I support immediate troop withdrawal AND I support a draft

[Horse with no Name]

For one thing...as much as I want the troops out of there. It isn't going to happen until people get in the streets in mass numbers protesting.
That is why I support a draft.
I understand (I am not naive) that some rich kids will be left out of the fray.
But there are THOUSANDS of upper-middle class kids whose parents support Bush and his policies of aggression that won't be so lucky.
This will be the ONLY way we can stop this war.
When you affect the 40% who still blindly support this war...then and only then will it stop.
I don't want a single soldier deployed to the hellhole Bush created.
But I want thousands of people to believe it could happen to their child.
That is how you get people in the street.
Take away their false feelings of entitlement.
This war would be over in a heartbeat.
Rangel has it right.

[jeff30997]

1. And,you're enlisting when?

[Horse with no Name]

3. I'm 44 and I am already eligible for a special skills draft.

I have two draft age kids.
I have a brother who has been over there twice and a sister-in-law that is being deployed in April.
I have several cousins who are already there or have been there.
I believe our family is well-represented.

on edit:
I also said "draft". Not enlist.
I would actually encourage any more young poor kids NOT to enlist.
That is the only thing that is keeping this war going.

[Bjornsdotter]

5. Oops

Well you answered some of my question....and yes your family is well represented.

I have to admit that I am surprised that you would risk your children, but they are yours to risk.

I'm not willing to risk mine.

Cheers

[12string]

19. the draft

I'll say this one more time....They can NOT have my
children...PERIOD!

[Ron Green]

72. As long as you see the government as "they" and not "we" . . .

there is a problem.

[stillcool]

187. that's an old song and dance...

that doesn't jive anymore...not that it ever did. We've been had.

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. Hmm , you are aware that WE are the government right?

[donheld]

190. yes WE are suppose to be the government, however

as a gay man what does that really get me?

[SammyWinstonJack]

37. I won't risk mine and anyone who supports a draft can go join up, now!

Save Congress the trouble of enacting a draft and go enlist, now. That should boost troops levels. :eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Been there done that sweetie

And I hate to break it to you, but until most of the population has skin in the game, as well as blood and guts, they are NOT paying attention

[aceman2373]

18. How can you say you would .....

"Acutally encourage any more young poor kids NOT to enlist"? The military is a great experience for us "poor" kids. It helps us to become men and women and to learn some discipline for some of us who didn't have any. I will not tell anyone to NOT join the military, as it is not the soldiers who make the policies, they just do their job.

[madokie]

2. I agree with you

I was drafted years ago, so I joined the navy to keep from going to VN but spent 15 months in country anyway

What ever it takes to stop this war I am all for it, not only for our Troops but for the Iraqi too

[TahitiNut]

9. Yep. I'm a draftee who spent a tour in Nam, too.

I can remember like it was yesterday ALL of my thoughts and feelings and perspectives from those days ... and they covered the gamut. Living in Detroit, I contemplated moving to Canada. (The rumor was that the language was easy to learn.) My 'opinions' ranged all over the board, from opposing the draft to opposing the selective (and inequitable) part of the draft to ... well, everything. In the final analysis, I just could not conscientiously make a 'case' that somebody else should serve and possibly die because I didn't go - possibly by going to Canada.

I just can't find an ethical path around that.

I see absolutely no ethical validity in claiming 'Kings X' because I opposed the war - no matter how venomously. Opposition to the war didn't absolve me of sharing the burdens (sour fruits) of a democracy that made a mistake. For me, the entire moral legitimacy of a democratic form of government is the equitable sharing of both the burdens of our errors and the benefits of our accomplishments. Both. Disagreement isn't a license to have inequitable treatment any more than wealth is such a license. I cannot both abhor the privilege of the wealthy/elite and claim some similar privilege due to my disagreement with the path our nation took. That would be becoming what I detest!

Share the burdens equitably ... and work TOGETHER to lessen the burdens!
We cannot ethically have one without the other.

[Strawman]

98. TahitiNut, I am appreciative of your thoughtful posts on this issue

I can tell that you have wrestled with this issue in an intellectually honest manner and I think everyone here can benefit from your insight, and although I am still not convinced that potentially forcing someone to kill or potentially be killed with a draft is morally right, it is certainly the fairest solution. I honestly don't know what is right on this issue.

[TahitiNut]

121. Thank you. (I can't express how much that means to me.)

I cringed back when the draft was deactivated ... in favor of a 'volunteer' military. I KNEW we were going to slide down a slope of decreased liberalism. Thirty years have confirmed my misgivings. The chasm between the rich and the poor has widened constantly since the mid-70s. We reached a pinnacle of liberalism in Washington with Carter ... and now hear 'liberals' denigrate HIM for OUR failings.

For some reason, people denounce the elite for not having to serve in our military ... AND THEN SHUT UP when they (deludedly) acquire the same 'privilege.' Was it a sense of equity and duty or mere jealousy? (I can assure you that it wasn't misunderstood by the guys I served with.)

At 63 and with an obligation to care for a parent, I'm deeply frustrated that I haven't done more - perhaps even go stand by the side of the poor fucks in Iraq who're losing life and limb for the blunders of We The People. I personally detest the military 'culture.' For me. There is no less 'gung-ho' and 'adaptive' a person than I am.

At the same time, I cannot see evasion or avoidance of military service unless and until we ALL can do so. The 'timing' will NEVER be good. That's what was assured THIRTY YEARS ago. The 'timing' can only get worse.

[Strawman]

129. Do you think people ought to be able to conscientiously object?

It would seem to me that if one thinks it is a duty of citizenship, one that cannot be fairly opted out of by some other arrangement, no citizen ought to be allowed to opt out based on personal beliefs, even religious ones. It seems that one one accepts that option, it is difficult to draw the line. Why, for example, does someone who is a member of the Society of Friends have a more legitmate claim to objector status than an agnostic whose inner moral compass tells him/her that killing, or even killing in a particular instance of war, is wrong?

As I argued downthread, I think this issue goes right to the core of the historical tension between our civic/republican political tradition and our individualistic/liberal political tradition, and honestly, I am not sure how to resolve it or which to endorse. I think all one can do is pick which principle to violate in this case and then attempt to justify it in terms of the other. I can really understand both sides.

[TahitiNut]

135. Yes. I think a demonstrated commitment to such principles should be accommodated.

I'm not talking about a "philosophy of convenience," however. (It's amazing how rapidly 'enlightened' people became when they got a draft notice. I was tempted. In a lot of ways.) We had C.O.s in Nam that were medics ... and damned good ones. (Did you know Medals of Valor are mostly given for saving lives? Ironic.) At one point, I thought that's what I'd be assigned (at Fort Sam Houston in Texas) ... and it scared the living shit out of me. (It'd be too easy for me to paint my spine yellow.) Facing my fears, however, has always been good for me, even though it's been difficult each and every time.

Again, however, I support universal national service that includes Americorps, VISTA, Peace Corps, the Public Health Service(!), and the military. Short of that, I regard an active Draft as second best ... with the option of 'enlisting' (internship) in one of the other aforementioned services - for an additional year. I support Kucinich and his Department of Peace. I do NOT regard that as pie-in-the-sky.

For me, the overriding principle is direct participation in our own democracy. "Skin in the game." I just can't see letting the poorest or most-propagandized doing the dying and bleeding for the failure of the "body politic" to maintain a firm grip on our own governance. I see no good reason to let Binka's Ben or other DUer families to bear the burden alone, merely because they 'volunteered.' My life and the life of my kin is no more valuable than theirs.

It should be everybody ... until the day it's nobody.

[Strawman]

143. That seems like a reasonable standard

Also looks like the standard the Supreme Court has established. I really didn't know any of this info on CO status until I just looked it up, so this may or may not be right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector

"In 1971 a United States Supreme Court decision broadened U.S. rules beyond religious belief but denied the inclusion of objections to specific wars as grounds for conscientious objection.<1> Some desiring to include the objection to specific wars distinguish between wars of offensive aggression and defensive wars while others contend that religious, moral or ethical opposition to war need not be absolute or consistent but may depend on circumstance or political conviction. Currently, the U.S. Selective Service System states, "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims.".<2> In the US, this applies to primary claims, that is, those filed on initial SSS registration. On the other hand, those who apply after either having registered without filing, and/or having attempted or effected a deferral, are specifically required to demonstrate a discrete and documented change in belief, including a precipitant, that converted a non-CO to a CO. The male reference is due to the current "male only" basis for conscription in the United States."

[nadinbrzezinski]

141. They can serve as medics

as they have done in previous wars.

They have served honorably and saved lives

[Strawman]

142. True, but do you think people ought to be able to opt out of military service entirely?

Some objectors would object to any military service. Do you think it is legitmate for these citizens to reject their civic duty to military service as a draftee under certain circumstances?

[nadinbrzezinski]

144. As long as you have alternatives

Israel in that sense is a model. Some Israeli citizens do not serve in the IDF for religious and ethicsl reasons. They are given the alternative of serving with Maguen David Adom, the Red Cross essentially, as civilian Medics, or in civilians hospitals as volunteers

In the US you could have these folks serve in VA hospitals for example

[Bjornsdotter]

4. And would this

...draft you support affect your children? Would it affect your children immediately or would it be down the road or past their time?


I know quite a few people who would like to see a draft, but they themselves are too old to serve, they don't have children/children are too old or young, or they have only daughters. The ones with only daughters are particularily scary as they don't realize a draft would include Susie too. Usually they will change their minds when it is pointed out to them.

I do understand the scare tactic behind your post and the WTF effect it would have on the population, but it would directly affect my 2 teens....so no I don't support the idea.



Cheers

[qwlauren35]

24. I have two nieces, and a step daughter.

They would all be called.

That's what makes a draft that includes females so powerful.

You say it would put your children at risk... think how much harder you would fight to end this war.

There are a lot of countries with conscription. And for the most part, they are wary of war. And the people of that country are a lot quicker to hold politicians accountable.

IF you see the possibility that your daughters would die, then I sense you don't believe that Americans would fight hard enough to prevent it.

I disagree. I am absolutely convinced that this war would end within a week with a "co-ed" draft. People would not stop at "peaceable marches". There would be riots.

[TahitiNut]

28. People find it far easier to oppose the draft than the war itself.

It's amazing how much less effort there is in fighting fires when one's own house is 'safe.'

IMHO, folks who oppose a turn at the oars in the same boat are also opposed to real democracy.

[Bjornsdotter]

132. A week?

I find that highly doubtful and I put it up there with "we will be greeted with flowers."

I do, however, feel that a co-ed draft would shake up some people, but these are the same people who have no problem with drafting my son.

Some people are opposed to a draft and I am one of them.

