I am one of Winston Smith's students, and this is an assignment I need to complete in order to graduate this June. I would appreciate any commentary you might wish to make about the subject below. From your opinions I will write a critical analysis; it will be published on 2/18/05.



Thank you for your participation in this project.

I have a slightly different take on the underlying premise of what creates societal acceptance of a draft, but my opinion on the secular belief against a particular war is that it shouldn't provide CO status.

If you look at the draft riots during the Civil War it's clear that the acceptability was lost because some people could buy their way out, it has to be seen as an equally shared risk AND as defending against a shared threat. WWI and WWII met the criteria, overall people had no trouble with a draft. Korea complied regarding risk but not regarding how universally the perception of threat was accepted, some resistance. VietNam started out meeting both criteria (early on our force there was small and a negligible factor in the size of the draft) but ended up failing on both counts, resistance was widespread and quite open.

Regarding CO status, war is a very serious thing, so is the need to be able to raise a defense force when needed, there can't be a cheap out that recognizes both of those factors. If a war is justified why harm the ability to draft (many would use this out)? If a war is unjustified actions that can be portrayed as cowardice do nothing to stop the war, courage tends not to be present when there's an easy out. Also if everyone figures they can personally avoid the draft they don't care if one is implemented and other people are killed in their place.

I wrestled with a similar question more than 30 years ago. I knew our involvement in VietNam was corrupt and unjustifiable (things I knew from people who'd served there), at that time we all had to decide both what we'd do about our beliefs and how we'd react regarding the draft. I chose to help people get to Canada ( better they leave than fail their brothers under fire and cost more lives), it was my due if I got drafted to be assisted in that myself. My answer was I would go to prison, if anything happened I didn't want the government to be able to portray it as self serving or cowardice. Thankfully it didn't come down to that.

If we are under the assumption that a draft was in place, my answer to this would be no. By allowing people to avoid the draft on secular belief totally defeats the purpose of a draft. How can you separate true "moral" reasons from other issues? It would set a dangerous precedent. And how does one determine true moral reasons? We all agree that Nazism was worth fighting against. But during the Civil War many fought against fighting to free slaves. Yet history proved them wrong.

No matter what conflict America gets involved in, there are those who will object for a whole host of reasons. We could be nuked by some foreign power and someone in this country would be against us for fighting back. Thats never going to change. There are a whole host of functions within the military that don't require people to engage in combat. They can be medical personel, maintenance people, cooks, work in the supply train, etc...

1st lets look at the USC and the separation of Church and State.
Based on the summation above, only those that believe in something such as
religion can object. Purely, that is not true, even the atheist believes in something.
It may not be G-d, it may not be nature. But the morality of a war is a common
misnomer. War is immoral. So the thought of morals make all wars immoral.

That being said, all the wars the United States was involved in since World War II
have been an effort in global dominance. Whether by instilling so called Democracy
or Republics around the world to fit the ultra-richs plan to make all slaves to money.
Economies have been built around fictious paper, nothing backing up the paper but
people sitting in backrooms manipulating world markets to fit their goal.

Looking at drafts and why they are needed is a different question. A all volunteer
military works when there is no preception of war or acts of war. In the heat of battle no one but the few, the proud will volunteer. Those with deep patriotic blinders on.
Most insurrections or wars since World War II have been started by rich, white ,
upper class Republicans who swerved there way out of any harm. Sure they may
have served here in the states doing some task, but very , very few actually found
there souls in harms way.

So yes a draft, again started based rumors is in the works. The active military and reserves are not enough to continue the 8 years left in Iraq. On the agenda (remember when Bush /Rice/Rumsfeld say something is not true=TRUE) i s Iran.
Many of the events about to unfold in world order can be seen on TV. The West Wing
gets plots (tin hat on) from the soothsayers in Washington. Things get leaked in
ways no trace back to the WH can be proven.

Your final question, can a person object based on there own personal beliefs?
If they rap it in religion, yes. There own opinion, no. Unfortuantely, the USC
cuts both way in separation of Church and State. Look at what different religions
Muslim, Christian, Judaism, Buddhhist, Moonie , etc...... do in the name of religion
or beliefs. Thread on those as immoral, illegal or morally bereft and you get
tens of thousands screaming the USC protects that.

But get 5 people saying I object and you sit in Leavenworth.

Gmanders,
I think some of these statements are incredibly broad. Are you saying Korea was a Republican plot? What about Kosovo? And what do you mean by fictious paper? As far as avoiding the draft, that was not limited in any way to Republicans- Bill Clinton did a good job of beating the system.

I feel I need to reply to this posting since it totally has some revisionist history in it. And I don't want that to infiltrate any paper that may include discussion from this thread. First, all wars that the US has been involved in has not been for global dominance. That simpl not true. Korea was not for global dominanc, Bosnia, was not for global dominance. And while the first Gulf War may be argued to that point, the VAST majority of the world agreed military should be taken and they participated. Remember these same people scream that our coalition isn't large enough and when it is its for "Global Dominance". Secondly, their have been 4 major US conflict since WWII. Gmanders claims that the majority of these have been started by rich white republicans who didn't serve in the military. So lets really look closer at who was in command during the 4 major conflicts.

