Heads up young male dopers, draft boards are gearing back up!! - Will you serve?

In My Humble Opinion
81

First, I had forgotten about the rest of the quote. I didn’t mean to misrepresent it. I pulled it off the internet after a quick google search (a mistake). For doing so, I apologize, and thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Second, I think it’s interesting what you’ve chosen to focus on and ignore. If I can switch your bolding on the parts I left out.

“A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice”? I hope we can all agree that the Iraqi war protected people, especially the non-Baath party Iraqis, from tyrannical injustice at the hands of Saddam’s squads of murderers and torturers.

“A war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good”? Again, regardless of how you feel about the role of the UN or military action to enforce UN mandates, I hope we can agree that our ideas of right and good include getting rid of Saddam and helping Iraq become a democratic state.

“which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice”? I see that you’ve chosen to disagree here, saying that the purpose of the war in Iraq was “to make rich white guys richer.” Well, obviously, the vast majority of Americans, and the vast majority of the America’s democratically elected representatives, disagree with you on this point. Still, I’d ask that you make a real effort to inform yourself about the reasons the majority of people in this country supported war, and the reasons the vast majority of members of both parties voted in favor of the war. Surely you don’t actually believe that everyone that voted in favor of the war did it to “make rich white guys richer.”

If you honestly believe that the only purpose of the war was to “make rich white guys richer,” then I’ll concede that that would not be a good cause. However, if you look honestly at the facts, I think you’ll arrive at a very different conclusion.

82

If “we” means “Democrats,” then most of them share responsibility with the Republicans. Lest you forget, there were votes on going into Iraq in both the House and Senate, and both were approved by the vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats.

If “we” means Democrats, then no, you’re not the ones that did that. However, (some) Democrats are the ones that cheered President Clinton for defying the UN and going into Kosovo as a NATO action, then booed President Bush as he defied the UN and went into Iraq, then voted in favor of a war resolution to go into Iraq without UN approval, then again booed him for going into Iraq without UN approval.

Admittedly, this doesn’t apply to all Dems (HRC, Joe Leibermann, and John Edwards are three prominent Dems who still support our actions in Iraq), but neither does your criticism apply to all conservatives.

“Hi, this is the kettle. You’re black.”

And I don’t see the point of a democracy where the elected leaders are so bad that the people represented must call “Horseshit” on a daily basis. I would hope that they’d get things right occasionally.

83

I disagree. Aside from the Cold War, which was a war fought to maintain the liberty of Western nations and cost numerous people their lives, there have been numerous instances when W’ern governments have been forced to “get their hands bloody” to defend their citizens and liberty. For example, Operation Nimrod, performed in April 30, 1980, by the SAS, Britain’s anti-terrorist squad, was an operation to save the lives of hostages taken by a terrorist organization. Operation Magic Fire took place on October 18, 1977, when German GSG 9 and British SAS troops overtook and killed numerous terrorists on Somali soil in order to keep them from killing more hostages. I’ll stop with these two examples, but the list of times Western governments have been forced to defend the lives and liberties of their citizens with force could go on and on.

However, the point is not that there are people fighting, but that there are people willing to fight. You don’t have to fight all the time because the attackers are kept at bay by the knowledge that you’re willing to fight. Don’t you think that if Saddam Hussein knew that we wouldn’t defend ourselves and no one else would defend us, he’d have loved to come over and get his mitts on our precious resources? The reason he never tried is that he knew he’d get his ass kicked by American soldiers standing at our borders, soldiers that are willing to get their hands bloody.

As I pointed out before, we were attacked by Japan before getting involved in WWII. So it was a war fought in direct self defense. The mere fact that Japan didn’t land any troops on our shores after Pearl Harbor is a testament to the ability of our country to mobilize a defense and take the war to them. It does not mean that we were not fighting a war in direct defense of ourselves. Further, characterizing WWII as a purely offensive war also ignores the fact that numerous German and Japanese saboteurs were found operating in the US.

