The Draft may be Back

[Kill_Thomas9]

 

Last I checked bush wasn't incharge of the military.

 

 

 

I hope you're kidding :? The entire war started because of his conviction and 'messages from God' that he should enter this war to 'protect the american people'.

 

 

 

Yes, he is the commander-in-chief by law and all generals ultimately answer to him. He could drop an atomic bomb on Iraq if he wanted to, because it's a military resource. He doesn't need approval from the senate or congress to use a weapon.

 

 

 

Sorry. What I meant was that I didn't believe that this was Bush's decision (although it may be), and so the draft wouldn't go away when a new President was elected. But I think I understand what Runeman was saying now. He was saying that once bush is out of office, the war will end.

[BlueLancer]

American bases are constantly mortared and kill the non-front line people as well. It isn't like you have a 0 percent chance of dying. Thus, logically, you still have a chance to die even if its not in combat. Being put in a situation against your will, where there is a chance where you can die is morally wrong.

 

 

 

I never said those jobs have a 0% mortality rate. Heck, soldiers in transport duty are probably 10 times more likely to die than a marine in front line combat duties, because of roadside bombs, rocket attacks etc..

 

 

 

If you get conscripted, you don't really get to choose what's "morally wrong" though.

 

 

 

What *would* you fight against? Communism? Terrorists threatening to attack your country?

 

 

 

A man with character must have 'something' he'd ultimately be willing to die for. If not any ideals, at least the guaranteed wellbeing of his family and friends by defending his country.

 

 

 

What I agree with is that I wouldn't go to Iraq or Afghanistan for any reason. I don't see any reason to still be in those countries under the guise of "stabilizing their society" while all they're really doing is guarantee the economic profits and, especially in Iraq, the guaranteed dirt-cheap oil flowing in the US without insurgents blowing up pipelines or getting too politically interested about controlling their own oil fields.

[BlueTear]

You do realize that all of those jobs must be done over in Iraq. From what i hear on the news, a large number of casualties are just people walking from their sleeping quarters to the mess hall. American bases are constantly mortared and kill the non-front line people as well. It isn't like you have a 0 percent chance of dying. Thus, logically, you still have a chance to die even if its not in combat. Being put in a situation against your will, where there is a chance where you can die is morally wrong.

But participating in the decision making process of the collective - that would be voting - without having the will to put your own safety and wellbeing aside for said collective is morally right?

 

 

 

Has a voting citizen of a democratic nation who is not willing to put his own safety and wellbeing aside for the Greater Good really deserved the right to vote?

 

But, its not the time or place to get in a talk about ethics because the draft will not be instated. There is a democratic majority in congress, so i think us strapping young lads are safe.

Why not? We've got time, and we're in Off-Topic...

[cryztalwing]

I think you should be able to choose if you want to be drafted or not. Of course, if you are not, you should lose all Selective Service benefits. That means no social security, no voting...hell, you will have less rights than a convict!

 

 

 

The draft will never be instated unless it's a major war.

 

 

 

By law you have to show up were you are told to go to if a new draft happens. But you do not have to step across the line, and they can't force you to, when it comes down to it, even if you do pass the tests to see if your fit to serve.

[BlueLancer]

I think you should be able to choose if you want to be drafted or not. Of course, if you are not, you should lose all Selective Service benefits. That means no social security, no voting...hell, you will have less rights than a convict!

 

 

 

The draft will never be instated unless it's a major war.

 

 

 

By law you have to show up were you are told to go to if a new draft happens. But you do not have to step across the line, and they can't force you to, when it comes down to it, even if you do pass the tests to see if your fit to serve.

 

 

 

Actually, they can force you to step across the line by law and fire up the blackhawk. I have no idea where people get these ideas they could just hide or run to Canada if a draft happens (which wont be now, but it *certainly* will happen in the future if/when the US is threatened).

 

 

 

Just in Europe and USA during WW2, people avoiding the draft or refusing to fight were executed under martial law for treason. I don't even want to know what they did to traitors in asian countries before they died.