1. Korea - Truman. Rich, no. White, yes. Republican, no. Servied in military, yes.
2. Vietnam - Kennedy. Rich, yes. White, yes. Republican, no. Served in military,
yes.
First Gulf War - Bush Sr. Rich, yes. White, yes. Republican, yes. Served in military, yes.
Second Gulf War - Bush(son). Rich, yes. White, yes. Republican yes. Served in military, yes.

These are the facts, they are indisputable. Its popular in Democratic circles to call Republicans war hawks, but in the 20th century no party had been in control when American blood has been shed than the Dmeocrats. Don't let mumbo jumbo from the left cloud the debate. Having an opinion about something is fine but trying to back it up with made it history is just nonsense.

While it could be argued that Vietnam started with Eisnehower, there is no question that it was taken over by JFK. Even still, the formula of white, rich, etc is still applicable.

And GOP, for the first time since you and I have been on the same thread, I agree with you 100% on this one. It would be revisionist to reframe these wars since WWII as attempts of global hegemony. And I had made my last post, above, before I saw yours- and we both came to similar conclusions.

GOPGuy,

VietNam I'd disagree with you on, depending on where you draw the line our involvement either started with Eisenhower or LBJ (I personally see it as the latter). JFK really didn't change the role or number of advisors by any different criteria than were used under Eisenhower (there was a bump in number and a change from training to combat advisors but at the time it was mentioned the contingencies had been in place since 58 by my recollection, I think it was in Life). LBJ radically changed both role and troop level, he made it a real war.

gopguy- be my guest and be the first one to sign up and go serve.
Have fun in Iran. Send postcards every once in a while.

Candidates 2008-
Al Gore -served
John Kerry-served
Hillary-woman not elegible

Rudy-did not serve
Cheney-had better things to do
Bush-did not serve
Jeb-didnot serve
Santorum-did not serve
Frist-had better fish to fry and cats to kill
McCain-served

W-AWOL and drunk

Why do people always bring Clinton up? He is old news

and don't forget then to give the great LBJ his fair due-

He and he alone got the civil rights/voting rights act passed. It was 100 percent his
JFKennedy did not care about this, and would not have done it.
It is probably the #1 best thing done in America the last 40 years by any President

#2 would be Jimmy Carter's peace in the middle east bet. Israel and Egypt, which is still going on

There should be no draft resumed for another illegal war to answer the posers original question (wish I had the internet to help write my papers back when I was in school. If we did something like this, it would be called cheating).

Right! And it was LBJ who reinstituted the draft! So a lot of guys voted with their feet by going up to Canada (or off to Oxford). It took a long time for the guys who did that to be acknowledged for the men they were- not as cowards. Assuming the draft is coming back, how do you think the ones who opt to vote with their feet will be perceived? I know that, if I had boys of draft age, they'd be on the first plane north. I would not object if they actually joined the military- it is an honorable profession- but I could not stand by and allow them to be put in harm's way by a corrupt administration such as this one.

But he's still news! Personally, I think what he did was great- he found a way to beat a corrupt system by essentially thumbing his nose at it. He still managed to get elected C in C and handled his command of Kosovo/Bosnia much better than has the Chimp in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why don't we ask George Bush that question. George Bush presented this war as a war of morality, many seem to think his intentions were more in line with war profiteering (treason).

Check yourself on LBJ and reinstituting the draft. You can believe that is one thing for which he bears no blame. The draft was continuous from WW2 through the Viet Nam War.

Part of LBJ's 'fair due' is that he allowed Vietnam to overwhelm The Great Society; that, along with the 60,000 men and women who died there, was the true tragedy of that war.

Yes, the internet does change things; today we just call it a lesson plan!

The perception of those who go to Canada will depend both on the perception of the war and the professionalism of any groups assisting them. As it stands the first factor tells me their image will be poor, some people have to refuse and be put in prison first, otherwise it's taking the easy out instead of having two unacceptable options. This isn't fair, but it IS reality. The second factor is subtler, we had an unbreakable code not to reveal the few identities we knew and to immediately report anything that could endanger our troops. If it's an "underground railroad" like the one a few years back where they gave TV interviews the image will be quite negative, even for their passengers, no matter what they have to say. We were known to be committed to protecting our troops and this prevented rumors that become "common knowledge" that would have put us and our passengers in a very poor light. People tend not to get down on disagreement that carries risk as long as they know you aren't undermining the people at risk taking the opposite position and still love our country.

I would even cede the argument that it was LBJ if you like. I do know it was Kennedys cabinet(i.e McNamara and company) that were basing results in Vietnam on body count, which isn't the proper way to judge how a war is progressing to the good or the bad. But debating the specifics of Vietnam etc is a debate for another thread probably.

