*DAMN R6 Forum

I was wondering how you all felt about the return of the draft if it does happen. Do you think that people will just accept it and go fight or plead that their rights are being violated by being forced to go to war.

Haz, i'm not sure but i didn't think you where 18 yet so you proby don't have to much to worry about. I however am 18 and if i got drafted i would go. I like my country, i like having freedoms, and i like not being nuked by terrorists.  My grandfather was a captin in the US army WW2 and faught in France and Germany, he had quite a few confirmed kills, My dad was a Radio op in Veitnam. The army has helped my family a great deal, my grandfather who never graduated highschool had a good life and a career in the army. My dad came back from Vietnam, the GI bill paid for his College and Law school. Sure i would be scared shitless to be on a real battlefield (no drunken PDW dancing) but yes, i'd go. I'd guess that alot of you wouldn't go, and thats pretty ironic considering the games we play.

There's a difference between war games and real war. In real war you die. And I'm pretty sure most people don't want to die...at least not now when we're all so young. What's the point? Yes we'd be defending our freedom. But what is freedom? Are we truly free?

Supposing there is a draft, who would the government target first? 18-25 year old males? What about college/high school students?

  I don't really know and I don't really care. I'm not cool with the draft and all, but I know im pretty safe from it.

     It's kind of shortsighted, not to say ironic, to talk of "defending our freedoms" by going to war. Our freedoms are no longer in need of defense. They are in need of restoration. They have been forfeit almost since the 9/11 attack, and they have been taken away to (shameful, shameful!) the wholehearted cheers of the populace, interested only in "security."

     What's more, even if our freedoms HADN'T already been taken away by our own government (not through the actions of any malicious foreign power, that is), this laughable excuse for slaughter that the Bush administration has orchestrated would hardly "defend" them. This killing spree and the justifications for it are wholly imaginary, fabricated out of whole cloth by the gangrenously corrupt "leaders" of America. The American people are allowing their soldiers to be sent off to kill and die solely for greater oil profits for the administration's friends and family. This is aristocracy at its worst, where the high and mighty send the common folk off to die so that the rich can become richer at no cost to themselves.

Personally I'd do whatever I had to do to avoid the draft? since now they have apparently extended it to college students first, if we had a war in a year I think that I would be in the very top age group to go. I would go to Canada, Sweden, or whatever other country would give safe asylum to an American draft dodger? I like America, but short of a full-scale attack on us by another country, I don't think we have any reason to go to war. And even if that was the case, when it comes to those sorts of things I have to be honest? I value my own life more than anything else. So call me a coward if you will, but I'm anti-violence and I'm not interested in putting my own life at risk so I can follow someone else's orders to take away someone elses, someone else most likely would be just as innocent and powerless as myself in the whole situation. Helping America fight unjust wars designed to boost our economy and "The  AmericanWayoflife" is not what I call serving my country? more like serving other people's interests.

Agent, they draft people who are 18.

And this moron that brought up the "Well if we go to war w/ iraq we should get a draft!" is just using it as an excuse for not going to prevent going to war with iraq.

     I'm pretty sure that "they" can draft whomever they choose. Historically, it's been 18 year-olds, but there's nothing guaranteeing that it would be 18 year-olds this time.

Aculy guys there is a selected services and within like 2 years after you turn 18, you have to sign up, and if there ever a need for a draft, they alrdy got your names and stuff
 
and if you dont sign up its a federal offence so...

Two words sum this topic up for me: "I'd go."

If you guys aren't willing defend your country then fuck you, you don't deserve to live in it. (no offense intended although I know some will be taken) Death is a price we paid for this country in the past, and if needed to save our mothers, children, or senior citizens, I'd pay it (although I'd rather live through war)

Ben

Well as some of you know, I am going to the Russian Army when I get out of college. I think the draft is bad, but when you are called, you should go. What gives you the right to be fucking around in Canada or wherever while your peers are dieing. The reason I am not in the Russian army is because I am tring to get a degree so I enter in as an officer.

     You're missing the point, Ben. There's a world of difference between "defending your country" and "committing murder so that a few can get richer."

I know the difference Loth. But as soon as we go to war and the first troops are deployed you ARE defending your country. The first attack will be for the rich, they will counterattack. Then its defense. See the difference?

Ben

     Eh... once again, you're missing the point. Being on the defensive due to a counterattack to an unprovoked attack is hardly the same thing as defending your country against foreign aggressors. In the former case, it's our own damn fault. Bush and his cronies decided that they wanted to fabricate a war, and they are doing so. There's no reason for the public to buy into it, though, and certainly no reason to think that attacking a foreign country on their soil leads somehow to a noble defense of America.

Loth, we could have a very long debate about the motivation for this possible war, but I believe that belongs somewhere. I personally feel that it would be a worthwhile cause assuming that Saddam is found to be guilty of what he has been accused of: genocide, supporting terrorism, and making nuclear/biological/chemical weapons. If you wish to talk about that at greater lengths, you know where to find me or you can make another thread.