Cheers

[NNN0LHI]

6. Just because some parents are assholes I don't want to send their kids to die

My Republican parents who supported the Vietnam war and Nixon wouldn't have minded had I been drafted and have been sent over there to die face down in the mud over 30 years ago. They would have considered my death as some kind of personal sacrifice on "their" part. Yea. Thats how these goof balls think.

Wouldn't it have had been great for a bleeding heart liberal like me to have died like a dog fighting in a war that I never believed in because my parents were ignorant?

Think about it.

Don

[Horse with no Name]

7. I don't want any of these kids to die

I just want it stopped.
Sadly, I don't know how to do that without scaring the shit out of the ones he tosses out there as supporters.:(

[NNN0LHI]

8. You want to know when when Bush will stop sending kids off to their deaths?

When they stop signing up to go.

Thats when.

Don

[Ron Green]

75. No, he'll stop sending them when he's been marched out of the White House

along with the other criminals in his cabal. Would have happened already if we'd had an army full of draftees from all walks of life.

[Bjornsdotter]

133. There lies the catch-22

How do we scare everyone without putting our children on the line to pay the price if we screw up?

I don't have the answer, I wish I did.

Cheers

[Lilith Velkor]

157. We already are scared!

Don't you know that? We elected the Dems because we're sick of being scared, and now we get a Dem pulling *this* shit?

Jesus motherfucking christ on a popsicle stick...

[Bjornsdotter]

160. I know that

...read my other posts.

Cheers

[nadinbrzezinski]

161. He has introduced this bill every year since 2002

so if you didn't know ... well you now what they say about paying attention.

By the way the Pubbies had one of their reps introduce a bill in 2001 that had so many holes it wasn't even funny. Rangel's intro of this bill is his way to avoid the republican bill that would have you there in a heart beat, but not the kids of those who make quite a bit of money

[originalpckelly]

177. You and Rangel's other supporters still haven't explained why he...

hasn't already introduced a bill to stop funding the war. (That would end the war.)

What more can the American people do? We've voted for those who've said they will end the war. Why aren't they actually doing it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

180. You contact Charlie

ok

[Lilith Velkor]

184. The Dems weren't in power in those years

What was that about paying attention? :eyes:

And yes, I objected all those times, too, because it was just as stupid an idea then, if not more so.

I don't give a fuck about making rich kids suffer, they didn't do anything to me and neither did the Iraqi people. I'm not howling for anybody's blood, except that of the war criminals and traitors who set us up, provided they are tried and convicted. Wanting people dead for who they are, and not what they did, is morally reprehensible.

[nadinbrzezinski]

185. Ok I will ask you the same bloody quetion

I have asked repeteadly.

Give me a way to wake up the don't interrupt my life youn'ins (20 something) that does not involve making it personal for them?

[Bryn]

69. Yes, That's True

My beloved brother got killed in Vietnam in 1969. Yet, my Republican mother SUPPORTS BUSH AND HIS WAR. This is SICK!! I am so angry. Rest of my family..all siblings are frigging Republicans and Bush lover. I can never never understand this. My late grandparents were Democratic like I am now. Mom thinks they would have changed over to republican side because of Bush whom she thinks is "Man of God". She thinks I am not a smart one because everyone else in the family, even cousins and cousins are now republicans. Well, I consider myself a LION among sheeps. I am not a follower. I think for myself.

[NNN0LHI]

87. Really sorry to hear about your brother

My older brother applied for and received several draft deferments (he turned 18 in 1969) to avoid going to Vietnam and yet he supported Bush invading and occupying Iraq to steal their oil. Its a crazy world.

Don

[The Wielding Truth]

175. It is your individual right to oppose that which is wrong. BushCo is wrong.

Their lies and/or mistakes have taken us into strange, foolish, and extremely dangerous circumstances. It is your right and duty not to follow.

You, along with others who feel as we do, will save Democracy and promote universal respect and international peace.

It is you and I, who must strike out on our own when we know of the continual harm being done.

There is a better way to help this Earth survive. It is our duty to find it and live it.

[WI_DEM]

10. I admire your guts to support the draft publicly on DU

Luckily the draft will not come back. Politicians--even most Republicans know it would be political suicide to bring the draft back. Also, warfare today is much different than it was when we last had the draft, much more technical. It would take a much longer period of time to draft people and then get them ready. That is why even the armed services oppose a draft. They actually favor the volunteer services.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Hold it, you are telling me that

taking an 18 yaer old kid, teaching him or her close order drill and how to fire an M-16 is TECHNICAL? That's bullshit!

The military in the 1960s used draftees in infantry units for a reason... any other MOS were opened to those who CHOSE to stay as volunteers and we both bloody know that. They could not train them to do anything else in the 18 month commitment. that does not mean the troops were not good, for they were... but they were FINE infantry troops, aka grunts.

The services are opposed for a very practical reason that has NOTHING to do with advanced weapons systems... when you have a draftee force pay drops for everybody, from the career man to the retired career man to the raw recruit.

[Yavin4]

11. Class Based America

America is a rigged class based nation. The military is in a class by itself. It's comprised of mostly working class Americans with few options for socioeconomic advancement. It's either WalMart or the Marines. College is only attainable through the military. By definition, this class is expendable to the power elite. Every time I see a Heritage Foundation spokesman promote this war, I know that his/her kid is taking AP classes and is more worried about college admissions than RPGs.

The only way to stop wars of choice is to have a draft.

[pampango]

32. To the extent that working class Americans use the military

(solely, partially, mainly, slightly) in order to open other doors, such as college or a skilled trade, for themselves is that making an argument for the draft. While we are taking this (dangerous) opportunity from them, perhaps we should also get rid of affirmative action and others programs that tend to benefit the working class. Having more middle class white kids drafted into the army may hasten the end of the war, but I don't see how it does anything to create more opportunities for the working class.

[TahitiNut]

12. (((Horse)))

I agree. Even further, I find it totally appalling to see 'democrats' on DU claiming (or implying) that somehow the 'volunteers' are any more deserving of death or dismemberment in serivce to a nation that's taken the wrong path than other citizens who, through inaction or inadequate action, have permitted this criminal invasion and occupation in our name. That's so antithetical to anything approximating what I know of 'democracy' that it makes me retch.
:puke:

[NotGivingUp]

17. n/t

[Occulus]

26. What about gay people?

I'm curious how you can rationalize telling people who have been told for decades that they aren't welcome even if they WANT to serve that now, in a draft, they MUST serve- even though they stand a very very real risk of being beaten or killed (Pfc. Winchell ring a bell?) ON BASE.

Explain yourself. I think you owe us GLBTers at least that much.

This goes for the OP, too, and everyone else here calling for a draft. Explanations to the GLBT DUers are LONG overdue on this point.

[TahitiNut]

30. Gays have served in the military since 1776 ... and before.

So have blacks and women. :shrug:

Women weren't subject to the draft when they weren't allowed to vote. One part has (rightfully!) changed. It's long past time to change the other.

Remember ... the 'arguments' of the past about women voting are IDENTICAL to the 'arguments' about women in the military today. We even had virtually identical 'arguments' about blacks.

Bigotry follows the same patterns of ignorance and hate, no matter the 'basis' for that bigotry.

[Occulus]

36. You didn't answer my question.

Gay people, today, if they are known to be gay, are thrown out. Are you honestly trying to say that they would NOT be exempt from a draft for that reason?

And how do you justify that, given the fact that drafting GLBT people will put them directly into danger before they are ever even trained?

Answer this directly. I'm honestly curious as to what your and every other draft suppoerter's position on this truly is.

edited to add: Right now, we put up with this, this, and this. Do you honestly think it won't be much worse for us in the event of a draft?

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Not for too much longer

the army is looking into internal review into changing these back ass rules, why? They are desperate for bodies, no pun intended

But blacks were also segregated and kept out of certain MOS due to the color of their skin.

These fights need to be fought, and yes, if we have a draft the only exception is... you are in college, to end the semester, wtih the option of joining ROTC and then owing uncle sam eight years as an officer for your education.

Is that simple enough for you?

Everybody serves, no excpetions.

[TahitiNut]

46. Exactly.

:hug: :patriot:

I feel a profound duty to you and yours ... to "take your six." (Too bad others don't feel the same.)

[TahitiNut]

43. "When did you stop beating your wife?"

The implication that I "justify" the bigotries against gays is offensive to me.

I do NOT, in any way, condone bigotry ... whether of gays or women or blacks, all of whom have suffered reprehensible treatment. Nor do I support exemption from national service on that basis either, whether 'voluntary' (coerced) or drafted. Period.

[Occulus]

48. Even if I know I could be beaten or killed on base?

So. You would be happy forcing me back into the closet? Because that's exactly what would happen- never mind that I wouldn't even be able to keep photos OR letters once I got into a combat zone.

http://www.q.co.za/2001/2003/03/23-usgaysoldiers.html

Another military spouse, W.F., whose partner was deployed to Kuwait in January from Good Fellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas, was also relegated to the shadows as partner left for war.

For their soldier partners elaborate charades must often be carried out just to ensure that suspicions do not arise. "If a straight soldier gets a letter from his girlfriend," says J.R., "he can tell his buddies, pass the letter around, show them pictures. If you're gay or bi, you can't. If you get a letter or photo, you rip it up or burn it; you can't keep it."

edit: I never asked you to justify your bigotry, real or imagined. I'm asking you to justify forcing me to put up with concentrated bigotry of others.

You're saying, in effect, you have no problem whatever with putting me into a situation in which my own physical safety will be in jeopardy- at the same time knowing that would not be the case for the vast majority of others in the same situation.

[TahitiNut]

49. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I really don't know how much clearer I can make it. If it's necessary (and I have the chance) to put my carcasss "in harm's way" to defend you and yours, I'll do it. It wouldn't be the first time! From whom can I expect the same???

To use rhetoric like "You would be happy forcing me back into the closet" is obscenely offensive and totally lacking in civility. Stop it!

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Read about the Tuskeegee airmen

and then come back to me.

They faced death and they could not go back into the closet... I mean a little hard to change the color of your skin, don't you think?

As is, when in uniform the only color that matters, to quote the Marines on this, is O.D Marine... so when in uniform you are not suposed to be black, white, gay, straight, only GI.

I know this is alien to you... this way of thinking.

[Occulus]

52. Hold on...

GLBTers here get ripped up right here at DU for comparing the civil rights struggle to their own... and now you expect me to compare being black in the military and being gay in the military?

Am I reading this correctly?

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. I have no clue who has ripped you appart

but yes, the struggle is similar and will require similar sacrifices.

I am talking as a historian here

by the way, if there is a draft, no excpetions.., everybody serves

[Occulus]

56. I didn't participate in that particular thread

but I quite clearly recall at least one long thread (maybe it was a subthread) calling on gay DUers to stop comparing their own struggle to that of African Americans. That's why I'm a bit confused, because NOW it seems it's okay to do exactly that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. Ok first off this is a place with 100,000

subcribers. Assuming one fifth post regularly you are talking 25,000

Don't use broad brushes, and you should be ok.

