Do you think the US military draft will resume?

[Eiger]

Do you think the US military draft will resume during your lifetime?



WASHINGTON - Most U.S. high-school students believe the government will restart the military draft during their lifetimes, and shrinking numbers are optimistic about the country's future, a new poll finds.

Among teenagers, 55 percent say young Americans will be required to serve in the military, up from 45 percent last year, according to "The State of Our Nation's Youth," an annual survey by the Horatio Alger Association.

During the year between polls — May 2003 to May 2004 — U.S. casualties mounted during attacks in Iraq even after President Bush declared on May 1, 2003, that major combat had ended.

Former President Nixon halted the draft in 1973. Pentagon leaders and numerous generals and admirals have said it should not be resumed because the volunteer military is more efficient. Critics including Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry have accused the Pentagon of engaging in a "backdoor draft" to compensate for manpower shortages in Iraq with wholesale mobilizations National Guard and Reserve units and other retention tactics.

In the poll, respondents were asked their views of a mandatory military service requirement of two years, and 70 percent of students were opposed.

Still, more young people than not said the United States was right to go to war in Iraq. The poll found 44 percent said the decision was correct, 33 percent said it was wrong, and the rest had no opinion or were unsure.

The students' outlook for the country was dimmer this year, but it remained relatively high, as 68 percent said they were hopeful. That was down from 75 percent last year.

More than two-thirds of students said they care who wins the presidential race, but two-thirds also said they have not closely followed news reporting about the race.

The Horatio Alger Association, which provides college scholarships to needy students, issued its report Tuesday. Results are based on a telephone poll of 1,007 students in grades nine to 12 at the time of the survey, taken May 5 to 7. The students ranged in age from 13 to 19, although most were 15 to 17. The survey has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

[Lord Chad]

I hope so becuase I dont want to see my brother around my house anymore!Lol jkjk and they will only draft if we invade iran.

[Danny5]

The only war I in which I can imagine a draft would be a conflict with China, possibly over Taiwan.

Thankfully the Chinese and American economies rely heavily upon each other, which acts as an extreme disuasion towards war. Neither country would want to face a depression.

Now, I'm talking about a military draft. Not mandatory military services similar to those employed in Switzerland and the various northern European countries. I think mandatory service is actually a decent idea, but that's probably grounds for another discussion.

[Andarcel]

No idea. Much to my shock, the NG and AR reenlistments are about up to par. Guess I'm in good company though, since the chief of the NG is also apparently quite surprised. If this keeps up and we don't do something that makes Iraqi Freedom look like a stroke of genius, we shouldn't need it.

I have some doubts whether this will keep up, though. I suspect stoploss, initially positive views of the war and progress in Iraq, and the fact that most NG/AR enlistment contracts run six to eight years have all conspired to postpone the exodus. Next year should tell, one way or another.

[Owmyeye]

As long as war is money, we'll probaly see one evry 10-15 years, so i think eventually we'll get in too deep and the military draft will start back up. And if it goes far enough i can see a non-military draft, although for that to happen i think the republicans would have to be in power, but then aren't the republicans always in power when we go to war? It would have to be pretty bad though for non-militant drafting to pass, due to whoever passes it won't be re-elected, so i think it would only come about if we were being invaded or something.

[SaroDarksbane]

GD . . .

THE DRAFT ISN'T COMING BACK!

Just because two democrats are pushing it to protest letting minorities sign up for service, doesn't mean it's right around the corner. Please guys, I've seen this on every forum I visit in the last couple days and it gets on my nerves, you know?

EDIT:

And if you mean "Will it EVER come back?" Well, I suppose if China decided to invade us or something . . .

[Havard]

Read the "Notice" part:

http://www.sss.gov/

[Bartleby]

I doubt we'll ever see a draft again, but if I had my way, I'd give a mandatory two year service a :thumbsup:

[Sage the Mage]

Yeah lets put this in the Microsoft purchasing Blizzard category.

[Antonidas]

I doubt we'll ever see a draft again, but if I had my way, I'd give a mandatory two year service a :thumbsup:

if u hadd tow do two year mandatory i wouldnt do it i would rebell and/or i would move out this country,but im already planing on moving out of this country someday

[Maullus]

Greetings,

if u hadd tow do two year mandatory i wouldnt do it i would rebell and/or i would move out this country,but im already planing on moving out of this country someday

This is exactly the sentiment that will prevent the reinstitution of the draft, barring a much larger scale conflict then anything anyone can currently imagine. (China...as was mentioned.)

One reason it won't be reinstated anytime soon is the sheer number of politicians that were either war protestors during the Vietnam era and are currently holding office, or the number of that era's children that are holding office.