As for the issue of the draft, you can be damn sure I would go if I were drafted. I might even volunteer if a draft is instituted. My grandfather fought in WW2 and my uncle fought in Vietnam. I would follow their example of fighting for our country. Py brings up the point of not wanting to die young. By no means would I want to die over there, but I feel that serving our country is worth taking the associated risks.

BTW, if you guys want info on the draft, check out the Selective Service homepage (http://www.sss.gov) and this page (http://www.sss.gov/whhap.htm) in particular.

Think about it from the other side. Those people are ALSO fighting for their country. Also hundreds of people DON'T fight in war. Are you saying that they don't deserve to live in it?
Also they are FORCING people to fight. It's not like they have a choice to fight or not.


The first attack. That would mean that the other people are defending.
Personally, I don't really care, lotta more years till I can get drafted?

  I really don't want to go to a war, for enny reason or enny country. I think enny one who want's to go becouse they want to be a hero or becouse they think it'll be fun, is dead in my mind. I just had a friend who signed up, he think's it's going to be like a game or something, like SOCOM or RS, GhR. He really want's to be like one of the carecter's in "Band of Brother's" I think hes a idiot, and a moron.
   I really don't know what I'm trying to say. My mom lost a brother In Vietnam, he was drafted becouse of what date his birthday was on.
   You would think that enough ppl would of signed up that they dont need to draft, after all the BS that Bush and the rest been saying.

   Wallie~

Firstly, I think they should really wait until the UN inspectors are ready to determine whether a war is necessary or not. I mean if they don't find any traces or evidence at all showing that they would have any weapons of mass destruction, why invade? For the security of the US? Iraq is in the middle east, they most certainly do not have ICBM's, the US is on the other side of the world. How could they be worried about them being attacked? Drafting for a war where the US is the clear aggressor like this, that's just silly.
Anyway, I'm going to join the Swedish army when I get out of gymnasium here, I'd gladly fight for my country but I don't think I'll be doing any real combat since I live in a peaceful country without any enemies at all, I'm really just doing it for the experience.

Hazard, great thread

Now...
I feel the draft is important and needed, I just like Jeb would die fight (and yes) die for my country.  I love the old USA and its quarks, but i agree with Py...how much freedom do we really have?  We live in a surrounding were we can supposidly have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness" o wait now a days its "the pursuit of undeserved money."

The country has lost its soul meaning of why it was created, we fought against the influence of Great Britian and its oppression.  Now with leaders like George Bush, we do the very things we fought against.  There is no proof that Iraq has weapons of mass distruction.  For those who dont know you might find it interesting that in the 1980's when Iraq was fighting Iran, we gave and sold Iraq tons of weapons of mass distruction.  So Hussen was considered a hero for saving OUR OIL!

Now he is a monster, this is typical American ways and it disgusts me.  But anyways....

To all those who are 18 as i will be in Sept, if you get drafted I wish you luck and hope you make it home.
Also remember my buddy AIRBORNE on GR who is probably going to fight in Irag.

Im not against my country, Im against the war.  To see our boys die for the happyness of one man, is pure and utter bull shit.

Thank You

Saddam was already found guilty of violating sanctions by importing missile parts and technology, and he will soon be caught with WMD...it is just a matter of time.

For those who say our rights have been taken away, I say to you: go to a third world country and live in it. You would appreciate what you still have here in America. You whine that our rights are gone, but for the most part, I dont care. The simple fact is that we have more rights than most of the rest of the world. Quite frankly, I don't give a fuck if Ashcroft and the FBI wiretap my phone because you know what? I have nothing to hide.

Now back on topic...in the very and slim chance that a draft might get instituted, I would fufill my obligations and fight for my country. It is a priviledge to live in this great country of ours (no matter how much some of you leftist/socialists hate it) and it is our duty to serve it whenever she calls for it.

Yes, I have had a little to drink, but that doesn't change my opinion on this issue one iota.

Tasty I agree with you for the most part, but why did you type all those question marks?  Or is that just a Safari issue. . .?

But as for a draft, I have a question for Ben and Ace and Assassin.  On the one hand, I value people like you who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for your country.  And I think I would too. . .in World War 2 for example.

But I don't really understand your lack of contingencies.  You are all thinking people, and thus how can you accept whatever your government tells you is right?  If our leaders were infallible, I would not hesitate to do whatever they asked of me.  Similarly, if I held them in such high regard that I believed them to be better people than myself, I would follow their orders.

However, Congress and our president often make decisions with which I don't agree.  If I don't support the war in Iraq, is it really sensible for me to fight in it?

As a draftee, I would make cannon fodder at best, because my heart wouldn't be in it.  Fighting for freedom is a powerful motivator, but what the hell are you fighting for if you don't believe in it??

Obviously, no army or defense would function if every citizen and soldier questioned the motives behind the war.  But I cannot help but think, and thus form an opinion.  And I will not lay down my life for something if I believe doing so would be in vain.

In this case, I do.  So I am fundamentally against the draft, because I think I can contribute far more to this country alive.

Egotistical perhaps, but it's not about me.  I would die to save my country, but not simply to destroy another.