SOME DU'ers take excpetion to the GBLT community comparing this to the civil rights movement. That is far more accurate, to Du'ers do it ok.

[Madspirit]

168. Coretta Scott King ...

Coretta Scott King compared the gay struggle to that of African Americans. That's good enough for me.
Madspirit

[Madspirit]

173. More Mrs. King

Coretta Scott King, speaking four days before the 30th anniversary of her husband's assassination, said Tuesday the civil rights leader's memory demanded a strong stand for gay and lesbian rights. "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," she said. - Reuters, March 31, 1998.

Speaking before nearly 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton Hotel,
Coretta Scott King, the wife of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Tuesday called on the civil rights community to join in the struggle against homophobia and anti-gay bias. "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood," King stated. "This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group." - Chicago Defender, April 1, 1998, front page.

[TahitiNut]

60. There are "comparisons" and there are "comparisons"! Don't be obtuse.

There is a generational impact of racial bigotry ... and an inheritance of disadvantage. That generational cascade of disadvantage does not exist in other institutionalized bigotries, no matter how reprehensible.

It's extraordinarily noxious to paw through the "lesser" and "greater" evils - it's all nauseatingly EVIL. At the same time, NO EXPLOITATION of the bigotries suffered by others is either rational or ethical or necessary. It's noxious enough that some would aim their hatred at others due to their choice of whom to love that "comparisons" so off-handedly employed are appalling.

[Occulus]

63. Do you understand WHY I'm objecting?

Do you at least realize the gist of what I'm saying?

[TahitiNut]

73. Yes.

While I eschew 'comparisons,' the same happened to blacks and the same has been happening to women. There's no question in my mind that the military (Petri dish?) culture "eats its young." I've been there! It is NOT, however, any kind of argument for not "doing the right thing!" When we give ground to the bigots and hate-mongers, any ground, we all lose. Humanity loses!

While it seems to go over the heads (or through both ears without meeting resistance) of many, I will reiterate: I'm an ethical deontologist, not an ethical consequentialist. Without offering a 'resume' (which is never called-for), I've taken stances and paid the price often enough to be well-informed by experience of the choices I make. To repeat: I will absolutely put my aged carcass "in harm's way" to defend you and yours from such threats. I've done it in the past and I will do it in the future. It is consistent with my stance on national service!! Ethically, I can not in good conscience do otherwise. The alternative, both in "taking your six" and the draft, is yielding ground to bigots, fascists, and a host of evils. I will not do that. I will die first and regard it as an acceptable price. Those are my ethics (and I owe nobody any 'proof').

[dsc]

172. That is transparently false

Marines care a whole hell of a lot if you are gay to the point that they don't want you to serve. They may not care about the rest, I can't say that, but they sure do care about being gay.

[Horse with no Name]

122. I've answered this before

I don't believe gay people should HAVE to serve in any capacity.
Our country does not recognize their rights as citizens to live equal lives and the country shouldn't expect to utilize them UNTIL they are given the same rights as straights.

[Rosemary2205]

13. I agree with you too.

There aren't many of us on DU. I had something to say but TahitiNut really said it much more eloquently than I could............

[KharmaTrain]

14. People Always Ask...Where's The Outrage?

My daughter just graduated from a midwestern university...one that was known in the 60s for being very active with anti-war protests. Fast forward to 2003 and beyond and there was precious little display on campus about the war and only a smattering of protests (sparsely attended) and symposiums. It's like it's a taboo to discuss the war or to show any outward sign of protest. I talked with my daughter and her friends often about where the outrage and activism is and they shrugged and said they were too busy with classes to worry about Iraq...that's someone elses problem. And THAT'S the problem.

Unless your family gets the unfortunately calls about your son/daughter being shipped off to Baghdad...or even worse, like our dear Binka, we learn about them being injured or unfortunately in a body bag, this war is remote...one you tune into on the TV and leave there when you turn on Jeopardy. It's one that you don't feel in rationing or in higher taxes and most have accepted higher oil prices as fait accompli.

Charlie is calling the GOOP on their bullshit and the rest of the country as well. I love seeing all the outrage when this topic comes up on DU as you can see how potent an issue it is here...imagine how it would be if it became a reality? It might just kick some people in the ass who are feeling a little too comfortable right now...who see this invasion in second and third person terms.

[Pithlet]

15. Support for Charlie is one thing.

I support his message. I don't think he's actually advocating a draft that he honestly wants to see instated the way some here on DU seem to be, but is making a symbolic move to make a point, a point that I fully agree with. But, I really hope I'm misinterpreting some of the posts here on DU. The people who seem to be actually pushing for and hoping to see a real draft instituted are nuts. I'm sorry. It makes no difference why a successful draft is instated. I don't care what the intentions are. The results are the same.

[KharmaTrain]

22. I Don't Think Anyone Wants A Draft

I'm from the Vietnam era and know what it was to have the Sword of the Lottery Ball hang over my head. I had a draft card and had friends who were pulled in. My older brother tap-danced like crazy to avoid serving and ended up putting in several years with the NIH (National Institute of Health) treating returning vets. So I think I can speak about the draft with some personal persepctive...one that I think you and others are misreading.

No, I don't want a draft...I'm probably as adamant as you to get our troops home and end this illegal invasion. I have a 19 year old son who I hate seeing have to face a similar ugly war as I did and the possibility he could get dragged into it...or that others we know will be. That's not the point...

Instituting a draft will send a chill into the many homes who don't feel this war. See how it's pushed your buttons? Surely there would be a similar reaction from many right wing families and it could energize them to finally stand up to their bully leaders and sap the remaining political base these goons have. It may get some people off their asses and into the streets and into some activism...and to turn an entire generation against the Repugnicans and those who will attempt to hijack our representative democracy again.

The Repugnicans will be loathe to support the re-institution of the draft as it would open up a debate in their camp they've been able to avoid for decades...about how "dad" reacted when it was his turn.

[Pithlet]

25. Actually, I believe they do.

I'm reading the posts of someone who actually appears to think that hundreds of thousands of our kids dying is the only thing that will send the message. They haven't given any indication that what they're saying is rhetoric. There are people who are seriously advocating a draft on DU today. It's insane.

See how it's pushed my buttons? We aren't talking about buttons! We're talking about lives. Pointing out that chickenhawks would be quaking in their boots if a draft were implemented, and actually implementing a draft that would kill people are two different things. I don't care why a person pushing for a draft is doing it. Whether they're doing it to feed a war machine or doing it because they think it proves some point, I'm fighting it. Not because my "buttons are pushed". This isn't a game. But because I don't want to see any more dead, whether they volunteered or were sent against their will.

[KharmaTrain]

31. So People On DU Are Pro-War?

I for one think one American death in Iraq was a one too many and the blood is on the hands of this regime...actually thousands of bodies that must be addressed in The Hauge. I read many posts here and don't see those who understand what Rangel as doing as wanting to see "thousands of kids" dying.

Sadly, yes, this is a game...a deadly one, but a game nonetheless and you and I are pawns. We have no real say in this game other than our vote, voices and feet. And then it's with limited results as most see this war in abstract, not real terms. They see it as a TV show...something far away that has little impact on their lives. They sucked up the Iraq=9/11 bullshit and still believe the meme of "if we don't kill 'em there, they'll kill us here". Sadly, it's still cool for some to play armchair warrior and these sheeple are the ones who embolden this regime. Our vote last November sure didn't get a message through to the boooosh regime, did it?

I hope you're as pissed as I was 35 years ago...a war that did send thousands of kids to their needless deaths. Stay pissed...I sure am. Sorry your offended by the button pushing remark, but that's what this is...to get a reaction and that's not a bad thing. To cast blame at others here is taking this place way too seriously. For all its good, DU...especially this forum...brings out the passions that are easily misconstrued and interpreted. The "Discussion" aspect of this forum seems to operate here less and less thse days.

[Pithlet]

33. Effectively, yes, the ones who seriously want to see a draft are pro-war.

Because the consequences are the same. Anyone who is actually for a draft and honestly wants to see one instituted is calling for an action that feeds the war machine. Instituting a draft is feeding lives into the war machine. Because they think they're proving some point changes nothing.

Make no mistake. I think Charlie Rangel's actions pointing out the hypocrisy of the Right is an entirely different matter. He knows that the draft won't happen, and his action does nothing but show the chickenhawks for who they are. I get that, and I think it's brilliant. He doesn't want a draft any more than I do. The people on DU today who are actually proposing that a real draft actually happen are an entirely different matter. They want to play with the lives of other people, and I don't care what their reasons are, they're wrong. All serious attempts at a draft should be viciously fought against.

[KharmaTrain]

41. Fortunately There's No Political Stomache For A Draft

Please understand that I do NOT want a draft in any form or fashion unless it's the last resort in reinging in this regime and getting people off their asses. That, I believe is what many here believe, and what Rangel's action were intended to do.

Any Repugnican who votes to reinstitute the draft signs their own political death warrant. The contempt for this invasion now appears to finally be bipartisan and Rangel knows this. The reason it gets so much consernation is exactly for the hypocricy it points out.

When Rangel first proposed this almost three years ago, no one noticed. He also talks about how the war needs to be funded and adding that many thousands into the active military would require billions of dollars that would require tax hikes that Repugnicans loathe even more.

Just remember, if booshie wants a draft, it's just a signing statement away...

[Pithlet]

47. Yes, that is fortunate.

I don't think we'll be seeing a draft any time soon. I think we mostly agree. I just don't think it can ever get to a point where a draft will get people off their asses, because I don't think it works that way. When it gets to the point that drafts are actually being seriously considered and implemented, then all the asses getting up won't stop it in time to save the people sent over to die, and in fact may just make things worse. It's never worth that gamble at any rate. I think that at this time people who seriously think that implementing a draft right now would stop the war are being foolish.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. I am willing to bet you will see one

Implemented by a President who is clinically insane, and as an executive order

I can almost bet that this draft will have plenty of holes to protect his base.

But I am also willing to bet that if those Execute orders to go to a shadow war with Iran and Sirya have been signed, we will need bodies, soon... and george is mad enough to do it...

On the bright side... it will get all those people who have not been payin attetnion until now to damm it pay attention.

It may as well give the presidency to a Dem for a generation

[Pithlet]

59. It's not worth it.

I don't want to see a draft even if we somehow gain politically. It's not worth the additional lives lost. It's bad enough as it is. And if a Dem successfully pushes for and gets a draft, that will be the end of them in our lifetime. We can look forward to the next 50 years at least of Republican rule, and that's nothing but bad news from a peaceful point of view. A draft is a very bad thing, especially right now. No one should be seriously entertaining the thought or wishing for its outcome.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. We can agree to disagree

but as a military wife, who HAD skin in this game in the form of my husband and still has skin in this game in the form of my niece, I have heard it too often,

Well they volunteered, somehow the economic draft is fine... but a draft that will affect everybody else, is not.

