NationStates Jolt Archive

If your government instituted a draft and you were selected, under what circumstances would you or would you not comply? If there was a requirement for something more mild like mandatory civil service, would you comply?

I cannot be conscripted. I am a Mennonite.
…
*whistles innocently*

If your government instituted a draft and you were selected, under what circumstances would you or would you not comply? If there was a requirement for something more mild like mandatory civil service, would you comply?

I wouldn´t let myself be drafted. And if it came to it, I think I would run away.

If your government instituted a draft and you were selected, under what circumstances would you or would you not comply? If there was a requirement for something more mild like mandatory civil service, would you comply?

Probably, although I doubt that I would be selected.

Chances are, I'd enlist before the draft were to begin rather than wait to be drafted and end up being put wherever the military decides to put me.

Civil service is just a waste of my time, and really represents nothing more than compulsory labor. I've got other things to do that are considerably more beneficial to the country, and I'm sure there are plenty of people more than willing to do that work in exchange for a solid paycheck. Now, if you were to say pay me $60,000 per year of service, I might consider it...that's roughly the starting salary I'd be giving up were I forced to give a year of mandatory civil service.

Chances are, I'd enlist before the draft were to begin rather than wait to be drafted and end up being put wherever the military decides to put me.


Same here.

But yes, if I was drafted I would go and do my duty.

If I agreed with the war I would allow myself to be drafted.

I'm 35. I'm probably safe. But if it happened, I'd end up back on an aircraft carrier as an EW(Or CTT as I believe they're called now). Which is a nice place to be. :)

I'd go. Them's the rules. I still have my draft card in my file cabinet - I actually needed it to apply for a couple jobs a while back, which was a surprise.

If I was ever drafted (29, stone deaf in one ear), we're in serious trouble and I'd probably go just because we'd need all the help we could get.

I don't think the US government will ever seriously consider drafting women, but if it did, I would make sure they knew about all my ex-girlfriends. And all the future ones I would find in the Army. :D

I cannot be conscripted. I am a Mennonite.
…
*whistles innocently*

Are you allowed to use a computer?? *suspicious*

Are you allowed to use a computer?? *suspicious*

*continues innocent whistling while backing towards door*

In response to my own OP, I would most likely resist being drafted in wartime to the point of imprisonment, even in the case of a defensive war, since I have a rather strong antipathy to the Feds. (However, I probably would assist in some way informally, even if it were just to give supplies to guerillas.) If it were civil service rather than a draft, I would most likely try to find some exception so that I wouldn't have to waste my time participating in some politician's pet project.

I'm 35. I'm probably safe. But if it happened, I'd end up back on an aircraft carrier as an EW(Or CTT as I believe they're called now). Which is a nice place to be. :)

actually you are immune to the draft as a prior service member...your service counts as already being drafted. But if there was a draft I would prolly end up there in the small room with you...yes they are CTT's now I think...although they merged the CTT's and CTR's or at least were.

Unless it was a just war (i.e. WWII) I would probably resist being drafted. The cause is more important to me than the trumped up idea of military service being the highest honor you can get.

In response to my own OP, I would most likely resist being drafted in wartime to the point of imprisonment, even in the case of a defensive war, since I have a rather strong antipathy to the Feds. (However, I probably would assist in some way informally, even if it were just to give supplies to guerillas.) If it were civil service rather than a draft, I would most likely try to find some exception so that I wouldn't have to waste my time participating in some politician's pet project.

Wow is your last name Cheney or Bush?

Wow is your last name Cheney or Bush?

Little Bush and little Cheney.
http://www.personaldemocracy.com/files/littlebush.png

If your government instituted a draft and you were selected, under what circumstances would you or would you not comply?

Never. Even if I agreed with the war being fought I am ill suited both physically and psychologically for military duty. In an actual invasion there are actions that I would be able to peruse easier on my own as a guerrilla.

If there was a requirement for something more mild like mandatory civil service, would you comply?

That would ensure that I never did anything that could count as civil service. This obstinateness is part of what makes me psychologically unfit for military duty. The first person to give me an order I didn't like would be told where and how high to shove it.

If your government instituted a draft and you were selected, under what circumstances would you or would you not comply? If there was a requirement for something more mild like mandatory civil service, would you comply?

If there were a military draft, I likely would have joined up already and would have no need to be worried about getting a Draft Notice. I know the freedom my family and I enjoy has a steep price and I'll pay it up directly if it is necessary.

Regarding being immune to draft due to past service, that depends. If you're in the service and you serve 20 years and then leave you can't be called back. If, however, you serve less than 20 years and leave, then you can be called. Emergency situations of sufficient magnitude could result in changes to the system.

Same here.

But yes, if I was drafted I would go and do my duty.

A draft is slavery. The "duty" of anyone enslaved is to kill their "master".

Unless it was a just war (i.e. WWII) I would probably resist being drafted. The cause is more important to me than the trumped up idea of military service being the highest honor you can get.

Once you start enslaving your citizens to fight the war against their will the war ceases to be just.

Once you start enslaving your citizens to fight the war against their will the war ceases to be just.

I think you are supposed to avoid placing multiple posts in a row, my friend.

In any case, I do see military service as honorable, and unless the war was a horribly and obviously unjust one to my mind, I would put on the uniform with no hesitation and remove it only when I was not needed anymore.

That would ensure that I never did anything that could count as civil service. This obstinateness is part of what makes me psychologically unfit for military duty. The first person to give me an order I didn't like would be told where and how high to shove it.

I think cowardice and refusal to follow a lawful order during combat are grounds for capital punishment. Don't quote me on that.

A draft is slavery. The "duty" of anyone enslaved is to kill their "master".

Nope.

The draft is not slavery. The draft means serving your country in a time of need.

Nope.

The draft is not slavery. The draft means serving your country in a time of need.

Exactly. Ideally, the nation can get by with volunteers, but sometimes it just doesn't work like that.

By the by, Verdigroth, I'm pretty sure you're right. In the right circumstances, you can even be killed instantly, no legal process, nothing.

I think cowardice and refusal to follow a lawful order during combat are grounds for capital punishment. Don't quote me on that.

Where does cowardice enter into it?

Nope.

The draft is not slavery. The draft means serving your country in a time of need.

A draft is service rendered involuntarily, yes?


How exactly is that NOT slavery?

If your government instituted a draft and you were selected, under what circumstances would you or would you not comply? If there was a requirement for something more mild like mandatory civil service, would you comply?

I sure as hell wouldn't fight for the ruling class in their wars for profit, that's for damn sure.

Where does cowardice enter into it?

I seem to recall cowardice being a punishable offense...not grounds for execution, anymore (I think anyway), but perhaps a dishonorable discharge or something along those lines...

I'm not 100% sure on this, however.

Where does cowardice enter into it?

Refusal to follow orders in combat is usually regarded as an act of personal cowardice by military law. Most people legally convicted of cowardice were killed in the old days, mostly because of the risk the blatant and willful refusal to follow orders caused.

I seem to recall cowardice being a punishable offense...not grounds for execution, anymore (I think anyway), but perhaps a dishonorable discharge or something along those lines...

I'm not 100% sure on this, however.

That's nice. You still have yet to explain how cowardice came into the discussion in the first place. Disagreeing with an order does not have to involve cowardice.

A draft is service rendered involuntarily, yes?


How exactly is that NOT slavery?

Because it just isn't.

If your country calls on you, you should be damn proud to put on the uniform and go forth and fight for your country.

To do otherwise is cowardly and selfish.

If you really don't want to go and fight, shoot yourself in the foot, or work behind the lines or something. There are plenty of ways to help in a war besides being on the front lines

That's nice. You still have yet to explain how cowardice came into the discussion in the first place. Disagreeing with an order does not have to involve cowardice.

I don't know why it came into the discussion...I didn't bring it up.

Because it just isn't.

What a logical and well thought out reason.

I sure as hell wouldn't fight for the ruling class in their wars for profit, that's for damn sure.

What if you got a share of the profit?

If i disagree with the war in question, i'd tell them to stick it.
If i agree with said war, i'd tell them fine, but: I absolutely do NOT get up before 7am, and i will not ever use weapons against living things.

A draft is service rendered involuntarily, yes?


How exactly is that NOT slavery?

Well, for one you get paid.

Being drafted is different from slavery because there is good reason and just legal cause behind it.

Further, just as an aside here, if I were in the military, and was ordered to be involved in an execution detail to kill somebody who had been insubordinate or cowardly...I like to think I wouldn't hesitate, so long as the charges had been proven.

What a logical and well thought out reason.

I do not see the draft as slavery.

I see the draft as serving you country when called upon- for the good of the country.

You should be willing to serve the country when called upon, as the county really doesn't demand that much of citizens besides taxes (which are a bit high, in my opinion) and to follow the law.

Does it seem odd to anyone else that it's showing up to a war you don't agree with and obeying orders you find wrong that is being considered brave, while standing up for what you believe is being cast as the act of a coward?

Does it seem odd to anyone else that it's showing up to a war you don't agree with and obeying orders you find wrong that is being considered brave, while standing up for what you believe is being cast as the act of a coward?

It isn't standing up for what you feel that is cowardly. It is refusing to do the right thing because the right thing isn't matching up perfectly with how you feel. I don't like war, and I don't like violence, but if called on, I'd fight.

Of course I'd go. I actually wanted to join the Army ROTC program at my college, but was turned down because of my asthma. Even if I disagreed with the conflict we were fighting, I'd serve because I'd want to help end it as soon as possible.

Off-topic: If I could choose my job, I'd go into the infantry. For a practical matter, I'd probably end up shuffling papers in a rear unit, but that's better than sitting around on my cowardly/lazy ass while other people do their duty.

If your government instituted a draft and you were selected, under what circumstances would you or would you not comply? If there was a requirement for something more mild like mandatory civil service, would you comply?Now that I got out of it, yeah, I would. I did a kind of civil service anyway, even though I wasn't required, and it seriously enriches your life.

Off-topic: If I could choose my job, I'd go into the infantry. For a practical matter, I'd probably end up shuffling papers in a rear unit, but that's better than sitting around on my cowardly/lazy ass while other people do their duty.

Now you're a guy I wouldn't mind sharing a foxhole with. I know that sounded horribly corny, but it is true.

Regarding the paper-shuffling bit, there are a great deal more noncombatants in the armed forces than combatants. Both sides fullfill important roles though.

Well, for one you get paid.

Hypothetical time: I kidnap you off the street, hold you hostage in my home to do domestic labor. In a few years time I intend to release you with a large sum of money. Are you not still a slave?

Hypothetical time: I kidnap you off the street, hold you hostage in my home to do domestic labor. In a few years time I intend to release you with a large sum of money. Are you not still a slave?

You're not being forced to do meaningless domestic work when you're drafted my friend. You're performing a vital service to the nation.

Not to mention you're not kidnapped. There are no press gangs. You get a letter, which tells you where to report and what to bring, etc...

Chances are, I'd enlist before the draft were to begin rather than wait to be drafted and end up being put wherever the military decides to put me.