 

 

 

If you these days try to avoid the draft, you wont be executed, but you will be imprisoned for an indefinite of time under military law, as well as being forced to pay a fine of several hundred/thousand dollars, if refusing, the confiscation of your property. You can be also forced to work in a labor camp until the war is over.

[assassin_696]

 

That people don't want to fight in pointless wars for their government.

 

 

 

Dying for your country now equates to Dying for your government.

 

 

 

If an imminent threat was posed against, say Scotland, would you take up arms and join the military or just duck in fear behind a toolshed?

 

 

 

I can't believe the stuff written here. :shock: Your attitudes will probably change after you grow older...

 

 

 

I think the fact isn't so much that everyone's a complete pacifist, more than they feel there's no point fighting in a war for oil/political (in?)stability in the middle-east, propping up some kind of "democracy" in a country founded on a religion which has no tradition of democracy.

 

 

 

I know hindsight is 20-20, but there aren't many wars in our (British) history which i'd really say were worth fighting for, WWII is probably the only one that springs to mind immediately. If I thought there was a genuine threat to my country/values, then yeah i'd fight to defend them, but I don't think Iraq poses that threat.

 

 

 

EDIT: Didn't see this second page, you've said in effect what i've just said.

[FalconBomba]

I wouldn't like to go to war but, if I do ever get drafted I'd go. I mean its my country. (Canada woot!) BUT, I wouldn't go for the U.S. I mean it's where I live but, it isn't my country. I know people in the army though and they are cool and I think the media has twisted the war sooo much that everyone thinks it's a pointless war based on W. wanting oil or something and the only thing acheived was killing peoples children. That is sooo wrong that it isn't funny. Oh and if anyone attacked Ireland or Wales I'd go and fight there. (I have family there.)

 

 

 

But, people you can't hide from the draft by crossing to Canada... Mexico maybe... but Canada has a treaty with the U.S. that they can come in and draft American citizens that try to hide in Canada. (not sure if someone has already said that.)

[ltb2006]

Haha, Scotland really isn't much of a threat lol, Scotland has less than 6 million people, England has 10 times that.

 

 

 

 

Yeah just a shame its the u.k

[Barihawk]

I wouldn't like to go to war but, if I do ever get drafted I'd go. I mean its my country. (Canada woot!) BUT, I wouldn't go for the U.S. I mean it's where I live but, it isn't my country. I know people in the army though and they are cool and I think the media has twisted the war sooo much that everyone thinks it's a pointless war based on W. wanting oil or something and the only thing acheived was killing peoples children. That is sooo wrong that it isn't funny. Oh and if anyone attacked Ireland or Wales I'd go and fight there. (I have family there.)

 

 

 

But, people you can't hide from the draft by crossing to Canada... Mexico maybe... but Canada has a treaty with the U.S. that they can come in and draft American citizens that try to hide in Canada. (not sure if someone has already said that.)

 

 

 

About the bolded part: Thank God, because people who enjoy war and killing are sociopaths.

 

 

 

And I like your comments to the media. I can't imagine a single news station actually telling the truth, because truth is not good ratings.

[Evilperson]

But participating in the decision making process of the collective - that would be voting - without having the will to put your own safety and wellbeing aside for said collective is morally right?

 

 

 

See below about fighting for freedoms.

 

 

 

Has a voting citizen of a democratic nation who is not willing to put his own safety and wellbeing aside for the Greater Good really deserved the right to vote?

 

Why not? We've got time, and we're in Off-Topic...

 

 

 

I would gladly not vote for the chance to be excused from mandatory military duty. People who are competent realize that voting realize that their vote does not matter. Not in the sense that i am only one person, but the fact that the electoral college is not influenced by the least by the majority vote. I am well aware of how the government works.

 

And i didn't feel like spamming up morality in the government/laws because this thread is about the draft. Besides, morality=/=legality

 

 

 

I never said those jobs have a 0% mortality rate. Heck, soldiers in transport duty are probably 10 times more likely to die than a marine in front line combat duties, because of roadside bombs, rocket attacks etc..

 

 

 

I didn't mean to say you thought that, but since you didn't specifically say that people are still able to die, people who can't read between the lines would assume that they have no chance of dying. I was just pointing out a fact.

