you know you don't live in a great country when there are talks of a draft...

even during WW2 some Americans didnt want to fight for their country, because of religion or afraid to kill.

Originally posted by Rasputin13
The only people that are talking of a draft is the Liberal fear-mongers who want to scare everyone into voting for them, giving up support for the Republicans, and backing the acts of our Administration in the War on Terror.

It's a sad day for the Democratic party when they must resort to scaring youngsters with the "D" word, and telling retirees and the elderly that Bush is going to take away their Social Security benefits. Of course anyone with an IQ over 85 doesn't believe either one of those things. And the rest are Democratic voters!

I have an IQ of 140 and I'm a Republican and I see a draft on the horizion;
of course it will be called something like "Freedom Corps" Also I don't think the administrations social security reform is viable. It's just a handout to the wall street fat cats.

Just because I'm a Republican dosen't mean I have to turn off my critical thinking and join in lock step with the conservative propaganda machine.
Just as John McCain said; "All hat, no cattle" By the way I'm much more of a John McCain style of Republican than a Carl Rove style. I really find it offensive when you make broad generalizations about Repubilicans!

[edit on 13-6-2005 by whaaa]

Originally posted by they see ALL
here me out...

you know you don't live in a great country when there are talks of a draft...

i think this because, if we (the USA) need a draft, then this means that nobody wants to fight for their country, so they force people to fight...

it makes sense...

if america is so great, then why isn't there millions in the armed forces fighting for this great land???

why do we need a draft if people love this land???

answer: we don't...

You are a fool. Many people ARE fighting for this country and protecting your rear end! What, are you too good to fight??

Originally posted by antelope

The truth of the matter is that a small percentage of the country will volunteer to fight for the country at any time for any reason. Many more will volunteer in time of need. The vast majority however would not fight unless forced regardless of circumstances. The majority of those that would not volunteer to join however tend to have no problem sending the volunteers to fight.

The basis of voluntering though is if you volunteer to go. Why would those that didn't wish to go care one way or the other? That is what freedom is about my friend. If someone wanted to go, and a band of hippies came and stopped them from going then we would be talking the same thing.

I generallyt agree with the rest of the quote, although I would think many more would be willing to go in a time of need. I pride myself on being a oeacefull man, but if my country called for a legitimate war, and they didn't lie leading up to it I would be more than willing to make those sacrifaces for the Maple leaf - I wouldn't think less of others that wouldn't though - because I beleive in chioce, freedom and everything that made our countries great. To turn your back on those ideals, even when the majority deems it needed, only shows that those ideal's were never real.

As Ghandi said, There are many issues worth dying for, but there is no issue worth killing for.

I would, but I am not as advanced as Ghandi was apparently.

There is an element of truth to your assertion, but it really is more complex than that. A draft has been necessary in much more popular wars, although the idea of a popular war might have gone the way of the fixed running board.

It would be better if a draft were not necessary, but for as long as there are the willing, the less willing will find other things to do. Personally, I think that the nation has suffered because of the "professional military." A nation needs a population of those who have the shared experience of military service.

It is harder on the miliary to have the less than willing in it's ranks, but the nation as a whole is benefitted by those who serve their time and go on about their lives. Sometimes, it takes years for an individual to come to appreciate his military service, but nearly everyone who serves comes to view that time fondly as an asset and those who share this experience share an imcomperable bond that benefits everyone, not just themselves.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
There is an element of truth to your assertion, but it really is more complex than that. A draft has been necessary in much more popular wars, although the idea of a popular war might have gone the way of the fixed running board.

- True, but in alll wars is it not the poor and downtrodden that go to the lines, and the richer get the comfier places. I am not sure what you can do about that other than everyone being growing up and moving past violence, but that isn't a realistic, IMO, expectation for anytime soon. I also think it is intentionally put that way too though. What can I say I am a conspiracy nut!

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

It would be better if a draft were not necessary, but for as long as there are the willing, the less willing will find other things to do. Personally, I think that the nation has suffered because of the "professional military." A nation needs a population of those who have the shared experience of military service.