Civil service is just a waste of my time, and really represents nothing more than compulsory labor. I've got other things to do that are considerably more beneficial to the country, and I'm sure there are plenty of people more than willing to do that work in exchange for a solid paycheck. Now, if you were to say pay me $60,000 per year of service, I might consider it...that's roughly the starting salary I'd be giving up were I forced to give a year of mandatory civil service.You're wrong on those three counts.
I'm 35. I'm probably safe. But if it happened, I'd end up back on an aircraft carrier as an EW(Or CTT as I believe they're called now). Which is a nice place to be. :)Prolly not, considering the traditional cap is 45 in the US. 48 in Germany. I'm pretty sure it would rise in the event of a massive war.
In response to my own OP, I would most likely resist being drafted in wartime to the point of imprisonment, even in the case of a defensive war, since I have a rather strong antipathy to the Feds. (However, I probably would assist in some way informally, even if it were just to give supplies to guerillas.) If it were civil service rather than a draft, I would most likely try to find some exception so that I wouldn't have to waste my time participating in some politician's pet project.You have no idea what you're talking about.
A draft is service rendered involuntarily, yes?


How exactly is that NOT slavery?You get paid, in most cases, and in some of the more civilized countries, there's an opt out against doing service under arms.
Because it just isn't.What a logical and well thought out reason.
Surely it has swayed you to see the error of your wicked ways :D

Hypothetical time: I kidnap you off the street, hold you hostage in my home to do domestic labor. In a few years time I intend to release you with a large sum of money. Are you not still a slave?Not to be punching a massive hole in your argument, but how does this compare to a draft?

It isn't standing up for what you feel that is cowardly. It is refusing to do the right thing because the right thing isn't matching up perfectly with how you feel. I don't like war, and I don't like violence, but if called on, I'd fight.

And this is where our fundamental disconnect is found. I can fight with the military, by their rules, OR I can do what I consider to be the right thing. Common military tactics of today (such as dropping bombs on areas known to contain civilians) violate every precept of honor I hold. Aside from which I will not abdicate my responsibilities to the state. The state does not get to decide who or why I will kill, only I have the right and responsibility to make that choice.

Does it seem odd to anyone else that it's showing up to a war you don't agree with and obeying orders you find wrong that is being considered brave, while standing up for what you believe is being cast as the act of a coward?

Very! I refuse to fight in one of the armed force,fuck if I'm following order i disagree with, or fighting in a war on strange soil. If someone invade the U.K, i fight in the resistance movement, but it my choice not the government how i risk my life

You're not being forced to do meaningless domestic work when you're drafted my friend. You're performing a vital service to the nation.

Not to mention you're not kidnapped. There are no press gangs. You get a letter, which tells you where to report and what to bring, etc...

And if you don't report?

And this is where our fundamental disconnect is found. I can fight with the military, by their rules, OR I can do what I consider to be the right thing. Common military tactics of today (such as dropping bombs on areas known to contain civilians) violate every precept of honor I hold. Aside from which I will not abdicate my responsibilities to the state. The state does not get to decide who or why I will kill, only I have the right and responsibility to make that choice.

Bombing civilians is a sad necessity of war, sometimes. Not pleasant, but the reality is there. Many of America's enemies hide among civilians, and we can't let them escape.

Living free and happy is a right, but not a free one. To live free requires work. For the many to prosper, the few must sacrifice.

Honor, I think, has nothing to do with you refusing to serve.

And if you don't report?

If you don't report, you face arrest, and depending on circumstances, jail time, a fine, or both. This is because males Americans must sign up for the Selective Service when they come of age. When you do that, you agree to serve when called. Refusal later is breaking that agreement.

Not to be punching a massive hole in your argument, but how does this compare to a draft?

You are forced to report somewhere where you will be required to stay and follow your "masters" orders until your time of service is done. You will not be allowed freedom of movement (as you must go where the military sends you and may be confined to base). How do they not compare?

Redwulf can not be reasoned with, I think, people. He is convinced he is right in what he says. That is fine with me. He is entitled to that.

Redwulf, what I have just said aside, it has actually been interesting, even a little fun.

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's 3:00 AM here. I'm off to bed. Fare thee well, all.

If you don't report, you face arrest, and depending on circumstances, jail time, a fine, or both. This is because males Americans must sign up for the Selective Service when they come of age. When you do that, you agree to serve when called. Refusal later is breaking that agreement.

You have to sign up for it, well that the same as choosing to sign up

Bombing civilians is a sad necessity of war, sometimes. Not pleasant, but the reality is there. Many of America's enemies hide among civilians, and we can't let them escape.

We can however use weapons that can be aimed with more acuracy than a bomb.

Honor, I think, has nothing to do with you refusing to serve.

First you call me a coward, now you insult my honor. Do not do so again.

If you don't report, you face arrest, and depending on circumstances, jail time, a fine, or both. This is because you sign up for the Selective Service when you come of age. When you do that, you agree to serve when called. Sort of like taking an oath.

An oath taken under duress is no true oath. There are punishments for NOT signing up for the Selective Service.

You are forced to report somewhere where you will be required to stay and follow your "masters" orders until your time of service is done. You will not be allowed freedom of movement (as you must go where the military sends you and may be confined to base). How do they not compare?I wouldn't receive a letter, a medical examination to see if I'm fit for service, pay during the service, or an opt out in the case of the kidnapping. Nor would I be able to get out of the kidnapping by giving up my citizenship.

I've discovered that most of the people that hate the draft are the ones that have yet to be subjected to it in the first place. And that included me, when I was younger. It really isn't as bad as you claim it is.

You have to sign up for it, well that the same as choosing to sign upNot true. You're required by law, as a male US citizen, to sign up for Selective Service. That people who fail to do so are usually left alone does not mean that you had a choice in the matter.

Personally, I feel that helping to defend your country is a basic responsibility of citizenship. Serving as a domestic servant to some random guy is not. Then again, I WANTED to serve, so my perspective is probably skewed.

Romandeos: Thanks. I wouldn't call myself a brave man, but I'd like to think that when the fecal matter hits the aerial oscillator, I can be counted on to do my best.

Conceded, the whole national service thing has the potential for abuse, but I'd like to think that these instances are few enough and far between enough to justify trusting the system as a whole.

Not true. You're required by law, as a male US citizen, to sign up for Selective Service. That people who fail to do so are usually left alone does not mean that you had a choice in the matter.

kinda my point

Redwulf can not be reasoned with, I think, people. He is convinced he is right in what he says. That is fine with me. He is entitled to that.

I'm a lot easier to reason with when I'm not being called a dishonorable coward. If you want to try this again with more reason and less flamebait be my guest.

I definitely wouldn't let myself be drafted to war.

If the drafters had chosen me I would have complied. Playing with expensive weapons is at least better than doing jail time. We haven't been at war for 194 years so I probably wouldn't have had to actually fight. Luckily I was too nerdy, thin, weak and near-sighted to get drafted, instead they gave me a paper that says I'm off the hook forever.:D

i'm unfit, overweight, have bad eyesight, flat feet, and probably a bit of a ponce in a battlefield situation. i don't think they'd want me ;)

but i probably would be ok with being drafted, IF it were some kind of tertiary role (ie not fighting, comms tech, something like that (yeah i'm a coward)) and IF i agreed with the war.

If your government instituted a draft and you were selected, under what circumstances would you or would you not comply? If there was a requirement for something more mild like mandatory civil service, would you comply?

No. Under no circumstances.
Civil service, anytime. I already did that voluntarily.

If your government instituted a draft and you were selected, under what circumstances would you or would you not comply? If there was a requirement for something more mild like mandatory civil service, would you comply?

I didn't think you got much of a choice; that's the point of conscription.

I wouldn't mind working in a civilian role, but not fighting. Unfortunately, I'm the right age, relatively fit and with no real medical issues; I'd probably be shipped straight out.

If your government instituted a draft and you were selected, under what circumstances would you or would you not comply? If there was a requirement for something more mild like mandatory civil service, would you comply?

It would depend if I believed the cause of whatever war we were fighting was a good one. If not, than no, I would not comply. Of course, if it was mandatory for everyone, not just a shitty luck lottery, then I would.

Civil service I would comply with, I see no problem with that. My only issue with a draft is I wouldn't want to kill or die for something I didn't believe in.

If your government instituted a draft and you were selected, under what circumstances would you or would you not comply? If there was a requirement for something more mild like mandatory civil service, would you comply?

Being born Italian in 1976, I was drafted (classified able-C2). I wanted to be assigned to civil service because I wanted to be really useful to society, and I thought that helping some charity could be more useful than guarding a powder depot. So I had to explain the ethical grounds for my objection to armed service to the Court Martial, my motivations were recognised as valid and I was assigned to civil service - which wasn't milder at all, I worked a lot more than my friends who were drafted in the military; I had no problem about that though.
The real disappointment was when I discovered that the charity I was assigned to evaded the taxes!
So, if I could go back, I'd accept my original draft assignement to the Alpini corps.
Of course, in the very unlikely event of an armed attack of a foreign army against Italy, I would volunteer for the Army.

If I was drafted, I could get out of it at the moment, which is good since I can't see being drafted being something I'd find acceptable.
Civil service seems somewhat unacceptable also, but it's conceivable that there could be some sort of job that might meet acceptability requirements.

The Queens a good girl, I'm sure if she needs me I will be helpful seeing as how I have sworn that oath twice.

If I was drafted, I could get out of it at the moment

how so?

The first person to give me an order I didn't like would be told where and how high to shove it.

just keep fooling yourself sugar plum:p

If your government instituted a draft and you were selected, under what circumstances would you or would you not comply? If there was a requirement for something more mild like mandatory civil service, would you comply?

Nope not ever.

Nope not ever.

:eek: even if you where needed for the final push on Lollytown?

:eek: even if you where needed for the final push on Lollytown?

Nope, let those with greivances against Lollytown go.:D

Nope, let those with greivances against Lollytown go.:D

Never!

Nope, let those with greivances against Lollytown go.:D

but did you not see what the wicked King did with Colonel Sweeto (http://www.pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF129-Colonel_Sweeto.jpg) good Sir? or should I say...Mr. Mint!

:DYou cant draft those who proudly and sometimes blindly serve, yup thats me (a wolf in lion's clothing playing with sheep, baaaah) :sniper:

but did you not see what the wicked King did with Colonel Sweeto (http://www.pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF129-Colonel_Sweeto.jpg) good Sir? or should I say...Mr. Mint!

Yes I have seen that one. Good job too, how are you going to get at the chocolate inside otherwise?

I don't think the US government will ever seriously consider drafting women, but if it did, I would make sure they knew about all my ex-girlfriends. And all the future ones I would find in the Army. :D


Unfortunatly when push comes to shove and it's a really desperate situation, they may just look the other way on that one :P. (I'm pretty sure they did in WWII).

I have to say it depends on how/why it was done. If they brought in National Service again, I would protest it since I disagree with it in principle but I would serve in whatever capacity they would allow (my eyesight is too bad to join up any of the armed forces, which scuppered my early career plans).

