QUOTE(Noonan @ Feb 12 2005, 05:28 PM)
After they made sure they sat on it until just the right time arrived for it to be given to us. Just as Bushco made sure to bring their 'intelligence' to the public in a coordinated effort to bring us to war.
Full Version: Draft for Iraq War: Commentary
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Foreign Policy and National Defense > Foreign Policy & National Defense Issues Archive
QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Feb 12 2005, 09:06 AM)
Actually, WW II redefined war completely, and we have been going downhill ever since. In the "good ole days," men on foot, bearing clubs, spears, M1 garands, M-16s, (pick your favorite century) met on a field to do battle. In WW I that "field" became a trench, with casualties beyond belief, because nobody ever dreamed a commander would order his men to charge a machine gun. But they did!
Nevertheless, war didn't involve civilians: women and children. They were protected from it.
Until WW II.
Nevertheless, war didn't involve civilians: women and children. They were protected from it.
Until WW II.
Civilians have been casualties of war for as long as there have been wars, and there have been wars since Caine slew Abel. Troy was sacked- burned to the ground- and all men, boys, and male infants were put to the sword; the women were carted back to various points in ancient Greece to be kept as concubines or sold into slavery. Carthage was sacked, every person in it killed, and salt thrown on the ashes. Rome was sacked by the Visigoths, England by William I, most of central Europe during the 100 Years War- and that's just Western Europe.
Hey there duck
Nice day for a white wedding
Just being my bratty self
Miss ya!
Nice day for a white wedding
Just being my bratty self
Miss ya!
QUOTE(heart @ Feb 12 2005, 12:22 PM)
Winston: Is it revisionism? Perhaps you can call it that. However, that is the argument some made at the time....and I believe that Buchanan makes this argument today as well. But again, I'm asking you to hear me, not believe me. I''m asking you to see that an argument CAN be made at any time against any war that does not involve people attacking US soil. That's MY ONLY POINT, I am, as I've said before NOT giving you MY OPINION.
Do you understand that?
I am merely pointing out that the notion of what constitutes a threat to our national security is not as clear cut for many people as it would seem. A threat is measured along a continuous line from "they are landing" to "they are shutting down the Persian Gulf, to they have the will, the method and the desire to harm us but we are not clear how they are going to do it".
Sometimes each of these "threats" is just as great as the other but it depends on how you view it.
Do you understand that?
I am merely pointing out that the notion of what constitutes a threat to our national security is not as clear cut for many people as it would seem. A threat is measured along a continuous line from "they are landing" to "they are shutting down the Persian Gulf, to they have the will, the method and the desire to harm us but we are not clear how they are going to do it".
Sometimes each of these "threats" is just as great as the other but it depends on how you view it.
OK, Heart! OK!
There are many ways to look at what constitutes the thresholds of war and if the evidence is there, then war will happen. There is a line from Hamlet in which Queen Gertrude is watching a play in which an actor keeps declaring how much she loves her husband; Hamlet asks his mother, "How likes you this play, mother" and Gertrude replies "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." History is not about voicing opinions or finding consensus among those voices. History is a social science that depends just as much upon applications of the scientific method as chemistry or physics. So yes, there are those who can argue as you have described, and when they can produce the documentation to substantiate their arguments, then they can be included in the canon of historical theory.
And yes, it was scarey about FDR's speech! You saw it in terms of the other side, and that really works. But look again-FDR could have been talking about Dubya!
We still friends?
Oh of course we're still friends. I consider it an honor to debate with people who are able to give and take, and who point out my errors (and there are errors because I'm not at all perfect, nor do I know everything).
I don't really believe that history is like science though. It's true that one can say "what happened...happened" But then I've tried to read a variety of points of view about history and have found different interpretation of events, not only at the time, but especially with the passage of time.
There are myths that we live under Winston (that's from 1984 right?), and I think that I've been lambasted too many times for breaking with the pack. Like with the discussion over whether or not we tortured people during the Revolutionary war....my God, you would not believe how mad that made people. Then the idea that we were a country founded on freedom from religious persecution, and that's a lie. We were founded by people who wanted to do the persecuting and they showed this by outlawing Catholics at one point in the Mass Bay colonies. Then people think that we fought the civil war over slavery, but I disagree, it was A reason, but not the primary reason.