Point taken; I intentionally did not use the term 'reinstated' because it was never disbanded. But it was reinstituted- used again as a major institution to create a force of arms- by LBJ. Men always had to register when they got out of high school, but few (including Elvis) were actually drafted and it was relatively easy to avoid. It certainly was not a factor in the decade before the Vietnam Era.

Here is an excellent piece by William Pitt:

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/2/8/153945/0455

I think you will get quite a bit out of it.

And I concede the point about the cabinet and the body count.

Everyone to Blame, No One at Fault
By WilliamPitt,

100,000 Iraqis are dead, but we don't hear about it. We creep towards 2,000 American soldiers dead, but we don't hear about it. Tens of thousands of American soldiers have been horribly wounded, but we don't hear about it. The war has so destabilized our economy that the foreign governments we need to buy our debt are flocking to the Euro instead of the sinking dollar, but we don't hear about it. The Sunni city of Fallujah is a graveyard, a tableau of war crimes writ large, but we don't hear about it. There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we don't hear about it. The new Iraqi government is about to become a Shi'ite fundamentalist regime that will likely ally itself with Iran, but we don't hear about it.



Media :: Tue Feb 8th, 2005 at 03:39:45 PM PST :: ::

When did it start? Was it when Judy Miller of the New York Times bought the hooey being sold by Ahmad Chalabi about Iraqi WMD? The Times is the flagship of American journalism; if they say it, everyone else feels safe in repeating it. When Miller caried Chalabi's water (and by proxy Rumsfeld et al.'s water) into the national dialogue, the idea that Iraq had WMD practically falling out of the sky became some indisputable truth.

Did it begin with the relentless bombardment by the Bush administration? Recall that these were the people who said things like this:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

- Dick Cheney, Vice President
Speech to VFW National Convention
8/26/2002

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."

- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
12/2/2002

"I am absolutely convinced, based on the information that's been given to me, that the weapon of mass destruction which can kill more people than an atomic bomb -- that is, biological weapons -- is in the hands of the leadership of Iraq."

- Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
MSNBC Interview
1/10/2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

- George W. Bush, President
Address to the Nation
3/17/2003

(This priceless chunk of doublethink below is my favorite)

"I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are."

- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
7/9/2003

Combine the Judy Miller salvo with these statements, repeated ad nauseam for two years, and the groundswell became unstoppable, especially since the mainstream news media didn't bother to try to refute them.

That is the biggest problem we have right now with this Iraq war. The news media blew it completely. I'm not talking about Fox or the General Electric-owned NBC affiliates, whose allegiances are as plain as day. Everyone else besides those administration partisans bought the whole story completely, and failed utterly to expose the lies behind the war. The alternative media railed about these lies day after day, but because we are not on television, our facts didn't get through.

The poison pill here is obvious. The mainstream media is now totally invested in maintaining the Bush administration fantasy that Iraq is going to be a success story. They have to be, because if Iraq is exposed as the disaster it is, the media will own a great deal of the blame. One thing these mainstream fellows are no good at is self-criticism. Note the wild cheerleading that led up to the recent election. They needed to paint that election as a victory, because failure would expose our modern journalistic institutions as the sadly depleted bastions of hackdom they have become.

100,000 Iraqis are dead, but we don't hear about it. We creep towards 2,000 American soldiers dead, but we don't hear about it. Tens of thousands of American soldiers have been horribly wounded, but we don't hear about it. The war has so destabilized our economy that the foreign governments we need to buy our debt are flocking to the Euro instead of the sinking dollar, but we don't hear about it. The Sunni city of Fallujah is a graveyard, a tableau of war crimes writ large, but we don't hear about it. There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we don't hear about it. The new Iraqi government is about to become a Shi'ite fundamentalist regime that will likely ally itself with Iran, but we don't hear about it.

We don't hear about it because the media can't bring itself to tell us about it. To do so would be to admit, out loud and before the world, that they failed to do their jobs. They all failed, collectively. They are all to blame, which means none of them are at fault.

Anyone with a brain in their head and a gun handy would do well to go home tonight and put a bullet through their television. Lacking a gun, a baseball bat will do the trick.

I would just like to point out that the above article is HEAVILY slanted to the left perspective. I can grab quotes from Clinton and Kerry stating they believed Saddam had WMD late in clinton's second term. I can't recall any world government or the UN itself denying that Iraq had WMD. There is no balance to this article. Not to mention the fact that the charge that the mainstream media is in cohoots with the admin on making Iraq a success. Almost all we ever hear about Iraq in the news is bad. We rarely hear about the good stuff that is going on.