If they instituted conscription to conduct an unnecessary, unsanctioned and possibly illegal war on foreign soil (e.g. Iraq) then I would protest it in every capacity possible up to and including jail for not serving. Because this country has never used conscription for such wars and never should.

If it was to defend the UK/EU against an external aggressor, then again I wouldn't need a conscription letter, I would be volunteering to do whatever I could.

A professional, volunteer army will always achieve more than one made up of conscription. In my view, if a nation need conscriptions to conduct a war against those who do not directly threaten them with invasion then they probably shouldn't be in that war. But when it comes to defending your country (and it's adjacent allies) then conscription may be the only recourse available. But it is not a step a government should take lightly.

If I was drafted, I would probably go. I probably only wouldn't go if the enemy had nukes/chemical/biological weapons and the desire to use them.

Burn the ticket and leave.


110% serious. Unless there were forgein troops in the US and they had a a beachead/stronghold here, there is no way in hell Id join.

A professional, volunteer army will always achieve more than one made up of conscription.

Yep. And every military man knows this. Draftees lower moral, and makes those who volunteered unsafe because they dont want a guy who doesnt want to be there watching his back. Thats why even though I dont like McCain, I scoff when people say hed institute a draft. Hes a military man, hed listen to his generals and he himself knows after serving in name that drafts are not good for the military.

If your government instituted a draft and you were selected, under what circumstances would you or would you not comply? If there was a requirement for something more mild like mandatory civil service, would you comply?
Fuck no.

If they can't convince people to voluntarily fight the war, then it's not a war worth fighting.

Depends on the war.

If the military was desperate enough to draft me, we're screwed anyways, so the massive fuck-up that I will inevitably create likely won't make the situation that much worse.

I am prior service so draft for me is unlikely. but I could see myself as a draft enforcement officer. chase down hippies with my squad of goons beat them up with sticks shave their head then ship them to basic.

Wow I hope the draft comes back I think I found my calling.

No. No way, no how, not in a million years, I'd rather be dead than serving under the principle of might making right, under my intellectual inferiors, abolishing my individuality and killing my fellow man.

If your government instituted a draft and you were selected, under what circumstances would you or would you not comply? If there was a requirement for something more mild like mandatory civil service, would you comply?

I'd probably go if they told me to.

Chances are, I'd enlist before the draft were to begin rather than wait to be drafted and end up being put wherever the military decides to put me.

Civil service is just a waste of my time, and really represents nothing more than compulsory labor. I've got other things to do that are considerably more beneficial to the country, and I'm sure there are plenty of people more than willing to do that work in exchange for a solid paycheck. Now, if you were to say pay me $60,000 per year of service, I might consider it...that's roughly the starting salary I'd be giving up were I forced to give a year of mandatory civil service.

My grandpa did the same in WWII.

Still I think it was just wrong and opportunistic from his side to join the Wehrmacht and participate in an unjustified war in the hope of getting a low-risk job there.

Fortunately I am a recognized conscientious objector so chances that I will be drafted are pretty low.

Eh, I guess I should add that Id enlist if Briton needed military aid. Mostly because I like the UK.

Eh, I guess I should add that Id enlist if Briton needed military aid. Mostly because I like the UK.

yes, the tea trade must be protected.
HUZZAH!

Fuck no.

If they can't convince people to voluntarily fight the war, then it's not a war worth fighting.

I think that if people will not defend themselves out of their own free will, then they shouldn't be free in the first place.

No. No way, no how, not in a million years, I'd rather be dead than serving under the principle of might making right, under my intellectual inferiors, abolishing my individuality and killing my fellow man.

Agreed. I do not think there can really ever be such a thing as a 'just war,' and as such I would never take part in such injustice.


You have no idea what you're talking about.

Politicians respond to the interests of those who receive large benefits, enough to allow them to assemble a presence to pressure for favors, from dispersed costs drawn from the common pool that the population as a whole provides for. Any kind of participation in civil service would be participation at the expense of many for the benefit of the few (politicians, bureaucrats, politically-connected private interests.) My time would be better spent in pursuit of mutually beneficial exchanges rather than providing coerced labor for the projects of special interests.

I think that if people will not defend themselves out of their own free will, then they shouldn't be free in the first place.


Yep. Vietnam was all about us defending ourselves.

Eh, I guess I should add that Id enlist if Briton needed military aid. Mostly because I like the UK.

well I'm british and i need military aid against my neighbours, who smell (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/east-winds-blow-in-europong-811676.html) i accept the offer of aid!
*invades France*

Yep. Vietnam was all about us defending ourselves.

Duh, didn't you see how the red menace would sweep across the world if they captured a swampy jungle?

_______

If the US government is in enough of a screw up to have to draft those under the age of majority then they wouldn't have the power to enforce it.

Fuck no.

If they can't convince people to voluntarily fight the war, then it's not a war worth fighting.
So the worthiness of a war depends on how many people you can convince to fight voluntarily?

So the worthiness of a war depends on how many people you can convince to fight voluntarily?

Yep. If its really for a worthy cause, you shouldnt have a hard time finding those to enlist.

Yep. If its really for a worthy cause, you shouldnt have a hard time finding those to enlist.WWI was a worthy war? Reality begs to differ.

actually you are immune to the draft as a prior service member...your service counts as already being drafted. But if there was a draft I would prolly end up there in the small room with you...yes they are CTT's now I think...although they merged the CTT's and CTR's or at least were.


Well first off, the Army raised their maximum enlistment age for voluntary enlistment to 42. (Someone in the Army is a "Hitchhiker's Guide" fan it seems.) and in effect, the Draft maximum age is 42. There is also a law that allows the military to re-enlist you though, so don't believe that because you served already that you are free and clear of a draft....



However, the draft has to be proposed as a bill in congress, pass both the Senate and House with a 2/3 majority vote in both and then be approved (or at least not vetoed) by the President. Likely this would happen? Yeah, right.

Tell you what...when the Brass begins to offer $40 Grand to all enlistments of four-year contracts or better and they still are missing their recruitment numbers, then I would look at getting my ass to Canada.

As it stands though, even when the men in green were missing their recruitment numbers last year they were still turning people away because of the new enlistment standards. When Vietnam was being fought, you could get in with just a GED, but today they would show you the door.


I think that the tell-tail sign that the services would be on their way to a draft would be when they announce relaxed enlistment standards. GEDs would be good enough, criminal history waivers would be approved, and some medical conditions would be overlooked. The Military would do that before they would suggest to Congress that we need a draft.

Beyond that though, the draft is antiquated. Like it or not, soldiers today are highly trained professionals, while in my day they could give you a few months of basic instruction, show you which end of the rifle was to be pointed at the enemy and send you on your way. Now it takes about 2 years before a grunt (ground soldier) is ready to be combat effective. My nephew signed up for the Army on 9/13/01, thinking he was going to be able to 'kill a few terrorists' but he wasn't ready to do so until late '04 because his specialized electronics training took longer than the basic grunt training took.


I did some checking and the Selective Service website claims that even if a draft was signed up today 193 days would pass before the first inductee would report in. Add 1.5-2 years for basic and advanced training before they were ready... Yeah, the draft really isn't a measure that the government can look at as a solution to today's wars.

What is REALLY interesting is the draft requires only a 2 year commitment and most people would be leaving the service just after they were trained (or before they are finished training).

There is also a law that allows the military to re-enlist you though, so don't believe that because you served already that you are free and clear of a draft....

Yes and no. let me explain. every initial enlistment is 8 years long, what varies is how long you spend on active duty, this by contract is 2,3,4,6, or even 8 years. the time spent not active not paid makes up the rest of the time of those 8 years. it is referred to as Individual Ready Reserve, during this time you receive no pay and can be called to active duty again.




I did some checking and the Selective Service website claims that even if a draft was signed up today 193 days would pass before the first inductee would report in. Add 1.5-2 years for basic and advanced training before they were ready... Yeah, the draft really isn't a measure that the government can look at as a solution to today's wars.

What is REALLY interesting is the draft requires only a 2 year commitment and most people would be leaving the service just after they were trained (or before they are finished training).

not correct. My advanced training course was 9 months long(satellite communications). Basic takes 3 months and infantry training will take less then another 3 months. So your draftees will be ready in 6 months.

as for your nephew what likely too him awhile was getting a security clearance(damn buggers always take forever), and or he was referring to on the job training he received when he got to his unit before they deployed to Iraq. but on the job Training can also be done in Iraq.

If there was ever a war I would volunteer if I was of military age. It is our duty to offer ourselves for military service unless we are conscientious objectors.

I can play the health card to get me out. However, if that was not the case I am not sure what I would if I was drafted. Not that it is an issue where is live

If your government instituted a draft and you were selected, under what circumstances would you or would you not comply? If there was a requirement for something more mild like mandatory civil service, would you comply?

It'd be pretty useless to draft me... I'm weak and would be useless as a soldier, and I don't think they draft women anyway. Plus I would not let them turn me into a murderer. I wouldn't want to be a part of an organization that is designed to kill people. I would consider myself evil if I had to do that, even though I don't really think soldiers are neccessarily evil. But I could never forgive myself if I were to contribute to the military. So I would find a way out if I was drafted, which is unlikely to happen anyway. Doubt they'd want me, and I certainly wouldn't want to be one of them.

Mandatory civil service, maybe, as long as it didn't have to mess with my education.

I'd serve. I have no objection to military service.

Chances are, I'd enlist before the draft were to begin rather than wait to be drafted and end up being put wherever the military decides to put me.

I like this option, myself.

Well, for one you get paid.
You get paid at the whim of your employer, and you cannot leave or refuse the service.

I would abandon my country if it instituted a draught. Conscription is fundamentally authoritarian.

how so?I would ask, and tell.

If your government instituted a draft and you were selected, under what circumstances would you or would you not comply? If there was a requirement for something more mild like mandatory civil service, would you comply?

My country has conscription, although we no longer take everyone, simply because we dont need everyone. So it's moving towards a more professional military "from the ground up", so to speak, which I'm happy about. However, this means that we would never have a true draft type situation.

Hypothetically speaking tho, I would join the military/let myself be drafted for the defence of my country, or for the defence of allied countries. Point being, someone else has to be the aggressor.

Oh, and I'm female.

You get paid at the whom of your employer, and you cannot leave or refuse the service.

I would abandon my country if it instituted a draught. Conscription is fundamentally authoritarian.

Don't worry my Draft enforcements officers are going to catch you before you get out of the country and make you be patriotic.
I don't even think the goverment would have to pay us for this service.

Hypothetical time: I kidnap you off the street, hold you hostage in my home to do domestic labor. In a few years time I intend to release you with a large sum of money. Are you not still a slave?

How is that even comparable?

In the military you get paid regularly, not "a large sum of money in a few years."

And this is where our fundamental disconnect is found. I can fight with the military, by their rules, OR I can do what I consider to be the right thing. Common military tactics of today (such as dropping bombs on areas known to contain civilians) violate every precept of honor I hold. Aside from which I will not abdicate my responsibilities to the state. The state does not get to decide who or why I will kill, only I have the right and responsibility to make that choice.