[Pithlet]

65. Don't assue that I haven't faced the risk of loss.

And don't assume that I think an economic draft is fine! I had two brothers in law over there. Because you understand the risks makes your position make even less sense to me. They came back recently, and told me things I wish I'd never heard. I want this war stopped. I just don't want to kill even more people to get it done.

Sorry, I'm not going to agree to disagree when it comes to the lives of my family. You propose a draft putting them at risk? I'm going to fight you on that. I don't care what your intentions are, or what good you personally feel it will do.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. Fine I have family members who WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE

DRAFT and will FINALLY WAKE UP... clear enough for you?

As I said, the military draft is fine... but gosh darn it, don't affect my confort level.

You can talk to me until you are blue in the face, I am for it, PERIOD... and no I am not pro war, before you say it.

That is what it will take to wake up the selfish, twnenty somethings... or have you missed going to demonstrations and counting them with the fingers of ONE hand?

[Pithlet]

71. Yeah, we wake up the selfish twenty somethings.

and our kids are over there in the line of fire along with them. At least we've proved them wrong!

Aren't you opposed to the war so they aren't over there in the first place? Or is it really just an argument over principles for you? You aren't pro-war in principle, but if you support the draft, you are pro-war in practice. And it's the practice of war that gets people killed.

I'm not talking to you till I'm blue in the face to change your mind, because it's clear I won't. You want to send more people to die to prove a point that they shouldn't be going over there to die, and that's the kind of mixed up reason that's impossible to counter. I'm not arguing with you, I'm giving off a resounding "Hell no!" No draft. Period.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. Sent a husband to war

and I have personally served in uniform... so don't get too preachy... and after 9.11 I tried to join up as well, but they said no since my husband WAS on the line at that moment.

As I said, you really have no problem with the economic draft or the backdoor draft, but lord help the rest of us if we decide to expand the drafts we have in place to your kids.

Now if you can tell me of a better way to wake up the 20 somethigns I am all ears

I have asked this many a times, and I have yet to get a reasonable response...

And when a twenty something tells me that yep, the draft is the only thing that will wake his classmates up, well I tend to pay attention, since he is a member of that age cadre.

Again, tell me how many twenty somethings are at demonstrations when you go to them... and YOU DO go to them, don't you?

[originalpckelly]

79. Let me get this right:

You think a draft based on economics is wrong.

You think forcing a soldier to fight after his/her time is up is wrong.

But you think it is OK for us to force everyone in America to fight?

The solution to the draft is a choice. In the case of the economic draft, it's to give a kid a scholarship or a short jobs training program, and then help place them in a job.

In the case of a back door draft, it's outright forbidding a President of his subordinates from sending people into war after a certain period of time.

The solution is not to give the President more soldiers to kill, the solution is to give him fewer soldiers.

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. Tell me how you intend to wake up

those who have no skin in the game and best case don't care and worst case go, but, but they volunteered (so it is alright if they are abusded repeteadly)

[originalpckelly]

89. You make the assumption that these fundies care when their children die...

or even when they put their own lives on the line, they don't.

That's the problem with these religious fundamentalists. This is a thread about a fundie father wanting to literally THANK Bush for his son's death!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3098352&mesg_id=3098352

Just look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they also don't care if they themselves or their children die. They are totally delusional.

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. I don't assume the fundies care

I assume the kids who's skin, blood and guts, will suddenly be in play might care

I am assuming kids who have so far NOT PAID A WHIT OF ATTENTION MAY START TO PAY ATTENTION

So offer a solution to wake the kids up... I gave up on their parents a while ago.

[Pithlet]

80. I don't want to send a husband to war. And why should I?

He doesn't want to go. He's against the war! He should be forced to go because you want to prove a point to a bunch of 20 somthings?

Yeah, I bet I could think of thousands of better ways to wake up 20 somethings other than having them killed by Bush.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. If your husband was in uniform he'd have no choice

you truly don't understand how this works, do you?

Again how are you going to wake up the twenty somethings.

Please answer the question and stop dancing around it.

Don't tell me you have ways, tell me the ways...

[originalpckelly]

85. How do you plan on waking someone up by killing them?

Death is a little more permanent than even sleep.

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. Stop dancing, give me the answer you propose

[originalpckelly]

91. If you honestly think that sending someone to death is the only way...

to get them interested in the future of their country, you're just as nuts as a religious rightwinger.

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. Don't call me names

give me a solution... or you can't

[originalpckelly]

95. How about talking to them? When was the last time you had a long talk...

with someone 20 years old about this war and politics?

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. I have

and a twenty something said quite bluntly to me, that when he has tried to talk to his friends and class mates they don't care

I asked him what will make them pay afternoon

His words, (not the first time I hear this either by the way)

A military draft.

So even the twenty somethings who are awake realize this.

[originalpckelly]

97. No, have a conversation with someone who's not paying attention.

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. I have as well

and usually they go, so what? I have (insert media distraction here) to watch, or who cares?

Or worst, well tehy volunteered.

As I ssid, give me a solution that works... that does not involve a draft or any other meassure that will put their skin, blood and guts in play

[originalpckelly]

101. What did you say?

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. That I have spoken to the 20 somethings

who are not awake and they don't want to be awake, they have a don't bother me right now attitude. If you have seen the Carl's Juniors commercials, it fits, don't bother me, I am having MY LIFE and I don't want to be bothered.

So have a solution that works?

Proof is in the pudding. How many young men and women do you see at demonstrations?

The ones that I have met (and been honored to meet) are mostly vets of this war

[Pithlet]

99. You know who I did sent off to war?

My husband's little brother. He came back with shrapnel in his shoulder. I sent my sister in law's husband off to war. I sent a good friend from high school off to war, and he didn't come back. The solution to your problem is not getting other people killed. The solution to your problem is allowing soldiers to not go to wars they don't believe in. What is this nonsense about waking people up? Have you not noticed that this war is already more unpopular than Vietnam ever was? Have you not noticed Republicans running away from this escalation like it was the plague? Did you not notice the public giving control of congress to the anti-war party? The public doesn't need waking up. Your problem is that you want the Democratic congress to bring home troops immediately. The public already agrees that the troops should start coming home. So, if you have a problem it's with congressional leadership (putting aside for the moment whether they're actually doing what you want them to do or not). Seeing as the public already supports getting out of Iraq and elected Congress already, then no one needs to be woken up except the Congressional leadership. You already have what you want without the draft. If you want to murder people, and this is what you're talking about doing if you're talking about a draft, then you need a better reason than what you have now. Piling blood on top of blood is what George W. Bush wants to do. I don't think it's a good idea coming from you or from him.

While we're on this subject, what precisely do you think Bush is going to do with more soldiers? His administration has stated more than once that they don't need approval to go to war. If he has more troops, he'll use them because that's what he thinks is right. Maybe if he does go to war without Congressional approval he'll get impeached. But, you know what, that war will still be started, and those people will be dead.

These are people we're talking about here, not abstractions. It is monstrous to put their lives at risk to prove a point.

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. Problem is that a military force is NOT a democracy

I cannot decide what wars to go to, and what wars not to go to... unless the order is very ilegal... and I am on very solid legal ground to respectfully say NO SIR,,, with all due respect I refuse to carry that order.

That is Lt. Watada's stance and you watch the trial, his objections will NOT be admited into evidence.

Having BEEN IN UNIFORM I know how hard it is to disobey a direct unlawful order... I also have been there done that.

But in general a military force is not a democracy, you don't get to choose.

Itis up to the civilians to say hell no,

But so far I have yet to see a workable solution to wake up the 20 somethings that does not involve a draft, national service or common sacrifice.

When you have one, come back to me.

[Pithlet]

105. Then the solution isn't to get more people needlessly killed

Your solution is to change that fact about the army. Soldiers shouldn't have to go and fight in wars they don't believe in. The advantage that this plan has? It doesn't get people needlessly killed to make a point.

How much more awake do you need for people to be? Do they actually have to storm the Whitehouse before you'll stop insisting that they have to fight in a war they don't believe in? Or is there another level of awakeness that's suitable for you. I repeat, the people want the war to end. They voted that way. What the hell else do you want from them?

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. Again an army is NOT a democracy

you don't have a choice of what orders to obey, and the only ones you can disobey are clearly illegal orders. And even then you must be on firm legal ground.

You truly don't have a clue how armies work since the beginning of armed conflict, do you?

I can see it now.

Sergeant assemble the company.

We got orders to go invade Oceania, those opposed leave the hall.

It does not work that way. IT is called good order and discipline. Ask your relatives who have served about it... they may be able to explain it to you

[originalpckelly]

109. Why not go out to high schools and offer kids a scholarship if the military...

is intensely recruiting them? Wouldn't that be a better system? Why not change the laws forcing service members back to duty when their duration is up?

There are lots of ways which have no effect on military discipline and yet also don't get anyone killed, to stop this war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. Again yuo have yet to give me a solution

to waking up the 20 somethings

And yuo are confussng apples and oranges, in an ideal country I'd allow the military to recruit kids, but I woudl also make college free for everybody, so your economic incientive to join the force would not be there.

After all we do need a military

In an ideal world I'd also have some form of national service, but that is just me

[originalpckelly]

127. You have yet to make a point based upon sound logic.

[nadinbrzezinski]

137. You have yet to make any ponit that will solve this

problem of shared sacrifice that does not involve shared sacrrfice, or that it will wake up the 20 somethings

[originalpckelly]

178. Listen, this nation VOTED FOR PEOPLE WHO SAID THEY WOULD END THE WAR!

WHAT MORE CAN WE DO?

[Pithlet]

112. Oh, believe me. They've explained it to me.

My point was, if you're going to work towards ending our voluntary military members getting killed in this war, one way would be to work towards changing that aspect of the military, rather than working to send even more people over there. Let's see. Change the policy that's getting them killed. Or add even more people to get killed along with them. Which to choose? Yes, I understand that's not exactly an easy thing to do, but if you're a person of strong convictions who wants to work for change, then surely that challenge is worth taking on?

And what of my point that the people are already basically as awake as they ever could possibly be? What is the point of initiating a draft to "wake up" a populace that is about as against the war as they ever have been? If you're working towards 100% against the war, you're never going to get it. You're certainly never going to get me to go along with sending more of my family members over there against their will in the attempt to change their minds. That minority is probably too stupid to get the point anyway. What of that point there? You haven't addressed that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. So you did not get it

as I am sure they told you, a military is not a democracy, period... end of discusion.