Another reason, is that the sentiment expressed above is quite prevalent among the folks that would be subject to a draft. The government physically could not handle the number of draft dodgers a reinstated draft would create, nor could it handle the embarrassment having 60,000+ United States citizens refusing to serve in the armed forces. Can you imagine what a laughing stock America would be in the global community? Even France would laugh at us. (Just kidding.)

Bottom line: I don't see it happening any time soon.

[Graav Wolfsong]

I think the US needs mandatory service. Here in Norway all males age 18+ deemed fit for service are required to spend 12 months in the army. During those 12 months they are assigned specific duties and taught them as well as trained in basic combat. So incase of war, the government can simply draft previously trained men (and women). This way, people are already proficient at their duties so theres no need for any 3 month boot camps to prepare them. Maybe a refresher course would be in order but it still saves alot of time when the **** hits the fan.
So the Norwegian army may be relatively small but the majority of men can be called on to serve their country at a moments notice in case of war.

And, personally, I love this way of doing it. The year spent in the army (usually between highscool and college) is traditionally the time a boy becomes a man. They learn combat skills, experience some pretty hairy situations and are taught discipline and responsibility the hard way. After a year in the army, the 'real' world isnt as hard to handle anymore.

Sadly, my mandatory service sucked, I was on the rear supply company's water team. Essentially, what we did was keep things like artillery posts and headquarters well supplied with water. Very exciting work indeed. But someone has to do it, it just shouldnt have to be me. :)
I was lucky enough to get transferred to the Infantry the last 6 months tho', that was alot more interesting. It really turned me on to the military and I ended up choosing it as a career.


As for a draft in the US, I can see it happening if things go really sour with North Korea, the North Korean army is pretty badass.

[Bartleby]

if u hadd tow do two year mandatory i wouldnt do it i would rebell and/or i would move out this country,but im already planing on moving out of this country someday
...the country will sorely miss your illiterate contributions :thumbsup:

[Danny5]

if u hadd tow do two year mandatory i wouldnt do it i would rebell and/or i would move out this country,but im already planing on moving out of this country someday

If you don't want to contribute to our country then get the hell out. No worries, no one will miss you.

And, personally, I love this way of doing it. The year spent in the army (usually between highscool and college) is traditionally the time a boy becomes a man. They learn combat skills, experience some pretty hairy situations and are taught discipline and responsibility the hard way. After a year in the army, the 'real' world isnt as hard to handle anymore.

Exactly what I was thinking, well said Graav.

[ScytheNoire]

they should re-enable the draft, but only draft those who voted Republican or failed to vote even though they were able to vote.

after all, if people want to vote for Bush, than they can go die for him and his BS war.

[Father Jack]

I think the White House is just going to wreck the economy so bad that the only job that people will be able to obtain will be in the Military. With perpetual war everyone will be employed in the War Economy.

Also no one is going to mention the 'D' word in an election year, but wait and see if Bush gets a second term and the Neo-Cons push us into a war with Iran.

But as things stand now there is no need for a draft, but the armed services do need more men to continue at its current activity level. The Defence Dept. is practicing a 12 division global strategy with only 10 divisions.

One of the goals in Iraq was to demonstrate to the world (i.e. Iran, N. Korea, Lybia et.al.) the new rapid, modern capabilities of the US Military. Also to incorproate a restructuring of the armed forces. The Idea being that a rapid and decisive victory would demonstrate this and lead to the a Military that could accomplish more with less personel. However this has not happened.

There are stop gap mesures in place to prevent current soldiers form leaving the military, but they can not be held in place permenantly. Even so it has been hard to maintain current levels with recruitment falling off. Lots on IRR's have been called back to duty and National Guard Units have seen extended deployments.

Soldiers have to come from somewhere especially since the White House has been banging the drum against Iran. Military Action there would be hard to imagine with current force strength. I don't think that the US has very much good will left from the international community so a strong military coalition is not in the picture.

[Drakeon]

they should re-enable the draft, but only draft those who voted Republican or failed to vote even though they were able to vote.

after all, if people want to vote for Bush, than they can go die for him and his BS war.

Because "blackmailing" (Essentially) people to not vote one side is the sure way to make sure the peoples voice is heard.... >_>

Scythe, don't you live in Canada? I honestly can't see why a canadian would care so much about american politics, I know I don't care about canadian politics. You seem to hate republicans with a passion, but is there even a republican party in canada?