Fail

You get paid at the whim of your employer

Fail

If I weren't so out of shape, I'd probably just serve in the military...also depends on what war I'm going to be fighting in...

but if I wanted to avoid military service:

Three simple words: I. AM. GAY.

If that doesn't work, then I run to Cuba.

Three simple words: I. AM. GAY.

If these don't work, three other words to the army examiner:

YOU. LOOK. YUMMY.

If these don't work, three other words to the army examiner:

YOU. LOOK. YUMMY.

That's a good idea...would it help if I licked my lips and proceeded to pull out some chocolate sauce and whipped cream?

That's a good idea...would it help if I licked my lips and proceeded to pull out some chocolate sauce and whipped cream?

what happens when he says, "we have a special room for recruits like you sir."
"come this way".
Think about it, all that sweaty action, men having to share those showers, all that macho parading in uniforms to look 'hard' doesn't it remind you of something?
;)

I probably wouldn't go.

what happens when he says, "we have a special room for recruits like you sir."
"come this way".
Think about it, all that sweaty action, men having to share those showers, all that macho parading in uniforms to look 'hard' doesn't it remind you of something?
;)

I wonder if a lobotomy would make me forget I just read that.

Well I've never really played American Football, but I'd take the cash certainly.

I felt someone had to make that pun at some point, unless someone's done it already,

Well I've never really played American Football, but I'd take the cash certainly.

I felt someone had to make that pun at some point, unless someone's done it already,

Well, if I were a woman wearing a skirt, I'd...

Ah, forget it. :p

I wonder if a lobotomy would make me forget I just read that.

:p
remember It's a good pain. All that exercise, big muscly men, all getting drunk, so many strangers getting together for a greater cause, all depending on each other to see things through. still not convinced?
i think the military could use that to bring in new recruits.

Tell them to fuck off and move to Canada.

Don't worry my Draft enforcements officers are going to catch you before you get out of the country and make you be patriotic.
I don't even think the goverment would have to pay us for this service.

You amuse me.

Yep. Vietnam was all about us defending ourselves.

I think it's funny that you assume that I would support the Vietnam war, because right after I said what you quoted I also said;

I do not think there can really ever be such a thing as a 'just war,' and as such I would never take part in such injustice.

Which would kind of preclude such support.

I think it's funny that you assume that I would support the Vietnam war, because right after I said what you quoted I also said;


Which would kind of preclude such support.


Apparently you have a problem with the term "just war", I have to say I do too.

So at what point would you support a war, mr Serbia?

If your government instituted a draft and you were selected, under what circumstances would you or would you not comply? If there was a requirement for something more mild like mandatory civil service, would you comply?

Were my country under threat of invasion (unlikely), then I would. Otherwise, straight to Canada I go!

If the shores of my country were literally being stormed by some outside force intent on the destruction of my homeland, I would probably enlist rather quickly. After all, if I intend to fight anyway, might as well get free ammunition and some people to help me out.

However, if I do not believe in the fight at hand, there is no way I would want to be drafted. I would probably become a draft-dodger and flee to Canada, hoping that my honour and my country would eventually let my pansy ass return.

I wonder if a lobotomy would make me forget I just read that.

all the lobotomies in the world won't let you forget.

all the lobotomies in the world won't let you forget.

That's true: You can't change your memories with a lobotomy.

If the drafting´s obligatory, do I have a choice?

You amuse me.

lol. it is all amusing until you try and dodge the draft while I am around.

Apparently you have a problem with the term "just war", I have to say I do too.

So at what point would you support a war, mr Serbia?

Pretty much never, since war is the health of the state, and as an anarchist the health of the state is not one of my top priorities.

Question: Why do all of you assume that Canada would want you?

lol. it is all amusing until you try and dodge the draft while I am around.

I would dodge it. Do you dare to make this threat to me as well?

lol. it is all amusing until you try and dodge the draft while I am around.

Yes, of course. The government will gratefully accept your offer of draft enforcement, then I will be drafted, then I will walk up to you and say "LAWLS DODGING THE DRAFT!!", then you will break my kneecaps, then you won't be arrested for assault and battery. Whatever helps you feel good about yourself.

The police beat up people all the time and lawlz about it. And that's during peace time. I'm sure that in the case of a real war, the govt. would be cool with a few mafia style tactics if it dropped the number of people dodging the draft.

The police beat up people all the time and lawlz about it. And that's during peace time. I'm sure that in the case of a real war, the govt. would be cool with a few mafia style tactics if it dropped the number of people dodging the draft.

Of COURSE. The only detail is it would have a revolution in its hands should that happen, but never mind that, eh?

Question: Why do all of you assume that Canada would want you?

I am assuming that so many will be flooding the border that I have a chance to find a good place to hide in the backwoods and avoid being deported until the war ends.

Of course I would.

I disagree with the draft. I don't believe, even during a World War that a government has the right to conscript people. As a citizen, you have to accept the risks of not participating, such as losing everything.

People that avoid the draft are forcing someone else to go in their place. That's why I have nothing but contempt for Vietnam War draft dodgers and the fact that they sent some other kid in their place. Scumbags.

Of course I would.

I disagree with the draft. I don't believe, even during a World War that a government has the right to conscript people. As a citizen, you have to accept the risks of not participating, such as losing everything.

People that avoid the draft are forcing someone else to get drafted in their place. That's why I have nothing but contempt for Vietnam War draft dodgers and the fact that they sent some other kid in their place.

Other than the sense of contradiction that I get from your post..

People that dodge the draft are not forcing someone else to be drafted in their place, the government is doing that.

Of course I would.

I disagree with the draft. I don't believe, even during a World War that a government has the right to conscript people. As a citizen, you have to accept the risks of not participating, such as losing everything.

People that avoid the draft are forcing someone else to go in their place. That's why I have nothing but contempt for Vietnam War draft dodgers and the fact that they sent some other kid in their place. Scumbags.

The irony is just dripping off this post.

How is it a contradiction?

I don't support many of the laws of the U.S., but I have to follow them. I don't agree with the draft, but I wouldn't avoid my obligation as a citizen, same as I don't agree that drugs should be illegal, but would accept that I'll be punished for being caught using them.

And yes, it's the government that is drafting people, but it doesn't change the fact that if you don't serve, someone else is drafted to replace you. Remember that when you hear people speak well of the people that burned their draft cards. You don't read about that too much do you? That someone else got sent in their place.

What if you got a share of the profit?

Then you wouldn't be drafted. You'd be working in a PMC like Blackwater.

How is it a contradiction?

I don't support many of the laws of the U.S., but I have to follow them. I don't agree with the draft, but I wouldn't avoid my obligation as a citizen, same as I don't agree that drugs should be illegal, but would accept that I'll be punished for being caught using them.

And yes, it's the government that is drafting people, but it doesn't change the fact that if you don't serve, someone else is drafted to replace you. Remember that when you hear people speak well of the people that burned their draft cards. You don't read about that too much do you? That someone else got sent in their place.

So you don't agree with the draft but feel draft dodgers are scumbags?
So one can disagree with something but should do his civic duty regardless, which makes it okay to disagree.

As in: It is okay to have racist ideas and feelings, so long as you follow the law and don't lynch anyone.

So you don't agree with the draft but feel draft dodgers are scumbags?
So one can disagree with something but should do his civic duty regardless, which makes it okay to disagree.

As in: It is okay to have racist ideas and feelings, so long as you follow the law and don't lynch anyone.

Yes. I don't agree with any draft for any reason. Citizens shouldn't be forced to bear arms, they have to accept the risks if they don't.

But it's law and refusing to accept it and getting someone else drafted to replace you, makes you a scumbag. Yes.

And yes. It's ok to be "racist" and believe that lynching rapists and murderers is better than spending countless dollars on their defense, but you have to accept that the laws prevent it. That's exactly what I mean.

Of course I would.

I disagree with the draft. I don't believe, even during a World War that a government has the right to conscript people. As a citizen, you have to accept the risks of not participating, such as losing everything.

People that avoid the draft are forcing someone else to go in their place. That's why I have nothing but contempt for Vietnam War draft dodgers and the fact that they sent some other kid in their place. Scumbags.

Yeah, I'm not 100% on the draft, either, but I'd still go.

And yes, draft dodgers are cowards who send others to fight in their place.

If that isn't cowardly and scumbaggish than what is?

Then you wouldn't be drafted. You'd be working in a PMC like Blackwater.

Hmm, good point.

Maybe he'd get to loot while overseas?

Yes. I don't agree with any draft for any reason. Citizens shouldn't be forced to bear arms, they have to accept the risks if they don't.

But it's law and refusing to accept it and getting someone else drafted to replace you, makes you a scumbag. Yes.

And yes. It's ok to be "racist" and believe that lynching rapists and murderers is better than spending countless dollars on their defense, but you have to accept that the laws prevent it. That's exactly what I mean.

I'm glad we have arrived at an understanding.

Tiem 4 Buttsex nao?

If your government instituted a draft and you were selected, under what circumstances would you or would you not comply?

It's hard to say for sure without knowing the circumstances. But I would almost certainly refuse.

I do think it makes sense to refuse the draft pre-emptorily. That is, when the draft is instituted, state loudly that I will refuse to serve even if such statement is considered treasonous.

Waiting until I actually get selected looks a bit too much like self-interest, which is NOT why I oppose the draft.

Yeah, I'm not 100% on the draft, either, but I'd still go.

And yes, draft dodgers are cowards who send others to fight in their place.

If that isn't cowardly and scumbaggish than what is?



Hmm, good point.

Maybe he'd get to loot while overseas?

It's not about sending others to fight. It's about being against war altogether.

It you're against the draft, yet you agree to be drafted anyway... it seems rather dishonest.

It is morally dishonest to follow an unjust law.

It's not about sending others to fight. It's about being against war altogether.

Yes indeed.

If I refuse, this is both a statement of personal choice, and opposition to the government's attempt to draft ANYONE.

That the government then chooses to draft some other person is in no way my fault.

And yes, draft dodgers are cowards who send others to fight in their place.

Nonsense. Or, more precisely, it depends on the war a person is drafted for.

Regardless of whether or not the draft is justified, someone drafted to fight in a legitimate war should probably go, for the reason you provide (though are we really obligated to fight and die so that someone else won't be forced to? That's not obvious.)

But, also regardless of whether or not the draft is justified, someone drafted to fight in an illegitimate war has a moral obligation to refuse, because fighting in an illegitimate war necessitates unjustified killing, and that is never morally permissible. Furthermore, such acts of resistance, even if they mean that someone else is sent, make the war more difficult to fight: the more resistance from the general population, the harder it is to raise a military force. That other person should resist, too.

Acting on our moral obligations can never be cowardice.

Yes indeed.

If I refuse, this is both a statement of personal choice, and opposition to the government's attempt to draft ANYONE.

That the government then chooses to draft some other person is in no way my fault.

