The draft.

[Gamma Male]

When, if ever, is military conscription just?




I'm completely against it. Always. Nobody should ever be forced to support a war they don't believe in.

[phuckphace]

I'd be fine with it if our society were smaller, more unified, and extremely skeptical of foreign intervention. I think obligatory conscription in that context would serve as a good way to instill national pride in younger people and give them essential training and survival skills.

in our current situation however, fuuuuuuuuuuck no. if the draft came back now I'd be one of the first to dodge it. I'm not about to sacrifice my life to "save" something that needs to die.

[Miserabilia]

Supid foreigner coming in, what exactly is the draft?
I looked it up and it sounds just like what USA does now, where you have to do some service in the army, or whatever.

[Gamma Male]

Supid foreigner coming in, what exactly is the draft?
I looked it up and it sounds just like what USA does now, where you have to do some service in the army, or whatever.

It's mandatory military service. Resist, and you go to prison. It isn't currently in effect but they could always bring it back.

[Miserabilia]

It's mandatory military service. Resist, and you go to prison. It isn't currently in effect but they could always bring it back.

I always thought the USA had conscription?
Mmm weird why did I get the impression?
Isn't it so that in the USA all men can get called up to the army or I don't know how to put it but you know sent to the army when needed?
That's what I've always gotten the impression of.

EDIT:
I just read up on it I think I get it now,
signing in is still mandatory in case they ever bring it back,
but they no longer do conscription.

[Harry Smith]

Nah it's a relic of the past. Just look what happened in Vietnam, as Phuckphace says it depends so much on the political nature of the war, I mean why should someone be forced to go and fight in Afgansitan or Iraq just to uphold western interests.

I'd also say that despite what Saving Private Ryan shows us in WW2 and afterwards many drafted troops were of very very low quality

[Vlerchan]

I oppose military slavery.

Edited. Unnecessary. -Cygnus David

[ksdnfkfr]

i would be misfit exempt of course. my grandpa was in the Vietnam war and drafted far as i know.

[Stronk Serb]

http://randomoverload.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/46f730beb1ensive.jpg.jpg

But seriously, I disagree with it.

Nah it's a relic of the past. Just look what happened in Vietnam, as Phuckphace says it depends so much on the political nature of the war, I mean why should someone be forced to go and fight in Afgansitan or Iraq just to uphold western interests.

I'd also say that despite what Saving Private Ryan shows us in WW2 and afterwards many drafted troops were of very very low quality

The primary purpose of mass conscriptions is to win wars of extreme attrition, win a battle by crushing your enemy with the weight of your bodies. For that only purpose draftees are useful, unless you draft Vasili Zaitzev. Shove enough meat into the meat grinder and it will get stuck. This helps win wars, but also this helps in decimating your population, so it's better to get rid of it.

[phuckphace]

yeah at this point in history there are fewer good reasons to have conscription than there's ever been. when you have an elite whose favorite pastime is playing the IRL version of Sid Meier's Civilization, it's not going to end well.

[Stronk Serb]

yeah at this point in history there are fewer good reasons to have conscription than there's ever been. when you have an elite whose favorite pastime is playing the IRL version of Sid Meier's Civilization, it's not going to end well.

Or Victoria 2: Modern Age mod. I wouldn't die for people like that.

[tovaris]

Just? Newer
Legal? A lot of times

[Horatio Nelson]

image (http://randomoverload.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/46f730beb1ensive.jpg.jpg)

But seriously, I disagree with it.



The primary purpose of mass conscriptions is to win wars of extreme attrition, win a battle by crushing your enemy with the weight of your bodies. For that only purpose draftees are useful, unless you draft Vasili Zaitzev. Shove enough meat into the meat grinder and it will get stuck. This helps win wars, but also this helps in decimating your population, so it's better to get rid of it.

This.


The only other reason I see it being useful or needed is if it was a matter of homeland security.

[Camazotz]

If aliens ever come to invade and enslave human beings, then I'd be okay with military conscription for the human army.

I can't think of any other instance in which I'd be okay with it.

[ImCoolBeans]

I don't support military conscription and put off registering for the draft as long as I could. Unfortunately you have to do it to receive financial aid for college/university. It's a poor practice and in my opinion goes against a lot of what America well... likes to claim it stands for.

[Sir Suomi]

The draft is used as a fallback plan in caseyour forces cannot compete with your opponents forces. This can be due to two things: Either you're vastly technologically inferior to your opponent, or you are extremely outnumbered compared to your opponent. Drafts normally do not end well, however, because draftees tend to not have as much of a training system in place before being thrown into combat, and their morale tends to be lower. It'd be like instead of having your Queen being replaced by 10 Pawns in chess.

Everyone freaks out in the United States about the draft, but in all reality, it's more of a way to measure how many able bodied men that are available in our country. Honestly, we'd never have to implement the draft unless we would go to war with China, which is highly unlikely to happen. So don't get your panties in a bunch over the draft, it won't likely ever happen again, at least if any politician studied the public outcry during the Vietnam war.

[Harry Smith]

The draft is used as a fallback plan in caseyour forces cannot compete with your opponents forces. This can be due to two things: Either you're vastly technologically inferior to your opponent, or you are extremely outnumbered compared to your opponent. Drafts normally do not end well, however, because draftees tend to not have as much of a training system in place before being thrown into combat, and their morale tends to be lower. It'd be like instead of having your Queen being replaced by 10 Pawns in chess.

Everyone freaks out in the United States about the draft, but in all reality, it's more of a way to measure how many able bodied men that are available in our country. Honestly, we'd never have to implement the draft unless we would go to war with China, which is highly unlikely to happen. So don't get your panties in a bunch over the draft, it won't likely ever happen again, at least if any politician studied the public outcry during the Vietnam war.

I'm sure that's what the US said after Korea-don't worry we don't need the Draft unless the soviets attack. However the US needed the draft to beat Vietnam, and they were hardly a large or advanced enemy

[thatcountrykid]

Is say if we are in a major war that our current number of troops would be spread to thin to Handel. I know when everything with Russia was heating up all my buddies got their draft numbers just in case war happened.

