I'm afraid the admistration will avoid having a draft with something worse. Outsourcing jobs will leave just the poor of this country with no choice but to join the military for their own survival. This is worse than the draft because it disproportionately affects poor people for a war that equally benefits rich and poor, if not the rich more. It also desensitizes the rich from the cost of the war in lives.

War, the draft, and life are all unfair. However, unfair does not mean avoidable. If war is unavoidable, then a draft is sometimes unavoidable. If a draft is unavoidable, there should at least be an option for a Conscientious Objector to leave the country instead of serving.

One should be able to declare themselves a Conscientious Objector for any reason. There is no way you can prove someone is lying about what they believe, even if they believed differently the day before. Therefor the reason to be a Conscientious Objector should not be questioned. Any reason to be a Conscientious Objector is as good as any other reason.

Well I must have done something right because I got the duck sufficiently outraged to come back:).

"On the cheap" specifically relating to Rumsfeld's lean military plans. Yes, this is costing the US a lot of money, but it is not a true statement that the money we spend there, would be used in public works here at all. In fact, it would probably be refunded to the rich in the form of more tax cuts if it were not going to Iraq.

Either way it is true that the rich benefit the most, but I believe that a win in Iraq is in fact a win for the world. A lose in Iraq has significant and detrimental effects on the world, and will lead to more bloodshed not only in that region but in our own.

Is this a war to control oil? Possibly so, as WWII was a war to control trade and shipping routes. However, it is not correct to say that we do not benefit as a nation from protecting the oil supply, because that oil supply, however much we may not like the reality is really our food supply as well.

We do not live in a world where each nation has their own separate economy. The world has changed, trade has changed, and it isn't just large multi-nationals either. Small business people are connecting with other small businesses all over the world. Establishing stability and open systems, economically and politically is a way to stop some of the disparity in education and income distribution throughout the world. This is not a question of "if", it's done...there is no going back unless you want to turn off the interenet and stop satelite broadcasting. You can't undo the globalisation of the economy no matter how much you and I might want to scream about it. It has already transpired. Now we have to figure out how we are going to compete in it...how to bring other countries along with us, and how to make it more equitable. These are the things we must find solutions for, not trying to turn the clock back and think we can let these tyrannical governments reak havoc without having it show up on our doorstep in the form of terrorism.

I did not say that we should have a draft because we "had it before". I was merely pointing out that the draft was not confined to the Vietnam era, and did not put a burr in anyone's saddle before, so perhaps we are making too much of it. I did not even say we should have a draft per se. The military does not want a draft and I think they probably know best. What I want is more akin to a national service commitment with a 2 year obligation. This would be good for our 18-21 year olds because it provides everyone with training SHOULD there be a definate need for a draft, but it also puts Americans in other countries doing helpful things rather than fighting. A lot of countries could use the help building decent irrigation, learning computer skills, learning to read and write, learning about trade and management. Here at home, for those who were willing we could have help with the elderly, the young and the disabled in higher numbers than we do now. This would enable our kids to forumulate a "reality based life" before they went to college so that they have some idea of what the world is really like for those less fortunate than themselves. It would also allow them time to figure out what they wanted to do in college when they were through. A maturation process is a good thing.

People during WWII bought war bonds, they were a lot more rural, they sacrificed and found substitutions for many things and most importantly they were toughened by the depression. Many were immigrants, or came from immigrant families and they had some idea of how hard things were in the "old country". Today we are very comfortable.

Oh yes, whatever he writes will be published on the 18th- and boy, is he going to have a blast with this.

First, I appreciate the incredible diversity of opinions and the fact that, for the most part, it has remained on topic. The reason I offered this assignment to Son Of... is just for this purpose: analyzing public debate.

And as far as going to a conservative site, I am a bit hesitant to suggest it because of the sheer volumn and volume. Look at some of the rancor here, then imagine this obviously liberal question on a conservative site.

The purpose of this forum is the open and civil exchange of ideas. And for those of you participating, I sincerely appreciate it.

In actual fact you are correct: once you're in, all bets are off. My point was that, if you did not want to even think about being sent to Iraq, then don't enlist. A draft takes that away from you.

I'm not sure if it's that cynical, but your last point is certainly on target. Recruiters are constantly on our blue-collar campus, and I think that blue-collar casualties are the results.



You don't have to be a CO to leave the country- just ask Clinton!



That leaves us with an all-volunteer army, doesn't it...

Yes I do think people should be able to avoid a draft if they ademately disagree with the reasons of the war (especially when we're lead to war through false pretenses). No one should be forced into killing other human beings for any reason. If it is against one's religion to kill, that person should get protection from a draft. Who is the government to presume to damn this person to eternal hell because they (the government) has a beef with another country?

As I have stated before, let the red state christern soldiers eat bullets for Bush. They voted for him. Now live with it. Just leave me and my family out of it. As for the cost of the war, they are now spending my Social Security money in Iraq. The SS surplus is paying for it. The rich sacrifice nothing to the war. They get tax cuts. The poor get a choice of a Wallmart job or the military. The sons of the rich avoid military service and paying the Estate Tax to at least pay for the war. The draft is for national defence not optional wars based on lies. If Exxon wishes to have Iraq's oil, let them hire mercinaries to take it. Instead they are using the US Military and my Social Secutity money to do it. That is not right.

Their will never be any fairness in the draft. Just as during the civil war new immigrants were immediately drafted into the Union Army and those with money could pay someone to take their place for two hundred dollars, every war in which we used draftees was unfair to the poor. Draft boards are composed of people from the community who have it in their power to look out for their own friends and relatives and, conversely, to get back at someone they don't like. Many will naysay this idea, but, I grew up in a small town during the 60's and I saw the evidence of it myself. No matter what they say about "no deferments" there will always be a way out for the sons and daughters of the rich. Some things never change. They don't last forever, but while they do last they never change. Those who are given freedom without having to sacrifice anything for it do not realize the value of it. Just as kids who are given everything do not realize the value of a dollar. Our forefathers suffered greatly and our war veterans know the true meaning and those who have lost loved ones in the name of freedom know. Everyone else can only imagine the true cost of freedom. The gang of draft dodgers who run our government now seem to think it's like some kind of game and our troops are like little plastic toy soldiers. Expendable.