Well said Mr. LoudNotes

And assassin, i think communism is a great idea on paper.  But it can never work because of crazy leaders who cant handle powers and people wont give up wealth for an overall utophia (is that spelled right?).  All they care about is status..."me, eat with him..but im rich" haha, rich folk

Did you know Bill Gates makes more money than Iraq economy in one year. ;D

Loth and Loudnotes,
    My reply to both of you is the same and is very simple to understand. Since Loudnotes best understands unemotional logistics, I will speak in statistics. Now, if or when the draft is instituted the people are given 3 choices. 1) Flee to Canada or some other country that will accept you. 2) Get locked up in jail. 3) Go and Fight...

  Now, I understand that less then 25% of the population will choose option 1... And less then 1% will choose option 2. Most men would die fighting for this country; strangers, relatives, my best friends. Fleeing from the war would just be deserting your friends. Sure you could say, "I disagree with the politics." but I don't believe when you go to war politics is the main reason you're fighting. You're fighting for your country, for your friends, for yourself. If you lose that fight not only you, but all your friends and family could be wiped out. (Ok, I lied, emotional arguement is involved) I don't know about you, but I'd take bullets in the chest for my best friends.

  I think Black Hawk Down pretty much stated my arguement perfectly. Some people did not want to fight in the war. Some people felt after they had been in the battle they should never have to return again. Others were rushing back in for their friends. Which would you rather be? The end of the movie states it perfectly, the main character is saying he never wants to go through the battle again. He knew the politics were jacked up and didn't understand why he was there. The return speech basically sums everything up for me. When you're at war you don't fight for the politics. You don't think strategy when dodging bullets. Everything is about the man to the right and to the left of you. When it comes to a call for arms, I won't let them down.

In summary, I'm not going to fight for the politics or for Bush, but for my friends and for America. I don't want to let people down, I don't want to see my friends die, and anything I can do to save their lives, I will, even if it means giving up my own.

Ben

I agree with Loth, Loud, AND Ben.

Loth and Loud are talking about a different level of right and wrong. They are talking about wether or not we should, as individuals, support a government that commits essentially the same crimes we rebelled against in the revolutionary war. They're talking about resisting an unjust government. And for that I admire and support them.

Ben is talking about a very different responsibility. The responsibility to friends, family, country. Ben's loyalty to the aforementioned is inspiring and admirable. When you're in the shit and it's all on the line, I know I could count on people like Ben to be there backing me up. That is just as important as Loth and Louds wanting to have a fair and honorable government.

So, I agree with all points concerned. It is of primary importance to decide for yourself if the actions of your government are moral, just actions. That is the responsibility of EVERY citizen. If you feel the actions of your government are not moral, you have the responsibility to make your voice heard and attempt to stop those immoral actions.

BUT, and this is a big but, once the shooting starts survival of friends, family and country become paramount. It's impossible to improve a country that's been destroyed by war. You must first insure the country's survival, then go about fixing what's wrong. Trust me, once it becomes clear that America's sons and daughters died for nothing more than the greed of the top 1%, heads WILL roll.

So then it becomes a question of time, resist the war until it looks like America might actually be in danger of losing, then insure the survival of the country and after we have won, find those responsible for making the mess and hold them accountable for the atrocities commited against what this country really stands for.

Is their anything valid about thinking the draft is going to happen? If we where going to fight north korea who has the 4th largest standing army in the world there would be a draft, but i'd doubt there would be on for just iraq.

This is a tad off topic but with the whole equal rights movment, do you think we would ever see women being drafted, or do they only want the easy rights?

I'm thinking no about the whole draft issue. If Bush did that he'd just fuck himself over WORSE then he has already politically.

Also, from what I gatehered about the women issue, I talked to the leader of the sexist womans club at school (or just a really pro woman lady) who bitches about equal rights. She said its not fair to woman, but she doesn't mind things being like that.

Ben

There is nothing valid about any draft issue...the only way a draft would be instituted is if we were to take on China or Russia.

Any action in North Korea would be a UN action, and would involve South Korea's standing army (~800,000 men), and numerous troops from UN member nations (in this probable case, the forces would come from the US, Australia, Canada, and logistics from Euro member nations)

Also the number and size of the North Korean army is misleading...they have the 4th largest standing[/b] army because they carry no reserves...they are all on active duty. What I am getting at is that countries like the U.S. could double or triple the size of their armed forces if they were to put everyone on active duty...so that statistic of 4th largest should be thrown out the window.

I know this has very little to do with the topic but I'm 17 and planning on join around 21-22.

That's why you should move to Canada. If you want you get involved but only in the bigger wars and when you do you kick ass (Canadian snipers in Afghanistans = ownage!). Other then that we just drink beer and watch hockey.

 Actually I think I might join the British Army. After some school , work and travel.

That's quite frankly a load of horseshit. Just because we are still better off than most of the world doesn't mean jack. As citizens of the United States of America, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than everyone else. If you want to throw out the Constitution, you might as well get out of the country. I for one am not going to sacrifice my rights and liberties. There are other ways to achieve security, ways that don't involve trampling on fundamental American ideals. I hate to use this clich?, but if we bend the Constitution in response to the acts of terrorists, the terrorists have won.

