Will there be a draft anytime soon?

[AzurePhoenix]

But these are the little sacrifices we have to take.

I just find it difficult to categorize this sort of thing with "little sacrifices." which is odd considering how little regard for human life I otherwise have... peculiar.

 

I highly doubt that those soldiers are willing to risk their lives and to LOSE their families over sum stupid war.

And they made a choice, regardless of anything else.

 

They are just like us -- not wanting to fight. Plus, soldiers won't last forever.

Bring an actual battle to the american homefront and I think you'll likely find more potential-soldiers willing to join than we have today. Of course, that's one of my rare flashes of optimism. The juice thing was a mild would-be-world-dominator joke. Not to be taken seriously.

 

We need action now. We need to take immediate action to prevent any attack on our safety and welfare.

And I say don't waste resources that could come very much in handy saving our asses over something that just might pose a threat. I don't like the way those Canadians look at us and hide behind their precious trees...

 

That's good to know. But it won't help you if your'e not gonna fight in a war anyway.

The inherit sexism still stings

[Jim]

I want to qualify my vote. If American loses a city to terrorism, there will be such a change in this country that it is impossible to predict. We'll have a national ID card and the ACLU will pine for the good ol' days of the Patriot Act. The resulting military commitment could well require a draft.

 

I'm fairly optimistic within a five year time frame due to (i) the reduction of the risk of terrorism against the US from within Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, (ii) the implementation of several sensible programs such as the NSA terrorist surveillance program which take advantage of our technological advantage, and, (iii) the paradigm strategic shift to (a) disrupt terrorism at its source instead of merely playing defense and (b) treat the fight as a war and not an issue of criminal justice.

 

On a longer term basis my vote would depend on the trajectory of predominantly Islamic countries . If Islamic cultures come to embrace a separation of church and state along with other democratic values, I think the situation will moderate. OTOH, if countries with predominantly Islamic populations do not secularize, we are in for a rough ride. I believe the wisdom of our founders will be proven true and conflict will inevitably result.

[Mokele]

Sure it's wrong to take citizens off to kill against their own will; but if citizens won't fight WHO WILL? WHO will preserve our safety? WHO will help to preserve the rights and prerogatives that are dictated in our constitution? WHO is willing to do all this?

 

Nobody, as it should be. If the citizens aren't willing to fight for the country, then maybe that country shouldn't be at all.

 

We need action now. We need to take immediate action to prevent any attack on our safety and welfare.

 

And that requires a draft how, exactly? The fact that I can even ask that question seriously is the problem: if it's a war over survival, with another country attacking us, a draft would likely be unnecessary. But to expect people to accept being drafted for a war whose initial justification was tenuous at the very best is ridiculous. There's a difference between sacrifice to save one's country, and sacrifice to save the oil companies' bottom line.

 

Mokele

[Karnage]

Ok im gonna start backwards.

The inherit sexism still stings

First of all, spelling. INHERENT not inherit. Second: It's not like I haven't seen your expression of sexism ("so-called men":confused: ).

 

And they made a choice, regardless of anything else.

 

SO now you're saying that ok troops chose that so who cares? You're saying that they chose that so it don't matter if they lose their families? But I thought you had concern for ordinary people being drafted against their own will. You might not think this makes any sense, but the "take-home" message of this is that whether its soldiers or citizens, IT doesn't make a difference. Whether or not they chose to fight or not doesnt make a difference. This is because they have the same dispositions: they don't want to lose their families. They dont want to lose their lives. And the soldiers, i bet, probably didnt have a choice in being int he army if you know what i mean. So basically, they're on the same page.

[Jim]

Nobody' date=' as it should be. If the citizens aren't willing to fight for the country, then maybe that country shouldn't be at all.

 

 

 

And that requires a draft how, exactly? The fact that I can even ask that question seriously is the problem: if it's a war over survival, with another country attacking us, a draft would likely be unnecessary. But to expect people to accept being drafted for a war whose initial justification was tenuous at the very best is ridiculous. There's a difference between sacrifice to save one's country, and sacrifice to save the oil companies' bottom line.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

I actually thought the recent call for a draft by some dems was highly cynical. They have to know that the all volunteer force is much more effective.

[Karnage]

OK now im arguing against two people. But no matter, I'll hold my ground.

