 |
| |
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The poll, which I'm not even bothering to answer because it's a false question (see Slow's first post for details), should actually read thus:
I'm against the draft because...
a) I'm against taking human life (i.e., I'm a conscientious objector)
b) I'm against putting myself in harm's way for my country (i.e., I'm a coward)
c) I believe that a free society should protect me, secure my rights, but never make any demands on me in return (i.e., I'm a selfish brat)
|
This is nonsense.
I think taking someone else's life can sometimes be justified, so a) is out. But I still would oppose being drafted, for a number of reasons, and anyone who knew me would tell you that I am no coward and I am certainly no selfish brat.
Firstly, they wouldn't have me - I am not fit (medically) for military service.
Secondly, I would be completely wasted on the front line. It has been discussed in another thread recently that there are a lot of people needed in the background, away from the fighting, in order to win a war. Any side stupid enough to send me to the front deserves to lose. In a serious war where the draft was used I would probably be put to work on weapons research.
Thirdly, I do believe that a free society should protect me and gaurantee my rights. I don't see soldiers as being any different from bakers or lawyers or garbage collectors. Each has a function in society, the specialization of which allows greater efficiency and an improvement of our standard of living. Soldiers get paid for what they do, and part of their responsibility is to fight and possibly die. They choose to take that risk, and they are compensated for that risk.
Only in extreme cases where my society could only survive by drafting all men to fight would I consider it - and then I would make the decision on my own, not by some idiot's command. This certainly hasn't happened since WWII and frankly, if it does happen, someone isn't doing their job properly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Faeelin
|
|
Tau Ceti
Oct 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
I like your style my friend 
And the draft is, as was already pointed out but not really addressed, slavery, pure and simple.
I'd like one of you pro-draft people, who go on and on about "defending America" and "defending our freedoms" to point to ONE SINGLE TIME where the United States of America used a draft to defend it's own territory or the freedom of those residing within it. I don't think you can.
First Draft: US Civil War.
However, the United States was not threatened. The draft was used in order to forcibly conquer the Confederate States of America. Sure, the CSA used the draft as well - it was a slightly different situation, but also many governors in the South opposed the draft, and even suspended it in their state at various time, such as Mississippi and North Carolina.
Second Draft: World War 1.
Again, no threat to the United States. The draft was used to save France and the UK from having a negative peace dictated to them by the Germans. Ultimately, the use of the draft by the USA won the war for the Triple Entente and friends, and as a result caused World War 2, and rather than a strong Germany on the Continent opposing Bolshevism and a strong Britain on the British Isles controlling the seas, with several weaker powers scattered around Europe, we had, instead, an artificial Great Power in France, and artificial insignificant power in Germany, a Communist Russia, and Socialism running rampant across Europe, with the culmination of all this being World War 2, Nazism, and eventually the Cold War.
Third Draft: World War 2.
Minor threat to outlying US possessions from Japan. No threat to the US from Germany - sorry guys, Germany never had a big atomic bomb project going on, no matter what you want to believe, and they could never have invaded Britain or held down the USSR in any case, it's a matter of logistics. In Japan's case, they were simply not strong enough to threaten the US in a major way, and all the US really had to do was to build up a navy, concentrate totally on Japan, and a totally volunteer military would have been able to secure all American possessions and force a peace among equals, instead of US troops dying in places like Okinawa, Japanese cities getting nuked and firebombed, and, with the lack of a Japanese counterbalance in Eastern Asia, the rise of Communist China and no power in Asia to counter the USSR.
The draft then continued until the Mid-70s. The two major wars fought in this time, Korea and Vietnam, were not even declared wars, and in any case North Korea and North Vietnam were of no threat to the US.
The argument, then, is that the use of the draft in the United States, while a contributing reason to the huge victories in the two world wars and the conquest of the CSA, was in the long term a negative thing when looked at in a non-military perspective, because it destroyed existing and potential strategic balances of power all over the world, leading to nuclear stalemate and things such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, the creation of the State of Israel, and dozens of little wars ranging from Korea and Vietnam to Grenada, Haiti, and Kosovo, none of which should have been fought.
That is one huge reason I would never support a draft, or report for one. The consequences of the draft are morally indefensible, as well as the draft itself being a mechanism to remove basic civil liberties and human rights from all it touches, and is, in any case, totally unsupported by the Constitution of the United States. [/QUOTE]
This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Exactly what qualifies as a danger to you?
CSA: First of all, we were merely taking back states that were rebelling. If this was a conquest, then so is the suppression of every other revolt in history. Oh, and if we had not had the draft, we would've lost the war. I suppose the millions of african americans who are alive today and are allowed to be citizens don't qualify as Americans who freedoms were saved? (Before anyone says, slavery was one of the leading causes. Initially there were several amendments which made the freed slaves equal with the rest of the country, but southerners had them repelased in the 70's. They did not gain full equality until the 60's. But irregardless, in a CAS which uses them as cheap labor, they'd never be anything greater than 2nd class citizens. At best).