Wiley I agree that designing a system for a draft will always have corruption, as does any governmental system, except maybe Finland. But as it is now, the system is even more unfairly distributed to the immigrant and the poor.

The morality of the issue to me is what do you owe your country? People say, if I don't agree with welfare, then why should I have to pay my taxes to that program, why can't I choose what my tax dollars go toward? Others say that since many work until March or May in order to pay their taxes, that this is forced slavery. Yet, many others say, if they don't agree with the war why should they have to fight it? In spite of a lot of election problems, we do vote, and when it's close we are going to fight about it of course...but it should not have been close at all. So, basically, we have some pretty equal group of opposing views and another 40% that don't even go vote and in my opinion, they don't have much right to say anything if they don't vote. This election cycle, while not perfect, has proven to be a decent way of doing things, even if I would prefer a parilimentary system.

What I'm getting at is that we vote, and we live with that decision. Each of us are Americans and since I don't want the Republicans to refuse to go to war when their is a Democrat in power and that Dem feels (rightly or wrongly, cause theire were always dissenters to war like Wendel Wilkie the Republican circa WWII) is a just war. What would YOU say if the Republican soldiers said we aren't going to this war because our Party doesn't support it?

Every day, each American receives MASSIVE benefits of living in this country as opposed to the stroke of luck that could have landed us in any other country. I think that means every one should thank their lucky stars! Starting out here, or in a Western Country even means you will have the world by the tail should you decide to take it. It's not promised and it does require a bit of luck, but RELATIVELY SPEAKING there is just NO BETTER PLACE ON EARTH, and you soak up this benefit, and this dream every single day. That means you have an obligation to give something back, and when your nation is at war for you to turn down that need, that call, and that duty can be considered selfish IM not so HO.

There are people who are raised as pacifists, or convert to a pacifist religion, but few religions are pacificistic. They deserve CO status, but should still involve themselves in teaching or medical care, or just serving as a Veteran's home helper or something like that. If you don't have a pretty long commitment to pacificism than developing one because you don't want to go to war is fundamentally dishonest and immoral. Hiding behind a non-existent religious belief to avoid service to your country is immoral and cowardly.

HERE! HERE!

Now David, tell us how you really feel!

heart,
You know that you and I agree on most things. I'm not disagreeing with you now. Everything you say is true. My point is just like I said, there will never be a "fair" draft. I don't mean that to sound like I think no one owes a debt to our country. I joined the army at age 18 because I do believe that when your country needs you it is your duty to answer the call. Vietnam was a great disillusionment for me. I know I don't need to go into the reasons why for you. I have always been an idealist and it has caused me an awful lot of heartache in my life. I know the world is not fair, life is not fair but I can't seem to stop wanting it to be. In the end, I think each of us must listen to our own conscience. When called to take part in a war like Vietnam or Iraq, personally, I would have to refuse. If called for a war that I believe is necessary (and there are times when war is necessary) then I would not hesitate to volunteer. I am old now and talk is cheap, but this is the truth as I see it.

Maybe we should call it Conscience Objector. Me, well, I'm a Viet vet too, and like you, Wiley, I enlisted in the AF to go kill a commie for christ and country- be home by Christmas. My parents were John Bircher's and I lived in (and still do) Orange County, CA- "The OC". It was a real shock for me to become part of a war, period. When I got out I lived on the Haight-Ashbury for a few months, then dropped out until the Children's Crusade. It was then that I developed a conscience; it was then that I was no longer the psychological clone of my parents. The anti-war movement was a big part of my life, and it was then that I met my wife; it is becoming a big part of my life again. If Vietnam was merely unjust, then this one is a travesty against justice.

Hi Ghost, thank you for your most sought after reply. Just a word to tell you I regularly look forward and appreciate reading your often fine and subtle contributions from unusual perspectives.

My reply was directly adressing your support for the draft described in your own words which I've included again below:


Let me point out a few issues in what you wrote above which I consider, imho, as relative flaws in your argumentation.

Please, allow me to extract a few concepts in the order you used them:

"draft" - "justifiable war" - "exceptionally" - "all men should volunteer" - "fight to death".

My first question is, directly related to how we got involved in Iraq in 2003 (incidentally, in my opinion, also in 1990-1991):

What is "a justifiable war" ? Whatever a lunatic or criminal like Bushco says to invade foreign countries: "find wmd's" ? Who says a war is justified ?

How would a draft increase our chances against what you call a "identified enemy", moving on this country ?

You assert later "all men should volunteer". Let me point out, does it matter if men "volunteer" if they are anyways "drafted" ? What is the difference you want to outline ?

You introduce the notion of "fighting to death". IMHO, from the very first constitution of US armed forces during the American revolution, this is NOT US military doctrine, which includes a specific chapter on surrendering, "with honor".

Perhaps, what disturbs me the most, is the progressive stretch of what you ask "men" to do to defend a regime or ideology which governs people.

From what you start by introducing as a "draft", you seem to ask those men, whose opinions don't matter anyways, that they should fight against any so called "enemy" moving in the country, and that "they should volunteer" to "fight until death".

Tell me, how does your claim stand if we find ourselves unable to remove the Bush dynasty from power, if they keep stealing elections and wage war on other countries in the world ? How does your claim stand against an international coalition willing to "help us" bring down a tyranical US government like Bushco, like we "helped" the iraqis to bring down Saddam ?

What meaning does "defending the country" and "fight until death" have when most of us would rather get rid of the government and *LIVE* to see it happen, contribute to "rebuilding" and benefit from a new found *FREEDOM* ?


Incidentally, Hitler didn't wage war for the purpose of extermining jews.

My point, mentioning Hitler, was about his last public appearances in Berlin in april 1945, the soviets already at the outskirt pounding the city with Katushkas. Hitler reviewed hastily constituted troops of any men, abled and disabled, including 12-14 year old kids, old men, any man able to carry a rifle, a bag of grenades or a grenade launcher, to defend the city to the "last drop of blood" against 1.3 million soldiers of the Red Army.

Is that your idea of "fighting to death", for a government and leader you and the world despise ?


Considering the little resistance US troops met on the way to Bagdad in 2003, despite Saddam's call for all iraqis to resist and stand their ground, my question was, if the US were invaded by foreign troops with the objective to topple the Bush government, why should the common american dude react differently than the common iraqi dude if both despise their respective governments, like staying home until it's over ?