I wouldn't say its slavery or fixed support of war it's more like your being called up to do you duty to your nation. You don't have to see it as support to the politicians or hate for those you are fighting but more as your fighting because you love the family and friends you leave behind.

[Gamma Male]

Is say if we are in a major war that our current number of troops would be spread to thin to Handel. I know when everything with Russia was heating up all my buddies got their draft numbers just in case war happened.

I wouldn't say its slavery or fixed support of war it's more like your being called up to do you duty to your nation. You don't have to see it as support to the politicians or hate for those you are fighting but more as your fighting because you love the family and friends you leave behind.

What if you don't agree with the war?

[Sir Suomi]

I'm sure that's what the US said after Korea-don't worry we don't need the Draft unless the soviets attack. However the US needed the draft to beat Vietnam, and they were hardly a large or advanced enemy


We did that because of two reasons back then.

The first was due to that was back in the Cold War era, and our government had declared that Vietnam was an important place to defend otherwise what was known as the Domino Effect would have began. There is no current situation that would meet the same requirements, unless we went to war with China, which is not going to happen.

The second was because of the environment and the fighting style of the VC we were forced to deal with back then. Vietnam for the most part is mainly thick jungles where reconnaissance was basically non existence, with the exception of throwing out patrols of roughly 30-50 men. This means the enemy combatants could simptly wait in small squads in concealed positions and wait for our patrols to come by, where they'd use hit and run tactics along with concealed traps, which would decimate our men. Eventually, it got to the point to where to continue this tactic, we needed more men, and thus the draft was introduced. During the Tet Offensive, where the VC openly attacked our forces, we slaughtered them. I think the estimate was out of the 40,000 VC forces that attacked, we killed up to half of their forces. However, for the most part of the war, we didn't have head to head confrontations, as I previously stated. Now if our military leadership had been open to changing their tactics, we'd been fine. And to an extent, we did, when we started having Green Berets infiltrate enemy lines, using the same tactics as the VC, and they did outstanding. However, our military leadership used tactics that were really meant for fighting a standard army, mainly Soviet Russia.

So anyways, what I'm trying to state here is that we will never have the need to reinstate the draft unless we would go to war with China, which, as I've said countless times, is highly unlikely to happen.

[Miserabilia]

We did that because of two reasons back then.

The first was due to that was back in the Cold War era, and our government had declared that Vietnam was an important place to defend otherwise what was known as the Domino Effect would have began.

I feel obligated to correct you there, they feared the domino effect would have began, which is also an absolutely worthless reason to start an entire war and kill thousands of innocents.
There has been nothing shown that actualy supports the domino effect at that time,
and even if it did, it wouldn't have been a direct threat.

[CosmicNoodle]

No, its stupid. You should NEVER be able to force someone into doing that. You can't just force someone into a situation in which they could die, just because you think it would be beneficial for those around them, or even for themselves.

[Harry Smith]

We did that because of two reasons back then.

The first was due to that was back in the Cold War era, and our government had declared that Vietnam was an important place to defend otherwise what was known as the Domino Effect would have began. There is no current situation that would meet the same requirements, unless we went to war with China, which is not going to happen.

The second was because of the environment and the fighting style of the VC we were forced to deal with back then. Vietnam for the most part is mainly thick jungles where reconnaissance was basically non existence, with the exception of throwing out patrols of roughly 30-50 men. This means the enemy combatants could simptly wait in small squads in concealed positions and wait for our patrols to come by, where they'd use hit and run tactics along with concealed traps, which would decimate our men. Eventually, it got to the point to where to continue this tactic, we needed more men, and thus the draft was introduced. During the Tet Offensive, where the VC openly attacked our forces, we slaughtered them. I think the estimate was out of the 40,000 VC forces that attacked, we killed up to half of their forces. However, for the most part of the war, we didn't have head to head confrontations, as I previously stated. Now if our military leadership had been open to changing their tactics, we'd been fine. And to an extent, we did, when we started having Green Berets infiltrate enemy lines, using the same tactics as the VC, and they did outstanding. However, our military leadership used tactics that were really meant for fighting a standard army, mainly Soviet Russia.

So anyways, what I'm trying to state here is that we will never have the need to reinstate the draft unless we would go to war with China, which, as I've said countless times, is highly unlikely to happen.

And the Domino effect proved to be pretty inaccurate, considering that Vietnam fell yet the important players (Taiwan, India etc) remained pro west.

It was fuck all to do with the military, it shocks me that people still think that Vietnam could of been won if they Army had acted differently. I mean you mention the Tet Offensive this was when the war really was lost for the US-I mean do you understand that the problem wasn't the Army-the problem was that the US was supporting an autocratic oppressive catholic government that the people didn't support-it wasn't the fact that the VC used guerilla tactics-it was the fact that the people wanted communism. However yanks can't accept this because in there eyes no-body would want communism.

TLDR;Political reasons where more important than military ones for Vietnam falling. I'd be skeptical of the claim you make-the Draft is paramount to slavery, and claiming that it may not be used doesn't make it any better. There's no law stating it can only be enacted if the US declare war with China meaning that at best your argument is guess work

[Sir Suomi]

I feel obligated to correct you there, they feared the domino effect would have began, which is also an absolutely worthless reason to start an entire war and kill thousands of innocents.
There has been nothing shown that actualy supports the domino effect at that time,
and even if it did, it wouldn't have been a direct threat.

Those were dark days. Our government had a deep mistrust of Communism in those times, and to some levels, they were right to have that mistrust. So of course our government would get paranoid to the point we'd declare war.

And the Domino effect proved to be pretty inaccurate, considering that Vietnam fell yet the important players (Taiwan, India etc) remained pro west.

It was fuck all to do with the military, it shocks me that people still think that Vietnam could of been won if they Army had acted differently. I mean you mention the Tet Offensive this was when the war really was lost for the US-I mean do you understand that the problem wasn't the Army-the problem was that the US was supporting an autocratic oppressive catholic government that the people didn't support-it wasn't the fact that the VC used guerilla tactics-it was the fact that the people wanted communism. However yanks can't accept this because in there eyes no-body would want communism.