To back Ace up, Assassin, check my quote.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
Benjamin Franklin   

He sums it up well.

Ben

Bravo Ace, looks like he got to it first Sin. You want the government to go into your house without a warrant to look for drugs? Eventhough you have none. What makes America such a great country is that it is not ruled by the present mood of the people, but ruled by law and common principles devised 200 odd years ago. If you dont like the constitution and pussy librals, than go move to Iran. There you can be as religously fundemeantalist as you want. I hope many Americans dont have the same sentiment as you Sin, because that is a big prerequisite to a facist government, people who do not care about their rights.

As for the DPRK, they are on active duty because they are still technicaly at war. The draft will not happen, thats all there is to it, especialy for a war against a country that is so small. The 50,000 Americans in Korea will do the fighting along with the ROK's men.

Ben, like Alaric, I agree with you too.  However, there's one fundamental problem with your argument in the case of war with Iraq or North Korea.


I too would take that bullet in the chest for those friends and family.  But what if we're talking about a war of aggression in which your family is not going to be harmed in any way shape or form -- unless you go off to war and die.

The only way American civilians would die in a war with N Korea is if they launched a nuclear missile at the United States.  If that happened, there would be no draft, because the instantaneous response would be for us to H-bomb their country into the Stone Age.  And I use a crude expression there because it would be a crude and terrible act, but I don't see that we'd be left with any other choice.

I would go to war to protect America.  I would not go to war simply because my government wanted me to, for its own aims.

Well said loud...that's what I was trying to convey in my previous post, but you said it better.  8)

Thanks!  

Just thought I'd add one thing though Ben.  I don't think it's reasonable to think in moralistic terms when you discuss war.  Anytime you're pontificating on the doom of thousands or millions, it should be very hard to talk in the same breath about honor and protection of your own insignificant family.  War brings about a kind of cold unfeeling logic.  Stark, emotionless horror is its product.  Ultimately, you have to make decisions, as a world power, about whether it is better to kill millions of an "enemy" to save the lives of thousands of your own people.

Is it?

Why would we send in thousands of ground troops when we can just send in our bombers to beat the shit outta them for a few weeks until they back down...  ???

Was also wondering, if there was a draft, roughly what % of 18 year old males would go to war. 5?10?20?50?75? etc.

Whats the old saying, "The only Just war is a war of defence?" This holds true for Iraq and the DPRK (North Korea, the accronym stands for democratic republic of Korea if you guys didnt know) Of coarse that can be twisted in many ways. The DPRK is just doing this whole thing  to create attention to itself. If I were a small country, and the US named me as part of the axis of evil, wouldnt you be paranoid? By the way, it seems that paranoia has gripped the United States entirely. Everyone is paranoid of almost any "potential security risk" no matter how abstract it may seem.

i thought that when the draft is enstated that the age order went like this: 20, 21, 22, 19, 18? then older people as needed. at least thats how i think it went in vietnam, and i think thats how its supposed to go? i could be wrong though, correct me if i am.

You are assigned draft numbers by the Selective Service and the lower numbes are chosen first in blocks...at least that is how it when with Vietnam.

As for criticizing me on my above post, I only wanted to point out that almost all of you take what we have forgranted and throw the term "our rights" around loosely. Sure, I would love to have all of "the rights" granted to us by the Constitution, but the Constitution and other laws were created to be flexible in times of crises, etc.

Cossack: Yeah I know what DPRK is, but I refuse to call them that because they are neither Democratic or a Republic.

     "Flexible in times of crisis" is only a justification if there is a crisis that is threatening the existence of the Union. There is most certainly not any such crisis at present. It's very likely that there soon will be, but a crisis created by the head of the government in order to get itself more money and power is hardly a convincing justification, either.

As I've mentioned before, I still don't see a crisis looming that threatens the United States.  What Bush may manufacture in Korea or Iraq certinaly undermines the stability of much of the world.  But our soil is hardly under attack. . .

There is no credible reason to suspend American freedoms.

I can't say much about the draft and all that since I don't know a lot about it (being Swedish heh), but what I can say is that it seems like the US is just giving up more and more freedom for the sake of being free, what happens when all freedom is gone (hypothetic question)? What Ben said about Franklin says it all anyway.

     Rights and/or freedoms are never regained without bloodshed. I regret what we may leave to our children to live through.

Tasty, you are almost right. The draft goes 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 19, 18.


Sin, one of the major points of the Constitution was to make the ideas of our natural rights so ingrained and so instinctive that we would and could throw the term "our rights" around loosely. Here in America, unlike a grand majority of the world, we are supposed to be given a hefty set of irrevocable rights just because we are lucky enough to be Americans. No power, foreign or domestic, can take those rights away unless we are too dumb to put up a fight. While I highly doubt we will ever lose our rights to a foreign power, we are currently in the process of losing our rights to the government that was created to protect those rights in the first place. While the Constitution was created to be flexible, it was also created so that even in the most dire of circumstances we would have something to turn to for guidance. Our nation has been in far more dire situations before, yet I don't think an assault on the freedom of Americans has ever been carried out to this magnitude (save maybe the Japanese internments). If you feel like giving up your rights, fine, get the hell out, but don't expect the rest of us to follow you.