[Pithlet]

120. My kids aren't up for you to send off to die.

Period. End of discussion. While I think the way the current military is run sucks, I don't think that has any baring on the fact that my kids aren't up for you to point your finger at and say "Hey, you! I'm disgusted with the twenty-somethings of America! Go and get yourself killed!"

If you don't want to bother to try and change the fact that the military can send its members off to wars they're against, then that's your problem. Not my kids' problem.

[nadinbrzezinski]

138. If yuo do not understand what I mean

by good order and disicipline ain't my fault

Ignorance on your part, and unwillingness to get educated and naivete is not my problem either

[Pithlet]

147. What do good order and discipline have to do with the draft?

However the military chooses to run things, they don't get me and mine against our will. It's really irrelevant. I only ever brought up the proposal to change how they run things because you brought up the sacrifices of the voluntary soldiers, as if somehow I ever made the point that I didn't care about them because their service voluntary. I do care about them, and I don't want them there any more than draftees. I just don't think sending even more cannon fodder to fight and die along side the voluntary soldiers them helps them one bit, and in fact hurts them because it just escalates the war even further. Order and discipline in the military don't have a thing to do with it. In fact, I'm thinking it's a bit harder to get people who never wanted to be in the military to begin with to do what you want them to do, so that's not exactly a point I'd stress if I were arguing for forcing people to kill and die.

[nadinbrzezinski]

149. Once agin

the military is NOT a democracy and you do NOT get to choose what wars to go to and what wars not to go to.

When in uniform you stand IN FRONT of the Constitution, not behind it.

As to the draft... national service, what have you, shared sacrifice leads to shared values and shared sense of nation.

As I said, if I and obviously your relatives cannot get to you and explain what good order and discipline is and why ANY military is NOT a democracy... I cannot help you here.

Suffice it to say, any troop or officer who chooses to DISOBEY an Ilegal Order, better have his or her ducks in a row... and be prepared to face the music.

[Pithlet]

153. Draft and national service are not remotely the same thing.

If you want to support national service, you go right on ahead to your hearts content, and I couldn't possibly care less. Support a draft, and I fight that tooth and nail. This is a thread about the draft and people who support instituting one at this time because they think it will stop the war. Not about national service. Start a thread on that if you want to, but bringing it up here is just an attempt at muddying the discussion, IMO.

Military is not a democracy. Precisely why I'm against a draft. If you can force people to participate in an outfit that is in no way democratic, then there's no point in having a democracy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

155. National Service takes the form of a military draft

in some places.

I woudl ideally have that service as an option for people to fill up their requirement

By the way, you can fight me tooth and nail since I am writing a proposal to send to Rangel... why? I will put my ideas on the line.

We need it... PERIOD and Rangel is right in his thinking.

You can fight me all you want... in fact I welcome it

But for the moment we can actually do the adult thing and agree to disagree, since we are BOTH sounding like a broken record

[Pithlet]

162. Surprise! I support Rangel too.

I support him because he doesn't truly want to send innocent people to fight and die in this war. He knows there's no way this draft is going through. He's doing this to point out the hypocrisy of the Right, not because he thinks actually sending people to die makes any kind of point. He's not doing it to wake up twenty-somethings. Do you truly think he really wants to institute a draft? That that is his actual intent?

Yes, military draft is a form of national service, but that doesn't mean that all national service equals the draft. Both oranges and apples are fruits, but neither is like the other. It's entirely possible to support national service, but not in the form of a military draft. That is why I've been telling you that national service in itself has nothing to do with this discussion any more than talking about how delicious apples are has any relevance in a discussion about oranges.

[nadinbrzezinski]

163. WOW we agree on something

[originalpckelly]

182. You know German soldiers are given the choice as to whether they serve in foreign wars?

I thought you did research on this?

[nadinbrzezinski]

186. Yep I also think you realize why?

Something bout a small war between 1939 and 1945

you may also know that the JDF had to have special permission to deploy troops to Iraq and they are looking into modifying the Constitution to allow for those deployments, also because of that small war, that for them went from 1933 to 1945

[KharmaTrain]

62. Going To The Draft Board Sure Wakes A Person Up...

At 18, I had to go to the local selective service office and register. Fortunately this was on the tail end of the draft, so I wasn't fortunate enough to take a physical, but I sure remember that day and my one and only encounter with the military. I'll bet that was closer contact with the miiltary than a majority of the chickenhawks who got us into this mess and their corporate media toadies.

People tend to take things a little more seriously when they see an official letter with their name on it. It makes them think about what's at stake here and whose responsible.

Right now, my biggest concern is the abuse of our military. One of the biggest crimes of this invasion is the abuse of those who volunteered who have been forced into return tours in the war zone while their benfits get cut and their families suffer. Is it fair to these people that they're used as cannon fodder? It irks me no end when I hear some asshat say "well they volunteered"...sure, but not for the living hell that this regime has put them through. Most thought it'd be a "cakewalk" or that they'd never get sent into harms way. The affects of this invasion with the thousand of walking wounded...physically and mentally will be one you will live with for the rest of their lives...just like I have dealt with my Viet Nam era brothers and sisters.

I didn't say a draft would stop the war, but it sure would create a debate that would handcuff this regime from expanding it. Right now that's the biggest problem we face...an out of control "commander in thief" who needs to get a stronger message from the American people than he currently is.

[Pithlet]

70. What good is creating the debate. when you're doing the very thing you're debating?

What is the difference between sending people off to a war to die because you believe in the war, and sending them off to die because you think it will wake people up? So it creates a debate. It makes people think. And my kid is now over there in the line of fire. Thanks for that.

We don't agree as much as I thought. Your argument makes about as much sense as, say, someone who argues for gun control advocating that everyone buy a gun, because nothing makes you realize how dangerous they are more than waking up in the morning and seeing your toddler has found it under your bed.

[KharmaTrain]

106. You Jump From A to D...

You assume that since one is supporting a debate on the draft and its many aspects that one is condonging sending you or others off to die. You leap over a lot of other factors that come into play here and how it plays into the political games that sadly we are forced to play to enact any real change.

Outrage is well and good but what has it accomplished? Other that a lot of hurt feelings here. I view things from years of cynicism that the only way you get people to act or react is to kick them in the ass. And yes, it puts you in the line of fire, but then arent we all? Do honestly believe that I want my own 19 year old to be dragged into this quagmire? Or anyone elses?

I see you ignored the plight of those already in the military...many who "volunteered" under economic stress or were conned into enlisting by a lot of bogus flag waiving and now are paying an incredible price. These are the real victims of this invasion and little if any focus is being paid to the plight these people and their families are having.

There's also the pocketbook aspect that Rangel discusses...eliminating the tax cuts and even proposing tax hikes to pay for the costs of a full-scale mobilzation that a draft would entail. This then affects people in their pocketbooks and is another avenue that could force this regime to stop its plundering.

To keep people from going off to die, it's necessary to make as many feel they could be the one to die as possible. Make as many people feel uncomfortable about this invasion as possible. For those who are against a draft, like you, it's hopefully gonna get you in the streets and active in fighting harder to defeat this regime and its political toadies. For those who are sheeple...who want to ignore this war or support it but have little at stake, this ups the ante and forces the debate not only of sending more people to die for a futile cause, but what led to this invasion and how we can avoid the abuse of our military and young people in the future.

[Pithlet]

110. I've ignored their plight?

Did you see my multiple posts about the people I care about who've been over there, and injured, one of them losing his life? Even if you didn't, how dare you. Anyway, I have addressed their plight. The solution to that problem, as I said in another post, is not forcing people, volunteer or otherwise, to fight in wars they're opposed to. Simple solution, and one that doesn't add yet more blood on top of blood.

People are already uncomfortable about this invasion. 11% support the escalation. 30% support continuing the war in Iraq. Satan polls better. You're never going to have 100% of the people against the war, because let's face it, there will always be morons. I don't think the rest of us should have to pay with our lives to try to get through to them. To make them scared. They're probably stupid enough to not be scared anyway.

[nadinbrzezinski]

117. And I will repeat this again

an army is NOT a democracy, PERIOD

[KharmaTrain]

118. Booshie only cares about his base...

I've read your posts and best we try to cool emotions here a bit. It's obvious we view things from different age perspectives and experiences...I truly appreciate your position and support it, but also realize that politics is a game...a deadly cynical game that we must master or be forced not only to endure more years of this horid invasion but to see it happen again in the future. I want to not only end this mess, but to prevent it from ever happening again and hold accountable any and all who supported this invasion and have blood on their hands. My posts can't be any more straight-forward about that.

While 11% in polls were against the "surge"...36% still support this regime. Even moreso, this regime totally ignores the 51% of us who wouldn't support this goon no way no how...all he's looking at are the GOOP poll numbers where he's still flirting with 50% approval and this is all he cares. It's cutting this support...and it's already eroded from 80% a year ago is about the only way to put pressure on the Repugnican party to either force this regime to cool its jets or cross over and vote with us to cut funding and other important actions that can bring our troops home.

If there's a scoreboard to this game, it's counting the number of Repugnicans who support this war and regime. Listening to Hagel, Coleman, Brownback and Voinovich recently, I don't see votes there for any "surge" and definitely not for re-instituting the draft...that's a start...get us another 5 or 10 more and now you're looking at some serious action that can bring some serious change and soon.

Peace...and cheers. Thank you for your passionate discussion.

[qwlauren35]

27. I guess I'm weird.

I want a draft.

Not symbolism. I want a draft.

You see, a draft would not just stop the War in Iraq. It would stop MOST escalations that politicians dream up. No one would put up with them.

If we don't institute a draft then at some point when Americans (and we're good at this) will forget Iraq, and some *sshole president will repeat this fiasco. And more soldiers will die.

If we institute a draft, or better still, conscription, then Americans will take a MUCH stronger position against military action.

I wish I knew of another way to mobilize the American people into understanding how often we go into other countries and do damage and get them to put a stop to it, but there doesn't seem to be any other way.

[Pithlet]

29. You don't know that a draft would stop the war.

And forgive me if I don't want to gamble with other people's lives. Have you forgotten that we've had drafts in the past? Drafts that caused many thousands of people to go against their will and get blown to bits? Yeah, that really stopped *this* war from happening, didn't it? You are no different than the person who wants a draft to feed a war. Your intentions may be different, but dead is dead. I'll fight you just as viciously as any Right Wing chickenhawk who has nothing to lose, because it makes no difference where it really counts.

[KharmaTrain]

34. I Guess You're A "Warmonger" Then

You state your point well...and sadly I think this may be one of the only ways that may stop this crazy invasion and prevent any future President from throwing our military around like its his own private militia.

Many here hope the politicians will be their saviors...that somehow they will force this regime to back down. Our problem is we got ourselves in such a deep hole that allowed this regime to do all the damage it did, we're just starting to get back into the game. Last November we elected the first cadre of anti-war Congresscritters...but there are still many "moderates" who have no spines and won't act unless they see their political lives flash in front of their eyes. As long as they don't feel the pressure, they won't act.