- OK, first, I agree with your second contention. I think that a shared military experience is better for the whole, as was being mentioned earlier. That said though, I still fail to see how because there are those that are willing to go off and fight for whatever reason, that requires others to do the same? Especially when the reasons for such a conflict are as nebulus as this conflict. In an overall sense, IMO, I think that every man and women should have military training, and that a military is always stronger with a good civilian back up - however, this is assumed that both the military and the civilian back up are going to be used responsibily and at any point if the civilians feel they aren't they still have the freedom to walk away.

My point is that as long as there are those who go willingly, there are those who say, well I'm not needed, so no one will be hurt if I go to college, join a fraternity, and drink myself to death.

However, the military has demands to meet and when the willing are not enough, then the rest need incentive. Very many, who knowing that the draft is inevitable, or at least, probable, will join willingly, so as to have more choices than are generally accorded to draftees. If there were enough of the willing, the not-so-willing would be immaterial.

[edit on 05/6/13 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by Passer By
As Ghandi said, There are many issues worth dying for, but there is no issue worth killing for.

I would, but I am not as advanced as Ghandi was apparently.

Gandi had the luxury of fighting an opponent that could be shamed because in the end the democratic British government and the people that elected it did have a moral compass. If Gandhi was a Jew in Germany in 1942 we would have never heard of him.

I think I understand your point, but and I mean absolutely no offense at all, your aren't looking at the larger picture. You say that as long as some are willing to volunteer, others will find something else to do. Is that not allowed?

You second points clarifies this that it isn't when the Military needs more. OK - but why does the military need more, and is there something there that says things can be changed so that people don't have to be forced to kill.

In other words, as long as the military is not being used responsibly, there will always bee a need for more soldiers, the same way if your credit isn't used responsibly you will always be in debt. Something concepts are universial, despite what the powers that be tell the masses. IMO.

Maybe I am reading your post wrong though.. if so my sincerest apologies.

Originally posted by antelope

Originally posted by Passer By
As Ghandi said, There are many issues worth dying for, but there is no issue worth killing for.

I would, but I am not as advanced as Ghandi was apparently.

Gandi had the luxury of fighting an opponent that could be shamed because in the end the democratic British government and the people that elected it did have a moral compass. If Gandhi was a Jew in Germany in 1942 we would have never heard of him.

There is probably some truth to that, yet I think Ghandi would have still behaved the same. yet there are those that would call him, or others that act like him, "cowards". Strange world indeed.

How you act shouldn't rely on what others are doing - if you are doing that then you will always be reacting and not be in control, merely responding to what others throw in your way. By living a life true to your beleif's, whatever that is, your free yourself from the BS that intraps so many people under the guise of blind patriotism.

Also, I would point out that the British didn't have enough prisons or such to deal with all those that would "break laws" by doing thier right, so therefore as any one knows an uninforcable law is no law. Same thing here happened more or less with Cannibus - that is why we have this freedom and America doesn't.

Originally posted by Passer By
- True, but in alll wars is it not the poor and downtrodden that go to the lines, and the richer get the comfier places. I am not sure what you can do about that other than everyone being growing up and moving past violence, but that isn't a realistic, IMO, expectation for anytime soon. I also think it is intentionally put that way too though. What can I say I am a conspiracy nut!

This is hardly true historically. Throughout most of human history societal leadership and kingship itself depended on those of highest birth serving the nation or tribe in combat. The entire concept of nobles in feudal Europe was to a large part predicated on the belief that the peasants needed to support an aristocracy of knights who's very status depended on their willingness to train and arm themselves to defend the realm. When a nation lost a war it was the military aristocracy not the land tilling peasant that suffered most as the nobles were DEAD.

Throughout American history prior to Vietnam the cream of society went off to war and those that didn't were looked down upon. Look no further than the wealthy Kennedys and Bush family of World War II.

Our disconnect between the wealthy and the military starts in Vietnam where first the liberal turned against the war but could not end it since most Americans supported the war. Then the liberal started rigging the system so at least their children would not participate. Those who grew up with those values instil this in their children today. Rather than admitting they rigged the system to shirk their duty they claim all was for a higher good. The children today believe it rather than see the bankruptcy of their parents and mimic their voices when there is even a hint they may get the call.