So that's why the finest of our finest, our US Marines, and the less finest by never the less willing, our National Guard, get blown up in Iraq: to back promises !

Like the one to find WMD's I presume.

I'm sure the boys will appreciate because they are getting killed believing, well , at least that's what they've been told, protecting Motherland and the kids.


You mean like, if you promise to do something and it's a mistake, you should keep at it until the mistake is fully completed.

How do we look like ?


It's not our troops that I referred to as gamblers, it's YOU !
Your argumentation supporting the draft is highly speculative.

My concern is bringing them home alive ASAP.
I didn't bring up the issue of making them forgetting. What's your point ?

Are you saying now our troops are still in Iraq because Bush promised THEM they could finish whatever they started so they won't have any regrets ? Wow, now THAT'S "Foreign Policy" !

Anyways what is it that is supposed to "get finished" ?
When do you expect the "job" to be finished ?
How will you know when the "job" is finished ?
How do you know the "job" is on the right path to be finished ?
How many more rotations before you expect the "job" to be finished ?
How many more casualties before you expect the "job" to be finished ?

Not necessarily denying opposition to the military intervention in Iraq is quite vocal, I have yet to read or see any reports of personal attacks on servicemen and which you seem to refer to.

But if that's your argument to keep troops in Iraq, I suggest you make US troops iraqi citizens so they'll feel more at home in iraq.

Considering it was snorting lotsa pixie dust which got our troops parked there as sitting ducks...

Watching JAG too much I guess. You first, be my guest.
Spent any time in the NG ?

I don't agree with the absolute meaning, but let's assume I share the spirit.
So who do we try for the +2000 US killed in Iraq ?


I believe you are misconstruing my comments about "policy" relative to "the draft" as an attack on the military institution and how it attempts to fulfill it's mission. My point is the very purpose of the US military and how does having troops in Iraq and spending hundreds of billions of dollars for this operation contributes to serve that purpose.



"Continued arguing" ?
We hardly started, but we can leave it there.
Eventually, our resident student will make the most of this exchange, carefully outlining our respective views without inhaling too much pixie dust.

You also dont hear how bad of a screw up Bush is, but that doesnt make it not true, and you dont hear about the many many dieing in Iraq, our troops and Iraqi's but that doesnst make it not true, talk to a few service men who have come face to face with some protestors, you will hear first hand accounts then.



Completely unrealistic, although by our laws it would be our soldiers right to become Iraqi citizens if they wanted to after thier military time is up, that is one thing our military has bought us, the freedom to even leave this country if we choose.



What caused this war was wrong, but we still can not just wish it away, or bring the troops home without ever finishing or ending in one way or another whats happening over there, its unrealistic, and our pres isnt the only one with pixie dust if you believe that.



Dont watch JAG, havent ever. I get my mo's based on the soldiers in my family some who have served in other wars and some now serving in Iraq, when it comes to Iraq, I trust those who have been there before anyone else. So unless you have been over there...



Bush, Rice, Cheney.... to name a few.



Its possible I misunderstood, who knows what people mean half the time in comments when you cant see or hear them in person. And apparently you have also misread and took some of mine out of context.

But to answer your question, it doesnt, but since it is already happening.... we cant go back, we have to move ahead, if one good ideal was said to stop this war and bring our soldiers home without consequences, I could go along with it, but ive yet to hear one single suggestion from anyone on how to end this war and bring our soldiers home without causing as much or more harm then is already being done.






Im sure he will, im almost positive his teacher will see to it.
I do not agree with your opinions on this matter, but in other topics Ive completely agreed with you, I guess we cant win them all.

I am curious on how much everyones backgrounds in life have affected each one of our opinions on this issue... maybe another topic..

To me it is no different then the promises made when we first became our own governing body, our founders made us a promise of freedom from our oppressors, and men died to keep that promise. What do you think the worlds opinion of us would be if we were to just pull out of Iraq right now, how do you think our soldiers would feel?

It amazes me how nearly EVERYONE, including Kerry at first believed there were WMD's but now assume because none have been found that none ever existed.. if we applied that same logic to Bin laden... he hasnt been found, so he never existed?



Anyone that knows a soldier knows they do not just blindly trust what they are told, the ones I know have a very good grasp of why they are over there, they know it is not to protect our motherland as you put it.



Another sentence took out of context, and the meaning rearranged to suit.
How would you suggest ending this war... just jerking our troops out and saying it didnt happen?



As is yours, so far what i have got from your comments is...

Pull the troops out... (without saying how)
We shouldnt be in this war its costing to much (which is pointless since we are already in it)
Soldiers are to dumb to realize what they are fighting for
We dont believe in a draft (but not stating reasons why except for bring our troops home and this war cost to much and we shouldnt be in it) Which by the way, if you dont support drafts.. then what if there ever came a time when we were attacked like pearl harbor? is a draft wrong in the same circumstances, or is your arguement against the draft based only on this war?



My point is your not giving any way to bring them home immediately, do you honestly believe that we can just load them all up and get them all back home, and no one will be killed in the process, that the insurgents will just calmly and peacefully let us leave? Not to mention the backlash of the Iraqi citizens that believe in us? And the after thoughts of other countries that will percieve us as weak?



No, another sentence took out of context, our troops are there because our president made a decision and convinced most of the US that it was a good decision. You cant stop something that has already started. Its like shooting a gun...once you pull the trigger its to late to take it back.



I dont ever see it finishing at least in the way most americans would want it to. But the closest I think we will come is when the Iraqi's are strong enough to take care of themselves which unfortunately seems to be getting further and further away. When i say finish( I mean our part only) i mean one way or another, we cant leave and just leave everything as it is now, it would cause more deaths then what is happening now, and weaken our position in the world, make us look vulnerable which in this political climate isnt very smart. Even leaders like Kerry agreed we couldnt just end it, actually I cant think of one single politicians who says bring them home NOW. YES we need to get them out, but jerking them out without a plan behind it, is no different then putting them over there like Bush did in the first place without a plan.

[quote=Son of Winston Smith,Feb 9 2005, 12:58 PM]
  While one has always been able to declare themselves a Conscientious Objector for religious reasons, do you think a person should be able to avoid a draft for reasons based only upon one's secular belief against the morality of this war?[/quote]
[/quote]

Yes.

And I base this on the fact that this war has been proven to be based on lies and agendas of a select few.