Starting this debate would surely stir a lot of passions and get many who are now fence-sitting to support defunding this invasion and other aspects that could force this regime's hand before 2009. Maybe it would rile up the campuses, get people onto the streets, get the Repugnicans to start putting their own under some real heat and wake up this country. Most important, it would draw a lazer focus to the price of this invasion...one in such direct and personal terms that no one can escape.

[Pithlet]

40. Getting those fence sitters on our side is no guarantee the war ends.

The Pentagon is moving to get rid of active duty time limits, for crying out loud! Yeah, this is the perfect time to be seriously bringing up a draft. Never mind we have a President who loves war and thinks nothing of sending our people to die, who will be in office for another year. Institute a draft now, and he'll say "Why, if you insist. Thank you!" and send them off to die, and not you, me or the stupid fence sitters can do a damn thing. You've gambled with other people's lives, and you've lost. Do you really want to take that chance, no matter how slim you may personally think it is? I don't. I'm just thankful that your viewpoint isn't a popular one. I just feel compelled to speak out against it anyway because I hope it stays on the fringe.

[pampango]

39. I understand the belief that a draft would mobilize opposition to this war,

but I think it would dangerous for the future. I think that you could argue that the draft prolonged the Vietnam War, though it eventually played a major role in ending it. If Johnson had tried to run that was with volunteers until they were killed, injured or worn out, he could not have done so for very long. The fact that there was already a draft in place allowed for him to have an unlimited supply of cannon fodder for the military.

If the Vietnam War had started and there had been no draft, Johnson may have wanted to enact one. That would probably resulted in more opposition to the war more quickly than with an existing draft already there for him.

So if we want to reinstate the draft now, as a political tactic to help end this war, can we at least put a time limit on it, so that it is not still around when the next military adventure occurs?

[KharmaTrain]

53. The Cruel Victims Are Those Who Got Sucked In The The "Voluenteer System"

You are correct, there'd have been no way Johnson could have sent 500,000 troops into Vietnam without conscription...and maybe that's a good thing in light of how this regime has abused the military.

Most people who went to Nam did one 18 month tour and that was it. Today we see many who are going on their third tour...some on their fourth. This includes many who already are suffering from PTSD and other injuries and are "guilted" back into another hitch or forced back due to the terms of their committment. It's a cruel abuse of these people and this regime continues to use these people as cannon fodder in their bloodlust determination to "be right" no matter how many young corpses and ruined lives that ends up in.

Again, I don't favor a draft, my hopes there are other ways that will put the brakes to this regime's abuse of the military. Yes, it is a political tactic...especially now, since I doubt there are the votes in the House to pass any pro-war legislation now.

Honestly, I can't speculate on if Johnson would have enacted a draft if there had been an all volunteer force as there is now. The climate in the country was so much different then as it is now...and in many ways a lot more naive. The fact there was a draft...and especially when college deferments were eliminated...is what turned many college campuses into caldrons. Sadly, I don't think the passion is here today that was there then. We're not seeing 500,000 people on the Mall or protests or even a free press. I mentioned in another post how dismayed I was to visit a college town that I remember being a hotbed of anti-war activity in the 60's and early 70's and barely seeing any reaction to this invasion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. We know several twenty somethings and a couple

thirty somethings that may or may not be affected.

They don't want to talk about the war. They don't care about the war and for the most part, they are not affected by the war.

As you said, one of the kids I know he is a college student, and he wants to start talking about politics in general with his pals.

of course medicare is not something he can talk about... not affecting him... so I sugested college tuition... then I asked him, what about the war?

We had a long talk, and he even agreed, the only way people will start talking about it and paying attention is if a draft is enacted, PERIOD, end of discusion. That is the only thing that will make them pay attention. That is a sad but true statement. Hell, they were not affected by Katrina either and it was as if it happened in another country, which speaks volumes about where we are as a nation.

[Pithlet]

51. Even if your last paragraph is true.

If the only thing that gets them talking about it is enacting a draft that gets more people killed, then how does that make it right? Because there are morons that don't care about anything that doesn't affect them directly means the loved ones of people who do care have to be sacrificed? I'm sorry, but I think that's crazy. Why should my kids go off to die in a war that we don't support to wake them up? Sure, it might stop the war. Or, we might get another Vietnam. You seriously want to gamble with people's lives which way it will go?

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. The last paragraph is true

and that is the average stand by most kids who GO TO COLLEGE in Southern California.

As to the gamble

Look at the casualty rates for Nam and the casualty rates for Iraq, year by year. If you start seeing a similarity, you are not dreaming.

As is no draftee entered Nam until '67

And yes, if that is the only thing that will make them pay attention... sure

Also most western democracies have soem form of national service... we are the exception, not the rule... and we are loosing that identification as a NATION.

[Pithlet]

64. So. Kill my kids to prove your point to the morons.

Sure, why not :crazy: Sorry. But, no.

Most western democracies have some form of national service? Well, so do we. Did you mean compulsory national service? Because then you're wrong. Canada doesn't. Most of Europe doesn't. What are you talking about? It's beside the point anyway, there's a difference between advocating for compulsory service, and drafting people into a war that's already costing us the lives of thousands of our citizens. Killing people to prove the point that they could be killed makes no sense. How are you any different then the people who want them killed because they believe in the war? They aren't any less dead because you got them killed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. Let me see

Canada has a form of servive upon graduating from college... similar to Mexico, who also has national military service (through a dfaft lottery and actually that model I like for other reasons)

France and Germany have nationaal military service...

So dies Switzerland, Sweeden and Norway... the Netherlands... Spain is one of the few expcetions as well as the UK... Israel but I am sure you knew that... Belgim, and I could go on... we are one of the few excpetions that does not require ANY form of national service.

by the way the military service south of the border is once a week and involves some close order drill and painting buildings... they have not taught their recruits how to fire a weapon in decades. Something like that I would not mind for EVERY US Citizen between 18-24, for a term of one year.

[Pithlet]

77. Canada does not compel its citizens to serve in armed forces.

But, like I said, it still doesn't matter. Completely irrelevant to our discussion, which is the draft. Forcing our citizens to go and die in a war they're against. Canada, France, Switzerland, Sweeden, Norway, whatever national services they may or may not have, none of those countries are being headed by a war mongerer who is sending over people by the thousands to die, are they? Ours is. You want to give him even more because you think it will "wake people up". You feel you can decide that other people's lives are worth risking to prove your point that Bush is wrong. They're just as dead whether they were killed because you worked to have them sent there against there will, as they are if they went over there because the volunteered and Bush sent them there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. They have a form of national service

it is not military but they do

And many folks, I suspect you as well, would object to that kind of national service as well

And the discusion comes down to this... give me a way that does not involve the chance of going away in a national imperial adventure that will wake up the
twenty somethings...

Tell me how are you going to wake them up?

Trust me I have tried

So what is your solution and how many kids have you seen at the local demonstration?

[Pithlet]

90. Then what does it have to do with our discussion?

It's not a draft, is it? How do you know how I feel about national service? We've never discussed it. It's a completely different subject. National service doesn't get people killed the way getting drafted in a war does.

First, you have several problems with your argument. Military families are not universally opposed to this war. Vietnam operated under a draft for its entire existence, and it wasn't until the end that it became broadly unpopular. The Iraq war and the escalation are already more unpopular than Vietnam was at its height of unpopularity. People already have woken up. Your complaint is not with people. It's with congressional leadership. A draft won't change congressional leadership. What you want is to kill people to make a point. A point that has already been made and a point that has no effect on what the problem is anyway. If this is how you've been dealing with those twenty somethings, then I have to say it's not much of a surprise that you yourself haven't been very effective.

If you think some draft is going to magically make people into street marchers and letter writers, then you're wrong. In fact, it might actually increase support for these wars. Families are very often inclined to support the war as a proxy for supporting the troops, and lord knows the media will certainly encourage them in that conceit. So, before you go off getting people killed, before you decide a bullet in the head of an 18 year old is the best way to get what you want, maybe you should give some thought to actually trying to prove that it will do what you want it to do.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. It has everything to do with the discusion

you first said that other countries have no form of service

I gave you a list of nations, western democracies that have differing forms of service, from national service to military service.

As I said, you'd object to any form of service

Now to the matter at hand, how are you going to wake the twenty somethings up?

Give me an answer or get out of the discusion... I gave you the one that seems to be the answer from the twenty somethings I have spoken to...

[Pithlet]

104. I never said other countries don't have a form of service.

I also never said I opposed them. You're putting words in my mouth, and ascribing positions to me that I haven't taken.

I've already explained to you that the problem isn't the twenty somethings to begin with! It's congressional leadership that's the problem. Completely ignoring over and over again the points I'm making, and insisting that these nebulous twenty somethings somehow need some sort of awakening (by sending them to the very war you oppose, no less) is ludicrous. Yeah, let's teach the lazy youth of today that we care so much about, and get them killed. That'll learn 'em! Even though they weren't the problem to begin with.

These "twentysomethigns" you're talking about are people. Not cannon fodder. Whatever you feel about their level of consciousness, they don't deserve to be sent off to die by you or anyone else because you feel they're somehow inferior in their understanding of world events.

The support for escalation is at 11% The support for the Iraqi war is at 30%. How much more awake do you want before you'll concede they don't have to go off and die.

[nadinbrzezinski]

108. Read up

you did...

And truth be told is... people are not fully awake and it is not hurting them yet.

Sorry...

You keep dancing around the real solutions that may wake up the 20 somethings, and make them be politically aware, this is exactly who a draft will wake up

[originalpckelly]

111. YOU ARE FULL OF IT! You bitch about poor kids not having a chance...

to make a fair choice, why not offer them an alternative? No, instead of advocating for that, you're forcing them and whole bunch of others into fighting in an unjust war. THAT IS WRONG! WHAT THE FUCK DON'T YOU GET ABOUT IT?

[nadinbrzezinski]

115. Why because I advocate national service of some form

and civic duty and civic life?

No the I want to get all as a citizen and not have to serve to pay back to society crowd has a problem... and partly we have seen the results of that attitude already

[originalpckelly]

125. Do you support the war in Iraq?

Do you support foreign wars against those who never attack us?

[nadinbrzezinski]

139. Have I said I support it? NO

You are choosing to read what you want.

Having sent family to war and hearing THIS BULLSHIT that they volunteered is part of the problem

Now come up with an alternate solution THAT WORKS or shut up

[Pithlet]

148. What?

A solution to what? I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. If you don't support a draft, then I got no beef with you. And I've never said anything about the fact that our soldiers over there are voluntary. I don't think it's relevant to the argument against the war or the draft, and I've never said that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

150. I support national service

If that service happens to come in the form of a military draft so be it.