TLDR;Political reasons where more important than military ones for Vietnam falling. I'd be skeptical of the claim you make-the Draft is paramount to slavery, and claiming that it may not be used doesn't make it any better. There's no law stating it can only be enacted if the US declare war with China meaning that at best your argument is guess work

i. At the time, there was no other way to say that it wouldn't happen. It's easy to criticize our leadership back then after knowing the outcome. And who knows, without intervention in Vietnam, other areas may have been more interested in defecting to communism. History is full of "what if's".

ii. Tactically speaking, after the Tet offensive, we were winning the war after the Tet offensive. Can you imagine losing that amount of men in that short of time, especially when you're forces are already stretched to it's limits? It was in the public opinion we were losing that war. The media highly overstated many of the bad things that happened in that war, and rarely mentioned the good. And I can assure you, if we'd trained our men similarly to how we trained our Green Berets, instead of just throwing them through basic training, we'd have done much better. Ask anyone with credible military knowledge, they'd say the same.

iii. You do realize why I'm stating that the draft is highly unlikely to happen, right? It's downright political suicide. No sane person in charge is going to issue the draft unless it comes down to the United States security being jeopardized. I never said there was a law stating that we'd only issue it if we went to war with China, I'm simply stating that it's the only scenario where we'd ever be presented with the right circumstances.

[Miserabilia]

Those were dark days. Our government had a deep mistrust of Communism in those times, and to some levels, they were right to have that mistrust. So of course our government would get paranoid to the point we'd declare war.



.

Those were dark days. Our government had a deep mistrust of Communism in those times,

Exactly, which is their problem and a terrible reason to start a whole war when it's not nescecairy at all.

and to some levels, they were right to have that mistrust.

What levels?

So of course our government would get paranoid to the point we'd declare war.

Paranoia is a terrible reason for war.

[Sir Suomi]

Exactly, which is their problem and a terrible reason to start a whole war when it's not nescecairy at all.



What levels?



Paranoia is a terrible reason for war.

i. I'm not supporting their actions. I'm simply validating their existence.

ii. I should clarify myself, the Soviet Union is what I'm really referring to.

iii. Yet it's started so many.

[Miserabilia]

i. I'm not supporting their actions. I'm simply validating their existence.


Alright.


iii. Yet it's started so many.

Ofcourse that doesn't make it a valid reason.

[Harry Smith]

Those were dark days. Our government had a deep mistrust of Communism in those times, and to some levels, they were right to have that mistrust. So of course our government would get paranoid to the point we'd declare war.



i. At the time, there was no other way to say that it wouldn't happen. It's easy to criticize our leadership back then after knowing the outcome. And who knows, without intervention in Vietnam, other areas may have been more interested in defecting to communism. History is full of "what if's".

ii. Tactically speaking, after the Tet offensive, we were winning the war after the Tet offensive. Can you imagine losing that amount of men in that short of time, especially when you're forces are already stretched to it's limits? It was in the public opinion we were losing that war. The media highly overstated many of the bad things that happened in that war, and rarely mentioned the good. And I can assure you, if we'd trained our men similarly to how we trained our Green Berets, instead of just throwing them through basic training, we'd have done much better. Ask anyone with credible military knowledge, they'd say the same.

iii. You do realize why I'm stating that the draft is highly unlikely to happen, right? It's downright political suicide. No sane person in charge is going to issue the draft unless it comes down to the United States security being jeopardized. I never said there was a law stating that we'd only issue it if we went to war with China, I'm simply stating that it's the only scenario where we'd ever be presented with the right circumstances.
Intervention in Vietnam helped the communist causes greatly that's clear-it gave the VC something to fight for, and it showed that the US could be defeated. It was the equivalent to what the Russo-Afgan war in the 1980's did-it showed a superpower could be beaten by a much weaker force. Even JFK realized in 1963 that it was a lost cause-however the MIC killed him off and gave LBJ his war

Your missing the point, you're talking tactically which is the main problem of leaving the military in warfare. You could of had 40,000 green beret quality troops you still would of lost because you were supporting a corrupt government whilst massacring nearly every single town and farm in Vietnam. You really don't understand that Vietnam wasn't about toy soldiers

What were the good things? Killing 200 children in My Lai, burning the countryside, support a dictatorship. I never understand why yanks think that Vietnam was any sort of success-if Russia/Iran did that now the US would be demanding a war-but to paraphrase Nixon-When the US does it it's not illegal.

I know my point is that you can't be certain that the draft won't be called up tomorrow, I mean can you confirm that all 18+ males won't be drafted in the next month?

[Sir Suomi]

Intervention in Vietnam helped the communist causes greatly that's clear-it gave the VC something to fight for, and it showed that the US could be defeated. It was the equivalent to what the Russo-Afgan war in the 1980's did-it showed a superpower could be beaten by a much weaker force. Even JFK realized in 1963 that it was a lost cause-however the MIC killed him off and gave LBJ his war

Your missing the point, you're talking tactically which is the main problem of leaving the military in warfare. You could of had 40,000 green beret quality troops you still would of lost because you were supporting a corrupt government whilst massacring nearly every single town and farm in Vietnam. You really don't understand that Vietnam wasn't about toy soldiers

What were the good things? Killing 200 children in My Lai, burning the countryside, support a dictatorship. I never understand why yanks think that Vietnam was any sort of success-if Russia/Iran did that now the US would be demanding a war-but to paraphrase Nixon-When the US does it it's not illegal.

I know my point is that you can't be certain that the draft won't be called up tomorrow, I mean can you confirm that all 18+ males won't be drafted in the next month?

i. I'm not saying Vietnam was a win for the United States, at least morally speaking, I'm saying it wasn't a defeat, in perspective. We withdrew, because our civilian population was severely anti-war. That bit at the end I'm not going to address, since I'm not one for conspiracy theories.

ii. The horrible acts that were committed during the war was due to lack of discipline, which was due to the lack of training most of our recruits were given. I guarantee you the war would have tremendously gone our way if we'd had 40,000 Green Berets in Vietnam.

iii. When I said "good" things, I was referring to our military success in the region, which our media failed to display, instead they over exaggerated our "defeats" within the conflict. That's the power of media for you.

iv. I'm going to agree that it is impossible to know if the draft would be implemented. However, as I've said, it's highly unlikely. That'd similar to asking how do we know our government won't start another holocaust.