That doesn't mean that we are right or wrong as a country, because all countries have these myths, and all countries act in their own interests and like to put a high sounding moral reason on the lable, which sometimes is actually the net effect. No one wants to believe that it is "interests" that drive our foreign policy, but I can see very little evidence to the contrary, and sometimes...not often....but sometimes we manage to do some good in the world along the way.
I don't really believe that history is like science though. It's true that one can say "what happened...happened" But then I've tried to read a variety of points of view about history and have found different interpretation of events, not only at the time, but especially with the passage of time.
There are myths that we live under Winston (that's from 1984 right?), and I think that I've been lambasted too many times for breaking with the pack. Like with the discussion over whether or not we tortured people during the Revolutionary war....my God, you would not believe how mad that made people. Then the idea that we were a country founded on freedom from religious persecution, and that's a lie. We were founded by people who wanted to do the persecuting and they showed this by outlawing Catholics at one point in the Mass Bay colonies. Then people think that we fought the civil war over slavery, but I disagree, it was A reason, but not the primary reason.
That doesn't mean that we are right or wrong as a country, because all countries have these myths, and all countries act in their own interests and like to put a high sounding moral reason on the lable, which sometimes is actually the net effect. No one wants to believe that it is "interests" that drive our foreign policy, but I can see very little evidence to the contrary, and sometimes...not often....but sometimes we manage to do some good in the world along the way.
QUOTE(heart @ Feb 12 2005, 11:21 PM)
Oh of course we're still friends.
I appreciate that; to me, debate- especially lively debate where people really get passionate about their position- is what spices up our lives. thinking is fun...
QUOTE(heart @ Feb 12 2005, 11:21 PM)
I don't really believe that history is like science though. It's true that one can say "what happened...happened" But then I've tried to read a variety of points of view about history and have found different interpretation of events, not only at the time, but especially with the passage of time.
Well the evidence in social science is not as 'hard' as in geology or astrophysics, but it is still there. there is no doubt that, on august 6, 1945, the USA dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan. The science part is digging and digging through documents, speeches, letters, orders- all the stuff- to figure out why it was dropped. You can argue that it was dropped to save allied lives, and it can be argued that it was dropped to save Japanese lives. What you can't argue is that it was meant to develop a nuclear power industry, even though that did eventually happen.
QUOTE(heart @ Feb 12 2005, 11:21 PM)
There are myths that we live under Winston (that's from 1984 right?) [yes, it seems appropriate in these dark days...], and I think that I've been lambasted too many times for breaking with the pack. Like with the discussion over whether or not we tortured people during the Revolutionary war....my God, you would not believe how mad that made people. Then the idea that we were a country founded on freedom from religious persecution, and that's a lie. We were founded by people who wanted to do the persecuting and they showed this by outlawing Catholics at one point in the Mass Bay colonies. Then people think that we fought the civil war over slavery, but I disagree, it was A reason, but not the primary reason.
OK, the fact is that, during the Revolution, we did cause pain to people in order to extract information from them. The concept of torture as a crime did not come about until late in the 19th century, with the sensibilities of the Victorians. Did we use torture? Probably? Was it considered wrong at the time? No. To say that we tortured people in the American Revolution would be revisionist because torture was not considered in the same way it is today. As far as the rest of your ideas go, they are good parts of historical discussions; your positions are probably closer to the truth than those who believe in the myths- for they are myths. The issue of slavery was one of economics, not human rights. And your observations of religious freedom is perfect...
QUOTE(heart @ Feb 12 2005, 11:21 PM)
... No one wants to believe that it is "interests" that drive our foreign policy, but I can see very little evidence to the contrary, and sometimes...not often....but sometimes we manage to do some good in the world along the way.
