Originally posted by Phoenix
After reading many threads on ATS on many different issues I have seen many thread responses that lead me to believe there are many amongst us that
believe there is no reason good enough to go to war or if at all only after the continental US has suffered an attack.[\quote]
Okay, I'll bite. I've been pretty tongue-in cheek about the draft, and reasons to go to war lately. I'll roll out my opinions for this one.
1. Should we pre-empt if intell says risk is high that an attack on CONUS or a major interest is threatened. Or should we suffer an attack first
Well, we've seen already how horribly wrong intel can be. Its a very difficult call to make, but I suppose that we should figure out how to make our
intel more error-proof.
After all, it only takes one bit of mis-read text, one snippet of mis-translated conversation, one glimpse of mis-identified objects, and then people
start dying. I think human life should have a bit more of a safety net.
2. If a foreign country is developing WMD should we prevent that even with the use of military means or should we wait until such time as they use the
Why should we hold any other nation to a higher standard than ourselves and our allies. It sounds too much like being a bad parent. Everybody knows
that the 'Do as I say, not as I do' mentality is inherently flawed. What sort of examples are we setting for these countries, and how ludicrous do
we sound when we demand they disarm, or be the victim of our OWN WMDs?
I don't know. Again, this is a gray area, and its tough to make a call. I'd say that you need to be presented with evidence of the intent of
malicious use of said weapon. We don't need to worry about the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction with Libya, do we? I think we should
concentrate more on responsible ownership, than disarming. Much like my stance on guns in the US.
3. If a draft was needed to support our current needs preventing soldiers in theatre from being unsupported by sufficient manpower would you be in
opposition or favor of a draft - and why please.
I would be against it.
The draft would pose more of a moral question than anything else, and more than one at that. Firstly, would you be willing to field soldiers that
stand as much potential to harm your morale and manpower as the enemy's? If a soldier does not want to be on the front lines, it becomes apparent
very quickly. In this day and age, I don't think that it is a morally responsible thing to do, by sending kids who don't like to fight off to
Secondly, with our ever-growing fondness of our own personal rights, there is a mentality that Military service is nothing more than optional. I for
one feel that if I have no desire to fight in the military or otherwise, (Pacifist.
), then I should not be forced into it, regardless of what a
draft board may say. Just like here in America it is in most cases illegal for you to force someone to do something they don't want to do, it should
be in any other place we have our hands in.
4. If draft was imposed for future need would you support or oppose it and why.
No, and for all the same reasons as above, plus the following:
I want my children to have the right to choose, no matter what.
5. Do you think terrorists should be hunted down irrespective of borders.
Yes, and that is the ONLY thing that we should be concentrating on right now. Fighting conventional war against a man whom America had a grudge
against, when the real threat could be creeping along our borders as we speak is a woefully inefficient way to fight the 'War on Terror'
Good questions. You really gave my mind and fingers a chance for some exercise.
[edit on 11-21-2004 by Loki]