I am replying directly to the above question you posed, which refers to this particular war.

[quote=wileycoyote,Feb 9 2005, 04:24 PM]
Thank you for your participation in this project.

[/quote]

Let's look at that last question. Should a person be able to avoid a draft for reasons based only upon one's secular belief against the morality of this war. To that I would have to answer "yes". For a couple of reasons. One reason is, because to force someone to take part in an immoral war scars ones soul irreparably. A second reason is, because when a person serves in an army against their will they do not make effective soldiers. They do not believe in the fight and their only goal is to survive the war and get home alive. They aren't taking any risks that they can avoid. I do believe that when America is severely threatened that each of us has a duty to step up to the plate and defend our country. Our forefathers did it for us and we owe it to our future generations.
[/quote]I feel inclined to say that as a young man living in this country and facing the possibility of a draft, I would not hesitate enlisting in the army for the protection of freedom and democracy when it is truly threatened. But for a war like the one in Iraq, I can find reason for Americans and citizens to be sent to fight when they do not believe in the underlying cause. I agree with a draft when the country's safety is in jeopardy.

[quote=Arneoker,Feb 9 2005, 07:32 PM]
Thank you for your participation in this project.

[/quote]
This is a tough question, which also came up during the Vietnam War. I would have to say yes. Some kind of proof of sincerity would have to be required, otherwise it would be pretty easy for anyone reasonably clever to avoid the draft. But secular belief should weigh no less than religious belief, and if someone had a deep, secular belief against the morality of this war, that went beyond thinking it was a tactical mistake, then I would allow them Conscientious Objector status.



[/quote]What about killing people, and war in general? If a person is an objector to all wars and killing without having any religious beliefs,and the only proof of their secular belief against the morality of any war is their word, is that not good enough? Even if a person lied about being against the war just to avoid being drafted, does it matter? If a person does not want to fight why force them?

I do not disagree entirely on your opinion, but I do feel it is unfair to say that we are selfish and divided. I believe most people living in this country, whether they were born here or not, just want to conform to a job that pays well, a family, independence, and comfort that they live in a country that encourages freedom. We are aware of the poverty and turmoil of other countries in the world, and we all feel for them, but it is hard to help others when most people cannot even help themselves.

I liked what Heart said too. She is right, we are spoiled here and not used to sacrifice. I have no doubt that sacrifice would be good for us. I would much rather us sacrifice in order to stay out of wars than sacrifice to keep them going though.

[/quote]I agree completely with you both. Ensuring peace in order to prevent war is the ideal goal.

Is the draft right? Yes if it is a justifiable war. Exceptionally YES if it to defend our country against a (identified) defind enemy. If enemy forces were physcially moving on this country, then all men should volunteer ... and if have to, also drafted as to fight and defend this country to the death.
No, if any actions of a govt bases it's reasons for war on lies and without complete cooperation of the UN for which it was designed. No, if exceptional reasons are viable for not going to war (health, extreme hardships, etc etc) (marriage or school should not one of those reasons in my opinion). This country once was able to declare God based upon how it was built. Religion was never used before for becoming exempt from the draft that I can remember... I could be wrong. Should it be? Very tough question. There are many who would claim to 'have' God or 'faith' if it got them out of being drafted. In a real time of crises of war, this could be a huge problem. If such a war was declared that was actually a very serious WW (war) then most should take arms to defend their country. If it's an isolated scrimmage (such as Vietnam.... Iraq) then our govt must better manage it's decisions for such a scrimmage and encounter ALL consequences and using what it has available for that scrimmage as not to disrupt normal life in this country. Therefore, I think religious beliefs should be honored to avoid service (darft) when it's an obvious movement on the part of our govt for it's own personal gains. I would say let the ppl of this nation vote on what is considered a serious and viable war/scrimmage, but then we would need for our election process to be legal and fair again.

Good luck on your paper... I hope some information here was helpfull.

[/quote]My thoughts are exactly the same, if the war is justifiable and liberty is threatened, then implement the draft. If we are at war because of government actions, then let them handle it with what they have.

I agree 100% with you on that!

Picadilly,

I think you are under the impression that I support BushCo and what it stands for. ABSOLUTELY NOT!

In answering this thread's question and explaining my own personal feelings about war and the draft, I was speaking of it in it's overall perspective in American history in general, and not under the goofballs like Bush and Cheney as commanders in chief.

When war is 'justifiable', then our armed forces must do what it can in order to fight such a justifiable war. Just as the Vietnam war was not justifiable, the Iraq war is also not justifiable. I even have some reservations about Afghanistan... being how 9/11 was, in my opinion, a set up. Afghanistan was just a stepping stone to get to Iraq. Afghanistan also provides additional military advantages for engaging war with Iran as well as further securing the Caspian region for Cheney's business dealings with all of this.

As an American it is my duty as a man to protect my fellow Americans here in this country. If an enemy enters our country to kill Americans, all men should fight to the death to protect Americans. That's just how I was raised and how I personally think. If for some reason there's not enough men to volunteer to protect our country under siege, then a draft is in order to protect her. I can not imgaine our country men not fighting for her to where a draft would have to installed to get enough men to protect her. Any enemy who declares war on America or harm to Americans... they are defined as the enemy. Those who step on our soil to harm us, they are defined as the enemy.

The confusing part about who a defined enemy is when we are fighting on foreign soil, such as Iraq, becomes extremely difficult. such as Vietnamw was. Not only was the enemy in 'Nam difficult to define... it was also very difficult to actually see and know where their presence was. We refered to them as ghosts among other choice words. Iraq is much the same in where it's almost impossible to define who is going to kill you. Sadly they are right in doing so.. being that BushForce are the invaders. Let me explain this a little further.

In 'Nam.... the war was a loss cause. We knew the score... and we were stuck fighting that war. We were only protecting ourselves at that point from a defined enemy who was trying to kill us. The war changed from trying to win it for Washington's bullcrap lie about defending S Vietnam's freedom to simply defending our very own lives. We ended up fighting to stay alive. I suspect that troops in Iraq right now are finding themselves in the same situation. They are there because our govt put them there even though they are RAs (sign-ups). As time passes, Iraq vets will fight the war to stay alive and learn of how wrong it was for us to invade that country.