 

Nobody, as it should be. If the citizens aren't willing to fight for the country, then maybe that country shouldn't be at all.

 

NO offense, but that is the most contradicting statement I have ever read. Not only does it contradict America as a country, but you are contradicting yourself (I may only be wrong if you don't live in America). You live in a country that has provided for you, has allowed you to own a computer that enabled you to even access this site. It has protected you and this is what you think? Reconsider your statement.

 

And that requires a draft how, exactly? The fact that I can even ask that question seriously is the problem: if it's a war over survival, with another country attacking us, a draft would likely be unnecessary. But to expect people to accept being drafted for a war whose initial justification was tenuous at the very best is ridiculous. There's a difference between sacrifice to save one's country, and sacrifice to save the oil companies' bottom line.

 

How does a war require a draft? Well, in order to stabilize Iraq, you gotta put people over there. DOH. What other alternative do you suggest? Bombing the entire area to get rid of them?

[AzurePhoenix]

First of all, spelling. INHERENT not inherit. Second: It's not like I haven't seen your expression of sexism ("so-called men":confused: ).

Thank you

 

So basically, they're on the same page.

I couldn't diagree more. I see a major difference in being taken from your home against your will to be sacrificed by your country, compared to signing up, full well knowing that you could die, sacrificing yourself, whether for something you believe in or only think you do. I live in the details, and when it comes down to those, the two groups couldn't be any more different.

 

How does a war require a draft? Well, in order to stabilize Iraq, you gotta put people over there. DOH. What other alternative do you suggest? Bombing the entire area to get rid of them?

Or let them do themselves in, or piss off some neighbor who'd be happy to do the dirty. Or wait till they actually do something worth us getting involved in. And if it's truly worth it, I don't think you'll have any shortage of volunteers.

[Mokele]

NO offense, but that is the most contradicting statement I have ever read. Not only does it contradict America as a country, but you are contradicting yourself (I may only be wrong if you don't live in America). You live in a country that has provided for you, has allowed you to own a computer that enabled you to even access this site. It has protected you and this is what you think? Reconsider your statement.

 

How is it in any way contradictory? If the citizens are either too dissatisfied or just plain lazy to be motivated to preserve the country, why should the country be preserved? It's clearly failed as an institution, so why prop it up? Why not give another country (who can evidently muster enough support to invade) a chance to rule?

 

What I'm saying is that the willingness of the citizens to defend their country is, in my eyes, a metric of that country's performance. In that context, a draft is the equivalent of cheating on the test. A country whose survival is *genuinely* threatened, and which has governed effectively enough that the citizens *genuinely* care shouldn't *need* a draft.

 

How does a war require a draft? Well, in order to stabilize Iraq, you gotta put people over there. DOH. What other alternative do you suggest? Bombing the entire area to get rid of them?

 

Strawman: I did not say that. I expressed skepticism towards your proclamation that "we need to take immediate action to safeguard blah blah blah", indicating that I believe our safety as a country is *not* seriously threatened, hence why so many are unwilling to enlist for our current war. Read my damn post, and cut the strawman arguements.

 

Mokele

[AzurePhoenix]

NO offense, but that is the most contradicting statement I have ever read. Not only does it contradict America as a country, but you are contradicting yourself (I may only be wrong if you don't live in America). You live in a country that has provided for you, has allowed you to own a computer that enabled you to even access this site. It has protected you and this is what you think? Reconsider your statement.

Maybe the people really are stupid for thinking what tehy do, but I think it still makes perfect sense. If it's so worth fighting for, they'll fight? And if it is just simply that they're too arrogant or foolish to know better, then maybe they'll regret it when society collapses around them. Learn to better appreciate the next country

[Karnage]

I couldn't diagree more. I see a major difference in being taken from your home against your will to be sacrificed by your country, compared to signing up, full well knowing that you could die, sacrificing yourself,[/i'] whether for something you believe in or only think you do. I live in the details, and when it comes down to those, the two groups couldn't be any more different.

 

It doesn't matter if you sign up knowing all the consequences. What does matter is whether you wanted to do it in the first place or not. I'm pretty darn sure 90% of those soldiers never wanted to be one. They most likely had no friggin choice but to sign up. When soldiers came to my school to encourage people to join the army, NOT ONE person even agreed. I mean, what's the difference between a soldier who didnt want to sign up for the army but he had becuase he had no choice, and a citizen who doesn't want to be drafted? Both are still against their own wills.