WW1: US ships were being attacked. I suppose protecting american sailors is a bad thing? if Germany hadn't started attacking and sinking our ships, we would have remained neutral. Read some history. Please.
WW2: Okay, here you're being blatantly hypocritical. First you say that no region of the USA has never been attacked, then you talk about how there were only "minor threats" to "outlying regions." Hawaii is was a US territory. Its inhabitants were US citizens. Japan had plans in the works to invade Australia,Alaska, Hawaii, and go down the pacific coast into California. Are we still in outlying regions?
Then there's Nazi Germany. Without the draft, the USA couldn't have had the manpower to win a two front war. We would either have a Europe ruled by the Nazis ofr the Communists. Expect the destruction of the USA to follow sometime in the next 20 or 30 years.
Your moral objection is that you don't feel you owe your country anything, in which case your parents are failures, and you're a failure. The idea that you can just take from society and not give back is a joke.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
It isn't far from the truth, Slowhand. Rich people were able to buy their way out of the draft from the begining, later on using their influence to get draft boards to overlook their sons or have them stationed in non-combat theaters (like Dan Quayle). There were plenty of exemptions for middle class children, being in college (for a while).
The draft disproportionately hit those in the lower socio-economic strata. Once in, there was an additional disproportionate number of such people in combat positions. We live in a class society and the armed forces reflect that very well. There was a reason (several, actually) why MLK was opposed to the war in Vietnam.
Chris, a person who avoided the draft for the Vietnam war would be a traitor in your definition, even though it was an illegal and immoral war, foisted upon the American people by lies and maintained by lies. If there had been a draft for the Gulf War, people who felt their lives were worth more than ensuring the profits of the oil compaines would be traitors? If there were a draft to get troops to go fight in Columbia, people would be traitors if their refused a draft to go aid a government with the worst human rights record in Latin America?
Regardless of whether someone simply believes war is immoral and refuses to have anything to do with it or someone believes that a particular war is immoral, that is their right. No one should be forced to kill or be killed for something they oppose. Refusing to fight isn't cowardice. It takes a lot more bravery to face the derision of your friends, family and neighbors, prison, exile, torture, and possibly death than ti does to go along with the flow and do something you know is immoral. That kid who sat down on the tarmac and refused to go fight in the Gulf had more guts than the people who went and thought the war was wrong.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
Che,
I think most missed what I was driving at (this seems to happen alot  ).
I said and meant the LITERAL definition of refusing the draft does indeed make you a traitor.
I think drafts today would be a bad idea, although many of the kids here would benifit from the disipline.
Comments about moral conviction are, as always, aimed at the children here who always yell about how they think they are privilaged characters whose butts must be spared above all else.
It's a sad fact that we don't know if a war is just or not till AFTER it starts, for the most part.
Did the kids who where drafted in 1966 understand Vietnam?
Go and look at interviews of average people in that era, and you will see that they had no problem with the draft.
Hindsight tells a different story, but we all live in the here and now, not the future.
Many believe that being drafted means being automatically sent to combat units, but this simply isn't the way the Army does things, it usually involves an arcane screening process which never seems to make any sense.
Draftees made little inpact in Vietnam till 1968 (the 65-67 forces were mostly the regular army), plus the Army saw the lack of worth in draftees rather early, often assigning dratee formations to base defense and other low combat specialties, while attempting to use higher quality elite forces (1st cav, 101 AMD, 1st inf, USMC) to carry most of the fighting, but even these forces were forced to accept draftees over time.
Many of the draftees brought the discord of America with them to SE Asia, only increasing the problems there.
As for the draft, one isn't needed right now, but some fuzzy history was posted here.
The civil war was fought mostly with volunteers, draftees played little part, and the draft laws were full of holes and exemptions.
WW I was indeed one by US forces, but it is still unlikely the Central powers would have won the war without them, only prolonged it. The revolts you speak of were mainly Russia 1917, France 1917, Germany and Austria 1918 (there was also a small mutiny in the British forces in 1918). For the Central powers the war was already lost, so it hardly mattered, it knocked Russia out of the war (into 5 years of bloody civil war, go figure), and the French were able to calm the troops with better treatment (after a few executions).
WW II. Sorry, but the USA was directly threatened, revisionist history here on the part of the fellow who posted that.
If Russia and europe had been defeated, the axis would indeed have come to the USA, so conscription was indeed needed.
A loop was attempted by that poster, "we won the war, so USA wasn't threatened, so conscription wasn't needed, even though conscripts fought the war". Faulty logic.
Also, the combatents on all sides relied heavily on drafts, or do people here believe the armies of Russia, Germany, Japan, Britain ect were all volunteer? If you think this, your dead wrong, the Soviet Union had compulsary conscription even in peacetime, as did Nazi Germany, and the bulk of their armies were made up of them.