You asked how can a draft increase our chances against a defined enemy moving ashore of our country. Simple... if 5 million enemy troops was heading to America to fight us, and we only had 1 million who volunteered to fight, we simply have to draft men in order to have enough to fight what's coming ashore. Again, I would find it odd if our men here would not volunteer to defend our country at that point. I think that may answer your last question in why seek volunteers if they are already being drafted. Volunteers naturally take palce first. It only makes sense that if our nation falls under attack, most men would volunteer without hesitation. If at some point, that is not true, then our armed forces will have to draft in order to have the manpower to hold off such an invasion.



BushCo policies are corrupt. I find it hard to now say what I'd do in circumstances if we'd be invaded based on our Iraq invasion. I wish that we were able to bring BushCo gang up on charges ... and serve them up to the International Community before something like that would happen. That would be pure justice and hopefully would end this nonsense in the East. My preference would be that any enemy who does invade this country because of BushCo's actions, that they'd go directly for BushCo and not harm those who are innocent and of not part from the BushCo mafia. Unfortunately, much like Iraq now, Iraqi civilians are caught up in the war getting hurt and killed. I would assume the same would happen here as well if invaded. If we had invaders here, and killing at free will, there's no choice but to fight them back.

If Kerry was in office now... and he was doing his best to reverse all the crap that Bush has created .... but we were still to be invaded later on, then I would do all I could to defend our ppl and country. I would then support the draft in support of Kerry's policies unless he proved to me that he was in cahoots with the neocons too. If more men were needed to defend this country under a Kerry leadership..again knowing that Kerry was trying to correct everything he could and needing the draft to resist unavoidable invasions, I would support the draft fully if volunteers did not fill the needed quota.

I am staying with what I feel was Hitler's plan. He wanted power over Europe in his perfect society that he was trying to form. That's my belief.

My answers about the draft are based on a time when this country must defend itself or 'justifiably' go to war on foreign soil. Iraq was not justifiable. In fact, it's because of Bush I's actions in '91 that has caused the rest of the world to further arm itself more and prepare for war with the US. US diplomatic policies have failed since '90, hell proabably as far back as '79 ... and leading up to what we now face today. I do not support the draft under these circumstances today. In fact, if BushCo does not have the manpower, it may prevent them from pushing this much further... but as crazy as BushCo are, who knows, they may just go ahead and push buttons anyways.

Stop pulling my tailfeathers, brat ;-)


The problem is it's money the US treasury doesn't have and must borrow from Japan and China. That's when you generally ask yourself, "Is all this really necessary ?

My problem here is, like when I read "when we finish the job", all this is very vague.

You don't say what constitutes a "win" in Iraq, as nobody says what exactly is the "job" and what allows us to say the "job" is finished. We got tens of thousands of troops there, a hundred billion dollar counter running, and no cash.

Following WW2, Great Britain lost it's empire. Who dares considering this as a "win" ? What did Great-Britain "win" in WW2 ?

What you consider an Islamic republic of Iraq ruled by the Sharia a win ?

Are you happy with the progress in Afghanistan since their liberation ?
Afghanistan, ranks at 39th / 231 position with a population of 28 million inhabitants, but ranks at 222nd / 231 position with a GDP per capita at US$700.

What do you consider a win in Afghanistan ?
That they make the headlines as often as, say:

- Malawi, which ranks at 223rd / 231 position with a GDP per capita at US$670 for a population of 11 million ?

or

- Tanzania which ranks at 224th / 231 position with a GDP per capita at US$630 for a population of 36 million


There are alternatives but they have been delayed for the immediate profit of a very few.

The bottom third of the countries in this world live on local economies. They have to, they hardly have anything worth the fuel necessary to export. Eventually, the little resources they can export belong anyways to multi-national corporations so most of the population doesn't even benefit of the revenues.

At a cost no one dared to measure when enacted. I recommend you to read the article below to understand where Bushco gets it's inspiration.

Of Fraud and Force Fast Woven: Domestic Propaganda During The First World War
http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/propaganda.htm


Whether the military want the draft or not is irrelevant as we already saw how congress and this government don't give a damn about operational efficiency. The draft is a weapon in Bushco's psychological arsenal to maintain a state of fear among the population, justifying the super powers Bush has granted himself as "War President", through times where the country is at war, powers which allow Bushco to continue exercising control on the media, on congress, and on the elections.

You ignore the costs of maintaining and training an army of draftees.
http://www.census.gov/population/projectio...ate/stpjage.txt

says that on july 1st 2005, the US population age 18-24 is projected at approximately 28 million.

I'll let you figure a budget for supervising, training and feeding the draftees for 2 years. In any case, I believe that's money Bush prefers giving to his buddies.

You are confusing education and national readiness. Convince your kids to sign up in the American Peace Corps. Having everyone drafted to make sure your kids can't escape from getting some "reality based life" is short-sighted.

A lot of kids can't afford higher education after college. That's why they go looking for a job. In the meantime, these kids still have to earn a living. I don't think they think they have time to waste.

Please don't suggest they could pay a semester of university by saving the petty money they might earn as draftees.

During WWI, those who refused to buy the bonds were doused with yellow paint. Mennonites refused to buy bonds because of their religious hostility to war, and when they returned to a town one Saturday their cars were confiscated and sold at auction and the proceeds used to buy Liberty Bonds. In July, thousands of soldiers and sailors attacked a parade of Socialists in Boston, and they sacked the local party headquarters while police stood by.

Woodrow Wilson spoke of the enemy as "the masters of Germany" and Germany's "Junkers" (the landed aristocracy of Prussia) rather than the German people, but his Creel Committee was joining others in opposing all things German. Sauerkraught was dubbed "liberty cabbage". Hamburger was called "liberty steak," and German Shepherds were renamed "police dogs." The works of German composers, including Mozart, Brahms and Beethoven, were avoided by symphony orchestras, while the "American Defense Society" was warning Americans that German music was the most dangerous form of German propaganda because it appealed to the emotions. The Austrian born violist Fritz Kreisler was suddenly out of work. A campaign of hate began against the Swiss conductor of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, Carl Muck, for his not wanting to play the Star Spangled Banner as an introduction to his concerts. His performances in Washington D.C., Baltimore and other cities were canceled.