[Harry Smith]

i. I'm not saying Vietnam was a win for the United States, at least morally speaking, I'm saying it wasn't a defeat, in perspective. We withdrew, because our civilian population was severely anti-war. That bit at the end I'm not going to address, since I'm not one for conspiracy theories.

ii. The horrible acts that were committed during the war was due to lack of discipline, which was due to the lack of training most of our recruits were given. I guarantee you the war would have tremendously gone our way if we'd had 40,000 Green Berets in Vietnam.

iii. When I said "good" things, I was referring to our military success in the region, which our media failed to display, instead they over exaggerated our "defeats" within the conflict. That's the power of media for you.

iv. I'm going to agree that it is impossible to know if the draft would be implemented. However, as I've said, it's highly unlikely. That'd similar to asking how do we know our government won't start another holocaust.

It's not a conspiracy-Oswald stank of the CIA.

But yeah-I know it's very hard for anyone to admit that there country lost but the US were without a doubt defeated in Vietnam, it doesn't matter that you ran away before you were defeated. You went in to stop communism spreading to south Vietnam-south Vietnam became communist. Sure the country is a shit hole but the CB for the war was to save South Vietnam and you failed to do that when Saigon fell in 1975 meaning that by default the US were defeated. Just because you win the battles doesn't mean you won the war-ask Robb Stark.

I know you a military fan, but you need to understand that Vietnam wasn't like WW2/Korea. It was too political because it was essentially a civil war that the US tried to intervene in-even with those 40,000 green berets you still would of had the entire peasant population against you because you were supporting a tyrant-it's too political.

Lets have a quick look when large armies try to hold a hostile country

Spain Guerrillas vs Napoleon=Spain win
US Guerrillas vs British Army=US win
Viet Cong vs US Army=Viet cong victory
Mujaheddin vs Soviet Army=Afgan victory
Taliban vs US/UK=Taliban victory

I'd say that the even the most elite troops can't hold a country that is against them because despite what the army think-war is just a continuation of politics

[Sir Suomi]

It's not a conspiracy-Oswald stank of the CIA.

But yeah-I know it's very hard for anyone to admit that there country lost but the US were without a doubt defeated in Vietnam, it doesn't matter that you ran away before you were defeated. You went in to stop communism spreading to south Vietnam-south Vietnam became communist. Sure the country is a shit hole but the CB for the war was to save South Vietnam and you failed to do that when Saigon fell in 1975 meaning that by default the US were defeated. Just because you win the battles doesn't mean you won the war-ask Robb Stark.

I know you a military fan, but you need to understand that Vietnam wasn't like WW2/Korea. It was too political because it was essentially a civil war that the US tried to intervene in-even with those 40,000 green berets you still would of had the entire peasant population against you because you were supporting a tyrant-it's too political.

Lets have a quick look when large armies try to hold a hostile country

Spain Guerrillas vs Napoleon=Spain win
US Guerrillas vs British Army=US win
Viet Cong vs US Army=Viet cong victory
Mujaheddin vs Soviet Army=Afgan victory
Taliban vs US/UK=Taliban victory

I'd say that the even the most elite troops can't hold a country that is against them because despite what the army think-war is just a continuation of politics

i.I still consider it as a neutral withdraw. We can leave the bickering over labeling for the guys who write the books.

ii. If we'd eliminated their hierarchy it's possible the VC would've backed off. A lot of tacticians propose that an offensive from the east that focused on disposing of VC leadership could have discouraged any further advances into South Vietnam territory. But like I said, history is full of "what if's". I might actually put that in my signature, matter of fact :P

iii. History has shown that only 25% of conflicts where sides use guerrilla warfare has worked, just so you know.

iv. That's debatable. However, I'm done with VT for the day, and I'm heading off to go fishing with some friends.

[Vlerchan]

A lot of tacticians propose that an offensive from the east that focused on disposing of VC leadership could have discouraged any further advances into South Vietnam territory.
I thought that the VCs (political - maybe this is where I'm off) leadership was sitting up cozy in a Chinese bunker?

How did they plan to dispose of them without breaching Chinese territorial integrity and dragging them into the conflict?

[Harry Smith]

i.I still consider it as a neutral withdraw. We can leave the bickering over labeling for the guys who write the books.

ii. If we'd eliminated their hierarchy it's possible the VC would've backed off. A lot of tacticians propose that an offensive from the east that focused on disposing of VC leadership could have discouraged any further advances into South Vietnam territory. But like I said, history is full of "what if's". I might actually put that in my signature, matter of fact :P

iii. History has shown that only 25% of conflicts where sides use guerrilla warfare has worked, just so you know.

iv. That's debatable. However, I'm done with VT for the day, and I'm heading off to go fishing with some friends.

Neutral withdrawal implies that south Vietnam kinda survived- I mean would you say that the British had a neutral withdrawal from the US in 1780, or would you like many Americans take pride in 'defeating the British?'

I'll leave you with a JFK quote

A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on.

[thatcountrykid]

What if you don't agree with the war?

It's not a matter of agreeing with the war or not. It's your duty to your country and those you love. You're called upon to fight you fight.

[Gamma Male]

It's not a matter of agreeing with the war or not. It's your duty to your country and those you love. You're called upon to fight you fight.

Bullshit. That's slavery.

[Harry Smith]

It's not a matter of agreeing with the war or not. It's your duty to your country and those you love. You're called upon to fight you fight.

ugh can you not-it's all about agreeing with war.

Your duty? What duty? The duty to protect the interests of oil companies and the Military Industrial complex. Blind obedience never leads to anything good. I'm also sick of armchair teenagers who seem to happy to say 'I'll die for my country''. War isn't Call of Duty you know

[Miserabilia]

It's not a matter of agreeing with the war or not. It's your duty to your country and those you love. You're called upon to fight you fight.

Yes, you know because screw freedom and all.

You're called upon to fight you fight.

what about individuality? People should be allowed to make up their own minds.