Sin, I am pretty sure you know what DPRK is, I just cited that for others so people would know what I was talking about, albeit the name is very misleading. You are correct that many other countries are much worse off than us. Yet we are rapidly digressing. There are secret War Tribunals, set up for citizens! All it takes is for a public official to call you a terrorist, and bam, you are in the military tribunal. Even during the War of 1812 or WWII did we have those courts in place for our civilians (I say War of 1812 because I beleive that was the gravest time for the American Republic).

I focussed the point on friends. Most of my friends would not go to different countries to become harborred from the war effort. Most of my friends would be drafted. I'd follow them and stick with them. Also, you assume in the 6 months we've given Hussein to prepare, he has not prepared at all. Do you mean to suggest that he won't use biological weapons on our soldiers? Then if he killed them would he not go into the heart of America with his men and attempt to wipe out the civilian population? It's a big IF, I know, but if he did take out our offense, yes, we would be protecting our families from their counter attacks.


Are you to say that if you had to choose between thousands of your friends or tens of thousands of people trying to kill them, you'd choose the enemy because there are more people!? No, I completely disagree with you. Morals and emotion is what fires me most up about war. Knowing I'm fighting to save my friends or family from people who would want to shoot the shit out of them DOES give me comfort. It makes me feel like I'm doing something to protect them. Yes, war may cause the death of LOTS of people, but frankly, the people most important to me are the people I know. Every night on the news we hear about a car crash here or a shooting there; the news has hardenned me towards strangers. Now, if someone I know gets hurt, I'll be angry. If someone I don't know gets hurt, I'll be... neutral. Yes, war is personal, it gives me an edge when I think of it that way. Morals is important, I love my family, and yes, I'd rather wipe out hundreds of thousands of the enemy then let them meet harm.

Ben

Disclaimer:  Ben, I have nothing against you personally.  However, idealogically we differ greatly:


My Reactions, in no particular order:

1.  Before you get too righteous over it, keep in mind that the "enemy" feels exactly the same way.

2.  What if the only reason they want to kill your friends is because your country attacked them first?  What if they are killing your friends only because your friends are attacking them, and they have no choice but to save THEIR country.  THEIR friends, THEIR family.  I'm sorry, but I'm not so arrogant as to believe my life or those of the people I know is WORTH more than anyone else's.  Yes, it's more important to me, but again I'm not arrogant enough as to think importance to me is bigger than importance to thousands of others.

3.  I would protect my friends, again, but not while my friends were agressing.  If they made that choice, I would be saddened, but I wouldn't follow them to our potential demise.

4.  Are you suggesting that Saddam Hussein has the resources to
      a)  Defeat a US offensive?
      b)  Mount an attack on US civilians on US soil?
Neither of these are remotely possible.  While Saddam might use biological weapons on US troops, IF he has them, he would only do so if the troops were on his soil to begin with.  Why would we be there?  Not because he ever attacked the US. . .he's never done that.  We'd be there because our government decided it has the right to evict him because we don't like him

5.  Do you honestly think we have that right simply because we have the physical capability?  You are the one who talks about morality. . .

6.  Any war would be completely justified, and I would be just as vitriolic as you about it, if Saddam ACTUALLY attacked America.  And I do mean a concerted attack, not some unsubstantiated claim that he might have aided terrorists.

7.  Yes, by thinking you're protecting something, you do have an edge in the fighting.  But if you're not actually protecting your friends or family, because they would both be just fine if the war were NOT being faught, what are you fighting for?

8.  Obviously its very difficult to draw a boundary.  But I can say honestly, to use an extreme example:

I would prefer 1000 of my fellow countrymen, and/or friends and family to die, than 10 million whom I did not know.

     a)  However, often the choice is different.  0 people to die, or 10 million whom I don't know.  
     b)  I will always choose the option without strife.  Diplomacy works, you know, and its not like our world is that far overpopulated.

9.  I guess overall what I'm saying is that an enemy is just that.  If a nation or people is your enemy, you are right to feel as you do.  But enemies should not be arbitrarily manufactured by your government.  If you can hate anyone with that much passion, especially as to feel that you have a right to kill them,

I agree to most of what Loud just wrote.. but really, it depends on what reason those 10 million people or your friends die for, if your friends started it or if the enemy just wants to kill you because they don't like democracy.

Yea, I get what Loud is saying you just have to look at it with a more open mind. You have to look at it in a non-American perspective as well as an American perspective. As an American you think of the greater good your fighting for when you go to another country, but the enemy is just defending their country whether their nation is right or wrong. Ben try to put the patriotism aside for one second(not that it's a bad thing) but it will help you understand what Loud and others are trying to say.

btw Is this war gonna help boost the economy? I know war has been good for the economy in the past.