Our Constitution calls for separation of church and state; therefore, a person's religious views supercedes the call for his government to act against those beliefs. For example, a Catholic believes that killing another person is a mortal sin that will send him to hell. The government cannot ask that Catholic to do something that would cause him to believe he is going to hell. But if you're not a religious person, then asking you to kill is not a violation of your religion; therefore not a violation of your freedom of religion first amendment rights -- because you aren't going against a religion that you don't have!

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. There are plenty of military jobs that do not require one to kill on a daily basis even during war. Clerks, cooks,medics, supply and other types of support troops. If a person truly does not believe in killing even in defense of our country or of their own life then they can volunteer for that type of service. Korea did not meet the criteria for a "just war". Nor did Vietnam. Nor does Iraq. No one should be forced to participate. If those who voted for this administration in support of the war believe their own rhetoric, then they should be lining up to volunteer. After Pearl Harbor men were rushing to enlist in any branch of service, many of them no more than 15 or 16 years old. That is patriotism.
One final thought. I am fairly certain the draft was in place from WWII through Vietnam. Not that LBJ should be considered any less liable for all my brothers who died or were wounded there.

No question about that at all- and it's about time. What Clinton said has nothing to do with whay Bush said about going to war. Clinton did not invade Iraq, Bush did. Well documented liars like O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, et al so distort the truth that there is no view from the center- it all becomes left of The Right. As evidence of just how big a lie can be, you might want to visit PNAC asks Congress to reinstate the draft and recall Dubya's promise during the debates. Kinda like his lying father in "Read my lips..."

As far as the good stuff going on- yes we do hear about it. I've heard about medics taking care of children maimed by one side or the other; of soldiers assisting in the rebuilding of schools blown up by one side or the other. See the theme here? One side or the other... even the best news comes from below zero.

I have to disagree with you. I don't believe that a person has to be a religious person to believe that killing is wrong. Most wars have been fought BECAUSE of religion, so why should religious people be able to instigate war and expect others to fight for them? As I said above, there are plenty of other jobs in the military besides killing. They can be clerks, medics, cooks, etc. When they find themselves in a kill or be killed situation they can decide how they feel about it.

Sandra:

In the case of a Quaker, this is believable but in the case of a Catholic using the excuse, but how could you reconcile holy wars and other killing supported by the Catholic church in line with the killing is mortal sin for Catholics therefor a Catholic should be able to be a CO? How can you prove/disprove the sincerity of someone's religious beliefs? Most people wouldn't consider me "devout" or "religious" because I don't go to shul every Friday/Saturday, keep kosher or live my life in accordance to some interpretations of halacha and yet, I have very deeply held (and very Jewish) religious convictions. I know people who consider themselves devout/religious who, for all appearances, seem that way and yet they do all sorts of things specifically proscribed as major sins by their religions. Also, is it just to lend more credence to one's moral convictions because they are based on an organized religion than one does to the same moral convictions dictated purely by one's conscience instead of a religious dictate?

No, I am saying that these are the thoughts that people have.

what about kosovo? what was it ? nothing!

So lets say white rich boys beat the system.

OK I just re wrote your statement into what is being done in schools today

Republicans love to bash Clinton

I love Clinton, wish he could served 8 more years

I bet their are thousands of dead Serb soldiers that would argue that point. Just because no Americans died in the successful prosecution of that war does not mean it was nothing.

And yes, I can agree with you about rich white boys- like Cheney, they have better things to do that serve our country.

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.

I personally now think this war was a mistake, but I could not claim that I have a deep, profoundly moral objection to this war, so I would not allow someone with a similar belief as mine to avoid the draft. But someone who thought that we had no business starting a preemptive war and who felt deeply about this and could show some evidence of this profundity would be different, I would grant them CO status.

CO status by definition cannot be bestowed upon someone who disapproves of "this war." You've got to have demonstrable proof that you're against all war.

Individual soldiers don't get to pick and choose which wars we think are good and which are bad - we have civilian control of the military, and soldiers do NOT make national policy.

But civilians do get to pick and chose which wars they want to fight. Immediately after 9/11 there was a rush to enlist- unfortunately those men and women got suckerpunched into Iraq- and now enlistments are down to dangerously low levels. Again, civilians are voting with their feet- they're not enlisting in something they cannot condone. And now Cheney and Rumsfeld, through their surrogate PNAC, are hoisting the Draft up the pole like a flag to see how many neocon's in Congress salute.

Remember, these guys think in Doublethink. They forget what they said as soon as it contradicts what they want today, and if someone call them on it, they pull a Condi: how dare you impune my integrity. Since the press is also in their pocket, the spin goes against the inquisitor, not the liar. It is classic- and I mean almost paragraph by paragraph classic- 1984.

Don't believe me- look here!

First of all, I must disagree that the PNAC letter calls for a draft!! For the thousanth time! It asks that troop strength be increased 25k per year and Kerry asked for much the same thing. This is against Rummy's idea of running things on the cheap and I am in favor of it for sure!