Then aren’t we just talking about a difference of where you draw the line? You’re willing to use lethal force to defend yourself. Are you willing to use violence to defend someone you love from being killed? What about to keep someone you love from being raped? From being severely beaten? From receiving a moderate beating? From being robbed? And if you’d use violence to defend someone you love from being beaten or robbed, then which is worse – one person receiving a beating or being robbed, or all of your loved ones, friends, and neighbors losing their freedoms? Because isn’t the only realistic scenario in which we’d re-institute a draft one in which our very freedoms were being threatened?

Again, I don’t question the strength of your convictions, but I’m curious how you draw the line.

. . . now that’s a long post.

84

Mech. infantry is definitely the way to go, but there’s no way the current administration would be caught dead advocating putting all out research efforts toward Communism. Especially not in an election year.

To answer the question, I’m beyond draft age and not living in the US anymore anyway, but whether or not I’d serve would really depend on the war being fought. WWII, Korea, Gulf I, Afghanistan? sure. Gulf II? no way. In my opinion, it meets almost none of the JS Mill points, and as for the point brought up that the majority of Americans supported it, the majority of Americans also believed that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. It may have been a free choice, but it was not an informed one.

And as for the honest purpose, I believe it’s being kept in the same storage facility as the Iraqi WMDs.

85

Why the fuck should he be charged? He should get a medal for keeping his brother from being a coward.

I will never believe that all of these people claiming they would dodge the draft “Because I don’t believe in this war, man” are anything except cowards. If they truly- truly- have the courage of their so- called convictions, then they will opt to either: Do their time in jail or take CO status and serve in a position like that of a corpsman or the like. If you truly believe as you are claiming you do, make the hard yet correct choice. Running away makes you a coward, no exceptions.

None.

86

Naw, I wouldn’t dodge the draft. I think I could find it in me to serve. :wink:

87

They’re cowards because they don’t want to represent a non-elected, neo-conservative, self-serving agenda in, or because of, a country the US invaded on a transparently false pretext and don’t want to go to prison for having the sense to not want to be part of this political, economic and life-destroying shambles ?

Personally, I think it takes a man to stand up for his own convictions and to not be an unquestioning sheep.

88

Um, for kidnapping his brother? For forcibly confining him and dragging him away against his will?

89

No, they are cowards for running away rather then taking the options available to them that would not advance the adjenda of the administration one bit but that could place them in danger administering to those who are involved in the war, both allied and enemies.

And, Mr. Brit, as much as I might dislike the current administration, they were leagaly elected acording to the laws of our country. Don’t let the drooling American liberals delude you on that point. I’ll thank you to keep your inaccurate, inflamitory bullshit to yourself.

I agree, and that’s all I’m expecting. That the people in question stand tall for their beliefs and don’t run away, even if it entails personal danger for themselves.

90

For aprehending a criminal while he was in the act of breaking the law? Canada should have sent every one of those sniveling weasels back in handcuffs. The shame here is on your side of the border, not mine.

91

Republicans in the 106th Congress (1999-2001) who served in the U.S. Armed Forces during the Vietnam Era:

Sen. Dan Coats, Army (1966-68)
Sen. Larry Craig, National Guard (1970-72)
Sen. Chuck Hagel, Army (1967-1968) *
Sen. James M. Jeffords, Navy (1956-59) Naval Reserve (1959-)
Sen. John McCain, Navy (1958-81) *
Sen. Don Nickles, National Guard (1970-76)
Sen. Jack Reed, Army (1967-79)
Sen. Bob Smith, Navy (1965-67) Naval Reserve (1962-65) *
Sen. John Warner, Navy (1969-74)

16% of the Republicans in the Senate served; 22% of the Democrats in the Senate served.