 

Or let them do themselves in, or piss off some neighbor who'd be happy to do the dirty. Or wait till they actually do something worth us getting involved in[/i']. And if it's truly worth it, I don't think you'll have any shortage of volunteers.

 

Yeap, we should just let those godam terrorists come and bomb the subway stations of new york city (btw these subway stations are filled and I regularly take them to college for classes) and let 4000 people die AND THEN we take action?? THEN it's worth getting involved? It's worth getting involved when we wait for the destruction of lives to occur?

[Karnage]

How is it in any way contradictory? If the citizens are either too dissatisfied or just plain lazy to be motivated to preserve the country' date=' why should the country be preserved? It's clearly failed as an institution, so why prop it up? Why not give another country (who can evidently muster enough support to invade) a chance to rule?

 

What I'm saying is that the willingness of the citizens to defend their country is, in my eyes, a metric of that country's performance. In that context, a draft is the equivalent of cheating on the test. A country whose survival is *genuinely* threatened, and which has governed effectively enough that the citizens *genuinely* care shouldn't *need* a draft.[/quote']

 

What is your point? You seem to NOT care about the draft not to protect the citizens but to let them die? And if you don't really care about our institution, why are you even arguing about a draft? you don't even care. You don't need to argue.

 

Strawman: I did not say that. I expressed skepticism towards your proclamation that "we need to take immediate action to safeguard blah blah blah", indicating that I believe our safety as a country is *not* seriously threatened, hence why so many are unwilling to enlist for our current war. Read my damn post, and cut the strawman arguements.

 

Strawman argument for a reason. You say that if our country is not "seriously threatened" then yadda yadda yadda we don't need to enlist . The reason i said this is because we CANT WAIT for our country ot be in danger. We gotta take wise action to forestall it. So what's the problem with that argument?

[Mokele]

I mean, what's the difference between a soldier who didnt want to sign up for the army but he had becuase he had no choice, and a citizen who doesn't want to be drafted? Both are still against their own wills.

 

Nobody has litterally no other choice. The other choices are just less desirable, especially with the signing bonuses and college tuition that the military offers. Still, if they *really* didn't want to go, even that would make no difference. A choice made for poor reasons is still a choice.

 

I do agree that it's a lamentable situation, but there is still a world of difference between a choice, however limited the alternatives, and no choice.

 

Yeap, we should just let those godam terrorists come and bomb the subway stations of new york city (btw these subway stations are filled and I regularly take them to college for classes) and let 4000 people die AND THEN we take action?? THEN it's worth getting involved? It's worth getting involved when we wait for the destruction of lives to occur?

 

And how exactly will this war prevent that? It certainly didn't prvent the bombings in Madrid and London.

 

Show me a course of action that actually will be *effective*, then I'll endorse it. So far, I'm not convinced the current course of military action has made a real difference in domestic terrorism vulnerability.

 

The reason i said this is because we CANT WAIT for our country ot be in danger. We gotta take wise action to forestall it. So what's the problem with that argument?

 

But you assume large-scale military intervention, requiring a draft, would be the action needed. I disagree; I think directing that effort towards the NSA, CIA, and FBI to make them more effective (without infringing upon civil liberties) would have a much greater impact. Wise action to forestall danger does not necessarily mean outright war.

 

What is your point? You seem to NOT care about the draft not to protect the citizens but to let them die? And if you don't really care about our institution, why are you even arguing about a draft? you don't even care. You don't need to argue.

 

Way to miss the point.

 

The point is not what I, personally, feel or do not feel. The point is that if the threat is real and dire, a draft will be unnecessary. If the country's citizens are so apathetic or mistreated that the only way to face a threat is to force them to fight, then the country is already so far in the crapper than winning will only prolong the time until it disintigrates.

 

Mokele

[Karnage]

Nobody has litterally no other choice. The other choices are just less desirable, especially with the signing bonuses and college tuition that the military offers. Still, if they *really* didn't want to go, even that would make no difference. A choice made for poor reasons is still a choice.