If that service happens to be americops so be it

But I support it... and I believe a draft will WAKE UP the kids... now you give me an alternative to wake them up that does not involve real personal sacrifice and national service, I am all ears.

By the way supporting national service does not automatically mean that you support the current debacle in Iraq, but I am sure, from your posts, that you will make that leap of logic

[Pithlet]

158. I don't give a flying fig right now about national service and the people who support it.

Because I'm not in a thread about the pros and cons of national service. I care about not instituting a draft to send kids to this war, which is what this thread is about. The fact that you support various forms of national service matters not a whit to me as far as debating the draft. You like national service. Fine, I acknowledge that. Good for you. But, the only conclusion I'm prepared to reach at this moment, in this thread, is that people who think sending kids off to die in this war teaches them a lesson are wrong. I don't care if there aren't any other solutions. I guess I can join in your pissing and moaning about the political apathy of kids today, and together we can wring our hands and fret about what to do with them all day long. I'm still not going to support sending them off to die. That's the bottom line.

[nadinbrzezinski]

159. Then we agree to disagree

why you cannot agree to that is beyond me

[Pithlet]

116. It shouldn't be too hard to quote me then, should it?

You keep dancing around my point that they already are awake. Come on. 11% for escalation. 30% for continuing the war in Iraq. What do you have to say to that? That still isn't good enough for you?

[nadinbrzezinski]

119. Read up

and your point is valid, to a point... again how are you going to get the twenty somethinsg to care?

I don't have to quote you, you have to read up

By the way, I have a choice for you... you can either ingore me, or do the adult thing and agree to disagre, since I will NOT change my position on this.

We need a form of national service and yes I am all for a draft at this point... mostly after talking to kids WHO WOULD BE AFFECTED my gut feeling was proven right

[Pithlet]

123. I don't have to read up. I know I didn't say it.

If you're going to accuse me of it, then you have to prove that I said it.

Oh, so it's your gut now, is it. Numbers be damned. You talked to some kids, so you're going to support a policy that sends people off to war against their will. Based on your gut feeling.

Sorry to be so harsh. It's not personal. My ferocity is against your argument, not you personally. If your way comes true, my kids could get killed, along with thousands of other innocent kids. To me your viewpoint is no different than those who support Bush because the end result is the same. Look, I know there are self centered morons who don't care about anything outside of their worldview and are politically apathetic. That's not limited to twenty-somethings, by the way. Those people will always be around, and they aren't going anywhere or changing even if a draft is implemented.

[nadinbrzezinski]

140. Yes you did

here you go


Sure, why not :crazy: Sorry. But, no.

Most western democracies have some form of national service? Well, so do we. Did you mean compulsory national service? Because then you're wrong. Canada doesn't. Most of Europe doesn't. What are you talking about? It's beside the point anyway, there's a difference between advocating for compulsory service, and drafting people into a war that's already costing us the lives of thousands of our citizens. Killing people to prove the point that they could be killed makes no sense. How are you any different then the people who want them killed because they believe in the war? They aren't any less dead because you got them killed.

[Pithlet]

151. Thank you. I didn't say it. That quote doesn't say that.

Not that it matters, because this thread is about a draft, which is nothing like national service. I think you're only making this an issue because I'm very clearly winning this argument against a draft and you're trying to divert the issue in an attempt to be right about something.

[nadinbrzezinski]

152. Yes you did

not even when you have the quote in front of you.

Tbanks for playing.

As I said before, we can agree to disagree, do the adult thing, or we can keep going at this.

You and I obviously do not agree, and our views are 180 from each other

[Pithlet]

166. Feel free to stop replying whenver you want to.

It doesn't bother me to have a discussion with people who disagree with me. If you don't want to continue this, I'm fine with that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

167. Problem is that this is not a discusion and

you bloody know it

Anyhow, have a good life... I have things to do, like get some work done

[Pithlet]

170. No, I didn't know it.

I saw a position posted on a message board, and I responded with counter arguments. I don't know what you mean.

[HughBeaumont]

16. No, that's how you get Bewsh's non-supporters drafted and butchered by mortars.

Funny thing about fishing, it never works out so well for the bait.

Also, you're saying something funny about "this war would be over in a heartbeat".

Uh, no it wouldn't.

Just because Presidents of the past listened to the people doesn't mean this one ever did or will.

What would happen?

People would take to the streets? People are taking to the streets now. Hundreds of thousands of them. The problem is that unlike the 60s, thanks to the Repuke-run media learning their lessons of the 60s-70s, the whole world AIN'T watching (unless they're on the internet, but unfortunately, broadcast still remains the popular visual medium).

Would there be an armed takeover of the White House? PFFFFT. Sure, that would work. The military and police would blood-dust us faster than we could say "frog-march". They're assigned to protect the interest of the "betters", not those of the victimized.

You'd be giving a non-feeling berzerker cannon fodder is all you'd be doing.

My child isn't fighting for a country that has corrupted governments, corporations, elections and militaries. You fix all that shit, then we'll talk about "skin in the game".

Here's an idea: why not just simply END America's fucked up addiction to militarism once and for all? Why are we suggesting on a progressive website that our children, no matter what stripe or caste, be the world's bad cop in the first place?

"I hate this war, but I'm willing to add more bodies to the pyre to stop it?"

Is that what it's come down to?

That's messed up.

[qwlauren35]

20. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sometimes I really think that people miss the point about calling for a draft. It forces more people to get active about preventing stupid wars that might result in the deaths of their children. People (like me?) who are sitting on their *sses, talking loud but doing little would be rioting if it was their kids.

A draft forces people to make choices. Choices people don't want to make.

And *I* wouldn't mind if it was a "co-ed" draft. Even more people would wake up. The ones who might be complacent about sending their sons would have a cow about their daughters.

[Akoto]

21. I do not currently support the draft, and I never will.

I am of prime drafting age. Although I am not medically eligible to serve, I would not do so even if I were. I have friends who are eligible, though, and I have no desire to see them drafted for a meaningless war. Yes, it has happened before, and many brave people went to serve. I am sorry, but that's not an excuse for it to happen again.

Call me unpatriotic, lazy, complacent, whatever. It's not the path that I've chosen in life, and it's nobody's place to judge me based upon that choice.

By working a job in America, I am serving my country. By voting, I am serving my country. By writing my representatives and pressing for change, I am serving my country. Doing these things makes me no less honorable or valuable than a soldier.

By gambling with unwilling American lives on the slim chance that it might stop the war, I would most certainly not be serving my country.

Anyone who thinks a draft without exceptions is going to fix all these problems needs to reconsider. People who are simply not fit for duty will be sent over there (which may happen in a draft anyhow), and an already delicate mess will be turned into an even worse disaster as a result. That's ignoring the fact that the rich would still find a way out, and the poor would still be sent to the slaughter.

[MH1]

23. Agree with your subject line, less with your reasons.

I am for universal service for it's own sake, not as a tool to stop the current wars.

However, if it had that effect, it wouldn't be a bad thing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. Happy to recomend it

and even the 20 something we know in our lives agree, only a draft will get them to pay attention

[originalpckelly]

68. You assume these people will care about their own children.

Why? This is a nation which is literally robbing it's children of millions of dollars every day. Why should they care about their kids?

So long as they are not making the direct sacrifice of their own life or even just time, it's very possible they won't wake up.

And you assume that people brainwashed enough to support the President in the first place will think that it was bad for their children to be drafted and possibly killed.

And you also assume that they would mind if it was their own life.

That's the problem with these extremists, whether in our country or around the world. Unfortunately, there are also many extremists on our side in favor of a draft. You'd fall into that category.

I've never heard a more insane proposition that one can kill a person in order to keep that person from being killed. It's absolutely insane.

[Lilith Velkor]

78. "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

Same shit, different century.

[TahitiNut]

136. Folks who want them to do better should enlist and show 'em how.

It's easy to fire one-liners from the cheap seats. It's easy to sneer at those under fire for behaving badly. If We The People want more ethical and conscientious troops, we should ALL serve and make it so.

Do people in the military do HORRIBLE thngs? Yes. Many do HEROIC things, too. So, let's be careful where we dip our broad brushes.

[Lilith Velkor]

174. Let's also be careful to which conclusions we jump

I was saying nothing about the troops, sir.

My subject line was a description of the misguided mentality of those who say they are against the war but in favor of a draft -- getting kids killed in order to prevent kids getting killed is as stupid a proposition as saving a village by destroying it.

People in gangs do horrible things, too (and sometimes heroic things, believe it or not). Doesn't mean I'm about to join a gang to show them the right way to gangbang. That's not how I roll, nor how I would encourage others to roll.

[Strawman]

83. I find the debate to be ethically confounding

Setting aside the "it'll never happen," "it's political suicide," "it never ends up being fair," etc. noise for a second and just looking at the issue in principle.

What trumps what? Does civic duty and the fairness associated with sharing a burden like risking one's life for the defense of the country justify reinstituting the draft? After all, being forced to kill or be killed for the defense of one's fellow citizens doesn't seem to be something that can be "contracted out" in an fair, egalitarian way. The poor will always get stuck with this burden. In that sense the draft is most fair.

Or does one's individual liberty to say, "hell no I won't go and kill" trump that? Is it right to force somoeone to kill based upon their citizenship? Something they are born into with no choice? That is offensive to the idea that we ought to be able to act according to our own conscience. Does the fact that one passively receives social benefits by virtue of one's citizenship morally require submission to the possibility that one can be placed on active duty?

I honestly don't know. If one argues that notions of fairness trump individual liberty, then I don't see how something like conscientious objector status can be tolerated. And, on the other side, I don't know how anyone can say that an all volunteer military distributes the heaviest burden of citizenship fairly. It just doesn't.

What's just? If I were behind the veil of ignorance would I pick a society with a draft that might force me to kill or one with a so called "all voluntary" military that might put me in a desparate situation where I had few alternatives?

I think that anyone who acts like there is some obvious, uncomplicated answer here is being intellectually dishonest. Both sides can make some very compelling points. I think it's a debate that would benefit from canning the "how dare you's" on both sides.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

86. This is all so Orwellian that I think I'm going to have to retch.

Apparently you ARE supposed to kill someone to save him or her.

:eyes:

:puke:

[Horse with no Name]

124. Not what I said.

We have to wake up the people.
They are the ones throwing around the term "sacrifice" like it's a punch line.
My family HAS sacrificed and will continue to sacrifice.
It's time for people to put up or shut up.
I want the war stopped and I want the people awakened.
I'm tired of MY family being put at risk over and over and over and over again. This isn't what they signed up for, and they are stuck. They signed up under a sane President. Their service didn't automatically end when we got one that was insane.
It's time for shared sacrifice.

[originalpckelly]

126. You want more families to suffer, not less.

How about working to end the war without causing more suffering in the process?