Korea was a war of recalls, many men were indeed drafted and made up most of the forces involved.
Vietnam is a war in two pieces, the first part, 65-68 is a war of volunteers, the second, 68-72 is a war of draftees.
Despite what many think, you can and would be forced into military service, despite your protestations to the contary. It takes planning and conviction to be a true draft-dodger, and I doubt many of you boys pack the goods to do it, you reek of "soft". It's a hard thing to go somewhere new and start over.
Not saying this to Che, I believe his convictions are genuine, but to the "I'm saving my own ass" brigade.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
This is nonsense.
I think taking someone else's life can sometimes be justified, so a) is out. But I still would oppose being drafted, for a number of reasons, and anyone who knew me would tell you that I am no coward and I am certainly no selfish brat.
Firstly, they wouldn't have me - I am not fit (medically) for military service.
Secondly, I would be completely wasted on the front line. It has been discussed in another thread recently that there are a lot of people needed in the background, away from the fighting, in order to win a war. Any side stupid enough to send me to the front deserves to lose. In a serious war where the draft was used I would probably be put to work on weapons research.
Thirdly, I do believe that a free society should protect me and gaurantee my rights. I don't see soldiers as being any different from bakers or lawyers or garbage collectors. Each has a function in society, the specialization of which allows greater efficiency and an improvement of our standard of living. Soldiers get paid for what they do, and part of their responsibility is to fight and possibly die. They choose to take that risk, and they are compensated for that risk.
Only in extreme cases where my society could only survive by drafting all men to fight would I consider it - and then I would make the decision on my own, not by some idiot's command. This certainly hasn't happened since WWII and frankly, if it does happen, someone isn't doing their job properly. |
Rogan,
If you are medically unfit for front-line duty, than you would not be put there. If you had vital skills, you might be used elsewhere. If you just think your skin is worth more than the average Joe because of your double-dome IQ...that doesn't hold any water with me. See...I think my skin is worth more than yours because of my charming manner and dashing good looks (and backwards worn turban  ).
You won't (and we don't) recruit young men with the message of a mercenary trade-off (chance death for money). If you have to write a letter home to one of your troops parents after they died (I never have...but my close friend did after a shipboard fire), you aren't going to mention the E-4 salary the young man earned! You will mention how they acted bravely to save their shipmates and the ship. I would say the same is true by extension for police officers and firefighters.
A mercenary army* is a danger to the republic and probably would not fight very well. I'll take a squad of Marines over a company of Mafiosos any day. It's not just training...it's heart. Read the story of Cincinattus.
*For the subtlety challenged: this is not an argument for the draft...this is an arguement against Rogan Josh's view of soldiers/sailors as hired help.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
|
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
GP, thought 2nd Lt. was the most common casualty per cap in Vietnam, due to the frequency of fragging. |
Che, U.S. Army officer casualties in Viet Nam* were:
2LT: 496
CPT: 1,018
MAJ: 254
LCOL: 117
You can see that not just on a per capita basis, but on an ABSOLUTE basis more O-3's died than O-1's. Also, it should be pretty obvious that O-4's and O-5's were more at danger per capita (on an individual basis.)
*13.5% of all casualties were officers and they made up 12.5% of the troops. So a reasonably equitable risk profile. Although the rate of officer deaths was higher than in WWII.
Last edited by TCO on 28-11-2001 at 03:50
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
|
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I haven't a clue, GP. 59,000+ total US casualties in combat (with apparently 1/4--or 1/4 more--being victims of friendly fire). Total Vietnamese casualties were 2+ million. Theben has my Vietnam book, so I can't pull up any more relevent info. |
I don't expect you to memorize these kinds of stats. Just want to see what number you guess. There were 101 18-year old draftee casualties. 7 of these were black.
Another interesting note: There were approx. TWICE as many 52-year old casualties as 17-year olds (22 vs. 12).
Last edited by TCO on 28-11-2001 at 03:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Spin
|
|
Geeps,
quote:
You can see that not just on a per capita basis, but on an ABSOLUTE basis more O-3's died than O-1's. Also, it should be pretty obvious that O-4's and O-5's were more at danger per capita (on an individual basis.) |
Why was this? And what was the casualty rate of NCO's? I'm interested because they were the 'copter crews.
BTW, I was rejected for nuke EDO. They want folks comming in with M.S.'s in NucE. My degree put me in intelligence. Go figure.
Thoughts on draft:
I'm for a peacetime draft.
If you don't want to be drafted, that's fine. I would probably advocate the stripping of citizenship of anyone who avoids such a draft, rather than jail.
As for the old "It takes more guts to go to jail for what you believe in" line... no, I don't buy it. If you disagree with the gov't, that's OK... vote, lobby government, organize a rally. Noone has the right to break the law.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-11-2001 12:16
30,000 canucks in... only 12,000 leave.
|