About the draft. Personally, as a vet even, I say yes. However, the military disagree's with me and I understand why they do. My husband the historian is just crazy about listening to WWII broadcasting before bed and you know you really do learn a lot of interesting things so I can't complain. During the day, at work, I've taken to listening to WWII station and Swing on the radio to avoid "elevator music" and give the room some "pep". It's amazing how this country was back then! There was a draft in WWI (I know because one of my farming ancestors tried to get out of it and I have his card, but he didn't)... and there was a draft during WWII and then onward to 1971-72...continuously!!! So, we fought the Korean war, and Vietnam with it too. But now I think that we are too divided, too soft, and too selfish to have a draft. We have a new American gestalt, and that is "go shopping" instead.

I wish that we had a national service requirement of two years like many countries. This way, you could choose to do something peaceful or work in inner cities and things like that. If you wanted, you could be a border patrol, or go overseas and build schools, or enter a new American peacekeeping unit kind of like civil affairs. You could also join the military. That would pay more, and have a lot more perks, but it would still be a choice.

There are no sacrifices being made by much of the population these days. It's starting to effect all of our schools, and our international competetiveness. We simply want a lot of things, and we have no idea how others in the world live. It's not a bad thing to live well, and I want the US to continue to live well and be the best because I'm rooting for us after all...but we also have to be a bit more humble and a bit more outraged about the way that other people live and find out more about why? We can't fix it when every twobit dictator steals his country blind, but we can focus on it. We CAN see it on our tv screens at least! But we don't really care, and we don't really even want to know; because then we might have to act, and we would rather worry about other things. I have been to these far off places; and that's in large part why I care what happens there. If more Americans WENT SOMEWHERE other than the US they might begin to realize how great it is here and how proud we ought to be. They also might be more inclined to give, more inclined to care, and more determined not to let the tyrants of the world commit mass murder while we play with our all of our new shiny toys.

Maybe then, if there was at least "Basic Training' followed by your choice of service, we would also care more when the government is going to take us to war. It would not be someone elses kid, but everyone's kids. This would mean we are either going it together as a country, or we are going to put up quite a ruckus if we are not in agreement.

I know that for me, like many others of my generation, John F. Kennedy lit a spark of patriotism with his "Ask not what your country can do for you, rather, what you can do for your country". At that time our country had made great strides. In less than 200 years we had grown from pratically a few villages into the most powerful nation on earth. We were the most free of all countries and we still seemed to have a collective conscience. Freedom and justice for all. Nixon started us down this road we are on now. Deceit. Lies. Trickery. Greed. Disregard for others. Our government has destroyed our capacity to believe in it, in ourselves, in America. I truly believe that if we faced the kind of danger we faced in 1941 that most Americans would gladly step up to the plate. Our government has shown us that we cannot trust them. We volunteer to fight for our country and neo-cons manage to twist it to mean fight for THEIR agenda of one world government. I would never let any of my grandchildren enter the military because they will very likely be sent to die in some god-forsaken land so Halliburton can get even richer. Our government has poisened the well of patriotism and we can never go back to those days when we trusted.
God help us all.

I was against the Iraq War from the beginning, as I was against the first Gulf War. In my opinion, the reasons given by our government for both conflicts were false. I think in both cases we were trying to gain control of a region that is the world's richest source of oil. We did this for reasons of short and long-term profits for U.S. and British oil companies and in order to achieve strategic advantage to other nations. Creating "democracies" or establishing governments favorable to the United States is a front for the economic motive of furthering global capitalism.

To some people, going to war to ensure the U.S. has a secure supply of energy and to maintain our superpower status over other nations are good reasons for war. To me, those are not the right reasons to be killing people, if there are such reasons!

Therefore, when I first read your essay, I was very sympathetic to your feelings of questioning if it's right to fight in an unjust war. I would not want to go to Iraq and fight those people, knowing that what we are doing is deceptive and immoral, and that I might get killed doing so!

And, then I read this paragraph by tomhye. Everything he says here is valid. And the reason it is valid is because a draft is democratic. Yes, there are people who have avoided the draft through various means. But a draft affects all levels of society, not just those who tend to join the military because of economic reasons or as a way to get ahead in life. A draft brings things home in a way that an all-volunteer military does not. "After all," we say, "they chose to enlist."

In this way, a draft makes people pay attention. During the Vietnam War, there were a lot of angry people who took to the streets to protest, and this had an impact on the length and the conduct of the war. So, in my opinion, a draft at this time might actually be a good thing. I know I may sound callous, as I am too old to be drafted and I don't have children who could be. But, I think this is what Charles Rangel and others were talking about when they proposed initiating a draft for Iraq. It would ease the burden on minorities and economically disadvantaged young people. It also would bring it home to people what was going on there and it might serve to end the conflict sooner or prevent it from enlarging.

In my opinion, all war is evil and a waste. There is so much destruction both in human life and in the environment. Whole cities have been blown apart. Whole peoples have been wiped out. Plus, the cost in sheer dollars and cents is sickening. Nowadays, we're talking billions of dollars and cents.