I said "big IF". He has biological weapons, and he'd use them. He has allies such as Germany, and he'd use them. It's possible, yes. Likely? No. I said that already though.
Why not? Isn't that what terrorist cells are? Just people who sit in America waiting to be called upon to attack? Why wouldn't Suddham have his men in America, posing as Americans, ready to come out and start shooting as soon as we go to war? If I were in his poition, I would.
Yes. I still have yet to defend our government. I keep iterating this point, so listen up: I don't defend what our government does. I defend what I'd do. If my friends go to war, I'd go with them as a "bodyguard" so to speak. Also, what's your point about the biological weapons. He'd use them, he'd fend off the attack. Well then, you proved your last point moot.
Still not defending America. I challange you to find one quote of me exhaunerating America's actions that came from me.
I agree. It would be justified then.
 Ben

You implied previously if the 10 million you didn't know was trying to kill your friends and family. That makes a difference to me.
And still I iterate, I'm not defending the US.

Hazard, look at my posts. Find the patriotism. It's loyalty. Big Difference.

Ben

1. I say let ben go fight terrorism? after playing so much rainbow 6 and rogue spear, we all know he has leet skillz with an assault rifle :).

2. Are we talking literally or hypothetically here? Because if there was a war on US soil, I could understand where Ben is coming from with his defending friends and family argument. If we are talking literally though, in present circumstances any war the US would likely be fighting would be on foreign soil; YOU would be the one killing friends and family, and THEY would be the one fighting for both their life and the lives of those they hold dear.

3. On somewhat of a side note: since biological weapons were mentioned here, I thought I might include an interesting little fact I read the other day.

"Bush's oddest rejection of global cooperation was his refusal to join, even retroactively, the accord against bioterrorism reached in July 2001 that could hinder further anthrax attacks. The United States delegation walked out of the negotiations because the Bush administration refused to accept the same rules it demands for Iraq and other 'rogue states': internatinoal inspections of potential weapons production sites."

btw this is being posted in safari so watch out for question marks  :(

     There's no contradiction there. N. Korea and Iraq have next to zero chance of winning a war with America. But that doesn't mean that lots of Americans wouldn't die in the fighting.

     Your loyalty is noble, yet stupid (sorry). If you joined the armed forces, you would have very little chance of actually being in a situation where you'd be present to defend your friends from harm. It's not as though enlisted folks have a whole lot of say in what unit they're shuffled into or where they're put into battle. Besides which, even if you were in the same unit as a friend, it's highly unlikely that the opportunity would come up for you to fling yourself in front of a bullet or on top of a grenade. Things happen FAST in combat and it's more than likely that your friend would be dead before you even noticed that he was endangered. In theory, your loyalty is noble. In reality, the extent that you are willing to take it to is stupid; or at least hasn't been thought through.

Loth, mmm. MMM. you're sexy. I'd go, sir. It's the principle more then the literal. If I could take one guy out, it could make a difference for a friend who would be shot by him. It's more of the principle I could make a difference and save a friend by killing an enemy.

Tasty, lets say the soldier next to you is your best friend. He's being shot at by an Iraqi behind the tree. By your theory you're gonna sit back and watch your friend die instead of stepping up and defending your friend, I'm not going to prison and I'm not fleeing the country.

Ben

Well Im not for the draft unless we were attacked. Unilateral Pre-emptive strike? Nope. My History teacher showed me something

Country Made: 1776 (REVOLUTION)

Average age of death in USA: 84

1776 + 84= 1860 (CIVIL WAR)

1860+ 84= 1944 (WORLD WAR II)

1944+ 84 = 2028

Those numbers are obviously pure coincidence considering that 84 is a changing number, and the dates you listed weren't of any importance (except of course 1776).

1776 - Declaration of Independence
1860 - The Civil War hadn't started yet...war officially started with the shelling of Ft. Sumpter, South Carolina in 1861
1944 - 2nd to last year in the war...not much in temrs of importance if you are trying to make a point

If you were really trying to prove something, or make an interesting point, the dates would have aligned on the first year of conflict or something similar.

You're missing the point, Ben. There's a world of difference between "defending your country" and "committing murder so that a few can get richer."

EXACTLY!!! U dont have to fight against iraq. Bush just wants his revenche and he wants to do better than his dad.

btw, i think u know it all, but if not:

The "nuclear" weapons wich saddam has (at least bush says so -> brainwashing) are from your country. so u defend ur country against ur own weapons...mb u should start fighting against ur government...

me personally thinks that saddam has no  nuclear stuff! It is necessary to fight HIM, but not whole iraq. Ppl in iraq cant do nothing against their government, same in your country...

u understand me? if not, well im stoned, mb its the bad grammar or whatever ;-)

nice week i wish

If you didn't go at all you wouldn't have to be there to decide whether to defend your friend or not... ;)



Assassin, you clearly missed the point... it means that in the American history, there's been a big war in every generation. Isn't that what you were trying to point out Zait?

They dont have a choice?  Now, I dont know much about the military in Iraq and countrys that oppose the United States, so I dont know if they have to join for a minimum number of years.  But I do know that they want to fight.  You make them seem as if they are hiding from the United States.  We [U.S.A] are the ultimate opressors.  Lack of willingness to fight?  What do you call all of the anit-west rallys?  Burning the U.S. flag in the middle of a mob?  

