The return of the Draft

[jn.loudnotes]

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.

[kami]

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.

[Mr. Lothario]

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

[Ace]

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

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.

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.

[Cossack]

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).

[(SiX)Ben]

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.

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.

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?

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

[jn.loudnotes]

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,

You damn well better have a good reason for it

[kami]

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.

[*DAMN Hazard]

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.

[(SiX)Ben]

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

This I know.

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

I know this as well.

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.

Well then it's a choice. Him or me? His family or mine? His friends or mine? Can't you see that I'm not defending what we do? I'm just defending the fact that if we went to war, I'd go, to save my friends from potential danger. Yes, if someone were to try and kill my friend, I'd head them off. No ands buts or any of that crap. I don't defend our position, I defend mine. If my friends in danger, I want to protect him.

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.

Potential demise. Funny how you contradict yourself. You say later N. Korea and Iraq can't touch the US militarily. And I'm not saying to our potential demise. I'm saying to mine. See the difference? I'm loyal as hell if you can't tell. I would do whatever possible to protect my friend, even if it means death. The only way he'd die is if I did, the only way I'd die is... I wouldn't.
[quote[
4.  Are you suggesting that Saddam Hussein has the resources to
      a)  Defeat a US offensive?

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.

     b)  Mount an attack on US civilians on US soil?

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.

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

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.

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

Still not defending America. I challange you to find one quote of me exhaunerating America's actions that came from me.

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.

I agree. It would be justified then.
 Ben

[(SiX)Ben]

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?

Why did you make this post? Constant iterations? I'm fighting for them. There's no chance a war wopuldn't happen. Listen to the news, American's are naive, you know that! My friends would follow him, and I'd follow them.

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.

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.

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,You damn well better have a good reason for it

And still I iterate, I'm not defending the US.

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

Ben

[tasty]

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  

[Mr. Lothario]

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.

Potential demise. Funny how you contradict yourself. You say later N. Korea and Iraq can't touch the US militarily. And I'm not saying to our potential demise. I'm saying to mine. See the difference? I'm loyal as hell if you can't tell. I would do whatever possible to protect my friend, even if it means death. The only way he'd die is if I did, the only way I'd die is... I wouldn't.

     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.

[(SiX)Ben]

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

[EUR_Zaitsev]

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

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

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.

[Absalon - RnT]

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

[kami]

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.

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?

[*DAMN Exe1{utioner]

Also they are FORCING people to fight. It's not like they have a choice to fight or not.

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

[Mr. Lothario]

Those numbers are obviously pure coincidence....

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