Rep. Joe Baca, Army (1966-1968)
Rep. Doug Bereuter, Army (1963-65)
Rep. Ed Bryant, Army (1973-78)
Rep. Howard Coble, Coast Guard (1952-56) Coast Guard Reserve (1960-81)
Rep. Thomas Davis III, Army (1971-72) Army Reserve (1972-79)
Rep. Nathan Deal, Army (1966-68)
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, Army (1969-71) *
Rep. Jim Gibbons, Air Force (1967-1971) * Air National Guard (1975-1995)
Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest, US Marine Corps (1964-68) *
Rep. Paul E. Gillmor, Air Force (1965-66)
Rep. Richard “Doc” Hastings, Army (1963-64) Army Reserve (1964-69)
Rep. Duncan Hunter, Army (1969-71) *
Rep. Peter King, National Guard (1968-73)
Rep. Jim Kolbe, Navy (1967-69) Naval Reserve (1969-83) *
Rep. Steven T. Kuykendall, US Marine Corps (1968-1973) *
Rep. John Linder, Air Force (1967-69)
Rep. Bill McCollum, Navy (1969-72) Naval Reserve (1972-93)
Rep. John Peterson, Army Reserve (1958-1964)
Rep. Jim Ramstad, Army Reserve (1968-74)
Rep. Floyd Spence, Naval Reserve (1947-85)
Rep. Cliff Stearns, Air Force (1963-67)
Rep. Frank Wolf, Army (1962-63) Army Reserve (1963-67)

10% of the Republicans in the House served; 12% of the Democrats in the House served.

  • served in Southeast Asia
92

You believe what you want. I’m glad my country provided sanctuary to them, whether they were beardless youths terrified of death, or those who wanted to avoid an unjust war and escape a country whose administration they saw as morally bankrupt.

93

Furthermore:

I’m proud of my father; if necessary, I look forward to following in his footsteps; and I’m proud of my country, that eyes are still turning north for sanctuary.

94

Guys, what Weirddave is saying is that if you are unwilling to fight in a war you think is unjust, then you stay and take your lumps. What’s cowardly is running to a foreign country.

As far as I am concerned, if you are so dissatisfied with your country that you have to run away to another, you should have to renounce your citizenship, since you’d rather be somewhere else anyway. Fair is fair, guys. If you can’t abide by the laws of this country, and that takes you to Canada, you should have to stay there. Permanently.

If not, then stay and do what Muhammad Ali did. Go to jail for your convictions. Join the Peace Corps. Whatever. Fleeing to Canada? Unacceptable.

95

Wrong, Bush was never elected, he was SELECTED by the Supreme Court. It was legal of course, but it generally is when the judges will bend over for you no matter what.

:::drool:::

96

Make the same choices you do or go to jail? Unacceptable.

97

Okay, so the people who follow the leader and his non-elected agenda are the sheep, and those who see through the bullshit are marked out as criminals by those very same people.

Sure, that’s a game I’d like to play, about as much as playing your macho ‘coward’ game. Decoding to avoid the draft would be for most part of a rational decision-making process, no matter how much you want to categorise it as some kind of emotional reaction – straw man, and all that.

I blame too many John Wayne films as a kid.

98

OK Matt, lets suppose there is a country, say Freedonia, that decides that it is going to execute all of it’s gay citizens by torture. The U.S. decides that this is not acceptable and goes to war to stop it. Some U.S. citizens decide that they aren’t willing to serve in the armed forces to fight and possibly die “for a bunch of fags”. One of them shows up on your doorstep asking for sanctuary. Are you still going to be as acomidating as you are now, or is it only when you don’t agree with the war in question?

So, what are you proposing? We should throw out the law when the results don’t suit you? Shrub won. Get over it.

Nope, not at all. As Airman Doors said, you take your lumps. If a person truly believes that a war is unjust, there are options; he can serve in a non-combat role where his moral convictions are never put in conflict with what his country requires of him. I quite admire people who chose this route. They have stuck to their principles in the hardest possible way. If you’re going to stand up for what you believe in, you should do just that: Stand up for it. Running away makes you a coward, no matter how you try to justify it. There’s no straw man here, thank you very much.

Oh, BTW, I’ve never seen a John Wayne movie, as unlikely as that may seem given how many of them their are.

99

As far as I know, a good proportion of draft dodgers who came to Canada settled here (when they weren’t being kidnapped, that is). I did mention my acquaintances who settled and raised families here. Indeed, I don’t think I’d care to return to a country I found so out of kilter that I had to flee it in the first place.

100

Well, I’m 42 and gay, so I’m out of the running (and, yes, I signed up for Slective Service when I was 18).

OTOH, if I get to shower with a crowd of naked, muscular soldiers . . .