 

Indeed. Yet, it doesn't matter the choices (i don't know how many times im repeating this). What matters is the disposition. OK so what if the soldier chose to sign up for war? They still didnt want to join. They still didnt want to fight the war. They cannot be judged differently from citizens resisting a draft.

 

I do agree that it's a lamentable situation' date=' but there is still a world of difference between a choice, however limited the alternatives, and no choice. [/quote']

 

Yes, however, in this case, the disparities are quite close to each other

 

And how exactly will this war prevent that? It certainly didn't prvent the bombings in Madrid and London.

 

What can I say? You are only using one specific situation. Plus this situation happened last year. What about all the time in between now and the london bombings? Nothing major has truly occurred in that interim' date=' and maybe US intervention has influenced this. But then again, by basing your argument that our intervention in Iraq has had no effect because it didnt prevent the london bombing you fail to take into account that it's nearly impossible to guess the impact of our intervention. It may have occurred that another bombing would've occurred had we not taken some action. That we truly cannot predict.

 

Show me a course of action that actually will be *effective*, then I'll endorse it. So far, I'm not convinced the current course of military action has made a real difference in domestic terrorism vulnerability.

 

Like I stated in my first argument of this thread, I am not a debater, nor am i a politics guy. Infact, I am averse to politics. I am just a college kid who wishes to become a doctor and major in science. I cannot give you another course of action since I am not an expert. But we can certainly rely on those who have had experience int his, such as our president and COngress. And from them we can put our faith that they would make the right decision.

 

But you assume large-scale military intervention' date=' requiring a draft, would be the action needed. I disagree; I think directing that effort towards the NSA, CIA, and FBI to make them more effective (without infringing upon civil liberties) would have a much greater impact. Wise action to forestall danger does not necessarily mean outright war.[/quote']

 

No. Just because i mention a draft doesn't mean a full-blown large-scale military intervention. That would be war. And what is going on in Iraq is simply a conflict. I agree that we should not take that route; however, to be able to put enough troops (or drafted citizens) in the conflict, there is sufficient (in my opinion) action to keep our nation safe. I do not necessarily mean a large-scale war, and if I somehow stated that in some way (which i didn't) then i was wrong. Then again, this is kind of a strawman argument on your part by assuming that I meant a full-blown military action.

 

Way to miss the point.

 

The point is not what I' date=' personally, feel or do not feel. The point is that if the threat is real and dire, a draft will be unnecessary. If the country's citizens are so apathetic or mistreated that the only way to face a threat is to force them to fight, then the country is already so far in the crapper than winning will only prolong the time until it disintigrates.[/quote']

 

This i cannot argue. From your beliefs here, I do not think argument is necessary since it is quite askance from what I am trying to say.

[AzurePhoenix]

Indeed. Yet, it doesn't matter the choices (i don't know how many times im repeating this). What matters is the disposition. OK so what if the soldier chose to sign up for war? They still didnt want to join. They still didnt want to fight the war. They cannot be judged differently from citizens resisting a draft.

No matter how many times you repeat it, you'll never get through to a person who gives a damn about Free Will. I don't care if a thousand non-drafted soldiers die in battle. They chose to be there, in some way or form they wanted to be there, or at least they felt the need to be there, and clearly, whether they were looking forward to it or not, they were willing to die for what they felt was right. If they died, it might be sad, yeah, but it's okay, because it was their life to give freely. The fact is, it's clear that you hold no concern for the idea of Free Will, so we all might as well stop bringing up this line of argument entirely.

 

Nothing major has truly occurred in that interim, and maybe US intervention has influenced this. But then again, by basing your argument that our intervention in Iraq has had no effect because it didnt prevent the london bombing you fail to take into account that it's nearly impossible to guess the impact of our intervention. It may have occurred that another bombing would've occurred had we not taken some action. That we truly cannot predict.

Just as it's impossible to guess whether or not the war in iraq actually stopped anything (or even provoked/will provoke it). I'd say should be focusing on actually defending the homefront. Terrorist cells will always exist, they'll always toil and scheme, but if we're properly prepared for them, we'll be able to stop so many more terrorist acts then we do wasting resources trying to stamp them out. And anyway, do you really want a draftee being tasked with something ogf that magnitude?

 

But we can certainly rely on those who have had experience int his, such as our president and COngress. And from them we can put our faith that they would make the right decision.