To sincerely object to the whole concept of war is a highly principled thing, but I think it needs to be applied across the board, no matter what the conflict is.

You should rent the movie "Friendly Persuasion." It's older - 1956. It's about a pacifist Quaker family during the Civil War.

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.

AMEN!! If we had more peacecorp things going on, and we really worried about human rights around the world, we would be "sacrificing" ahead of time to ensure wars were not fought. Nations that trade with one another, host conferences together, and try to build a better world economically and politically for all nations now, will save a lot of potential wars from occuring. This doesn't mean we take responsibility for the world's population, but you have to show people how to read, write, use a computer and GET a computer. You have to teach poor nations how to improve their lives and circustances and you have to be able to find ways to contribute or assist that goes directly to people, rather than foreign aid managed by dictators such that the people never see any benefit.

We agree! Wonderful. Maybe the brotherly/sisterly love thing is spreading. (Check out the thread on getting down to 50 members - started by tomhye.)

To really do an objective paper, you might want to also check out some conservative web sites. And I would recommend this site for CO information:

http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/CtC/co-info.html

You use the word fair in your thesis question. Fair can be a very subjective word.
IMHO, at least in theory, the nation might be better served if an individual could freely decide
whether to participate in a war or not. Certainly this would make it less likely that one man
could wage a war and raise an army by way of a draft.

(I will let others run with this theory, which will incite many and which has endless possibilities)

BTW- life is not fair. War is not fair. And death in war is certainly not fair.


(BTW, the Supreme Court has ruled that women may be excluded from conscription)

Cheap ?

At this moment, the 2003 war in Iraq cost $153,727,092,418 and counting.
http://costofwar.com/

It's anything but cheap.

But maybe you weren't talking in dollars, but in body count.

+2000 US killed, +15000 US wounded
+100000 iraqis killed

Cheap ?

The truth is the money doesn't go to the troops to help them complete a mission because they are not given an absolute or measurable goal to meet , other but to enforce US presence in Iraq to control the oil.

The only winner in this deal is HAL and US oil companies.

How exactly was it so amazing ?

So we should have the draft only because we had it before ?

The perspective of choice for the common man is a lie. The National Guard was a choice for many americans who did not want to fight Wall Street's wars around the world but who believed it was worth getting some readiness to defend the homeland.
Not guarding Big Oil's prize in Iraq.

You gotta be smoking the same weed as Bushco.

It's the other way around. It is the sacrifice made by the population to pay for Bush's war that is having an effect on our schools.

It is Wall Street's greed for cheap short term profits which has sold US know-how to India and China and dismantled our economical infrastructure.

We lost our international competetiveness because we don't compete. We don't compete because Wall Street sold our infrastructure which could let us compete.

The official poverty rate in 2003 was 12.5 percent, up from 12.1 percent in 2002.
In 2003, 35.9 million people were in poverty, up 1.3 million from 2002.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03hi.html

Those people don't want a lot of things, because they can't even afford the basic things. So frankly, I doubt they have much concern how the poor in Bombay make it through every day, as much as the Bombay poor have for the US poor.

How about just caring for americans for a while ? ALL americans, instead of claiming they don't know sacrifice ?

That puts you in the 10% of americans who travelled abroad once in their life.
But you don't need to travel abroad to meet the 12.5% americans living in poverty.
Why do you care more of the poor/opressed abroad than of the poor/opressed in the US ?

Americans don't feel like going abroad because the US is where they live, and either they like home or they have no money to travel abroad.

We let Bush invade Iraq and murder +100'000 iraqis, steal US elections, wealth and values.

If we let a tyrant like Bush do all these things to our people and our country, what makes you think we know how to prevent other countries from meeting the same fate ?

Again, choice of service is a lie. You have no choice when you are poor and unemployed and when you are offered Haliburton spam to stay on the legal side of society.

You bet you are, after swallowing all those lies that got you there.


The dream of every tyrant.

Will Winston allow you to publish it here ? Would love to see what you come up with........

Come on, everyone. let's give this young man some more help!

Actually, civilians most certainly do NOT get to choose in which war to fight. Regarding such matters, civilians who wish to fight get exactly one meaningful choice - whether or not to join the military. Once in, you are subject to the same chain of command as is every other soldier.

Just as you couldn't say "I only want to fight the Nazis but not the Italians" upon enlistment in 1942, you don't get to pick and choose your deployments in 2005.

My answer is NO.

How could we ever separate those who truely do not believe in this war, and those who would claim they dont believe to keep from being drafted?

Same goes for the religious side, I could easily claim my religion prevents me from fighting in a war, but our different religions prevent us from doing other things that we do on a daily, weekly, monthy or yearly bases. What makes war any different then our other beliefs that we break constantly? We can not pick and choose what we believe and dont believe is religiously wrong or right. If we do not believe in war then we should also not break any of our other religious beliefs regardless of how trivial some of them may seem.