 

If you get conscripted, you don't really get to choose what's "morally wrong" though.

 

Right, but the actual act of conscription is wrong. Taking away someones free will to support the freedoms that you have is plausible in theory. But think about it, do you execute all of your freedoms? What if you didn't want to execute the majority of them and thus did not care if they even existed? Should you be forced to defend something you do not agree with? Yes, cue the get out of the country bit/change the government yourself bit (i will discuss this later). My answer is no, you shouldn't be forced to fight for something you do not believe in.

 

 

 

What *would* you fight against? Communism? Terrorists threatening to attack your country?

 

Personally, i would judge the situation when it came to me. Thinking of radical events is pointless.

 

 

 

A man with character must have 'something' he'd ultimately be willing to die for. If not any ideals, at least the guaranteed wellbeing of his family and friends by defending his country.

 

Of course i would do this. Being threatened by imaginary things such as WMD's (couldn't resist) is not something i would willingly join the army, or any other branch of the military though

 

 

 

What I agree with is that I wouldn't go to Iraq or Afghanistan for any reason. I don't see any reason to still be in those countries under the guise of "stabilizing their society" while all they're really doing is guarantee the economic profits and, especially in Iraq, the guaranteed dirt-cheap oil flowing in the US without insurgents blowing up pipelines or getting too politically interested about controlling their own oil fields.

 

The economic standpoint is a thought to take into consideration, but it impossible to get the complete truth. It is going to be skewed depending on who is it coming from. It is hard to accept it as a fact, although i do.

 

 

 

Democracy has one large flaw: the majority. It is impossible for one person to make any significant impact upon the government. If they have radical ideas that hardly anyone else agrees with, they cannot gather enough resources to put pressure upon congress members which are elected by the majority anyways. My point is, if you do not agree with a core ideal of the government such as any of the amendments, you can't change it. It is hard to explain what i mean. I am trying to say is that i am sure that we all have core ideals which we would be willing to give up for some immunity from the government. But since it varies for us all, we can't. As individuals, we should be able to give up something, as in unregister to vote, or something as such, but in return we don't have to register for the draft. It takes away our duties and our privileges at the same time. Is this fair? I would assume so. That way, since you agree with 90% of the countries core beliefs, you can change the other 10% to agree with it all.

[martinisback]

 

Last I checked bush wasn't incharge of the military.

 

 

 

I hope you're kidding :? The entire war started because of his conviction and 'messages from God' that he should enter this war to 'protect the american people'.

 

 

 

Yes, he is the commander-in-chief by law and all generals ultimately answer to him. He could drop an atomic bomb on Iraq if he wanted to, because it's a military resource. He doesn't need approval from the senate or congress to use a weapon.

 

 

 

Stupid guy..oh hes from california to...

 

 

 

BUSH STARTED THIS WAR IDIOT And now hes reliazing how STUPID his choice to go in Iraq was and doing many other STUPID things to cover it up that he did all of this. Bush is an idiot, and by far the worst president ever to run a country.

 

 

 

Blue lancer knows what hes takin about..you dont

[kelem_ryu]

Theres no way I'm joining the war on Iraq. I would consider a draft if it was actually a war worth fighting but I can't stand the war in Iraq, its useless and terrible.

 

 

 

So, what are you going to do, tough guy? Have fun being imprisoned.

 

 

 

I'd try to flee and if they catch me they can put me into prison. No way i'd be a soldier ever. I'm not an american though anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, traitor.

 

 

 

You sign up for the selective service to reap all the benifits, but when push comes to shove you wuss out?

 

 

 

My sister wouldn't have to sign up and still gets the same benefits i assume?

 

 

 

It's not that signing this contract would be a real choice. You are born there and at some point you are basically forced to sign it, unless you are a very adventurous soul, who has little trouble leaving the country on a whim. It's like living in a house for two decades, when suddenly somebody comes up to you and tells you to sign a contract, or leave.

 

 

 

 

 

Where i live (in Austria) males have either to do 8 month military service or a year alternative service (something like driving in an ambulance, working at home for old or handicaped people). I refused to do either. I won't be someones [bleep] or rather slave.