Just because I don't agree with the views of democrats doesn't mean I think all of them are evil and should be kicked out of office... >_>

[Pawn]

I'm sort of in the don't care veiwpoint, if there is a draft again then i'm taking an extended vacation and if there isnt... hell i still might move out, never liked this place anyway :P

[Blackmoon]

Here in Norway all males age 18+ deemed fit for service are required to spend 12 months in the army.There's a mandatory military service in my country as well. The minimum time for it is 6 months and you have an option for non-military service, which is a bit longer (they change it all the time, so not sure what it is atm).

Personally, if it wasn't mandatory, I'd never do it. All that discipline and such don't fit me. But as it stands now, my draft is only three weeks away. Yet my actual military service will take place two years from now, as I first need to finish my college.

But as for the original topic, no matter how hard I hate having to do military service, I still think it's a good thing. At least, for a little country like mine. But for US? I don't really see a reason to have mandatory service. Now, I don't know much about the politics in general and even less about politics of US (allthough during my time in these Off-topic Forums, I've learned more, that I ever wanted to know), but unless something drastic happens (like the allready mentioned war with China) I don't think it will happen.

Didn't vote anything though, as I consider myself as an outsider in these US-politic threads.

[Mastgrr]

"Go ahead, call me *** if I dont go to war.. After the war is done, I'll be the ****** with 2 legs thankyouverymuch!"
- Chris Rock

[Mad_Mat]

Heh. In my country there's a mandatory 3 year military service for men, and 2 years for women. If you're healthy, the only way to get out of combative units is to fake a physical/mental disability (or declare yourself ***), inwhich case you still serve, but not in combatant units. Recently a pacifist refused to signup for service when he turned 18, and (even after being offered roles that do not involve military combat or industry, such as working at a civillian hospital) eventually he was sentenced to 3 years in prison.

So for those of you who say they'd utterly refuse to draft for their countries' army, ask yourself this - Who will protect a country if not its citizens? You have no problem with your 'rights', but you have to give something back, and it doesn't end in paying taxes.

Imagine if the U.S started out like we did in Israel. A struggling young country, of which a third of the population are Naz1 death camps survivors, with a grand total of about 2 million citizens, surrounded by 4 enemy countries in the immediate border (and more in the general region). Who would defend this country, our people's only country, if not its people? Today things are better. With 2 of the bordering 4 countries we've signed a peace treaty. But we're still a country of 6 million, sustaining one of the most advanced military forces on the planet, simply to deter the hostile nations surrounding us. For us Iraq, Iran, isn't halfway around the globe. It's our back door.

Having a bigger country, with a better economy, and overall better lifestyle, is all the more reason to stick up for what's yours, because hey, you have a great country, and when the time comes (and hopefully it won't), no one's gonna protect it but you.

Sorry for going off topic, but I just had to let some of the spolied a$$holes here to see things in prespective.

[ScytheNoire]

Because "blackmailing" (Essentially) people to not vote one side is the sure way to make sure the peoples voice is heard.... >_>

Scythe, don't you live in Canada? I honestly can't see why a canadian would care so much about american politics, I know I don't care about canadian politics. You seem to hate republicans with a passion, but is there even a republican party in canada?

Just because I don't agree with the views of democrats doesn't mean I think all of them are evil and should be kicked out of office... >_>

why do i care?

well, first, go get out your map of North America, or use a web map service.
look for Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
look where i live.
yes, that's the city i live in SOUTH of Detroit, Michigan. yes, the river seperating Detroit and Windsor is only 1-mile.
there is NO WHERE in the world that has as busy or as open of a border as we have here in Windsor-Detroit. i guess you'd have to live here to understand it, but we have two cities here, in two countries, that are linked together in everything that happens.
so when things go bad in the USA, we are amongst the first places in Canada to feel the results of that.
plus we get to watch the terrorizing US nightly news.
ah, i do miss those Devil's Night fires, it was so entertaining. damn Detroit and cleaning up their act.

so that is why. the city i live in, and in fact my job at a customs broker, is directly linked to what happens in the USA.

[Graav Wolfsong]

Because "blackmailing" (Essentially) people to not vote one side is the sure way to make sure the peoples voice is heard....

Its actually not a bad idea.
Seems to me alot of people think something along these lines: "I think the war is a good thing but I would never waste my life fighting it, I'll leave that to someone else. I pay my taxes, I do my part, let someone else do the fighting on my behalf." All this talk about patriotism but no will to actually fight for their country. If you vote Bush and support the war, you have to back it up by fighting it. Its very easy to sit in the safety of your home and say the war is a good thing, its another thing to actually have to fight it. If people want the war, they should pull their weight by helping to fight it.
It'd be nice to see people have to back up their big talk with action.