To me, these countrys seems all alike.  Not alike in religion, race, etc.,but in thier attitudes.  I look on the news and see screaming Iraqis holding signs that probably say somthing like "Fuck America".  Other countrys are like that too.  For those of you old enough to remember, perhaps you recall the chilling images of the bodies of American soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, Somalia, stripped to almost nothing.  Thier corpses were hauled through the slums of that city while being beaten, spit at, shot, and God knows what else.  

You say they [Iraq] are just waiting to be attacked.  They seem pretty pissed to me....

As for the draft goes, I understand that it may be re-activated.  But do you guys really think that they would start calling young men into duty???  If you ask me, I dont think it would happen.  With the way war is fought these days, they dont need a ground force like in our past conflicts of WW1/WW2/Korea/Vietnam.  Maybe I'm wrong?  Meh, just my opinions.

-Exe

     Come on, Ass². If the numerologists are all a-quiver about something, it's obviously grounded in hard scientific fact.  ;)

ha, thats like the idea that the president will be assasinated every 20 years. unfortunately for that theory, looks like bush is going to live through his term? at least lets hope he does, because i cant imagine how much it would suck to have dick cheney as our president.

Hal's Opinion on the Matter

<>We should not attack Iraq. We have WMD lots of countries do so why cant they? Because bush wants to clean up daddies mess and get the rich so more oil. Nothing      has changed about Iraq over the last 10 years its just Bush's presidency is being uneventful and has a sluggish economy. Its his sick way of trying to win re-election at     the cost of hundreds of American lives which is miniscule compared to the thousands of iraqi's that will be killed. And if you fucking tell me thats a sad occurence of war         then I tell you to get a heart, we are all human.
       Secondly Our rights should not be suspended. Someone said will fine tap my phones I have nothing to hide, well few do but its more the princepal, who knows what CIA agents are whacking off while listening to you sweet talk you girlfriend. Well thats an example for those less knowledgeable but still its not like Iraqi's can gain information from carefully reading the progress or listening to Liberal demonstrations against war. Our agencies should be more creative then violating my secrets.

ABOVE ALL: The U.S. states "innocent until proven guilty" does it not. So lets set an example for other countries and not go on a bloody rampage until we have more evidence then just a Hunch and a yearning to clear the family name. The Iraqi army has 6 digits to it and so lives are bound to be lost and is it worth it? TO a pre-emptive unilateral strike I say NO!

Ben, why can't your friends stay home?  If you don't support war, which it sounds now like you don't, why do your friends?  Perhaps your loyalty is misplaced.  As several people have said, it is admirable.  But ultimately you're more likely to kill others and/or advance an unjust war than you are to save anyone.

Kami, don't act like that...I rarely miss the point and I wouldn't miss the point on such a stupid thing such as number games. Anyway, a generation is every 30 years or so with the birth of a new child.

Lothario: Yeah yeah  ;)


I have gripes with this 'Hal' person...

A) Yeah, we do have lots of WMD...but the difference between us and the many other countries that have it is that we wouldn't use it unless absolutely necessary (think of a Russian or Chinese first strike scenario)

B) How is he cleaning up "daddies mess?" Funny thing is that you can blame the Liberal All-Star Jimmy Carter for his Presidential order against state sponsored assassinations. If not for that, you can bet your ass that Saddam would be dead and there would be no excuses for going into Iraq.

C) Actually, Iraq has been improving their weapons platforms and potency of their arsenals over the past 10 years while lying about it to the UN...most of you were too young to remember or look it up, but weapons inspectors in previous years found stockpiles of illegal weaponry. He has had four years to hide the rest of his crap after he kicked out the weapons inspectors the previous time...probably because they were getting close to finding something huge.

D) Yeah, economies tend to be sluggish when the heart of the economy came tumbling down on 9/11. Don't start telling me that Clinton made the economy well because he was actually reaping the benfits of Reagan era policy, German reunification, and Japanese collapse. If you look at the economy, it actually started to tail off near the end of Clinton's second term.

E) We would be striking with the British, Iraqi Kurds, and Iraqi exiles...so that isn't exactly unilateral. I ask this Hal person to get a dictionary.

That is all for now - how the hell did we stray from the draft topic?

Added on: Forgot to mention part E  ;D

Its just wierd to me (Hal) that all of a sudden Iraq is a threat and we hate them and yaddi yaddi yaddi. I mean Is it just coincidental that this happendd when we have a slow economy and Bush's presidency is fairly un eventful. We are part of treaty organization and we should act like it for once and listen to other countries. Obviously exiles would fight with us and maybe even tony blaire but millions dont think we should and although I wish the loss of life to be minimal I also wish Bush looks bad. Why should I trust Bush's will any more then Saddam's? Its called collateral protection and its what kept us out of the cold war. I dont like Jimmy Carter that much and its none of our fucking business to assisanate Saddam although weve tryed everyone from gangs to an australlian assult squad to do it, its illegal, and its injust unutil we have clear evidence. You can talk abuot Nuclear platform all you want but we dont have shit but a hunch and theyve complied thus far.