Thier is always a cost to freedom, sometimes that cost is more then we want to pay, and being drafted is apart of the cost we sometimes have to pay to live in the United States. No one is any better then any soldier that is in Iraq now fighting for thier lives. The war is already happening, so now our our goal should not be saying wether it is right or wrong, but to make sure that we dont lose any more american lives then neccessary. If our men get depleted enough to cause a draft, what are we suppose to do? Leave our soldiers over there like sitting ducks because they are outnumbered? Bring them home, and then leave the Iraqi's that believe in us like sitting ducks, and let the soldiers who have already died, die in vain, at least give them the respect of finishing what they.. however wrong it was ..died for.

A draft is a horrible cost, but sometimes a neccessary one to protect the soldiers we already have in war.

And anyone that is sent to the line, but because of his/her religious or moral beliefs does not perform to the best of thier ability is worthless, how could anyone regardless of beliefs put thier fellow soldiers at risk because of thier own selfishness of thier own life? They may not believe in the war, but they should believe in the lives of the men/woman they are serving with! Those same men and woman would die for them, so why should they expect any less?

I dont condone this war, but if a draft were neccessary I would support it because I dont want one american life to not matter, and I would have no use for anyone that avoided it illegally.

In the process of a draft, there's a catch 22 that takes place that the govt became aware of during the Vietnam War. They drafted the cream of the crop of young men USA. They made a new and better fighting machine... one that was smarter than ever before. (This was proven in 1969). The fighting soldier in the field became a multi task soldier... and one who made a much faster 'on the spot' decisions than the regular run of the mill soldier. Do not take that statement wrong, for I am not discrediting all soldiers of any war, but statistically, during the last years of the Vietnam war, the IQ level of soldiers increased.. thus making them a more decisive and multi task soldier in the field. Hence the rank 'specialist'.

Vietnam ('68-'69) began introducing draftees into what was then known as a politically lost war who were intelligent warriors that quickly discovered it being as such. Troops were much more aware of the circumstances and 'figured' out what was going on. Therefore, in many instances, there were more accounts of insubordinant actions. Troops was aware of military laws and rights. Troops saw through the continuous taking of 'the hill' and giving it back to the enemy only to retake it over and over, and dying for it. Troops deciphered what was coming ahead and figure ways of getting around it, which usually went outside original orders given. Troops created additional ways and means to survive the 'system'. In my opinion, draftees goes into war with more awarness for survival. Conditions of war does that to many who experience it, especially when it's bases on lies and other 'alternatives'.

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.

Hypocrisy.
If you dear so much those iraqis who believe in us, as you put it, bring them home along.



GAMBLERS ANONYMOUS is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from a gambling problem.

Most of us have been unwilling to admit we were real problem gamblers. No one likes to think they are different from their fellows. Therefore, it is not surprising that our gambling careers have been characterized by countless vain attempts to prove we could gamble like other people. The idea that somehow, some day, we will control our gambling is the great obsession of every compulsive gambler. The persistence of this illusion is astonishing. Many pursue it into the gates of prison, insanity or death.

We learned we had to concede fully to our innermost selves that we are compulsive gamblers. This is the first step in our recovery. With reference to gambling, the delusion that we are like other people, or presently may be, has to be smashed. We have lost the ability to control our gambling. We know that no real compulsive gambler ever regains control. All of us felt at times we were regaining control, but such intervals - usually brief -were inevitably followed by still less control,which led in time to pitiful and incomprehensible demoralization. We are convinced that gamblers of our type are in the grip of a progressive illness. Over any considerable period of time we get worse, never better. Therefore, in order to lead normal happy lives, we try to practice to the best of our ability, certain principles in our daily affairs.

http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/


If soldiers can't protect themselves, take them out of harm's way.

No one owns you their life.
If you jump in a river in winter, you are a fool to expect those who don't know how to swim to jump after you.

Reading your rant about selfhisness of one's own life reminds me of a band of young, fresh, cocky marines who dream of heroic deeds in some far away land but find themselves proudly helpless when passing by the growing poor and homeless in their home town. How are our soldiers in Iraq contributing to protect and help these people at home today ?

Cowpie.

How would you know if a draft is necessary ? Because someone tells you ?
If american lives matter, bring them home.

Wasn't that what iraqis were told ?

Wasn't that what Hitler told germans in early 1945 ?

How does being american make anything different ?

Not sure exactly if you are rebuking my statement or adding to it.

But... I will respond this much with what I think you may be saying.

Iraqis are doing what they should be doing against any invader... they are resisting and fighting for their own country. Those Iraqis who have joined forces with BushForce only does so as they do in any country at war.. they seek American money for their own perosnal gaines and sometimes also shields them from harm in a certain pocketed area of protection... until later... that protection is no longer there and they too are usually killed, if not sooner, which is now going on in Iraq.