It's your duty to your country and those you love.

Not at all, unless those I love are being directly attacked and I am the only one that can defend them.

[Stronk Serb]

It's not a matter of agreeing with the war or not. It's your duty to your country and those you love. You're called upon to fight you fight.

Why would he throw away his life by following the edicts of fools?

[thatcountrykid]

Bullshit. That's slavery.

No its devotion and responsibility.

ugh can you not-it's all about agreeing with war.

Your duty? What duty? The duty to protect the interests of oil companies and the Military Industrial complex. Blind obedience never leads to anything good. I'm also sick of armchair teenagers who seem to happy to say 'I'll die for my country''. War isn't Call of Duty you know

Duty to your family and your country. It's not for the politicians or the government it's for the actuall country. The people.

You think I don't fuckin know how bad war is? My grandfather who still has nightmares from korea reminds me everyday. Waking up and realizing that my cousins will never come home from that fucking place. I know it's not fucking call of duty. Don't you even try to say that I don't know.

[bob97]

One of the few countries that requires military service is North Korea. That's saying something. I believe that Israel requires all its citizens to be a member in the army at some capacity for a certain time period. I dont mind that much because you don't have to fight and risk your life. You could just a mechanic or something. And you get self defense training which is always useful

[thatcountrykid]

One of the few countries that requires military service is North Korea. That's saying something. I believe that Israel requires all its citizens to be a member in the army at some capacity for a certain time period. I dont mind that much because you don't have to fight and risk your life. You could just a mechanic or something. And you get self defense training which is always useful

South Korea does as well. At least for males.

[bob97]

South Korea does as well. At least for males.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing. I support mandatory service for your country. As long as it isn't required combat. I know that I'm going to join the national guard or the coast guard. I dont like America much but I still want to make it a better place, you know?

[Miserabilia]

No its devotion and responsibility.



Duty to your family and your country. It's not for the politicians or the government it's for the actuall country. The people.

You think I don't fuckin know how bad war is? My grandfather who still has nightmares from korea reminds me everyday. Waking up and realizing that my cousins will never come home from that fucking place. I know it's not fucking call of duty. Don't you even try to say that I don't know.

No its devotion and responsibility.

Being forced by law to go somewhere you don't want to go.

"devotion".

Duty to your family and your country. It's not for the politicians or the government it's for the actuall country. The people.

You can't plain deny that war is not for politicians, because that's just wrong.
War becomes politics the moment it's obligatory by law to fight in one.

You think I don't fuckin know how bad war is? My grandfather who still has nightmares from korea reminds me everyday. Waking up and realizing that my cousins will never come home from that fucking place. I know it's not fucking call of duty. Don't you even try to say that I don't know.

I don't think you don't know,
however I ask you;
why are you in the position you are in if you have second hand experience on the terror of war?

[thatcountrykid]

And that's not necessarily a bad thing. I support mandatory service for your country. As long as it isn't required combat. I know that I'm going to join the national guard or the coast guard. I dont like America much but I still want to make it a better place, you know?

Yeah thats understandae and a lot of people who are drafted dont do combat. National gaurd still gets deployed overseas. I'm not to happy with our government or some of the people now either but what can we do.

Being forced by law to go somewhere you don't want to go.

"devotion".



You can't plain deny that war is not for politicians, because that's just wrong.
War becomes politics the moment it's obligatory by law to fight in one.



I don't think you don't know,
however I ask you;
why are you in the position you are in if you have second hand experience on the terror of war?

It's devotion to your people. You may not want to go but you do.

What do you mean the position I'm in. And trust me i fucking know.

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

[Miserabilia]

It's devotion to your people. You may not want to go but you do.

What do you mean the position I'm in. And trust me i fucking know.

It's devotion to your people. You may not want to go but you do.

Which is not devotion, it's slavery.

What do you mean the position I'm in.

Your position in this debate and this political standpoint.

And trust me i fucking know.

I know you know.

[bob97]

Yeah thats understandae and a lot of people who are drafted dont do combat. National gaurd still gets deployed overseas. I'm not to happy with our government or some of the people now either but what can we do.

Yeah that's why I'm leaning towards Coast Guard. Why are all the people posting attacking you and thinking the draft means combat? They need to research alittle before they post. Are you planning on doing any service?

[Miserabilia]

Yeah that's why I'm leaning towards Coast Guard. Why are all the people posting attacking you and thinking the draft means combat? They need to research alittle before they post. Are you planning on doing any service?

Why are all the people posting attacking you and thinking the draft means combat?

I don't think the draft means combat, and I never said so.

They need to research alittle before they post.

You need to do a bit of reading before you make a statement about what I do or do not say.

[bob97]

I don't think the draft means combat, and I never said so.



You need to do a bit of reading before you make a statement about what I do or do not say.

I'm not aiming this at you in particular. But most of the people on this thread. I read most of the posts

[thatcountrykid]

Which is not devotion, it's slavery.



Your position in this debate and this political standpoint.



I know you know.

Because I have a little something in me called morales and a sense of responsibility. Yes war sucks but I'm gonna share something my cousin wrote to me in a letter. " I realized now that I fight not because I hate whats in front of me but because I love what is beside me and what I left behind me."

It's not slavery it's responsibility.

Yeah that's why I'm leaning towards Coast Guard. Why are all the people posting attacking you and thinking the draft means combat? They need to research alittle before they post. Are you planning on doing any service?

They don't like my stand points. Apparently they must think I'm a bible thumping redneck conservative. I plan on either army parachute infantry or navy weapons.

[Miserabilia]

Because I have a little something in me called morales and a sense of responsibility. Yes war sucks but I'm gonna share something my cousin wrote to me in a letter. " I realized now that I fight not because I hate whats in front of me but because I love what is beside me and what I left behind me."


yes let's kill all these foreigners,,, because you know they are obviously a direct thread to my family...
Even if so, and you are proud of these morals, go and fight; I'm not going to stop you,
but I find the idea of making this obligatory by law quite ridiclous.



It's not slavery it's responsibility.