[Horse with no Name]

128. I have been dear

As have many others.
How have our efforts been successful?
We did marginalize the President...but we are still sending more troops to their deaths in the quagmire.
It's got to stop.
Do you think I believe November will be the last month we are there?
Not in a million years.
We'll just have the same snake oil repackaged.
After all--we can't leave all those troops without support can we?
:sarcasm:
This is a never-ending war as long as we acquiesce each and every time.
Yeah...well...you can't have more troops.
Yeah...well...you can have them THIS time, but NEXT time I am putting my foot down...
This will go on forever. It's like saying over and over "The check is in the mail"...but it never is. It just buys time and nothing else.
That is all that is happening now.

[originalpckelly]

131. If you successfully advocate for a draft...

and those people who are drafted die, you're responsible for those deaths. You're not responsible for the war they died in, but you'll be responsible for them being there.

We have to work to get good people out of harms way, not more people in it.

[MadHound]

130. Sorry, but drafting in order to end the war, much like fighting for peace and screwing for virginity

Is oxymoronic as hell, and not the answer to the problem.

Besides, if you haven't noticed, the vast majority of Americans are not only against the war, against the "surge", against Bush, but also want to bring the troops home now! What, slept through the election?

The problem is the media, still and yet. We can, and have, put millions of people out in the street, but it is rarely reported, and usually underplayed.
With 90+ percent of the media controlled by six countries, all of whom have direct or indirect profits being made from this war, it is easy to control the information access of the average American.

Rangel is playing with fire on this one. Let's say he proposes his bill to "make a point." The minority of 'Pugs in both the House and Senate take this seriously, manage to sway enough House and Senate member that will vote yes, and voila! we have a draft. Bushboy isn't listening to the public now, he doesn't care about the election, and once you hand him the draft, he will become even harder of hearing. He will then have all the manpower to fulfill all of his PNAC dreams. The whole Mid East would burn.

This is the height of stupidity!

[Horse with no Name]

134. They are against the war inasmuch as willing to answer a

poll question now and then or slap a bumpersticker/magnet on their car.
Their extent of non-support of the war is equivocal to the extent of their support for the troops.
We need to do it soon, though, American Idol starts next week...

[MadHound]

188. And again, how is this oxymoron of an idea going to stop the war quickly?

The only thing preventing a wider MidEast conflict is the fact that the US doesn't have the manpower to fight it. Give Bushco the manpower and he will simply fulfill his apocolyptic dreams. He has shown with this escalation that he doesn't care what either popular or Congressional sentiment is, he will simply do as he wishes.

The people of this country did a bit more than "answer a poll question now and then or slap a bumpersticker/magnet on their car." They voted Democratic majorities into both Houses of Congress. It is their turn to step up to the plate, and they actually have the tools to stop this war, namely the power of the purse. Cut off the military money and force the troops to come home. This would work a hell of a lot faster than reactivating the draft and ratcheting up the body count on both sides.

[HughBeaumont]

189. Yeah, I'm TOTALLY not getting the whole "apathetic 20 somethings" argument.

Those must have been ghosts I saw on Sept 24, 2005. Several, if not hundreds of, thousands of them. All united against this war.

It must have been all a dream, because to hear some of these closet warhawks tell it, nobody really cares about the war. College age, parents, their kids, nobody. Everyone would rather just sit on their duff and watch American Idol. LA la la la la!

Doesn't THAT broad brushing statement discount the very positive November election of axing the warmongers like Mike DeWine (in my state anyway) and marginalizing Bewsh? Oh sorry, the war didn't end in the 2 weeks we've been in power. I guess that means nothing at all is happening and we need to go to utterly extreme measures like sticking non-interested-in-the-military people in boot camp and then in the meat grinder. Yeah. THAT makes a fuckload of sense.

Doesn't that mindset sort of completely discount the efforts of people who did the right thing and protested continually against this conflict, some even putting themselves in harms way with their passion? There's another protest coming up in DC on the 27th. I'll be there. How many pro-drafters will be there?

It's like you said and I've been saying: The problem isn't an apathetic generation X/Y/Z, it's a three-headed demon in the form of the corporations, their media and the Repuke executive branch that the former two by and large will always supoort, because they legislate actions that make them insanely richer. Mainly, wars, corporate welfare and tax cuts. This is why our voice of protest isn't broadcast, and that's also why (unless they wake up) the medium of broadcast is slowly being dinosaured out of the picture.

We the People put OUR congress in. That is one that we HOPE will start defunding, withdrawing and then start making efforts to assure this sort of non-thought-out egotripping bloodbath either never happens again or gets investigated and make the ones responsible own up.

It's not going to happen in two weeks. This may not even happen until Lancelot Link leaves office, unfortunately. Sorry to say, this asshat is what half of Dumberica (to mine and many other's everlasting shame) thought would be a good president and made this thing close enough to steal and we're unfortunately stuck with him.

I mean, say a draft gets enacted. What do pro-drafters expect or want to happen? Chaos? Riots? Again I ask, DO you expect the simian to listen? He DOES NOT CARE. Nor will a storming of DC happen, because the result will be just as bad as a war itself. The police and existing military WOULD fire on their own citizens, because don't think for one SECOND they aren't assigned to protect the interests of the "betters" before that little myth of "defending the Constitiution"; which every soldier signs up for and is supposed to do, but as this war and others before it have proven in the last half century, becomes hogwash once you get warmongers and profit facilitators like Reagan and the Bewshes in office. The military is supposed to defend our country and our Constitution. Yet under Repuke presidents, they become corporate mercenaries doing the bidding of KBR, Halliburton and Exxon/Mobil.

No, what's going to happen is not a choice of "peace corps", "feeding the poor", VA hospitals, etc, etc. There will be no non-combat option for the millions that will be subjected to this madness (never mind the lingering question of how this is going to be funded or the lingering fact that the betters and their spawn STILL will never see hour ONE of a boot camp). Your kids, my kid and millions of other children will be forced at gunpoint into boot camps all across the country. Then, should they survive that, they will be spilling their blood in the sand in pre-emptive aggressive attacks ALL over the Middle East and Western Asia. Thousands upon thousands of lives will be butchered, World War Fucking Three will be started, and the "draft-away" people's little "point" just fell flat on it's collective face. Wow, now THAT'S democracy. Aren't you glad you had that "skin in da game"? Wasn't that much more satisfying than supposedly sitting on your asses and doing nothing?

Oh wait. They can't answer, nor can they help build our nation back . . . because they're dead.

What an absolutely sad and appalling mindset this is.

I agree with you. Count me OUT of that insanity. Gambling with other people's lives and forced servitude is going to lead to nothing but an economically and morally ruined nation. If anything, it's going to make people (including it's own citizens) HATE our country more rather than be proud we have a stake in it. Let's talk peace and ending America's fucked up over-addiction to militarism. Lets learn the lessons of Japan and see where militarism and warmongering got them.

[The Backlash Cometh]

145. The Dems are in power. They don't need a dog and pony show.

They just need to get down to business.

[Blue-Jay]

146. If we stopped invading places, we wouldn't need a draft.

[HughBeaumont]

154. Which is the question the pro-drafters need to answer . . .

"Why do we HAVE to assume that war is inevitable?"

I mean, what I'm hearing is out-and-out acceptance that the US is a bloodthirsty empire-addicted nation and that's the way it always HAS to be. Why is no one talking PEACE?

[nadinbrzezinski]

156. Reaching for the hat of a historian

war is part of the human condition since humans are territorial animals. Yuo may even assume that it is an evolutionary trend since high function species, including chimpanzees and Dolphins have been observed in what seems to be war like activities.

What we fight for is alwasy the same, resources.

In fact, reaching for the sci fi hat, the only thing that will stop humans from behaving like the animals we are, perhaps will be an ecnounter with an Alien culture that is hell bent on extermination of the human species. The peace after that would only last as long as humanity remembered the threat. as soon as humans forgot it, I am willing to bet that preparatiions for war and to defend a given territory and go after resources, would resume.

I wish I could be more hopeful, but as a writer of sci fi and a student of history I have become very cynical and kumbaya, even at the risk of MAD, will not just happen.

[originalpckelly]

164. And one last question, student of history:

Did conscription change the minds of the German parents in 1935 when Hitler reinstated conscription?

[nadinbrzezinski]

165. You know the answer to that one

are you trying to tell me that our modern parents in the US right now are like the German Parents in 1935?

If you are... well then we have nothing more to say to each other since we obviously live in different realities.

That said, Bush can and should be compared to Mad King George and Adolph, but for other reasons.

Oh and as an aside, as usual you have yet to adress any of the issues brought up... in this case... the fact that intra species violence is present in many higher animal species, and that we humans are not different from other animal species in that regard.

[originalpckelly]

169. Tell that to the Amish.

They manage to get along without wars.

[nadinbrzezinski]

171. Tell me exactly how many Amish

scientists have won a Noble Price?

Oh and do answer this one... if their neighbors were willing to take over their lands what exactly can the Amish do to prevent it?

The Amish are also one of those exceptions to most rules... by the way I am sure you have watched films of Chimpanzees goign to war with each other, and Dolphins attacking other Dolphins and not for food either.

If you believe in kumbaya so be it, I know the reality.

[originalpckelly]

176. No, I think there will always be evil people, but I also don't believe in enabling them.

Which is what a draft does, because it allows them to force people to fight against their will.

[nadinbrzezinski]

179. I believe in the data

given by antropology....

War has been with us since Homo Sapiens first walked the land over 50,000 years ago... so did Neaderthanl by the way, and we think Homo Abilis also engaged in some form of territorial disputes.

the basic reason for war is not evilness, (even if George is nuts and evil), but resource needs, or perceived resource needs.

In earlier times it was hunting grounds... then it was water, and rich agricultural areas... these days we are doing it over mineral goods... and even if we leave the planet for another world, a military will still be around.

We may couch war in natioaal or religious colors, but war is ultimately about resources, and this one is about oil and potencially water

Santayana wrote it best, those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it and those who believe we can actually have kumbaya are dreaming, or high on something with all due respect. And are also simolifying things. We can reduce the effects of wars on people, but wars have been around since the first man took a stone and bashed his neighbor's skull over a piece of meat, or access to the watering hole.

Those same anthropoligists have found that Chimps also engage in bone fide wars, as well as two other higher ape species... and now we have found the same among Dolphins...

You chew on that. And if you want to call me a cynic, you are free to do such.

As to the draft, again historically levees have been a way of life... but if you want to continue dreaming, be my guest.

[originalpckelly]

181. No, I can assure that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is solely based upon...

religion and cultural heritage.

[nadinbrzezinski]

183. And water

trust me on this one, water...

[rman]

191. agreed - i also support the right to dodge the draft

Whether dodging or joining and fighting, at least with a draft the people have more control over the nation going to war or not.