All nations pursue policies that are in their own interests. Sometimes those interests conflict, which creates the need for diplomacy or war. Sometimes the policies are altruistic enough to be seen as beneficial to all of mankind. Those are the moments when all men laugh out loud, saying why can't this happen more often!
It's late, I'm tired. Seeya 'round. Thanks for taking so much of your time to help this student understand the world around him.
As Son of Winston's Language Arts teacher, I would like to thank all of you who have participated in this lesson. Here is the analysis of your debate from the perspective of a High School senior in Orange County, CA. I think you will be astounded at the analysis and pleased with his conclusion.
This will be an ongoing class, as the need arises.
Thank you again for your participation and efforts.
BTW- he got an A
WS
This will be an ongoing class, as the need arises.
Thank you again for your participation and efforts.
BTW- he got an A
WS
QUOTE
Son of Winston Smith
Communications
The Morality of a New Draft
The reason I decided to post the original topic questions were because of the war in Iraq. It seems to me, and I am sure many others, the President has taken the country to war under false pretenses, and as days pass us by, the purpose of President Bush’s intentions in Iraq seem to be fading away like dust in the wind. Was it really weapons of mass destruction? Was it for oil? Was it for power and control in the Middle East? It could be one of those reasons, it could be all, and it could be none.
There is still plenty of work and fighting to be done in Iraq, and many young men might possibly face the chance of a military draft. The problem I perceive is that many of these men will have issues about fighting in a war where they do not believe in the underlying logic. Some will have to lie to avoid being drafted, and others will flee, labeled as cowards, many more will be sent off to fight if they cannot provide solid evidence that they are Conscientious Objectors. Does that not seem unethical?
A Conscientious Objector may avoid being drafted for religious purposes, but there are also many who do not believe they must be religious to be against killing other people. It is a difficult question as to whether a person should be allowed to avoid a draft for reasons based upon one’s secular belief against the morality of a particular war.
Most people who decided to participate in contributing their opinions, either decided that a person should or should not be able to avoid a draft based upon their secular beliefs, and they gave reasons as to why. Reading over all of the replies, I realized the outcome of responses were fairly equal in both ways.
When those who chose yes (a person should be able to avoid a draft) their main arguments were that secular beliefs weigh no less than religious beliefs, that the government cannot force people to go fight and kill other people, and that people should be able to declare themselves a Conscientious Objector for any reasons.
The main arguments against allowing a person to avoid a draft were that it is impossible to distinguish a person’s sincerity, how does one know who is lying and who is telling the truth. Another argument is that there must be a way to be able to raise a defense force when needed, and allowing people to avoid drafts based on secular belief defeats the purpose of a draft.
I cannot be the one to say who is right and who is wrong, nor is it anyone else’s right, but both sides have insightful comments that cannot be overlooked and ignored.
If a person was able to avoid being drafted because they object to a certain war, then many people will use this out every time there is a conflict. However, if a person was not able to avoid being drafted then think of the repercussions it could have on person who was sent to war and did not believe in the cause. The question of ethics and fairness arises, but then again war is not fair.
What can be extracted from all the thoughts and views is that most people agree that it is difficult to know how to separate those who truly do not believe in war and those who just want to avoid being drafted. What constitutes true moral reasons?
Well, from my point of view, if a war is justifiable and this country is forced into fighting, then implement a draft. Most people will agree that it is necessary and they will be ready to go off to fight and protect freedom. If a war is unjustifiable, the United States’ government forced war upon themselves, then leave citizens out of it and use whatever resources they currently have.
If we look at World War II, the contrast from then and today is clearly noticeable. When people were drafted to fight there was very little protest, men wanted to enlist, and patriotism, courage, and morality was high. Now, the Iraq war seems like a mistake, men do not want another military draft. If nobody had a problem with this war, then this discussion of avoiding a draft and war would not be taking place.
The only problem is agreeing whether people should be given the right to avoid a war based on their own personal feelings and human thoughts against certain wars, even if these wars are just or unjust.
The only thing that can be acknowledged is that we may not be able to discern what constitutes true moral convictions, or people’s sincerity against fighting wars, but we can try much harder to discern which fights are necessary to fight and which to avoid or give diplomacy a chance. It is a much more worthy fight to ensure peace around the world through diplomacy in order to avoid war altogether.