Being forced to work.
Being forced to do work for others.
"responsibility"
:rolleyes:


I'm not aiming this at you in particular. But most of the people on this thread. I read most of the posts

Could you quote me anyone in this thread that said or implied that the draft explicitily means combat?

[bob97]

Because I have a little something in me called morales and a sense of responsibility. Yes war sucks but I'm gonna share something my cousin wrote to me in a letter. " I realized now that I fight not because I hate whats in front of me but because I love what is beside me and what I left behind me."

It's not slavery it's responsibility.



They don't like my stand points. Apparently they must think I'm a bible thumping redneck conservative. I plan on either army parachute infantry or navy weapons.

That's pretty cool. I'd like to do helicopter gunner or parachute but I'm terrified of heights. And I live in Massachusetts and I like Obama for the most part. I'm definitely a Democrat. But I'm actually open to other views.

I'd be fine with it if our society were smaller, more unified, and extremely skeptical of foreign intervention. I think obligatory conscription in that context would serve as a good way to instill national pride in younger people and give them essential training and survival skills.

in our current situation however, fuuuuuuuuuuck no. if the draft came back now I'd be one of the first to dodge it. I'm not about to sacrifice my life to "save" something that needs to die.

The last sentence

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

[thatcountrykid]

yes let's kill all these foreigners,,, because you know they are obviously a direct thread to my family...
Even if so, and you are proud of these morals, go and fight; I'm not going to stop you,
but I find the idea of making this obligatory by law quite ridiclous.




Being forced to work.
Being forced to do work for others.
"responsibility"
:rolleyes:




Could you quote me anyone in this thread that said or implied that the draft explicitily means combat?

It's not slavery because you get paid and most who register will never even get drafted.

Morales means for all mankind. Not only my family but all who are being wronged.

That's pretty cool. I'd like to do helicopter gunner or parachute but I'm terrified of heights. And I live in Massachusetts and I like Obama for the most part. I'm definitely a Democrat. But I'm actually open to other views.

Haha and thats fine man I'm cool with that. I just don't like the fight between parties and there really shouldn't even be any. Door gunner would be awesome

[bob97]

Nah it's a relic of the past. Just look what happened in Vietnam, as Phuckphace says it depends so much on the political nature of the war, I mean why should someone be forced to go and fight in Afgansitan or Iraq just to uphold western interests.

There's two for you.

It's not slavery because you get paid and most who register will never even get drafted.

Morales means for all mankind. Not only my family but all who are being wronged.



Haha and thats fine man I'm cool with that. I just don't like the fight between parties and there really shouldn't even be any. Door gunner would be awesome

I forgot to mention that you could be an army MEDIC. They save people. There are plenty of things you can besides kill. And how old are you? Maybe I'll see you overseas lol

Please do not double post. Next time use the "edit" or "multi-quote" functions. -Cygnus David

[thatcountrykid]

I forgot to mention that you could be an army MEDIC. They save people. There are plenty of things you can besides kill. And how old are you? Maybe I'll see you overseas lol

I turn 16 June seventh. I thought about air force pararescue.

[bob97]

Maybe you'll parachute in and save my ass. I'm a year older but I want to get at least my associates degree first. And do you happen to know what happens to the soldiers of countries like Israel or South Korea that have a draft but aren't in war?

[thatcountrykid]

Maybe you'll parachute in and save my ass. I'm a year older but I want to get at least my associates degree first. And do you happen to know what happens to the soldiers of countries like Israel or South Korea that have a draft but aren't in war?

I think they're just like our soldiers who are on base here in the us.

[Vlerchan]

Slavery (n): the state of being a slave.

Slave (n): a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

Hmm ...

[Miserabilia]

It's not slavery because you get paid and most who register will never even get drafted.


Where assuming hypotheticaly a situation where everyone is drafted.
And when they do, it's slavery;
they are treated as object, sent out to a battlefield for a "greater cause".


Morales means for all mankind. Not only my family but all who are being wronged.


Not sure what you mean by it, but if it means what I think it does it makes little sense.
We should get forced to fight in a war for all who are being wronged?
Because getting forced to fight is getting wronged too, and what about all the innocents of the other party that is going to get killed, but they were also forced to fight?
A government shouldn't be able to use their people as property by sending them out in the battlefield without choice.
People are people, not objects.

Slavery (n): the state of being a slave.

Slave (n): a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

Hmm ...



Not the only definition of slave.

1.1A person who works very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation

1.2A person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something

1.3A device, or part of one, directly controlled by another

In general use the word slave iss probably acceptable to use for someone forced to serve as soldier.

[Gamma Male]

No its devotion and responsibility.



Duty to your family and your country. It's not for the politicians or the government it's for the actuall country. The people.

You think I don't fuckin know how bad war is? My grandfather who still has nightmares from korea reminds me everyday. Waking up and realizing that my cousins will never come home from that fucking place. I know it's not fucking call of duty. Don't you even try to say that I don't know.

Tell you what. If America gets invaded by a foreign army, I might reconsider supporting the draft. But until that day comes, don't give me some bullshit about wars being to protect people's lives or their feedoms. Because they're not. They're about money. You think we invaded Iraq to protect America? No. If anything, us invading Iraq only caused there to be more America hating terrorists because once peaceful sheep herders were tired of seeing their friends and family killed by drone strikes. The war in Iraq is about oil, and it always has been.

[Cygnus]

It's not slavery it's responsibility.

So by your logic I should register in the Venezuelan army if they go to a war even though I was exiled and hate the government and the military commanders because it's my responsibility to serve my country? Thank you very much but I'll go with public execution before.

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

I'd put a gun to my head before anybody could make me don a military uniform, I can't kill people, people have germs and I'm afraid of blood and severed limbs. :(

[thatcountrykid]

Tell you what. If America gets invaded by a foreign army, I might reconsider supporting the draft. But until that day comes, don't give me some bullshit about wars being to protect people's lives or their feedoms. Because they're not. They're about money. You think we invaded Iraq to protect America? No. If anything, us invading Iraq only caused there to be more America hating terrorists because once peaceful sheep herders were tired of seeing their friends and family killed by drone strikes. The war in Iraq is about oil, and it always has been.

