Theoretical Draft

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)

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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:

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghost908

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haruchai

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghost908

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:

Quote:

---

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.

yet more invasion-scenario-mongering. someone burn this strawman, please?

If the offensive war would benefit me, then by all means :yes:...

Otherwise :no:...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

: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:

I'd sign up. I'm no coward! :boxing:

i'd sign craterus up. he's no coward. dulce et decurum est, craterus! :knight:

Very similar to that famous EB post, Big_John

:laugh4:

I don't think Gelatinous read my post...

He didn't say a foreign army was invading us...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

: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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craterus

Very similar to that famous EB post, Big_John

:laugh4:

---

i try. :sweatdrop:

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*