If that's what you have to tell yourself. The whole point is that someone else will be sent in your place. Because of your refusal, someone else might die, while you might have survived.

If that's what you have to tell yourself. The whole point is that someone else will be sent in your place. Because of your refusal, someone else might die, while you might have survived.

There are people dying of starvation right this moment. Are you morally required to act to save them, by any means that don't endanger your own life?

Why are you so convinced that we must risk life and limb for the sake of others? It is certainly a good thing to do so, but is it really a moral necessity?

It is morally dishonest to follow an unjust law.

That is not generally true. The draft and taxation are special cases of law, where the government compels an action instead of forbidding it.

If I oppose a law which forbids something, I am not morally obliged to therefore do that thing. I can oppose laws on drug possession without therefore having to carry a bag of drugs everywhere, for instance.

Nonsense. Or, more precisely, it depends on the war a person is drafted for.

Regardless of whether or not the draft is justified, someone drafted to fight in a legitimate war should probably go, for the reason you provide (though are we really obligated to fight and die so that someone else won't be forced to? That's not obvious.)

But, also regardless of whether or not the draft is justified, someone drafted to fight in an illegitimate war has a moral obligation to refuse, because fighting in an illegitimate war necessitates unjustified killing, and that is never morally permissible. Furthermore, such acts of resistance, even if they mean that someone else is sent, make the war more difficult to fight: the more resistance from the general population, the harder it is to raise a military force. That other person should resist, too.

Acting on our moral obligations can never be cowardice.

Legitimate according to you. Personally, I believe that nearly every conflict we have fought in the past 100 years was something we should have stayed out of.

WW1 had nothing to with us and we lost more people in a matter of months than we did in 10 years of Vietnam. We were attacked by the Japanese and Germany declared war because Roosevelt had taken sides and done everything he could to provoke both of them. Personally, I believe that Western civilization will be gone by the end of the 21st century because the Allies won WW2 and in following decades opened up the West to political correctness and the ultimate disaster that multi-cultural societies have always brought in the long term. I think the Nazis social policies were complete nonsense and self-defeating, but if they had won the war, I believe in the long-term, the world would have been a better place. And far less people would have died than those that have all over the world as a result of communism's victory. Communism's victory in WW2 was far worse than anything the Nazis could have done.

Korea was nonsense. Vietnam was nonsense. We should have enacted a policy of assassination and killed people like Castro, Jong-Il and Ho Chi Minh instead of fighting these ridiculous conflicts.

And far less people would have died than those that did all over the world as a result of communism's victory.

How do you figure that?

How do you figure that?

How many people died in the USSR because of communism? If they had lost the war, then China and so much of the rest of Asia would never have turned communist and the utter disaster it brings would never had happened.

Same with Africa and the horrific disaster that past Mugabe's brought there. Africa today would be a stable colony of the European powers, like most of the third world, instead of a starving economic disaster that it is now.

Well the best possible outcome would have been a peace between the Commonwealth and Germany, which would have halted Nazism and destroyed communism. Then Hitler and his ilk die and 60 years later, the world isn't ruled by racial identity politics and political correctness that is turning the West into a recipe for disaster. A couple more generations and maybe people will start thinking outside the box.

If that's what you have to tell yourself. The whole point is that someone else will be sent in your place. Because of your refusal, someone else might die, while you might have survived.

Let's end this charade.

***7th Flush***

Because of his refusal, and countless others, the governments will think twice before sending their citizens to kill others.

Because of his refusal, wars altogether may diminish in number, due to the fact that governments will realize citizens are not toys.

Because of his refusal, the government will have THE CHOICE on whether or not to send someone else, a choice the GOVERNMENT, and IT ALONE, makes.

Because of his refusal, the people will realize that war is not something to be entered lightly.

Because of his refusal, the government will institute an all-volunteer army, that has proven to be better than a drafted one.

Because of his refusal, people will learn that governments are not to be blindly followed, not even elected ones.

Because of his refusal, HE will have had the guts to stand up against the government for what he believes is right.

And yet you call him a coward. And yet you state that he should go fight a war he disagrees with. Even though his refusal, his and many others' refusals, made your army, your country, and our world, better places.

Here he is, standing up to his government for what he believes is right. Risking his freedom, his reputation and even his life.

And yet you call him a coward.

Had enough?

How many people died in the USSR because of communism?

Around the same order of magnitude as the millions of Russians slaughtered in Hitler's war. Probably far less than would have been killed in the event of a German victory.

If they had lost the war, then China and so much of the rest of Asia would never have turned communist

Considering the actions of Japan in China and the way the Nazis treated people they viewed as inferior, casualty totals would probably have been, at best, equivalent.

and the utter disaster it brings would never had happened.

Maoist policies in some respects were actually very good for the people of China.

Same with Africa and the horrific disaster that Mugabe and his communist ilk brought there.

Yeah, and we know how much the Nazis cared about Black people. :rolleyes:

Africa today would be a stable colony of the European powers, like most of the third world, instead of a starving economic disaster that it is now.

What, the starving economic disaster European colonialism made it by destroying the nations and systems that had existed there beforehand?

Yeah, we need some more of that!

"Debating imperialism is a bit like debating the pros and cons of rape. What can we say? That we really miss it?"

Around the same order of magnitude as the millions of Russians slaughtered in Hitler's war. Probably far less than would have been killed in the event of a German victory.

Considering the actions of Japan in China and the way the Nazis treated people they viewed as inferior, casualty totals would probably have been, at best, equivalent.

Maoist policies in some respects were actually very good for the people of China.

Yeah, and we know how much the Nazis cared about Black people. :rolleyes:

What, the starving economic disaster European colonialism made it by destroying the nations and systems that had existed there beforehand?

Yeah, we need some more of that!

"Debating imperialism is a bit like debating the pros and cons of rape. What can we say? That we really miss it?"

Ridiculous. Imperialism is what progressed the human race. People wanted more and they wanted better things. They didn't want to sit in a cave and let everyone else sit in their cave. No. I want that cave too. And I want that woman too. And I want that hunting ground too.

That's how humans evolved.

Which great cultures that advanced the human race were pacifist and tolerant of others? Who didn't conquer others and do what they could to improve their own lives at the expense of everyone else? I'm really curious about that.

The world grew and advanced because of conflict and intolerance. Realism accepts human nature and the reality of history.

If it makes some of you feel all tough and morally superior to me because Id leave if I was drafted, then sure. Im a coward. If that makes you feel morally superior and brave, sure thing.


Just remember. It takes far more courage to stand up for what you believe in, especially when its unpopular and you will end up in jail for it, than it does to go along with whatever the government tells you to.

*snip*

Ah, I see. It's not just your historical analysis that's perverse, it's also your ethics.

I see no point in bothering with this.

Ridiculous. Imperialism is what progressed the human race. People wanted more and they wanted better things. They didn't want to sit in a cave and let everyone else sit in their cave. No. I want that cave too. And I want that woman too. And I want that hunting ground too.

That's how humans evolved.

Which great cultures that advanced the human race were pacifist and tolerant of others? Who didn't conquer others and do what they could to improve their own lives at the expense of everyone else? I'm really curious about that.

The world grew and advanced because of conflict and intolerance. Realism accepts human nature.

One small correction. Imperialism is best for the imperialists, not the conquered in most cases.

I do agree with your other point though, sadly, Humankind needs conflict (not ONLY conflict, but some) to thrive and grow.

If it makes some of you feel all tough and morally superior to me because Id leave if I was drafted, then sure. Im a coward. If that makes you feel morally superior and brave, sure thing.


Just remember. It takes far more courage to stand up for what you believe in, especially when its unpopular and you will end up in jail for it, than it does to go along with whatever the government tells you to.

KOL, you wouldn't mind having someone else drafted in your place? Don't try and be evasive. You accept that someone else would be drafted and that you could have prevented, but didn't, because you disagreed with the war and felt morally superior to those in charge?

Ridiculous. Imperialism is what progressed the human race. People wanted more and they wanted better things. They didn't want to sit in a cave and let everyone else sit in their cave. No. I want that cave too. And I want that woman too. And I want that hunting ground too.

That's how humans evolved.

Which great cultures that advanced the human race were pacifist and tolerant of others? Who didn't conquer others and do what they could to improve their own lives at the expense of everyone else? I'm really curious about that.

The world grew and advanced because of conflict and intolerance. Realism accepts human nature.

1- You're mistaking imperialism for ambition.

2- You're making the very wrong assumption that scientific discoveries and explorations were made out of a need for war. They weren't.

3- If you advocate intolerance so much, perhaps it would do you well to be its target. As opposed to a kid who sits in front of a computer trying to spread his own ignorant views around like a virus.

If it makes some of you feel all tough and morally superior to me because Id leave if I was drafted, then sure. Im a coward. If that makes you feel morally superior and brave, sure thing.


Just remember. It takes far more courage to stand up for what you believe in, especially when its unpopular and you will end up in jail for it, than it does to go along with whatever the government tells you to.

I think it takes more courage to stand up to guns than to be raped by a man in jail. I could be wrong though.

Somehow, I doubt the military would ever, ever want me. Bad ankle, bad hip, bad back, bad eyes, bad attitude.

KOL, you wouldn't mind having someone else drafted in your place? Don't try and be evasive. You accept that someone else would be drafted and that you could have prevented, but didn't, because you disagreed with the war and felt morally superior to those in charge?

HE wouldn't have drafted the substitute. the GOVERNMENT would. You're calling on him to carry an "I have money" sign in a seedy neighborhood so "other people" don't get mugged in his place, then blaming HIM for the actions of the MUGGERS.

Now answer my posts or concede the points within them.

I think it takes more courage to stand up to guns than to be raped by a man in jail. I could be wrong though.

There are a few things wrong with that, but Ill just deal with one.


Not only does prison rape not occur as often as the media likes to make you think, it certianly doesnt happen at Fort Levenworth (where draft dogers are sent). Its actually a pretty lax prison. Think white color. But even laxer.


I had a professor who was sent there:D

I think it takes more courage to stand up to guns than to be raped by a man in jail. I could be wrong though.

You'd be with guns too. In jail you'd not.

KOL, you wouldn't mind having someone else drafted in your place? Don't try and be evasive. You accept that someone else would be drafted and that you could have prevented, but didn't, because you disagreed with the war and felt morally superior to those in charge?

That person has the exact same option to dodge as I did. If they go, why should I feel sorry for them? They made their choice.

There are a few things wrong with that, but Ill just deal with one.


Not only does prison rape not occur as often as the media likes to make you think, it certianly doesnt happen at Fort Levenworth (where draft dogers are sent). Its actually a pretty lax prison. Think white color. But even laxer.


I had a professor who was sent there:D

You keep.....interesting friends.

You keep.....interesting friends.

Yeah, I had a political science professor at college who was a draft dodger. Shocking. :p

You'd be with guns too. In jail you'd not.

I was asuming they wouldnt use poison gases like mustard gas. *Hopes they wouldn't use gases*

You keep.....interesting friends.