In California folk songs that were originally German were removed from children's songbooks. The teaching of the German language came to and end in the schools. Libraries across the nation removed from their shelves books by German authors. Under pressure from the public and a crusade led by Teddy Roosevelt, the editors of German language newspapers shut their papers down. A few Germans were forced to kiss the American flag. Some German-Americans were forced to parade before irate townspeople as objects of ridicule. A German-American was lynched in southern Illinois. Kids threw stones at Dachshunds. And teachers lost their jobs for expressing their opinions on the issue of war and peace.

During WWII, advertisement to buy War Bonds was simply everywhere! It is also worth mentionning that, US companies were requested to establish Payroll Savings Plans to encourage and "help" employees save and buy bonds. Considering what happened to people who did not buy bonds during WWI, it is no surprise that more than 90% of US employed workforce participated in the Payroll Savings Plan. Employee contribution amounted to at least 10% of the gross payroll being invested in War Bonds


As I wrote in a previous post, there are 36 million people in the US living below poverty threshold. You can pooh-pooh their condition but, please, don't deny their existence.

Your history is impressive and impeccable, but the dynamics of WWII were very different than WWI. Much of what you document had as much to do with anti-union and anti-wobblie activities as anti-German. Most point to the Lusitania as our reason for entering the war because of the extensive press, but it was more likely the Zimmerman Memorandum that threatened our southern border with Mexico. We were not attacked as at Pearl Harbor and there was a vocal, violent, and active anti-war movement in WWI that was not equaled until the 60's.

I doubt that people needed to be reminded to buy bonds after Pearl. None of the oral histories I've looked at, including those of Turkel and other journalists, has indicated anything more than a desire to destroy Japan and Germany as their reasons for purchasing bonds. To read these oral histories, there seems to be no collective recollection of the 'sales inducements' of the previous war's bond drives.

And your point about 36MM living in poverty is a shameful light on our national priorities- it is perhaps the most compelling reason to be against this war. Like Johnson losing his Great Society momentum because of Vietnam, this president is losing all of the momentum carried forward by the social agenda of the Clinton administration in its prosecution of the Iraq War. The big difference between Johnson and Bush, however, is that Johnson honestly wanted to solve the problems- Bush has no such compulsions to maintain momentum.

Okay Duck, fine and well, but don't forget that my family of four lives beneath the poverty threshold too. I am surrounded by very poor people, and yet when I compare their poverty and mine with the cardboard houses and no running water in the rest of the world, I gotta say that relatively speaking our poor are not anywhere near as poor as that. At least in the US, there is a way out of poverty, but this is not true in the rest of the world.

Thank you for your essay on WWI. I am almost a little bit amused that it shows that we have always been like that and Bush didn't invent those silly things. My views on WWII are pretty steeped in my grandparents stories and I they did not buy war bonds under pressure. The songs they listened to were filled with a longing for peace, but a comittement to winning against Hitler.

If the only war we should fight is to protect our own soil, then the only war that was just was the American Revolution and during WWII we should not have gone to war with Germany correct? Even the attack on Pearl Harbor is somewhat murky because there is always the question "How long had Hawaii been part of the US" and were we really occupying the Hawaiian's land? Could make a descent argument out of that. Japan clearly thought we should not have been anywhere in the Pacific. We have been involved in countless wars and interventions over time that had everything to do with our "interests" and nothing to do with protecting our soil...at least not in the short term...but protecting our interests does not stop at the shore.

Have you ever seen the "shrinking world" map? I have this map that shows how long it took to communicate around the world in the 1800's, then in 1940, then 1n 1980, and then the pinpoint for today. What this map tries to show is that an outbreak of a contagious disease in the 1800's would have taken, say, 200 times longer to spread than today. Today a person gets on a plane and within 15 hours they are here and nothing can stop that that would not stop all trade too. This is also true of war, there is no waiting until the armata arrives at our shores anymore. They aren't in an armata, and they aren't coming in uniforms.

My sons will be doing two things evidently, one wants to join the Navy and the other wants to join the Peace Corp. The problem is, there are not many Peace Corp slots open. You may say that we could not afford all of this, but Picadilly...can we afford to do less? You point out that most the nations of the world are very poor, and I saw this group with a television out in Africa once. Running a tv and vcr on battery and showed them the way we treat our PETS. They showed the cost of our dog food, the dog grooming places, and how poodles were groomed. Then they showed the lady paying the tab for all of that. This was a video designed to win recruits against the USA. If I were living on $1 a day, and I saw that video, it would not be too hard to convince me that "We care more about our dogs than we do about them". That makes for easy recruiting for terrorist groups doesn't it?

I'm not going so far as to say that we are responsible for the whole world, but I don't discount some of that arguement either. I do not have such a cynical view. I think that there are many ways that we could make things better for the world and for our poor here at home. If we did pay a stipend for public service and peace corp service then it would be much more cost effective and responsible to utilize our youth than it is for the government to hire more civil servant to do that job and expect to move up. The teens would not be expecting to stay on past the two years, so it might be more cost effective. The work we could do overseas would be immeasurable when it comes to the "video" I mentioned above being the only face of "America" that people have.

You know, the Republicans said the same things about WWII and FDR right? They said we did not need to get involved. That it would be wrong and illegal and immoral and not patriotic to interfere in Europes problems. You point out that England did not come out of WWII very well and this is true, but perhaps if we had joined the war sooner, that would not have been the case. I can't say that the end of Empire was an altogether good thing for most of the former colonies after all. Looking back, the nations that seem to have done best post colonialism were those that had the longest colonial period...like India.

If the war in Iraq is illegal because it did not get approval by the UN, then please tell me where it was written that we owed our alligience to the UN. And if it is true that we broke international law (which I don't believe we did because Saddam broke the international cease fire continuously by firing at our planes and by developing missile technology prohibited by the UN cease fire) then are you advocating breaking another international law by invading, disbanding the government and not reconstructing the government to the point that they can defend themselves? Because International law says we can not leave until a new government is able to defend their country. I think that would define a "win" in my mind. The Kurds just voted 98.8% for independence from Iraq. That's democracy, and I think that means we have to honor it. I also think that if the Iraqis elect a Shia government, that's what we have to live with because a democracy is a direct voice of the people. That does not mean that we have to support that with much help, but it does mean that we have to give them the ability to defend themselves from foreign invasion UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW. How can everyone rail away at our disregard for international law and then urge us to break another law?