Yes it was about oil in the first invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I we had allowed them to do what they wanted it would have started a chain reaction that would have fucked the world oil trade.

So by your logic I should register in the Venezuelan army if they go to a war even though I was exiled and hate the government and the military commanders because it's my responsibility to serve my country? Thank you very much but I'll go with public execution before.

I'm saying its your responsibility to serve your people.

[bob97]

So by your logic I should register in the Venezuelan army if they go to a war even though I was exiled and hate the government and the military commanders because it's my responsibility to serve my country? Thank you very much but I'll go with public execution before.

If Venezuela is so bad, he is saying join a rebel army or do something to fight the government for the better of the people. Basically his point is dont be a bystander, I think

[Vlerchan]

If we had allowed them to do what they wanted it would have started a chain reaction that would have fucked the world oil trade.
Please provide evidence supporting this claim. Thanks.

If Venezuela is so bad, he is saying join a rebel army or do something to fight the government for the better of the people.
In terms of Venezuela, ending the socialist project prematurely would be in no way good for a vast majority of the people.

Though, I don't see why it's so necessary for people to go out and engage in violence for one side or the other. What's so bad about being a bystander?

[bob97]

Please provide evidence supporting this claim. Thanks.


In terms of Venezuela, ending the socialist project prematurely would be in no way good for a vast majority of the people.

Though, I don't see why it's so necessary for people to go out and engage in violence for one side or the other. What's so bad about being a bystander?

Not necessarily violence but if there are bad things happening, you should do something. And I don't know much about Venezuela I was just going off of what the person said. And being a bystander is bad in its definition

[Vlerchan]

And being a bystander is bad in its definition
How?

If I'm incapable of helping is it better for me to get in those who might be able to help ways by trying?

[bob97]

Please provide evidence supporting this claim. Thanks.


In terms of Venezuela, ending the socialist project prematurely would be in no way good for a vast majority of the people.

Though, I don't see why it's so necessary for people to go out and engage in violence for one side or the other. What's so bad about being a bystander?

How?

If I'm incapable of helping is it better for me to get in those who might be able to help ways by trying?

Being a bystander is different from being incapable of helping. In all of history, being a bystander was a bad thing. You should always try your hardest to help out people. And your rarely incapable of helping. You can always do something to help even if its only small

[phuckphace]

Yes it was about oil in the first invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. If we had allowed them to do what they wanted it would have started a chain reaction that would have fucked the world oil trade.

that's doubtful, but in any case it wasn't our oil to take. like a lot of the meddling that America does, it was justified on spurious and hypocritical grounds, and ended up severely backfiring. the Ba'athists like Saddam Hussein were ideologically tame compared to the fundamentalist Wahhabists, but our meddling became a powerful recruiting tool for the latter. if we hadn't meddled, the Middle East could have been united under Arab Socialism and be less steeped in Islamic fundamentalism ("terrorism") today. just a thought!

[thatcountrykid]

Please provide evidence supporting this claim. Thanks.


In terms of Venezuela, ending the socialist project prematurely would be in no way good for a vast majority of the people.

Though, I don't see why it's so necessary for people to go out and engage in violence for one side or the other. What's so bad about being a bystander?

How?

If I'm incapable of helping is it better for me to get in those who might be able to help ways by trying?

By being a bystander you are no better than the bad guys. You are effectivly allowing them to continue injustice. If the world had not stepped in in Europe or the pacific during the world wars we would have been just as bad as the nazi government and the militarists of japan.

People who don't fight because its hard or inconvenient for them are cowards.

[Gamma Male]

Yes it was about oil in the first invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I we had allowed them to do what they wanted it would have started a chain reaction that would have fucked the world oil trade.



I'm saying its your responsibility to serve your people.

You can be a slave to the military industrial complex if you want, but the day somebody shows up to my door demanding I risk my life to slaughter a bunch of illiterate sheep herders is the day I move to Europe. Goodluck with this shithole.

By being a bystander you are no better than the bad guys. You are effectivly allowing them to continue injustice. If the world had not stepped in in Europe or the pacific during the world wars we would have been just as bad as the nazi government and the militarists of japan.

People who don't fight because its hard or inconvenient for them are cowards.

Or, they realize that there are better ways to help other than fighting. And the middle eastern conflicts and WW2 have absolutely nothing in common.

[thatcountrykid]

You can be a slave to the military industrial complex if you want, but the day somebody shows up to my door demanding I risk my life to slaughter a bunch of illiterate sheep herders is the day I move to Europe. Goodluck with this shithole.



Or, they realize that there are better ways to help other than fighting. And the middle eastern conflicts and WW2 have absolutely nothing in common.

And the day you try to move to Europe is te day you get arrested for treason. Move now if you hate this place so much. Want help Packing?

They don't kill sheep herders. They kill militants and terrorists. Like any war there will be civilian casualties

[Harry Smith]

By being a bystander you are no better than the bad guys. You are effectivly allowing them to continue injustice. If the world had not stepped in in Europe or the pacific during the world wars we would have been just as bad as the nazi government and the militarists of japan.

People who don't fight because its hard or inconvenient for them are cowards.

As hyporcritcal as this sounds-you've invoked Godwin so by default you've kinda lost the debate.

Please don't use that as an example-the US sat on their assess for two years. Don't even mention the coward because as Europe burned brave proud 'Merica sat back and did nothing. So by your own standards the whole of the US are cowards because Japan raped, killed and gassed China for 5 years, and all the US did was put a trade embargo up-how brave of you.

Your whole argument sounds like something out of the 1950's-the cold war is over bro. We don't need to protect ourself from the invading Soviet hordes-but to paraphrase Frankie Boyle you'll enjoy learning in the army 'how to kick an Afghani women 29 different ways in the back''

[Miserabilia]

I'm saying its your responsibility to serve your people.

That is according to you more important than freedom?
I thought freedom was the most important to american people,
I don't see how someone can just take it away for "responsibility".


By being a bystander you are no better than the bad guys. You are effectivly allowing them to continue injustice. If the world had not stepped in in Europe or the pacific during the world wars we would have been just as bad as the nazi government and the militarists of japan.

People who don't fight because its hard or inconvenient for them are cowards.