True. Friends to be proud of. Or you're actually talking to him as if he were friends with someone blacklisted during the fifties?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're, as most people above six years of age, smarter than this.

1- You're mistaking imperialism for ambition.

2- You're making the very wrong assumption that scientific discoveries and explorations were made out of a need for war. They weren't.

3- If you advocate intolerance so much, perhaps it would do you well to be its target. As opposed to a kid who sits in front of a computer trying to spread his own ignorant views around like a virus.

1. You sure you wouldn't rather argue about an old dictionary definition of one of the words I used?

2. I ask again. Which great society that contributed to humanity's growth was not imperialist?

3. How exactly would I do that? And you know nothing about me. I love getting these comments from people on a message board. Oh, you are on a computer, you must be a weak nerd, not like me of course. It's like when I play XBox Live and some idiot talks about how he sucks because it's allegedly the only thing the other player does. Yeah, he's got all the info.

I was asuming they wouldnt use poison gases like mustard gas. *Hopes they wouldn't use gases*

You'd have gas masks. They don't give out ass masks against prison rape.

KOL, you wouldn't mind having someone else drafted in your place?

Where did he say that? By all indication, this is just a worthless straw man: we would oppose someone else being drafted, too, and would defend her right to resist it.

You accept that someone else would be drafted and that you could have prevented, but didn't,

Again, are we really obligated to use any and all means to prevent bad things from happening to other people? People are starving right now. Are you required to dedicate all your efforts to saving them?

because you disagreed with the war and felt morally superior to those in charge?

It is immoral to participate in an unjust war. It is justified to attempt to stop it. Everyone should resist.

True. Friends to be proud of. Or you're actually talking to him as if he were friends with someone blacklisted during the fifties?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're, as most people above six years of age, smarter than this.

Why do you wanna know my age...pervert. ;)

You'd have gas masks. They don't give out ass masks against prison rape.

Your funny. :)

1. You sure you wouldn't rather argue about an old dictionary definition of one of the words I used?

2. I ask again? Which great society that contributed to humanity's growth was not imperialist?

3. How exactly would I do that? And you know nothing about me. I love getting these comments from people on a message board. Oh, you are on a computer, you must be a weak nerd, not like me of course. It's like when I play XBox Live and some idiot talks about how he sucks because it's allegedly the only thing the other player does. Yeah, he's got all the info.

1- You said the word "imperialism" and then proceeded to do a near-verbatim praise of ambition. I don't NEED to argue semantics with you.

2- Off the top of my head, Japan contributed the most to the world's technology AFTER it outgrew, quite forcibly, its imperialism. Greece did the same BEFORE Alexander. And so on. Goes to show that imperialism actually HINDERS development.

3- I'm not calling you a kid because of your age. I'm calling you a kid because you're behaving like one. I'm a nerd, and one that could beat you just as handily in computer games as I am in this argument right now.

4- You might do well to answer the post I made BEFORE the one you answered. Lest you concede it.

Even on purely consequentialist logic that makes no distinction of "responsibility" between actions of the government and actions of the individual, draft resistance is, at worst, an equal exchange: one person avoids the draft who otherwise would have been subject to it, another person is subject to it who would have avoided it.

Add in the fact that draft resistance might harm the government's ability to wage an unjust war, and the scales are tipped in its favor.

3- I'm not calling you a kid because of your age. I'm calling you a kid because you're behaving like one. I'm a nerd, and one that could beat you just as handily in computer games

As one who has judged debates before, what the relevance of this statement to overall argument?

Your funny. :)

I know. ;)

Even on purely consequentialist logic that makes no distinction of "responsibility" between actions of the government and actions of the individual, draft resistance is, at worst, an equal exchange: one person avoids the draft who otherwise would have been subject to it, another person is subject to it who would have avoided it.

Add in the fact that draft resistance might harm the government's ability to wage an unjust war, and the scales are tipped in its favor.



That, and as I said, the guy who "replaced" me has the choice to dodge it too. And I would fully support him in his decision. If he chooses to go because of some misguided notion of "honor" or "duty" then hey, hes made his choice, why should I feel sorry for him?

As one who has judged debates before, what the relevance of this statement to overall argument?

If a person is advocating intolerance - as he is - it becomes important to establish this person's motives, whether they be immaturity (age), bigotry (lack of a solid creation at home), stupidity (dropped on his head when he was a baby) or malice.

As for the "nerd" remark, he seems to assume that I am not, and I wanted to set him straight.

1- You said the word "imperialism" and then proceeded to do a near-verbatim praise of ambition. I don't NEED to argue semantics with you.

2- Off the top of my head, Japan contributed the most to the world's technology AFTER it outgrew, quite forcibly, its imperialism. Greece did the same BEFORE Alexander. And so on. Goes to show that imperialism actually HINDERS development.

3- I'm not calling you a kid because of your age. I'm calling you a kid because you're behaving like one. I'm a nerd, and one that could beat you just as handily in computer games as I am in this argument right now.

4- You might do well to answer the post I made BEFORE the one you answered. Lest you concede it.

Now that is pure comedy. Thanks.

1. Ok.

2. You are joking right? Japan, following it's imperial growth and huge world conflict is an example of imperialism not progressing society. Greece before Alexander was not imperialist and these two examples prove that imperialism hinders society? Awesome

3. I wish you could have heard me laugh.

4. Please repeat the question.

If a person is advocating intolerance - as he is - it becomes important to establish this person's motives, whether they be immaturity (age), bigotry (lack of a solid creation at home), stupidity (dropped on his head when he was a baby) or malice.


From prior Israel/Pakistan debate:
I never said I wasn't a bigot. Tolerance is the reason we have so many of the problems in the West today.




Having that thread sigged comes in sooooo handy.

2. You are joking right? Japan, following it's imperial growth and huge world conflict is an example of imperialism not progressing society. Greece before Alexander was not imperialist and these two examples prove that imperialism hinders society? Awesome

I dont know who is saying Greece before Alexander wasnt Imperialistic, but I must point out this historical falsity. Look up the Delian League.

If a person is advocating intolerance - as he is - it becomes important to establish this person's motives, whether they be immaturity (age), bigotry (lack of a solid creation at home), stupidity (dropped on his head when he was a baby) or malice.

As for the "nerd" remark, he seems to assume that I am not, and I wanted to set him straight.

I meant about the beating him in a computer game remark. Honestly, that was just plain silly.

From prior Israel/Pakistan debate:





Having that thread sigged comes in sooooo handy.

I wonder which of the reasons I pointed out is his.

If a person is advocating intolerance - as he is - it becomes important to establish this person's motives, whether they be immaturity (age), bigotry (lack of a solid creation at home), stupidity (dropped on his head when he was a baby) or malice.

As for the "nerd" remark, he seems to assume that I am not, and I wanted to set him straight.

I do advocate intolerance. I never claimed otherwise. I don't think those with the power should tolerate people like Hugo Chavez for example or Iran's President. They should be killed. Tolerance for racial identity politics and political correctness is destroying Western society.

Now that is pure comedy. Thanks.

1. Ok.

2. You are joking right? Japan, following it's imperial growth and huge world conflict is an example of imperialism not progressing society. Greece before Alexander was not imperialist and these two examples prove that imperialism hinders society? Awesome

3. I wish you could have heard me laugh.

4. Please repeat the question.

1- Settled.

2- The only technology that evolves during war is war technology.

3- Why, do you sound as much like a retard when you're laughing as you do when you're posting?

4- http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13636897&postcount=158

I do advocate intolerance. I never claimed otherwise. I don't think those with the power should tolerate people like Hugo Chavez for example or Iran's President. They should be killed. Tolerance for racial identity politics and political correctness has destroyed Western society.

Youre giving me another thread of yours to sig?


Oh, and please prove the bolded.

I do advocate intolerance. I never claimed otherwise. I don't think those with the power should tolerate people like Hugo Chavez for example or Iran's President. They should be killed. Tolerance for racial identity politics and political correctness is destroying Western society.

So, for which of the four reasons I pointed out is it then?

I do advocate intolerance. I never claimed otherwise. I don't think those with the power should tolerate people like Hugo Chavez for example or Iran's President. They should be killed. Tolerance for racial identity politics and political correctness is destroying Western society.

Wait, are you saying that the people tolerating evil scums bags should be killed? Or the evil scums bags themselves?

Wait, are you saying that the people tolerating evil scums bags should be killed? Or the evil scums bags themselves?

I think he is either confusing the meanings of words again (never mind the fact that he's calling for the assassination of elected leaders), or, more likely, babbling incoherently, also "again".

Let's end this charade.

***7th Flush***

Because of his refusal, and countless others, the governments will think twice before sending their citizens to kill others.

Because of his refusal, wars altogether may diminish in number, due to the fact that governments will realize citizens are not toys.

Because of his refusal, the government will have THE CHOICE on whether or not to send someone else, a choice the GOVERNMENT, and IT ALONE, makes.

Because of his refusal, the people will realize that war is not something to be entered lightly.

Because of his refusal, the government will institute an all-volunteer army, that has proven to be better than a drafted one.

Because of his refusal, people will learn that governments are not to be blindly followed, not even elected ones.

Because of his refusal, HE will have had the guts to stand up against the government for what he believes is right.

And yet you call him a coward. And yet you state that he should go fight a war he disagrees with. Even though his refusal, his and many others' refusals, made your army, your country, and our world, better places.

Here he is, standing up to his government for what he believes is right. Risking his freedom, his reputation and even his life.

And yet you call him a coward.

Had enough?

Ok, your post was nonsense. That's why I didn't answer it. Forgive me.

This isn't debating the people in power or a fictional conflict. This a real discussion about a past or potential situation.

Example:

If KOL, like his leftist professor, had refused to serve in Vietnam, then another kid would have gone in his place. Does this make him a coward and/or a scumbag is the question. And I haven't used the word coward. I believe that an awful lot were, but I wouldn't say all DD's are cowards, but scumbags who are allowing someone to go instead, they are.

Ok, your post was nonsense. That's why I didn't answer it. Forgive me.

This isn't debating the people in power or a fictional conflict. This a real discussion about a past or potential situation.

Example:

If KOL, like his leftist professor, had refused to serve in Vietnam, then another kid would have gone in his place. Does this make him a coward and/or a scumbag is the question. And I haven't used the word coward. I believe that an awful lot were, but I wouldn't say all DD's are cowards, but scumbags who are allowing someone to go instead, they are.




And tell me, how am I a "scumbag" (I havent heard that term in a looong time) if the kid has the exact same choice I did? He can not go. Simple as that. Why should I feel guilty about a choice he made?

Besides, chances are hes going to get a draft card anyway. The minute someone takes a bullet in the head, guess whos next? This kid. Is the guy a scumbag for getting shot?

I must be reading revisionist history or something, because I thought America was founding by people who told their government "no" and thats how the whole thing got started (yes, I know, huge simplification). And yet, people now who do the same are "scumbags". Meh, Im sure Franklin and TJ were "scumbags" to the British Loyalists. Im ok with being ranked with them.