I won't deny that most of them probably mean well, but I think it'd take quite a motherload of faith to remain faithful to them after the line of decisions we've had to deal with in recent years. Besides, faith's overrated. I prefer reason.

 

Just because i mention a draft doesn't mean a full-blown large-scale military intervention. That would be war. And what is going on in Iraq is simply a conflict. I agree that we should not take that route; however, to be able to put enough troops (or drafted citizens) in the conflict, there is sufficient (in my opinion) action to keep our nation safe. I do not necessarily mean a large-scale war, and if I somehow stated that in some way (which i didn't) then i was wrong. Then again, this is kind of a strawman argument on your part by assuming that I meant a full-blown military action.

Hold on, while I don't think it'd ever be justified, I do see the practical reasoning for a draft (setting aside all justice and morality) when it comes down to large scale war, but why on a rational earth should there be a draft for a small scale conflict? Seems to me that'd just bring the nation even lower in the eyes of it's people, certainly wouldn't seed patriotism, especially when there are sufficient people willing to put their lives on the line. How is living in constant fear of randomly being torn away from your life to feed the ever-present conflicts a good thing, for both the individual and the society itself? So are you seriously saying that a draft should be implemented generically? Whether for open war or minor incursions?

 

This i cannot argue. From your beliefs here, I do not think argument is necessary since it is quite askance from what I am trying to say.

No, it's what he's trying to say. This isn't about your thoughts and arguments, this is about the thoughts and arguments each of us raise, and it happens that he did raise it, and it's some of what he's trying to say. Anyway, when it comes down to the real threat, people will either fight or they won't. And if they don't want to, then obviously there's a reason for that. What good is a nation that none of it's people want to fight for? However, I do think that American citizens would fight. And plenty of them. It's a perfectly valid argument, why push it aside?

[Karnage]

Ok I think im just gonna close this argument with AzurePheonix and Mokele with a story. I hope this will show both of you why I am for the draft and why I would argue my point in the previous arguments.

 

On 9/11, I was 13 yrs old and with my uncle at the world trade center birthday shopping (my birthday is 9/11) at the huge mall there. My uncle actually was working there as a salesman, and he knew everything about the mall. Well, we got our stuff and my uncle had to stay for work, so I left the area and took the subway to a station 8 blocks away. And that's when I heard the crash. I never saw the planes come by, but I definitely heard the crash. The events that happened within the next 7 hours will always stick in my mind. So many mixed reactions -- people runnin towards the building to help or take a videos of the phenomena and others running away to avoid harm. I ran. Ran like hell. However, that day was so strange, and it seemed as if everything was rocked out of its routine. The chaos was unbelievable, and it took me a while to actually arrive home. It is with sadness, that my uncle couldn't make it out safely.

 

Since then, I have always held a great anger and hatred for those damn terrorists. You guys may be ignorant, and have not experienced what I have gone through. But from this event, I will always despise those rascals, and i will support any action to prevent anything like this happen again. They have tainted my life. Every godam year, I have to visit my beloved uncle's grave on my birthday. I have never celebrated my birthday since -- what's the point of celebrating when everyone around you is mourning. As you can see, I will support any action that could prevent this. We cannot just sit down and be on t he defensive. If they strike, more people's lives will be ruined. And I will not back down from my argument to allow this. Im done -- finished

[Sisyphus]

Well I suppose that's why decisions made from grief and bloodlust tend to turn out badly.

[Karnage]

Well I suppose that's why decisions made from grief and bloodlust tend to turn out badly.

 

You would most likely feel the same way as i do if you were in my position

[Mokele]

You would most likely feel the same way as i do if you were in my position

 

But that doesn't mean you're right, only that we're all human. Sympathizing with and understanding another viewpoint does not equate to agreeing with said viewpoint.

 

Mokele

[Karnage]

But that doesn't mean you're right' date=' only that we're all human. Sympathizing with and understanding another viewpoint does not equate to agreeing with said viewpoint.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

Of course it doesn't mean im right. THere is no right or wrong when it comes down to opinion. I am merely upholding this argument by providing a story to back up my views. I am not asking you to agree with me

[Sisyphus]

It's not "backing up" your views, it's an explanation of why you can't be objective. And it's completely understandable.