Today's selective service law if implemented would not spare the wealthy children. This is not about who will fight but about whether we fight at all. As an economist by education I can say this: If you offer to pay people enough you will get your volunteers. If you don't want to pay them enough then everyone takes their chances in a lottery to make up the difference. This debate is really about the fact that those who want to continue the war can't decide whether they want to reduce their standard of living to pay the cost of volunteers under the current economic situation or whether they want to take their chances that someone elses kid will pull the load instead of their own. Since most people are basically selfish, aren't of draft age, and don't really think their children will be drafted by the time they grow up don't want to pay the military more and are setting the situation up for a draft.

I hope we don't end up needing a draft but I wouldn't be so quick to proclaim I'm a coward and say I would run away if I was a liberal.

Originally posted by evanfitz
I believe their are 11 million Illegal aliens in this country at this very moment (Gotta love Lou Dobbs).

People who are classified as "poor" in the US usually have a car or more, a house, television set and maybe even a computer. I think many Immigrants who flock toward to the United States mainly find it a great place to live. Considering the fact that where the richest nation in the world.

I think you'll find those illegal aliens generally aren't the ones bragging about being rich; I realise this isn't an immigration thread though, so it's really probably moot.

Many do think the US is a better option - and to many, of course it is! But as someone said earlier....to many, many immigrants (asylum seekers in particular), the US is just one of several "possibles" - I think the phrase used was "lesser of two evils". Migration to the US certainly doesn't imply undying (pardon the unintended pun) loyalty....or indeed, a willingness to fight on it's behalf.

The subject at hand talks about reinstating a draft. What form does this draft take? Would it mean a mandatory period of either military activity or other mandatory community service, such as in Finland (6 months generally, 13 months if you choose community service instead of military)?

Denmark carries a mandatory requirement of 3 months.
Greece carries a 12 month mandatory requirement.
Germany has mandatory 9 month requirements.

The general consensus (from natives of these countries to whom I'm either related, or with whom I've shared copius correspondence) is that these obligations are a positive and not a negative aspect of life; it tends to teach responsibility - both personal and social - and a sense of community and maturity that's not often found in schools and colleges.

So maybe the question might be - if such a draft were to take the form of community service instead of military (as a choice, that is), would people be more inclined to support the notion?

Obviously, a draft doesn't have to mean "everyone will be forced to fight!". Maybe that should be defined, first?

Originally posted by Passer By
There is probably some truth to that, yet I think Ghandi would have still behaved the same. yet there are those that would call him, or others that act like him, "cowards". Strange world indeed.

Those who ran off to Canada during the Vietnam War were cowards. Those who stayed, refused to go, and faced the penalties for refusal subject to U.S. law were brave as were those that served.

For a long time conscientious objectors were allowed to serve in medical roles and not carry a gun. I would support such rules.

The liberal takes half my taxes to serve his causes. As such I am slave to his ideals for the time it takes me to earn that money. The draft is the same thing. This is a democracy but we can't pick and choose the laws we wish to disobey unless we are willing to live with the consequences.

Antelope, I don't those that are not going to go to war are doing so because of politics - they are doing so because they have something against war/killing/being killed whatever - but it isn't because they don't like the government.

I think most people will always be for war that they don't see, or rather not for it, indifferent. When the view from Vietnam become clear, and the bodies started arriving home for all to see then the complexion of the war changed because the abstract(freedom, war, glory) became concrete(death, body bags, dead sons) and as it mounted less support. I don't think this is piticularily debatable subject, but to your point, that the media got involved....

What you are suggesting is a dark or secert war(Which I don't know if that can exist anymore with the net, but I digres) and that IMO is trouble.

If you are willing to do something then you should be willing to do it in the light of day, if not, then that should tell you you shouldn't be doing it at all.

Just some wisdom my granddad told me once.

For a long time conscientious objectors were allowed to serve in medical roles and not carry a gun. I would support such rules.

There were also those who were told they would be in a noncombative, medical role - and who ended up carrying a gun and in the front lines, all the same.

This is perhaps why giving people a choice between military and non-military service (albeit compulsory - you must pick one) might work a little better. That way everyone is supporting their community and their nation...if such is mandated.

Not that I think mandating such a thing is necessarily good - but at least if is going to happen, give people a choice in what role they'd prefer to take.