See, Scott can play the patriot and honor card too!

Ok, your post was nonsense. That's why I didn't answer it. Forgive me.

This isn't debating the people in power or a fictional conflict. This a real discussion about a past or potential situation.

Example:

If KOL, like his leftist professor, had refused to serve in Vietnam, then another kid would have gone in his place. Does this make him a coward and/or a scumbag is the question. And I haven't used the word coward. I believe that an awful lot were, but I wouldn't say all DD's are cowards, but scumbags who are allowing someone to go instead, they are.

1- You'd have to prove that my post was nonsense. Which I'm betting you'd not be able to, even if it WERE.

2- The potential situation would, with draft-dodging, result in the facts I posted.

3- They weren't allowing "someone else" to go. In fact, by refusing it, they were opening the door to allow others NOT TO GO. Thus saving lives.

Wait, are you saying that the people tolerating evil scums bags should be killed? Or the evil scums bags themselves?

The evil scumbags and the people that directly enable or support them. Not the common folks or anyone else who tolerate them without choice.

I believe if every person in a position of influence ever served as an apologist or supporter of a communist tyrant was killed, then the world would be a much, much greater place.

The evil scumbags and the people that directly enable or support them. Not the common folks of anyone else who tolerate them without choice.

I believe if every person in a position of influence ever served as an apologist or supporter of a communist tyrant was killed, then the world would be a much, much greater place.

And I believe if every intolerant person died a slow and painful death, the world would be a much greater place.

If you're assuming this post includes "present company excluded", please don't.

The evil scumbags and the people that directly enable or support them. Not the common folks of anyone else who tolerate them without choice.

I believe if every person in a position of influence ever served as an apologist or supporter of a communist tyrant was killed, then the world would be a much, much greater place.

Note: I don't actually think Chavez is an evil scumbag, only Iran's president. I think however, that Chavez is insane, has delusions of grandeur, or both.

If I am drafted I will refuse to serve. I have the inherent right to determine my own course in life so long as I do not harm others. Any individual, group, or organization that seeks to force me to surrender my person or property to them to use as they see fit has violated my rights as a human being. If there is an invasion of the US, I will fight as a guerrilla. If we are doing the invading, it's not my fight.

The draft is immoral. Signing for the Selective Service is coerced under threat of harm. No oath signed under duress has binding authority. "Involuntary servitude" is supposedly unconstitutional, but the government can DEMAND that I SERVE in the military even if I DON'T VOLUNTEER? There's a disconnect in there somewhere.....

I'll sit in a cell rather than be sent to kill and die elsewhere. I'd rather be obviously enslaved than pointed out as a "patriot" in hidden slavery. A true patriot can question the actions of his government and refuse to act when his government opposes his moral principles.

No one is more enslaved than he who believes himself to be free.

If I am drafted I will refuse to serve. I have the inherent right to determine my own course in life so long as I do not harm others. Any individual, group, or organization that seeks to force me to surrender my person or property to them to use as they see fit has violated my rights as a human being. If there is an invasion of the US, I will fight as a guerrilla. If we are doing the invading, it's not my fight.

The draft is immoral. Signing for the Selective Service is coerced under threat of harm. No oath signed under duress has binding authority. "Involuntary servitude" is supposedly unconstitutional, but the government can DEMAND that I SERVE in the military even if I DON'T VOLUNTEER? There's a disconnect in there somewhere.....

I'll sit in a cell rather than be sent to kill and die elsewhere. I'd rather be obviously enslaved than pointed out as a "patriot" in hidden slavery. A true patriot can question the actions of his government and refuse to act when his government opposes his moral principles.

No one is more enslaved than he who believes himself to be free.

The funny thing is, no one has "inherent rights". In the most literal terms people only have the rights those in power give them.

And tell me, how am I a "scumbag" (I havent heard that term in a looong time) if the kid has the exact same choice I did? He can not go. Simple as that. Why should I feel guilty about a choice he made?

Besides, chances are hes going to get a draft card anyway. The minute someone takes a bullet in the head, guess whos next? This kid. Is the guy a scumbag for getting shot?

I must be reading revisionist history or something, because I thought America was founding by people who told their government "no" and thats how the whole thing got started (yes, I know, huge simplification). And yet, people now who do the same are "scumbags". Meh, Im sure Franklin and TJ were "scumbags" to the British Loyalists. Im ok with being ranked with them.


See, Scott can play the patriot and honor card too!

I guess you just don't get it. Most people are not going to ruin their lives in order to undermine a conflict they are being drafted to serve in. Especially not some teenager who perhaps doesn't have your level of self-involvement.

That is plain idiotic. The military drafted a specific number of people. You get drafted and that means that someone else isn't going to be. That's cold fact.

And rebelling against a government which the populace doesn't want is not comparable to being drafted by a government, by which your refusal will not be effect it at all. Once again, the entire point. Your decision affects the person who gets drafted in your place.

You say he's an idiot for going then fine. But I say you are a scumbag for allowing someone else to be sent to war because you disagreed with it.

The funny thing is, no one has "inherent rights". In the most literal terms people only have the rights those in power give them.

And you have sold yourself into slavery. You only have the rights you refuse to surrender. A government is an artificial entity created by the people. It has no legitimate powers unless the people grant it power. When a government pretends to hold power of life and death over its citizens, it shows itself illegitimate.

Read this (http://www.lexrex.com/informed/otherdocuments/thelaw/thelaw.htm) and learn something about lawful authority.

You say he's an idiot for going then fine. But I say you are a scumbag for allowing someone else to be sent to war because you disagreed with it.

Even though your words carry no more value to them than a micrometer of vacuum, I will point out that, since the other person ALSO has a choice, it remains as an "if he wants" situation. So he's not FORCING anyone to fight in his place.

I guess you just don't get it. Most people are not going to ruin their lives in order to undermine a conflict they are being drafted to serve in. Especially not some teenager who perhaps doesn't have your level of self-involvement.

I am willing to risk damaging my future for my principles. If he is not, that really is not my problem, but his. I pity him. But I dont feel guilty for him.

That is plain idiotic. The military drafted a specific number of people. You get drafted and that means that someone else isn't going to be. That's cold fact.

And when they need more, they draft more.

And rebelling against a government which the populace doesn't want is not comparable to being drafted by a government, by which your refusal will not be effect it at all. Once again, the entire point. Your decision affects the person who gets drafted in your place.

First off, only 1/3 of American colonists supported the Revolution. So its not quite how you paint it. Secondly, as I said, the kid can simply do what I did. Say no. This country was founded on dissenting from a government you disagreed with.

You say he's an idiot for going then fine. But I say you are a scumbag for allowing someone else to be sent to war because you disagreed with it.

And I can call you a sheep for going against your principles (if you have any) because the government tells you to, blind because you dont seem to understand this kid can do exactly what I did, so why should I feel guilty for a choice he made, and many other things which might get me banned.

And you have sold yourself into slavery. You only have the rights you refuse to surrender. A government is an artificial entity created by the people. It has no legitimate powers unless the people grant it power. When a government pretends to hold power of life and death over its citizens, it shows itself illegitimate.

Read this (http://www.lexrex.com/informed/otherdocuments/thelaw/thelaw.htm) and learn something about lawful authority.

I never said Government, merely "those in power". Whether those in power are illegitimate or not doesn't matter, they are still the ptb.

Even though your words carry no more value to them than a micrometer of vacuum, I will point out that, since the other person ALSO has a choice, it remains as an "if he wants" situation. So he's not FORCING anyone to fight in his place.

Ive only said that 50 times. But Eric here seems to try and either downplay or ignore that.

Even though your words carry no more value to them than a micrometer of vacuum, I will point out that, since the other person ALSO has a choice, it remains as an "if he wants" situation. So he's not FORCING anyone to fight in his place.

I'm not sure how many times I've tried to point out that we are talking about a realistic situation. Not, well I'm refusing and the government collapses. You refuse to be drafted and someone else is drafted because of that. That's the situation. You say that everyone else should refuse to be drafted and that person's an idiot for going, then fine, that's what you believe. You are sending an idiot into harm's way instead of yourself. You don't feel bad? Great.

Even though your words carry no more value to them than a micrometer of vacuum, I will point out that, since the other person ALSO has a choice, it remains as an "if he wants" situation. So he's not FORCING anyone to fight in his place.

No ones opinion has any REAL value, and if it does, it's only the value others place in it. I tend to agree with you more than him however, so don't take this as an argument against you.

You are sending an idiot into harm's way instead of yourself. You don't feel bad? Great.

I am not sending him. You seem to not get that. The government and he is. The government issued the draft and gave the orders, and he chose to obey. I did not send him. Why should I feel bad?

No ones opinion has any REAL value, and if it does, it's only the value others place in it. I tend to agree with you more than him however, so don't take this as an argument against you.

True, we argue mostly for the benefit of the audience. However, my point here was that, due to the sheer lack of coherence and use of bad premises by him, his words are meaningless.

As i'm looking over these posts, what you guys seem to be arguing about is really only semantics. Fire away if you will, but it's probably a waste of time as neither of you is convincing the other of your particular point of view.

You are sending an idiot into harm's way instead of yourself. You don't feel bad? Great.

I am? Funny, here I thought the GOVERNMENT had the power to declare war and send people to fight it.

Omae wa juu nen hayaku.

I am not sending him. You seem to not get that. The government and he is. The government issued the draft and gave the orders, and he chose to obey. I did not send him. Why should I feel bad?

*Sigh*

Last time. He's going directly as a result of your refusal. The government is sending him, but he's going because you refused to be drafted.

Like I said. I say that makes you a scumbag. You say that makes him an idiot who you pity. It doesn't shock me.

A government that needs to force its citizens into slavery to defend itself is not a government worth defending in the first place. I can imagine circumstances in which I'd freely enlist, but I'd never accept being drafted.

As i'm looking over these posts, what you guys seem to be arguing about is really only semantics. Fire away if you will, but it's probably a waste of time as neither of you is convincing the other of your particular point of view.

Ive made my point clear. Eric seems to be willingly ignoring that its not my fault if someone makes their own choice to go along with the draft. If I am prepared to damage my future, thats my business, and Im aware of the consequences. Person B, or the "replacement" is not. Ok. Great, that is their choice. I do not, nor should I, feel guilty for their choice.

As i'm looking over these posts, what you guys seem to be arguing about is really only semantics. Fire away if you will, but it's probably a waste of time as neither of you is convincing the other of your particular point of view.

We don't argue to convince the other. We argue to convince the audience.

I'm assuming you know that though. ;)

A government that needs to force its citizens into slavery to defend itself is not a government worth defending in the first place. I can imagine circumstances in which I'd freely enlist, but I'd never accept being drafted.

OK, but what would you do about it. I could not accept that i'm going to die, that doesn't mean that I won't. (Yes I know i'm arguing semantics, I don't care, it's fun. :))

*Sigh*

Last time. He's going directly as a result of your refusal. The government is sending him, but he's going because you refused to be drafted.