About CO status: Yes there is a tradition of giving CO status to those who can prove their religion prohibits violence. It is not easy to establish this, but the Quakers, the Amish and Menonites have clear pacifist rules and the military honors that. However, that doesn't mean they should be except from assisting in other ways that have nothing to do with war, like helping out relatives of the soldiers or just working at a veteran's hospital.

In fact you are quite right. The Bush administration is not only not concerned about the poor in the US, he's actually doing everything he can to turn back ANY programs for the poor coming out of the New Deal. This man, Grover Norquistis the man behind that message, along with Steve Moore and the "Club for Growth". They want an end to ANY government programs. Those are people that scare me a lot more than Bush, and a lot more than the Iraq war.

Nothing. I was born here. I am part of this country like lotsa million others which I don't know. But for a very few, I don't owe any of them anything, as I don't owe myself anything.

This is simply untrue.

Nope, sorry, we're broke.

Nope. That might be your opinion but I don't owe you or anyone I don't know.

You are confused. Pacifism is not a religion, anti-war is not a religion, and pacifism is not anti-war. Pacifism and "anti-war" are political ideologies.

There is nothing dishonest or immoral in evading lies and forced committments by whatever means, as to escape from predators. It is simply survival. Sending someone to war is not what I would describe as wanting him any good.

Attacks on the morality of people to convince them of the opposite of what they think is right is generally the last resort of self-proclaimed defenders of values, which these moralists brandish and abuse with the same contempt as they hold for those who doubt them.

I'm sorry to say, Heart, such vocal nationalism gives Freedom a terrible name.

Heart Germany declared war on the US in WW 2 because of the defence agreement Hitler had with Japan. We simply agreed to fight them because we had to. WW2 was a war in which the US was forced into by being attacked. It was a just war that the government simply organized the peoples desire to fight back. Men, rich and poor, joined the military because it was their duty. FDR's relitives wore the uniform of their country in battle. People paid higher taxes and rationed food to aid the war effort. In Iraq we were not attacked. The war was a lie in progress to this day. Most people have no desire to kill Iraq's people for any reason. No one rations or pays taxes for Iraq. Only a select few mostly poor people are asked to die in Iraq. Were are the Bush twins? Should they not serve in the important war Bush started? It is not important enough for the Bush family to sacrifice for. So do not wave the flag at me and say we are all in this together. We are not. It is not my war or my family's war. If called we will not serve. If I could I would withhold a porition of my income tax that goes to pay for this war. It is Bush's war and his red state christians can fight it. I hope they have a good time eating the bullets.

Not even close, Heart. You're one of my favorite people, but get the facts right. We did not have a nation to defend in the Amerian Revolution- we were taking something away from Great Britain. We did have to defend our turf when England invaded us during the Napoleanic Wars, ah- er- the War of 1812, but we also tried to invade Canada at the same time. As far as Hawaii, it had been our territory since 1898 when the Doles and Del Monte's stole it from the Hawaiian monarchy and gave it to us; the Pacific had been our pond since then. Going to war against Germany was not our choice- they declared war on us after we declared war on Japan.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Wilson and Congress weren't too happy going to Europe. As late as Feb 26th 1917, (Wilson received the Zimmerman Telegram on March 1st), Wilson wanted to become an armed neutral - filibustered, and on that day he asks Congress to arm merchant ships.

Now, J.P. Morgan had loaned $2.3 billion to the British and the French between 1915 and 1917, to purchase weapons and food.

What made the difference was that at that time, the issue was very uncertain and a certain JP Morgan has been calling Wilson everyday to move in.

If the Allies lost, JP Morgan would not get his money back.

I am ok with someone volunteering to join the military- I even let them into my classroom to talk about the service. When they leave, we discuss the issues of war, warfare, and warriors. I've had two of my students enlist, but only after they had heard both sides. I'm not a pacifist- war will always be part of the human condition so we must have warriors- but I am anti-this-war; my students know that, but they also know that I respect their decision to join if they so chose.

My point is that, right now, men and women can make a conscious choice to enlist or not. A draft takes away that consciousness; young men who find this war immoral have to make the conscious choice to stay or leave, and accept the repercussions of that decision.

What I do find particularly reprehensible is that it is the poor fighting this war. I look at the memorium list every week on This Week with George Stephanopolus and am constantly dismayed at the number of young privates, corporals, and lance corporals- 18, 19, 20. They are from little towns in Iowa and Minnisota. They don't come from USC or WU, Yale or Harvard. Where are the children of the neocons that started this war? Why are they not taking casualties like the rest of us that are serving, or have served, in America's goddammed wars.

Money talks! Some things never change- and we both know that to be an historical fact! and don't forget- it was the Brits who made sure we got a copy of the telegram...

Technically this is corect, but there is an argument that goes, we did not have to fight the Nazi's. This is what I'm trying to point out, not making the argument that we *should* not have gone to war with Germany, I'm just pointing out that if the ONLY war's that are "JUST" are wars whereby an attack on our soil is made, then we must fight those who have invaded us, not those that have not. While Germany did declare war on us, they were still not prepared to take England, and so unlikely to attack us. I did not write that

You may not see Iraq as having declared war on the US, but I do not think that it takes a gentlemanly declaration to BE EFFECTIVELY at war. I believe that post 1991 we had been at war with Iraq, but had signed a cease fire agreement which Saddam broke.

Once again, there will be Democratic Presidents in the future, and if they take the country to war I do not want the republicans do decide, "oh well, it's the Democrats war and therefore Republicans do not have to fight it because we don't believe in it. That's means we have two governments of the US and not one.

No Heart, it was not technical, it was actual. There is a good deal of discussion on whether or not the relationship between FDR and Churchill wasn't a factor that more or less forced Hitler's hand, but when a nation declares war, they're at war.

And this is not about Democrats not wanting to respond to a Republican war, it's the common people not wanting to respond to the blatant greed of a neoconservative stab at nation building. Big difference.

I am posing potentially different arguments other than the standard textbook opinions. We Americans of the 13 colonies declared our independence from Britain and they did not honor that decision. I guess the question has to be, when after our declaration did it become a war on our own soil? Was it after we essentially won the war, was it after 1812, or some other date. I think that was a war of America against foreign powers AFTER we declared our independence and the reason why I think that, is because we had tried and tried to gain it in other ways. I believe that we called our side Patriots and they were Loyalists to the throne.