Originally posted by antelope

Originally posted by Passer By
There is probably some truth to that, yet I think Ghandi would have still behaved the same. yet there are those that would call him, or others that act like him, "cowards". Strange world indeed.

Those who ran off to Canada during the Vietnam War were cowards. Those who stayed, refused to go, and faced the penalties for refusal subject to U.S. law were brave as were those that served.

For a long time conscientious objectors were allowed to serve in medical roles and not carry a gun. I would support such rules.

The liberal takes half my taxes to serve his causes. As such I am slave to his ideals for the time it takes me to earn that money. The draft is the same thing. This is a democracy but we can't pick and choose the laws we wish to disobey unless we are willing to live with the consequences.

I disagree with your thoughts that they are cowards, I would call them heros more, but whatever.

The rest of your post I think is very valid. That said though, you are not being asked to do anything you could morally be damaging. I agree it is a tick off to think that some decision made no where near you will take your money. That is hard, but in the end it is just money and not life. This, I think, is the difference.

Although, very true you can't pick and chose. Maybe if the Americans chose to stay in Canada? WOuld you see that as being a coward? moving to a country that is more humantarian? At least in this instance?

So, kids aren't signing up because they don't feel it is a just war? Bah! They haven't a clue what is just and what is not. Where would they get such a notion, huh? Well, maybe from their teachers, sure. Academia has been a haven for liberal cowardliness for a few decades, now. Nothing has changed. When I was in school 1982 H.S. grad), there were teachers who thought that a strong America in the Cold War was asking for a nuclear holocaust. My guidance counsellor went as far as to tell me that one day I'd see the light and realize that communism was the way to go! Obviously, the liberal B.S. proved to be wrong.

Well, maybe it is because they realize that the global elites are using the U.S. military to shape the Middle East into a more cooperative bunch of folks, more apt to tolerate the anti-Christ, or the NWO. Nah, they haven't a clue; these kids aren't any smarter than my generation. Dumber, probably, as they've had more Right Speak and Right Thought training than I ever did.

Nah, I would imagine it is as simple as the whole concept of getting killed that seems to be bothering them. It isn't that they don't see it as unjust, they just don't see it worth dying for. After all, if you get right down to it, even the WTC buildings affected very few people directly, right? If there's another attack, how many can they hit. Odds are, little Johnny is safer in Bezerkley, learning how to burn a flag and spit on the Bible, right?

Yeah, that free education after the end of your hitch doesn't seem all that free, now!

Draft that's rediculous, there isn't going to be any draft.

At least until the next Government sponsored terrorist attack against America, that is. Then we're all screwed.

I love my country, but am not about to volunteer to go kill somebody so George Bushes friends can get richer. When you kill, you incur a Karmic debt that must be paid to a higher authority than George Bush. When you are asked why you killed one of God's creations saying "I was following orders" is not gonna cut it.

We still live in a great country, it's just that some idiot has stolen the Presidency and is using it for his personal gain.

Make the draft effect only those who earn more than a million dollars a year and it will disappear immediately.

Originally posted by groingrinder

I love my country, but am not about to volunteer to go kill somebody so George Bushes friends can get richer. When you kill, you incur a Karmic debt that must be paid to a higher authority than George Bush. When you are asked why you killed one of God's creations saying "I was following orders" is not gonna cut it.

We still live in a great country, it's just that some idiot has stolen the Presidency and is using it for his personal gain.

Thats kinda how I see. I am not against fighting for ones country, in fact I DO see it as a duty, but I owe blind allegance to no one and I will fight for my own reasons(love of country, honour, respect, glory, evil intentions, because I like to blow stuff up, whatever).

To do it to help some fat cat. Sorry, I have more incomman with the guy shooting back at me in all probablity than either of us have with those that sent us off to die.

I wish I could find that quote from a nazu dude. Said soemthing to the effect that no one wants to die, least of all the poor who after engaging in hell on earth have nothing but their miserable working lives to come back too. That is why those in power must create this fear to make the poorer people fight their wars.

Or as George Carlin says "Just don't show up. When wars have to be waged by the guys that start them wars will stop. As long as they send the poor out there to die, there is no incentive for the powers that be to change.