[BlueLancer]

 

Where i live (in Austria) males have either to do 8 month military service or a year alternative service (something like driving in an ambulance, working at home for old or handicaped people). I refused to do either. I won't be someones [bleep] or rather slave.

 

 

 

I completely agree with your view, as my whole live I've refused to be a practical 'slave' to anyone or a tool to their stupid causes..

 

 

 

But I don't see being in the army as being a slave. I'm not a war freak. I think it's an honor I have the opportunity to recieve free training and if the necessity arises, die protecting my family+friends, instead of being a lazy coward and dying with a bad consciousness at age 80 while watching TV in a retirement house for old people.

 

 

 

"I refused to do either"

 

 

 

Well in some countries you recieve a jail sentence of about 200 days for that (not sure about AUS though). You could do something a lot more constructive in 200 days than sit around in a cell, eat bad food and watch TV. :)

[Range_This11]

 

 

 

Stupid guy..oh hes from california to...

 

 

 

BUSH STARTED THIS WAR IDIOT And now hes reliazing how STUPID his choice to go in Iraq was and doing many other STUPID things to cover it up that he did all of this. Bush is an idiot, and by far the worst president ever to run a country.

 

 

 

Blue lancer knows what hes takin about..you dont

 

 

 

 

 

Mind you that congress had to approve the war by a majority vote. Don't go putting the blame on him, blame the congress that passed it.

 

 

 

Do I believe that this war is good and just? No, not even close. But I do believe that people are cramming on Bush because no one knows who to blame for this. It's just political scapegoating to the max and personally, I'm really sick of it.

 

 

 

And don't even try to say he was the worst president ever to run a country. Not only have there been scores of worse national leaders across the globe throughout time but you seem to forget the days of Political Business. Tameney Hall, Boss Tweed ring a bell? Fixed elections, dead people voting, animals voting, tenents not being able to stay in a place without voting for a certain party member.

 

 

 

We live in the greatest age of America yet. But we are not the greatest country on the earth. Before we start calling ourselves that, we need to start acting like it.

 

 

 

So go ahead and keep believing the political issues mommy and daddy tell you and the ones you hear on the evening news instead of forming your own opinions and thinking for yourself. Way to go.

[wakka102]

Theres no way I'm joining the war on Iraq. I would consider a draft if it was actually a war worth fighting but I can't stand the war in Iraq, its useless and terrible.

 

 

 

So, what are you going to do, tough guy? Have fun being imprisoned.

 

 

 

I'd try to flee and if they catch me they can put me into prison. No way i'd be a soldier ever. I'm not an american though anyway.

 

See, I don't mind being a soldier, this country has been good to me and I would fight for it if I see the war as something worth fighting for, this war is pointless and shouldn't have existed in the first place and theres no way I'm risking my life over something that stupid.

[BlueLancer]

 

And don't even try to say he was the worst president ever to run a country.

 

 

 

Bush threatens to veto the bill for improved healthcare for children, costing an approximate $35 billion, while at the same time approving the bill for an additional $120 billion funding for wars in Iraq/Afghanistan.

 

 

 

That means Democrats and the White House will almost certainly have to work together on some kind of extension if Mr. Bush issues his veto, because neither side wants to take the blame for letting the childrenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s health program lapse.

 

 

 

Even his own republican party disagrees with him, this man keeps screwing up, it's as if he tries to make people hate him?

 

 

 

What is more important than ensuring the children in your own country have a healthy childhood? Talebans in Afghanistan are a bigger threat? They don't even have a single freaking airplane to even attempt attacking the US! (Before you jump on the obvious, all of the 9/11 hijackers were nationals of Saudi Arabia)

 

 

 

Iraq insurgents? Let's recount... How many airplanes and ships do they have again, if they wanted to attack the US? A big fat zero.

 

 

 

It's sad one man leading the country is more dangerous to the american people than the people he funds wars against.

[FalconBomba]

I'd much rather die for my country defending it than not defending it and cowering in a corner in my basement and getting shot when they invade.

[Barihawk]

 

And don't even try to say he was the worst president ever to run a country.