Like I said. I say that makes you a scumbag. You say that makes him an idiot who you pity. It doesn't shock me.

No, hes going because he chose to go. He got a card because of my refusal. However he is going because he chooses to go. I do not feel guilty.


Im not suprised you are having trouble comprehending this.


This is pointless. You either cant wrap your head around this concept or are being willfully ignorant. I have reading to do, and its late. So Im done for now.

*Sigh*

Last time. He's going directly as a result of your refusal. The government is sending him, but he's going because you refused to be drafted.

Like I said. I say that makes you a scumbag. You say that makes him an idiot who you pity. It doesn't shock me.

The government is wrong here for sending ANYONE to start with. So you have no point.

In addition to that, you sound like an antagonist in a poorly-written manga.

*Sigh*

Last time. He's going directly as a result of your refusal. The government is sending him, but he's going because you refused to be drafted.

Bullshit. It's an indirect result at best -- the direct causes are the government's drafting him, and his not refusing.

We don't argue to convince the other. We argue to convince the audience.

I'm assuming you know that though. ;)

Yes, but I like arguing semantics too. :cool:

OK, but what would you do about it. I could not accept that i'm going to die, that doesn't mean that I won't. (Yes I know i'm arguing semantics, I don't care, it's fun. :))

If necessary, leave the country for another that won't extradite me. I wouldn't be the first.

If necessary, leave the country for another that won't extradite me. I wouldn't be the first.

You do realize that if things got bad enough that we needed to draft, there really wouldn't be any safe place to run.

That's not necessarily the case. The opinions I've heard on this differ, but it's my understanding that something as limited as starting a ground war in Iran could stretch our armed forces to the point of needing a draft.

That's not necessarily the case. The opinions I've heard on this differ, but it's my understanding that something as limited as starting a ground war in Iran could stretch our armed forces to the point of needing a draft.

If we had a president THAT idiotic, I would move to Canada.

*Sigh*

Last time. He's going directly as a result of your refusal. The government is sending him, but he's going because you refused to be drafted.


Makes sense.



Ive made my point clear. Eric seems to be willingly ignoring that its not my fault if someone makes their own choice to go along with the draft. If I am prepared to damage my future, thats my business, and Im aware of the consequences. Person B, or the "replacement" is not. Ok. Great, that is their choice. I do not, nor should I, feel guilty for their choice.

You are indirectly responsible for the replacement going because of your refusal. If you had gone the replacement wouldn't have to go. It is not hard to grasp. Whether you feel guilt or not is up to you.

The government is wrong here for sending ANYONE to start with. So you have no point.

In addition to that, you sound like an antagonist in a poorly-written manga.

The government is wrong for drafting people, or sending people to war?

And manga is fucking lame.

Makes sense.





You are indirectly responsible for the replacement going because of your refusal. If you had gone the replacement wouldn't have to go. It is not hard to grasp. Whether you feel guilt or not is up to you.



The government is wrong for drafting people, or sending people to war?

It's like saying you're indirectly responsible for someone else being mugged because you weren't.

And yes.

As for mangas, I personally find them to be good.

It's like saying you're indirectly responsible for someone else being mugged because you weren't.

Not in the slightest. A person's choice to dodge the draft creates a situation where the military must choose another person to drafted. The draft dodger is then somewhat responsible for the second choice being drafted.

People don't do something to make another person be mugged.

And yes.
To what? To both? That drafting is wrong, or that sending anyone to war is wrong, or both?

Not in the slightest. A person's choice to dodge the draft creates a situation where the military must choose another person to drafted. The draft dodger is then somewhat responsible for the second choice being drafted.

People don't do something to make another person be mugged.


To what? To both? That drafting is wrong, or that sending anyone to war is wrong, or both?

Suppose you're walking down the street one night and see a mugger coming towards you. He shouts out that he needs a hundred bucks for his next fix. You run and somehow outrun him. He'll need another victim. Does that make you responsible for his next mugging?

And both are wrong.

Suppose you're walking down the street one night and see a mugger coming towards you. He shouts out that he needs a hundred bucks for his next fix. You run and somehow outrun him. He'll need another victim. Does that make you responsible for his next mugging?

And both are wrong.

Totally unrelated examples.

Drafting I can see people's arguments against. Though in dire situations I'd be fine with it.

War in general is not wrong, however.

Totally unrelated examples.

Drafting I can see people's arguments against. Though in dire situations I'd be fine with it.

War in general is not wrong, however.

How are they unrelated?

And war represents might making right. Ergo, wrong.

How are they unrelated?

And war represents might making right. Ergo, wrong.

One is the gov't asking a citizen to do his duty. (well in our case, a citizen refusing to do his duty and making another do it for him)

Another is a criminal out to make a buck.

And might does make right in international relations. This news isn't new, its oh, 2000+ years old. Where have you been?

Besides, war can benefit your nation, or free other nations.

It's not about sending others to fight. It's about being against war altogether.

Yes indeed.

If I refuse, this is both a statement of personal choice, and opposition to the government's attempt to draft ANYONE.

That the government then chooses to draft some other person is in no way my fault.

Yes indeed.

If I refuse, this is both a statement of personal choice, and opposition to the government's attempt to draft ANYONE.

That the government then chooses to draft some other person is in no way my fault.

Now your just being willfully blind.

You may not have much blame (maybe 1% or less of the blame) of having another person fight in your stead, but there is still some blame. To believe otherwise is deluding yourself to make yourself feel better.

I would serve my term to the best of my ability unless it were a civil war and I sided at least philosophically with the rebels.

I would've already enlisted.

Now your just being willfully blind.

My post was much delayed by a glitch at my end, and if it disregarded the last twenty minutes of debate I'm sorry about that.

But I don't give a damn what you perceive as MY WILL. You're wrong by the very definition of "will."

You may not have much blame (maybe 1% or less of the blame) of having another person fight in your stead, but there is still some blame.

"In my stead" is key. You have determined that I have a duty to fight. IF I do not feel that duty (and as I said in my first post, it depends on the circumstances at the time the draft is introduced, ie the war it is to fight) then I will not endorse any other being drafted in my place.

Suppose this. The draft is introduced to fight a war I utterly oppose. I immediately renounce my citizenship and emigrate. The draftee who takes "my" place goes off to war in obedience of what used to be my government. Do I still bear some responsibility for that person's endangerment, trauma and loss of civilian priveleges?

In what sense does that other draftee fight "for me" ?

To believe otherwise is deluding yourself to make yourself feel better.

Whatever.

If it really came down to it, I'd probably sign up for officer training.

My post was much delayed by a glitch at my end, and if it disregarded the last twenty minutes of debate I'm sorry about that.

I hate when stuff like that happens!



"In my stead" is key. You have determined that I have a duty to fight. IF I do not feel that duty (and as I said in my first post, it depends on the circumstances at the time the draft is introduced, ie the war it is to fight) then I will not endorse any other being drafted in my place.

Are you a man? Do you have a working pair of balls? If so, you have a duty to fight and defend your country and loved ones.


Suppose this. The draft is introduced to fight a war I utterly oppose. I immediately renounce my citizenship and emigrate. The draftee who takes "my" place goes off to war in obedience of what used to be my government. Do I still bear some responsibility for that person's endangerment, trauma and loss of civilian priveleges?

All that is a little hasty now. Why the fuck would you move if your country was fighting a war? How can you not feel that you have a duty to aid your country?

But, if you renounced citizenship and emigrated I'd say that'd be okay...I guess. You still shirked your duty, though, but at least you left...


In what sense does that other draftee fight "for me" ?

Well, soldiers fight for the rest of the nation....

And in the case of draft dodgers one soldier serving is doing what the draft dodger should be doing....

Are you a man? Do you have a working pair of balls?

You're saying I should let my testicles make the decision for me? Nice!

If so, you have a duty to fight and defend your country and loved ones.

And if not, if I were a woman ... I would not have that duty?

All that is a little hasty now. Why the fuck would you move if your country was fighting a war?

Can't answer, huh?

How can you not feel that you have a duty to aid your country?

I MAY feel I have such a duty, but not ONLY because of the introduction of a draft. And that is the scenario: there is no specific case to it, for instance to "protect my country from invasion."

If you argue that I have this duty always, regardless of what my country is, what the government is, what the "cause" this draft serves ... then you are endorsing all wars, all oppressive governments. Perhaps you are even endorsing terrorists, since their spiritual leaders stand in the same relationship to them as your government (or "your country" as you inaccurately put it) does to you.

But, if you renounced citizenship and emigrated I'd say that'd be okay...I guess. You still shirked your duty, though, but at least you left...

So now that I'm a foreigner, you will lower your expectations of me?

I guess that's consistent with your assumption that if your government would fight a war, that that war must serve the interests of your country.

And in the case of draft dodgers one soldier serving is doing what the draft dodger should be doing....

When it comes down to it, whether it's that draftee who "does his duty" and saves me from it, or I who "shirk my duty" and "make" them do it "for me" ... comes down to a number picked from a hat.

Funny kind of justice that. A bit random, no?

just keep fooling yourself sugar plum:p

You really don't know me at all do you? I have no delusions about such action ending well for me, but it's a facet of my personality. Any time someone give me an "order" it gets interpreted as a suggestion. If I think it's a good idea it gets carried out, otherwise I just ignore it and do what I was going to anyway and/or tell whoever thinks they have the bloody right to order me around to fuck off.

I'm 35. I'm probably safe. But if it happened, I'd end up back on an aircraft carrier as an EW(Or CTT as I believe they're called now). Which is a nice place to be. :)

It's not nice if you're up against an equivalent army (say hello to missile spam!).

You're saying I should let my testicles make the decision for me? Nice!

Not really. I'm saying that if you're a man, you have a duty to defend your nation and family.



And if not, if I were a woman ... I would not have that duty?

Not really, no. At least not to serve in the military.





I MAY feel I have such a duty, but not ONLY because of the introduction of a draft. And that is the scenario: there is no specific case to it, for instance to "protect my country from invasion."

Fair enough.



If you argue that I have this duty always, regardless of what my country is, what the government is, what the "cause" this draft serves ... then you are endorsing all wars, all oppressive governments. Perhaps you are even endorsing terrorists, since their spiritual leaders stand in the same relationship to them as your government (or "your country" as you inaccurately put it) does to you.

I can think of cases where the duty would be null.



So now that I'm a foreigner, you will lower your expectations of me? Not really...it'd just be nice to have one less coward around...


I guess that's consistent with your assumption that if your government would fight a war, that that war must serve the interests of your country.

That is generally why countries fight wars...



When it comes down to it, whether it's that draftee who "does his duty" and saves me from it, or I who "shirk my duty" and "make" them do it "for me" ... comes down to a number picked from a hat.

Funny kind of justice that. A bit random, no?

It does seem a bit random.

KOL, you wouldn't mind having someone else drafted in your place?

If someone else is drafted then it's his choice to either join up or to avoid being enslaved.

If someone else is drafted then it's his choice to either join up or to avoid being enslaved.

But its the draft dodgers fault for making him make the choice...an it really isn't slavery.