Well you see, there is the problem.
There are no "bad guys".
The actual injustice is forcing people to fight.
If two opposing governments both force their people to fight,
then they are dying in a political game.
That's sad and unnescicairy.

[Harry Smith]

And the day you try to move to Europe is te day you get arrested for treason. Move now if you hate this place so much. Want help Packing?

They don't kill sheep herders. They kill militants and terrorists. Like any war there will be civilian casualties

I'm sorry, they're sheep herders with assault rifles. I'm sure I don't have to patronize you with the standard-one's terrorist is another freedom's fighter. I mean the whole of the US stood behind the IRA whilst everyone in the UK to a large decree was labeling them as terrorists

[Korashk]

I'm saying its your responsibility to serve your people.
1.) No it isn't. I have no responsibility to anyone unless I decide that I have that responsibility; least of all for the sole reason that I live in the same geographical area.
2.) The guy I don't know that lives down the street is no more "my people" than the Middle Eastern people being murdered by the US Military.
3.) Why do you think that people that live near one another have responsibilities to each other?

By being a bystander you are no better than the bad guys. You are effectivly allowing them to continue injustice.
In this scenario the US Military/Government are the "bad guys".

And the day you try to move to Europe is te day you get arrested for treason. Move now if you hate this place so much. Want help Packing?
Did you really just say "if you don't like it then you can get out"? I'm not even going to explain how flawed that stance is.

They don't kill sheep herders. They kill militants and terrorists. Like any war there will be civilian casualties
"Militants and terrorists" aka, "people who are tired of an invading country killing their families". The civilian casualties in this "war" far outnumber the number of "militants". Not to mention the millions killed throughout the second half of the 20th century.

As hyporcritcal as this sounds-you've invoked Godwin so by default you've kinda lost the debate.
People need to stop treating Godwin's Law like this. There's nothing wrong with mentioning Hitler and the Nazis in a debate. Especially one about the military.

He's lost the debate for actual reasons, not because he mentioned Hitler.

[Lovelife090994]

That is according to you more important than freedom?
I thought freedom was the most important to american people,
I don't see how someone can just take it away for "responsibility".




Well you see, there is the problem.
There are no "bad guys".
The actual injustice is forcing people to fight.
If two opposing governments both force their people to fight,
then they are dying in a political game.
That's sad and unnescicairy.

Too late. Laws are in place to draft if need be came. Also President Obama did sign a martial law bill in case it also needed to come into play which basically could erase a person's rights in times of crisis. I do not like the draft idea but I'd be exempt. I am the only child and male heir to my family name.

[Korashk]

I do not like the draft idea but I'd be exempt. I am the only child and male heir to my family name.
This is an interesting notion that I wish were true. I would also qualify as a "Fortunate Son" according to this law if it existed in America. Too bad it doesn't.

http://www.snopes.com/military/onlyson.asp

[Gamma Male]

Too late. Laws are in place to draft if need be came. Also President Obama did sign a martial law bill in case it also needed to come into play which basically could erase a person's rights in times of crisis. I do not like the draft idea but I'd be exempt. I am the only child and male heir to my family name.

This discussion isn't about whether or not it's "too late", this is about whether or not the draft is a justifiable practice.

Also, that exempt only child stuff is ridiculous and unfair.


Also, why shouldn't women be able to get drafted?

[Sir Suomi]

.


Also, why shouldn't women be able to get drafted?

This is actually a valid point.

The reason is that they'd practically be useless, as of now, with the exception of combat-logistics. Since a good portion of women cannot meet the same physical standards of men that are required in combat, at least to our current standards, it'd be pointless.

However, our military is currently reevaluating our current physical standards for our armed forces, so that women can begin to serve in official combat roles. In my opinion, if these standards are brought to the point to where an average women can succeed in without jeopardizing the rest of their male counterparts, I believe women should be required to sign up for the draft.

[Lovelife090994]

This is an interesting notion that I wish were true. I would also qualify as a "Fortunate Son" according to this law if it existed in America. Too bad it doesn't.

http://www.snopes.com/military/onlyson.asp

That's funny, because the American form I signed said it in fine print. I believe you too, but I honestly signed a form that said just that.

This discussion isn't about whether or not it's "too late", this is about whether or not the draft is a justifiable practice.

Also, that exempt only child stuff is ridiculous and unfair.


Also, why shouldn't women be able to get drafted?

I don't think anyone should be drafted.

[Korashk]

That's funny, because the American form I signed said it in fine print. I believe you too, but I honestly signed a form that said just that.
More from Selective Service themselves.
http://www.sss.gov/fssurviv.htm

There are scenarios where being an only son can exempt you from the draft, but it's not the default situation. The page also mentiones that it's a "peacetime" exemption, which means that you wouldn't be exempt if we were actually at war when the draft was instated. It's complete bullshit.

[Lovelife090994]

More from Selective Service themselves.
http://www.sss.gov/fssurviv.htm

There are scenarios where being an only son can exempt you from the draft, but it's not the default situation. The page also mentiones that it's a "peacetime" exemption, which means that you wouldn't be exempt if we were actually at war when the draft was instated. It's complete bullshit.

Well, how is that fair? Forcing only men to participate in a war that they have no ties to?

[Miserabilia]

Too late. Laws are in place to draft if need be came. Also President Obama did sign a martial law bill in case it also needed to come into play which basically could erase a person's rights in times of crisis. I do not like the draft idea but I'd be exempt. I am the only child and male heir to my family name.

It's a shame that they could reinstall the draft, I think there should be a national vote for it, or something like that.

Well, how is that fair? Forcing only men to participate in a war that they have no ties to?

I guess the conclusion can be lead that it isn't fair. at all.

[Sir Suomi]

Well, how is that fair? Forcing only men to participate in a war that they have no ties to?

Refer to my last post.

[Vlerchan]

Also, why shouldn't women be able to get drafted?
If you find yourself in a situation in which your forces are being decimated to such an extent that it necessitates a draft, then sending the individuals who will play the most important and most irreplaceable role in re-populating your nation after the war to die too is just irresponsible.

I also personally don't call for it because it only serves to make a bad thing worse.