 

 

 

Bush threatens to veto the bill for improved healthcare for children, costing an approximate $35 billion, while at the same time approving the bill for an additional $120 billion funding for wars in Iraq/Afghanistan.

 

 

 

You forget that the bill was not just for children's healthcare. It was calling for the money to be taken out of other budgets. It was simply attached there to hurt bush when he vetoed the actual bill. If the line-item veto was given to the President, the children would have gotten their healthcare. I can't believe someone as smart as you would only listen to the media's one-sided sensationalism.

[Range_This11]

But what do we know about that bill other than the general statement "for children's healthcare"?

 

 

 

We all know every bill is hammed up with tons of other crap that is irrelevant to the "main purpose" of the bill. He's caught in a catch-22. Veto and look like a bad person for being against child health care and be torn to shreds by the left-based news media OR pass it and cause other repercussions that the american public doesn't know about.

[BlueLancer]

 

You forget that the bill was not just for children's healthcare. It was calling for the money to be taken out of other budgets. It was simply attached there to hurt bush when he vetoed the actual bill. If the line-item veto was given to the President, the children would have gotten their healthcare. I can't believe someone as smart as you would only listen to the media's one-sided sensationalism.

 

 

 

The bill was to be funded exclusively by increasing cigarette taxes. If you actually read the article you'd noticed that.

 

 

 

But hey, pleasing those angry lobbyists by not taxing them further is a smarter move than making sure millions of kids can live healthily.

 

 

 

Veto and look like a bad person for being against child health care and be torn to shreds by the left-based news media OR pass it and cause other repercussions that the american public doesn't know about.

 

 

 

How come threating to veto the bill also enraged his own, republican party and it's members?

 

 

 

Agreeing with him regardless of what he does, just because you're a republican is a logical fallacy. You know, not all nazis and germans agreed with Hitler either. When he got too crazy, some of them tried to assassinate him or just fled the country.

 

 

 

This man isn't quite as mad, but the line is closing...

[Satenza]

I like the "OR pass it and cause other repercussions that the american public doesn't know about" as you can not think of an actual positive for Bush's decision.

[Range_This11]

The same reason why there are multiple people running in the democrat and republican race in 2008. Not every Republican is an uber conservative. Not every Democrat is a left extremist. You're taking this article at face value which no matter what issue it is about, you should never do.

 

 

 

When did I say I was agreeing with him completely????

 

 

 

And comparing George Bush to Adolf Hitler? You have got to be kidding me.

 

 

 

When you are being rounded up to be killed by your skin color, sexual preference, religion, or physical characteristics, make sure to let me know.

 

 

 

I am not a republican. I disagree completely with the political process. In most cases, I don't take a standpoint.

[BlueLancer]

The same reason why there are multiple people running in the democrat and republican race in 2008. Not every Republican is an uber conservative. Not every Democrat is a left extremist. You're taking this article at face value which no matter what issue it is about, you should never do.

 

 

 

Not believing an article which is properly sourced is a logically infeasible as well. There isn't a hidden trigger that reveals the truth after you read 400 articles about a subject.

 

 

 

There also isn't a mystical conspiracy here. The president vetoed a bill for children's healthcare which would've been funded by raising cigarette taxes. That's all there is to it, if you want, I'll post you another 20 articles including ones from republican-oriented news sites.

 

 

 

The bill doesn't include a secret $500 billion dollar funding for futuristic weapons. It doesn't contain legislation enabling his impeachment.

 

 

 

All it does is piss off cigarette companies who are already responsible for over 400,000 annual deaths caused by smoking (last source is by American Heart Association so don't attack that one as well)

[atronic92]

 

Last I checked bush wasn't incharge of the military.

 

 

 

The president of the united states controls the military. I learned that in second grade and I hope that my teacher wasn't fooling me.

[Range_This11]

You can bash Bush all you want. So he doesn't pass a child healthcare bill, I'm sure he wasn't the first to do so. But what I really want to know, is why policy hasn't changed in the past 2 years. The congress is now democrat majority but yet there have been no changes in Iraq. In fact, there are more troops being sent there than before. I'm not being a jerk here, but do you know why that is? No one can give me an answer on that!