution. Namely: criminalize employment of illegal immigrants while expanding opportunities for naturalization. This will dry up the demand for illegal workers and provide an incentive for immigrants to go through the proper channels. If immigrants view the legal process as their best opportunity for employment and benefits, than they will go through the legal process.
The Irish were assimilated into our culture.
What culture ? It is a culture mainly of immigrants .
It contains aspects of all the different cultures that make up America .
Did you notice any festivities yesterday ? Does that mean the immigrants have failed to intergrate into the culture , or that the culture has integrated the immigrants culture .
Agreed. America is "a melting pot". And I am aware of the past injustices to the Irish. Irish heritage is very close to my family. My father-in-law is full Irish. My great grandfather was Irish. My point is this: assimilation is a societal and individual phenomenon. Society adapts to the immigrants and the immigrants adapt to their new society.
Were you aware that a Mexican language TV station had changed a billboard from "Los Angeles, California" to "Los Angeles, California Mexico!"
Or that there is a large movement to reclaim the South West U.S. for Mexico?
These illegal immigrants refuse
Really ? how ?
Do they live in neighbourhoods of people with similar backrounds , do they go to schools in the district which as they are in the neighbourhood contain children of similar heritage , do they frequent bars where the clientelle are just like themselves , do they visit restaurants that serve food just like back home , do they celebrate their festivals just like they were back in their old country ?
How exactly are these illegals refusing to intergrate , they are doing exactly the same as the legal immigrants . In fact they are doing exactly the same as those citizens whose families emmigratred generations ago .
One of the biggest problems is language. They refuse to learn the english language. Go into any store in So.Cal and you see everything in two languages. Our teachers are required to teach ESL in high school because the children still do not speak english. There IS a problem. Is it the main problem? No. It is a symptom. But it still annoys the piss out of me.
Yes illegals are a big problem.
That is my whole point. Why couldn't you just start off with this instead of assuming that I am an ethnocentric nationalistic a-hole. (Even though I kind of am, but that's not really my point. ~D )
Strike For The South
03-18-2006, 22:40
When This guy becomes my govener our illegals shall quake [img=https://img145.imageshack.us/img145/8417/kinkyfriedman49ul.th.jpg] (https://img145.imageshack.us/my.php?image=kinkyfriedman49ul.jpg) quake I say. I feel with DA. In my town half of the bliiborads are in Spainish and many dont even bother to learn English becuase in nearly every store or building someone will speaka el esponal. It makes me sick.
Reenk Roink
03-18-2006, 23:17
Geez Div..."dirt babies"
That's incredibly rude...
Oh, and by the way, the Irish were treated like **** when they were coming in droves...
Tribesman
03-19-2006, 02:03
In my town half of the bliiborads are in Spainish and many dont even bother to learn English becuase in nearly every store or building someone will speaka el esponal. It makes me sick.
SFTS , you live in an area were they have been speaking Spanish for longer than they have been speaking English , so perhaps instead of complaining that it makes you sick you should learn the local lingo ~;)
Or that there is a large movement to reclaim the South West U.S. for Mexico?
Really , you mean that some people want to reclaim the land that they lost ?
What a strange idea , I have never heard of anything like that before .:shrug:
But hey , it could be a solution to the problem , if the land went back to Mexico then all the illegal mexican immigrant wouldn't be illegal immigrants anymore would they .
Were you aware that a Mexican language TV station had changed a billboard from "Los Angeles, California" to "Los Angeles, California Mexico!"
Well perhaps you could start a campaign to change the name of L.A. ,
it does seem to have a slightly Spanish sound to it .
Strike For The South
03-19-2006, 02:35
tribesman you silly goose Texas utterly destryoed Mexico in the war for Texan indpendence. We set up the goverment as an english speaking republic on Washington on the brazos. Now that dosent me you cant speak spanish or that we hate mexicans just learn some english and dont hop my damn border:smile:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.