Who the fuck cares, the guy is a fuckin nut and hes got nasty weapons, if he doesnt get what he wants, we got a problem, and sooner or later hes gonna want something.  hes faught with just about every boardering country to iraq and probably feels invincible.  Take him out, irregardless of the reasons of oil and influence.  I'd feel much better with him gone.  In 1 year i'll be in the army and id rather not have to deal with this down the road when its much worse.  just support an exiled iraqi force and kick his ass out, we need a good war anyways.

[DEA] GOD

     OK, we march in to Iraq with our quadrillion-dollar army and wipe every trace of Hussein off the planet. Then what? Sure, it's all well and good to grunt, "Yeah, he's a baaaaaad man and we need to kick his ass!" but after the ass-kicking is completed, what happens? Does America do as it always does and install a hand-picked puppet regime--er, that is, a "friendly government"? Has that EVER worked? Twenty years down the line, if not less, revolutionaries will be spitting on America's name because of our interference. Or, maybe we just walk away. In that case, peace will last for about a picosecond before every Iraqui with a private army is at civil war for the position of top dog. Soon, everyone who didn't win (and maybe the guy who did, too) will be spitting on America's name because of our interference. OK, we hang around in perpetuity, ensuring by force of arms that things don't get out of control and that the country's policies stay friendly to us. Within a couple of decades, revolutionaries will be spitting on America's name because of our interference.

     Huh, interesting. It looks to me like America is once again going to neglect to learn from history, and make a mistake that will simply cause another war (or "conflict" or "police action") in twenty to thirty years. It's about damn time that the American people put a stop to this. America needs to mind its own damned business. Not to say that America shouldn't pay attention to what's going on in the world, because that's just as stupid as what we're doing now. But America needs to butt out a hell of a lot more often. Force of arms does not indicate sufficient amounts of enlightenment and knowledge to be the world's stern father figure.

Right on Loth!

Assassin, I was just trying to interpret what Zait said, couldn't find a better word than ?generation?.

GOD, that's fucking rediculous, there's nothing called a good war, what we need is peace.

Okay I'm gonna step a little futher off topic here and ask: What's the difference is between war and peace? Ethics and Morals aside, not much. When at war a country focuses on destroying or imparing an enemy's infastructure and human recources. When at peace a country focuses on destroying or imparing an enemy's economy. Both can cause mass suffering and death, one's just a little more Politically Correct, though I can't really decide which. Anyway, I don't really believe in what I just said, it's just something to think about.

Yeah, alaric. . .your peace is a rather shaky one.  If it's a true peace, the countries aren't going to be fighting to destroy each other's economies.  Certainly, they will compete to some extent, but that's simple capitalism and market forces.  To me that's more than just PC, it's a great deal more benign that bombing craters all over the place.

For example, if we leave Iraq alone, it will be at peace with us, and neither of our economies or people will be destroyed.  Likewise, we are at peace with the EU, and we aren't destroying each other.

Your peace sounds like more of a passive aggression, and it might as well be war.

Well, regardless of a draft, I'm moving to Canada.  I would have no problem fighting in a good war...something like World War II (the last purposeful war), but they couldn't make me fight in such a wrongful war as this one.

I'm too tired to rebuttle or argue, so ill just answer your above questions for me with one word. "No"

Ben

HA HA RUN TO CANADA, RUN.  HIPPIE

Well, Bush wasn't fabricating anything...

*Breaking News*

CHEMICAL WARHEADS FOUND.

They weren't really chemical warheads, they were old emptied ones. Atleast that's what I heard.

They found 11 emptied warheads and 1 that might have stuff in it. The point is that they were just proven to have lied on their report to the UN. The warheads, in good condition, could have easily been refitted with their intended payload...and that was probably the only reason why they were hidden.

Sorry for the double post, but I just saw this...


Alright Zait, Hal, or whatever you want to call yourself...

A) 9/11 is uneventful? Afghanistan is uneventful? The world isn't Disneyland.

B) We are part of a traety organization that has nothing to do with Iraq (NATO)

C) WTF is collateral protection? Nothing kept us out of the Cold War seeing that we were one of the two main combatants for the better part of 40 years.

D) Iraq didn't just become an issue. It was an issue with the Clinton administration also in 1998 with Operation Desert Fox, but he didn't take it all the way fearing that he would fuck up again with troop deployments (Somalia, Rwanda, etc.)

E) The inspections are about 3 types of programs - Bio, Chem, and Nuclear...not just Nuclear. On that front, they just discovered emptied Chemical shells in good condition probably meaning that they were intending to use them, which for you geniuses out there means that they probably have a Chemical weapons program.

Corrected: Quotes

Why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that he was meant to use them, it is known that he has used chemical weapons before, why couldn't they just be remains of that?

It's sad that this could lead to that Bush could finally go to war... such a small thing.

Kami, because he was ordered to destroy all things related to his WMD programs. Just the fact that he still has these shells is a giant red flag about what he is really hiding.

Tangible proof is what I want Sin! You find a nuke, you find some chemical weapons, or papers confirming their existence. Then we march to Mesopatamia. An empty chemical shell may be hard enough proof for action, even in my opinion, although I would prefer there to be hard proof.