Hawaii's land since 1898 to the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 means that we had only been considering Hawaii as ours for 43 years and that is hardly a long time in Asian thinking. These are simply points for thought.

You point out that Hawaii was stolen from the Hawaiian people from the Dole corp, and I understand the the early missionaries (I think thats' what they were) currently hold title to most of the land in Hawaii and lease it at 99 year leases to people with property. There is very little private property ownership in Hawaii.

When one asserts that the only just war is one of invasion of US soil we have to understand that 1. Not everyone reconized our claims to islands in the pacific, and 2. That just because Hilter declared war on us due to their pact with Japan did not mean we were about to be invaded by Germany.

I disagree with these arguments, but I have heard them made, and I'm trying to dispell the notion that wars we fought other than Vietnam and Iraq were "different" and somehow more just because we had been invaded.

Here is FDR's speech a year before the war. He was facing a lot of pressure from Republicans to refrain from involvment in the war. He was CLEARLY expressing views to the contrary in this speech and he clearly knew that an attack would happen eventually. Notice though, how often he uses the word economic interests and notice that he felt that this evil menace was spreading and he wanted to get the US involved before that menace coaleaced into a force strong enough to harm us. I think this is what the middle east is like, a place that we have let smoulder in their hatred of America. If we did not act, the I do believe that we would be over here, and not over there, when (not if, but when) the whole region would have been thrown into choas by Saddam's fall, the Fall of the Saudis or something else. Iraq was the easier target, and probably not as much THE TARGET as our positioning ourselves so that we could prevent more calamity from the region. Egypt is reforming, Libya is reforming, Saudi is reforming, Bahrain has a free trade agreement now, and Jordan is reforming. The problems are still there, but the only real hold outs now are Iran and Syria. There are no easy answers there, but being in the middle of the two of them, should we be able to stabalize things, is exactly where I think we should be. But please do read the following excerpt from FDR's speech and just insert "radical Islam" for enemy and/or Nazis.

The Nazi masters of Germany have made it clear that they intend not only
to dominate all life and thought in their own country, but also to
enslave the whole of Europe, and then to use the resources of Europe to
dominate the rest of the world.

It was only three weeks ago their leader stated this: "There are two
worlds that stand opposed to each other." And then in defiant reply to
his opponents, he said this: "Others are correct when they

Page 74

say: With this world we cannot ever reconcile ourselves. . . . I can
beat any other power in the world." So said the leader of the Nazis.

In other words, the Axis not merely admits but proclaims that there can
be no ultimate peace between their philosophy of government and our
philosophy of government.

In view of the nature of this undeniable threat, it can be asserted,
properly and categorically, that the United States has no right or
reason to encourage talk of peace, until the day shall come when there
is a clear intention on the part of the aggressor nations to abandon all
thought of dominating or conquering the world.

At this moment, the forces of the states that are leagued against all
peoples who live in freedom, are being held away from our shores. The
Germans and the Italians are being blocked on the other side of the
Atlantic by the British, and by the Greeks, and by thousands of soldiers
and sailors who were able to escape from subjugated countries. In Asia,
the Japanese are being engaged by the Chinese nation in another great
defense.

In the Pacific Ocean is our fleet.

Some of our people like to believe that wars in Europe and in Asia are
of no concern to us. But it is a matter of most vital concern to us that
European and Asiatic war-makers should not gain control of the oceans
which lead to this hemisphere.

One hundred and seventeen years ago the Monroe Doctrine was conceived by
our Government as a measure of defense in the face of a threat against
this hemisphere by an alliance in Continental Europe. Thereafter, we
stood on guard in the Atlantic, with the British as neighbors. There was
no treaty. There was no "Unwritten agreement."

And yet, there was the feeling, proven correct by history, that we as
neighbors could settle any dispute in peaceful fashion. The fact is that
during the whole of this time the Western Hemisphere has remained free
from aggression from Europe or from Asia.

Does anyone seriously believe that we need to fear attack anywhere in
the Americas while a free Britain remains our most powerful naval
neighbor in the Atlantic? Does anyone seriously believe, on the other
hand. That we could rest easy if the Axis powers were our neighbors
there?

If Great Britain goes down, the Axis powers will control the continents
of Europe, Asia, Africa, Australasia, and the high seas-and they will be
in a position to bring enormous military and naval resources against
this hemisphere. It is no exaggeration to say that all of us, in all the
Americas, would be living at the point of a gun-a gun loaded with
explosive bullets, economic as well as military.

We should enter upon a new and terrible era in which the whole world,
our hemisphere included, would be run by threats of brute of force. To
survive in such a world, we would have to convert ourselves permanently
into a militaristic power on the basis of war economy.

Some of us like to believe that even if Great Britain falls, we are
still safe, because of the broad expanse of the Atlantic and of the
Pacific. But the width of those oceans is not what it was in the days of
clipper ships.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/7-2-188/188-21.html

Listen Winston, I'm NOT saying that you are wrong about what is taught in history books. Yes, Japan attacked, and yes Hitler had a compact with Japan, but that does not mean they had the ability to fight us here ON OUR SOIL. I'm saying that other people make the argument quite well that we should ONLY have responded to Japan. The reasoning is that talk is talk and declaring war means nothing if your not able to do anything to carry your war through.

I disagree with this point of view but am making the argument because some use the crtieria that the only war to fight is one where your nation has been attacked. Now, some guy in a cave in Afghanistan declared war on us too, and so has Iran, and so did Saddam. Not in the old fashioned way (we don't do that anymore either) but in the modern way.

Wars are not going to be fought like they were in 1941 with one standing army and government declaring war in some formal ceremony. Any declaration of war, can be a paper tiger, or it can be real. When some declare war we take them seriously ONLY because they did it formally? But when some guy in a cave that has millions of followers not in uniform and not in one country declare war we ignore it because it is not an *offical* albeit governmental decree? With Saddam, the guy was at war with the US. He broke his cease fire, and we ignored it for a decade. He was of great concern to the Clinton administration too and I believe Clinton would have gone after Saddam eventually as well...especially after 911, NOT because Saddam was totally involved in terrorism but because he was at war with us and he continually attacked the US. Overthrowing Saddam has done a lot of good for that region and IF we can stabalize that nation, we will be able to prevent more wars in the future.