Hitler's agenda was to rid of the Jews and create his perfect society. He brainwashed many in his own society to follow this death march to overtake Europe and then the rest of the world. Sound familiar?

I'm really not sure what you meant about 'being American' for making anything different. If you are refering to BushCo, the GOP, Big Corp America, neocons, right wing religious nuts as being considered American today ... then yes, Hitler's movement is similar as BushCo's America. It's the BushCo neoconic Christians/Israelis vs Muslims and the 'have not' class in America. (I'm not sure if Israel sees this or not, being used as a Middle East pawn). That is BushCo's plans... to use the desperate class of Americans to fight and die along with the Muslims... which reduces their targeted global population for making their own 'special' society. This also helps to spread or stretch our 'dwindling' resources around in a 'smaller but special' demanding population in the near future.

BushCo is able to avoid the draft issue right now by making our economy weak and forcing many to join BushForce and the likes of govt employing Halliburtons overseas. BushCo is counting on a 'rally around the flag' effect with an Uncle Sam 'counts on you' spirited campaign as we invade Syria and later, clash with Iran disguising it to look like a planet wide effort prerequisite to WWIII. If BushCo does not aquire their 1-2 million troop level by '06 for these upcoming 'scrimmages', the draft will have to kick in as Iran will force such a larger call of troop levels. baiting new sugns ups into out military has already started, with the widening offers of education and now a $7,000 sign up bounty. ($7,000 may be in the re-up offerings only, I'm not sure).

Little does BushCo know that his plan will only be good for possibly 10 years (give or take a few years) as the extreme nuclear exchange/fallout will change the neocon's plans for their special society. Oh sure.. some will escape to their space stations and underground mansions... but the results will not be as favorable as they are unable to foresee.

Stop BushCo America and we may stop these final results. That involves bringing BushCo to true justice before the global community.

Please advise if I misunderstood the meaning(s) to your response.

Hipocrisy????
Dear the Iraqi's.. I dont indear anyone, but our president regardless of our wants made them a promise, and our soldiers are there to fufill that promise, to do anything else is to make the States look like we dont back our promises or stand behind what we say, we may not like it or support it, but it is what the world sees.

Imo.. we shouldnt of been over thier in the first place, but now that we are, we have to do what was promised or come up with another alternative besides yelling bring them home.



Your whole retoric that goes along with that comment does not apply in any way to this war in Iraq or our soldiers, our soldiers are not gambling, they had no choice, just as those who could be drafted have no choice, its not money they are putting on the line, its thier lives and equating that with gambling money away is about as farfetched as it gets.



Right... and bring them home, . Do you honestly expect soldiers to come home and forget all about thier buddies that died over there, or to forget why they went over there, do you truelly expect them to come home and just go on with thier lives and forget Iraq ever happened, especially if it does not get finished?? Take care of them.. they would be alot better took care of it US CITIZENS would quit calling them baby killers and spitting on them when they came home. So dont even bother saying bring them home, they get treated worse by some of thier own country men then by the ones they are supposedly over thier defending. They lay thier lives on the line for a war they dont belong in, and people like you say oh bring them home... like its some fairy tale wish, you can throw a little pixie dust and make it happen with no consequences.


If your a soldier then you owe every man on your team your life, you are trained to defend your whole unit not just yourself wether you are there willingly or not. Your comment reminds of those people who say bring them home, but then turn around and say if they get killed its thier own fault for being there in the first place.



There is nothing heroic of being a soldier, and in modern times most people who join up know that, the pay sucks, you could lose your life in a war you didnt want or believe in, and your own countrymen turn against you...you move from area to area. Where is the hero in all of that? But if you are a soldier and you by your own free will, let another soldier die then you are as guilty as any war criminal, and do not deserve to be considered human.



Oh are we laying that on thier hands also now days? When did they become responsible for the condition of our society in the US? Also im pretty sure some of those poor and destitute are probably some of the soldiers families, but we dont want to think about that... that we dont even take care of the soldiers families at home while they are fighting in Iraq.



If we were invaded Who would you want, someone who will fight for your life just because your an american, or someone because of thier so-called beliefs would let you die when they could of helped?




I did not say I thought it neccessary, at this moment in time we dont know if it will be neccessary, but as outspoken as our soldiers seem to be now days in Iraq, im pretty damn sure they will let us know real quick if they are feeling short handed. They managed to get thier message out about thier shortness of armour, im sure they can get any other message they want out also. Our soldiers are not mindless fools like some seem to think they are. They have a voice also, and they use it when they wish.

Your opinion really does not matter to me one way or the other, people like you see one view, and any other is wrong. My comments were meant for the poster of this topic, he wants opinions wether you believe in them or not, and it is up to him to make out of them what he wishes. We do not have to agree on this, and continued arguing between you and me will only take it off the students purpose and off his need for differing opinions, this is one subject where common ground does not have to be found.