Anyways, it is always enjoyable to discuss and debate certain topics that might result in controversy, it has been fun to read and indulge in all the views of those who responded.
Thank you very much to all of those who voiced their opinion on the subject, I sincerely appreciate your contribution to this project.
Communications
The Morality of a New Draft
The reason I decided to post the original topic questions were because of the war in Iraq. It seems to me, and I am sure many others, the President has taken the country to war under false pretenses, and as days pass us by, the purpose of President Bush’s intentions in Iraq seem to be fading away like dust in the wind. Was it really weapons of mass destruction? Was it for oil? Was it for power and control in the Middle East? It could be one of those reasons, it could be all, and it could be none.
There is still plenty of work and fighting to be done in Iraq, and many young men might possibly face the chance of a military draft. The problem I perceive is that many of these men will have issues about fighting in a war where they do not believe in the underlying logic. Some will have to lie to avoid being drafted, and others will flee, labeled as cowards, many more will be sent off to fight if they cannot provide solid evidence that they are Conscientious Objectors. Does that not seem unethical?
A Conscientious Objector may avoid being drafted for religious purposes, but there are also many who do not believe they must be religious to be against killing other people. It is a difficult question as to whether a person should be allowed to avoid a draft for reasons based upon one’s secular belief against the morality of a particular war.
Most people who decided to participate in contributing their opinions, either decided that a person should or should not be able to avoid a draft based upon their secular beliefs, and they gave reasons as to why. Reading over all of the replies, I realized the outcome of responses were fairly equal in both ways.
When those who chose yes (a person should be able to avoid a draft) their main arguments were that secular beliefs weigh no less than religious beliefs, that the government cannot force people to go fight and kill other people, and that people should be able to declare themselves a Conscientious Objector for any reasons.
The main arguments against allowing a person to avoid a draft were that it is impossible to distinguish a person’s sincerity, how does one know who is lying and who is telling the truth. Another argument is that there must be a way to be able to raise a defense force when needed, and allowing people to avoid drafts based on secular belief defeats the purpose of a draft.
I cannot be the one to say who is right and who is wrong, nor is it anyone else’s right, but both sides have insightful comments that cannot be overlooked and ignored.
If a person was able to avoid being drafted because they object to a certain war, then many people will use this out every time there is a conflict. However, if a person was not able to avoid being drafted then think of the repercussions it could have on person who was sent to war and did not believe in the cause. The question of ethics and fairness arises, but then again war is not fair.
What can be extracted from all the thoughts and views is that most people agree that it is difficult to know how to separate those who truly do not believe in war and those who just want to avoid being drafted. What constitutes true moral reasons?
Well, from my point of view, if a war is justifiable and this country is forced into fighting, then implement a draft. Most people will agree that it is necessary and they will be ready to go off to fight and protect freedom. If a war is unjustifiable, the United States’ government forced war upon themselves, then leave citizens out of it and use whatever resources they currently have.
If we look at World War II, the contrast from then and today is clearly noticeable. When people were drafted to fight there was very little protest, men wanted to enlist, and patriotism, courage, and morality was high. Now, the Iraq war seems like a mistake, men do not want another military draft. If nobody had a problem with this war, then this discussion of avoiding a draft and war would not be taking place.
The only problem is agreeing whether people should be given the right to avoid a war based on their own personal feelings and human thoughts against certain wars, even if these wars are just or unjust.
The only thing that can be acknowledged is that we may not be able to discern what constitutes true moral convictions, or people’s sincerity against fighting wars, but we can try much harder to discern which fights are necessary to fight and which to avoid or give diplomacy a chance. It is a much more worthy fight to ensure peace around the world through diplomacy in order to avoid war altogether.
Anyways, it is always enjoyable to discuss and debate certain topics that might result in controversy, it has been fun to read and indulge in all the views of those who responded.
Thank you very much to all of those who voiced their opinion on the subject, I sincerely appreciate your contribution to this project.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.