I'd guarantee that there wouldnt be that many supporters of the war if the system was like that.


In my country there's a mandatory 3 year military service for men, and 2 years for women.

That seemed a little much to me at first, but considering the dangerous neighbours in the middle east its very understandable. I guess we'd have mandatory service that long as well in Norway if we didnt have peaceful allies around us and have NATO standing behind us like a posse shouting "Yeah!" and striking various gang poses. :lol:
We do border to Russia in the north tho', theres always been quite a bit of security around there. Yet somehow the Russian hookers always manage to cross the border. :scratch:

[Essex]

I don't think they'll be a draft for the same reasons that people have stated in here. Just know that if there ever is i'll be singing O Canada before you know it. Even if they tighten up the border to stop that from happening... because surely there's some good places to sneak into Canada.

[ChristopherK]

Yet somehow the Russian hookers always manage to cross the border. :scratch:
We (sweden) do not border to russia at all, yet they come here too :p. Many russian criminals too, robbing old people in the north. We even have so comfortable prisons that people from some eastern countries commits crimes in sweden just to spend some time in them. :) Working deals with Russia and the lot though so that we can put their criminals in their prisons.

I like to think that everything, everywhere that concerns the planet in anyway is my business ;). Well, mostly anyway.

[Bartleby]

A mandatory service, IMO, would do accomplish the following:
1) We'd always have a strong military and international public aid/service "corps".
2) People would gain an appreciation for and a sense of duty to protect their freedoms.
3) We wouldn't be so willing to go to war, though I believe we would still have gone to Iraq.

[Essex]

but bart not everyone is made for the military... I just don't get how you can have a free society and yet force people into the military. I understand other countries do it but it does seem like it conflicts.


Then again I don't see how you can have a free society and make drugs illegal

[ChristopherK]

but bart not everyone is made for the military... I just don't get how you can have a free society and yet force people into the military. I understand other countries do it but it does seem like it conflicts.


Then again I don't see how you can have a free society and make drugs illegal
It works well in sweden. Very well, in fact. But exactly what do you mean by "Made for the military"? There are many different services to get. So if you for example strongly object to carrying guns, then just apply for weapon-free service.

[Essex]

well for example.

I don't like being in large groups of males. I know that's funny considering how i do like males... but I always get nervous and stressed out in very.... testorone filled places.

Plus I don't like the idea of boot camp... because quiet frankly i'd rather have a root canal.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Any "free" society is free because of what it does, and the discipline it enforces. Go up to a ww2 vet and ask him the price of freedom. Serving in the militarty need not be slugging through mud, carrying a rifle. I'm all for manditory service, for the reasons Bartleby stated.

[ChristopherK]

well for example.

I don't like being in large groups of males. I know that's funny considering how i do like males... but I always get nervous and stressed out in very.... testorone filled places.
If you cannot handle that, then you wouldn't be fit for service. It's a valid excuse. Since only a third of the 18-year-old's get to do military service, most of those who desperately don't want to don't have to. But if 100% would have problems in environments with only males, then 30% of those would still have to do military service. But that's not going to happen ;).


Plus I don't like the idea of boot camp... because quiet frankly i'd rather have a root canal.
I don't understand what you mean here. What is the definition of a boot camp, and what the heck is a root canal? :scratch:

[Graav Wolfsong]

well for example.

I don't like being in large groups of males. I know that's funny considering how i do like males... but I always get nervous and stressed out in very.... testorone filled places.

Plus I don't like the idea of boot camp... because quiet frankly i'd rather have a root canal.


Well, the army isnt all that bad, it really depends on what service youre assigned to but not everything is like Full Metal Jacket (Tho' Infantry and the Special Forces training definitely was, all we needed was a guy to go crazy and shoot the sergeant). You could apply specifically for duties like, cook or work in the medical bay or just be a paper pusher, there are lots of non combat positions that needs to be filled every year.
Tho' everyone must go through boot camp, but its really not all that bad.
The big rule during your first weeks in the army is "TTT - Things Take Time", most of your first week consists of waiting around, playing your Gameboy. :)
My biggest problem was that I had to share a small room with 5 other guys when I've had my own room all my life. Suddenly I had no privacy and everyone was practically living on top of eachother. Plus the top bunk bed sucks, its really small with no protection thingies around and I thrash around alot in my sleep so I fell down a couple dozen times. :rant:

I was always kinda antisocial but I got along great with the guys in the army, everyone is in the exact same situation so theres not really any differences between people. People who normally wouldnt like eachother in normal life tend to get along great in the army.

And, personally, I dont think being *** would be a problem, tho' some armies let you get out of military service if youre ***. And alot of people manage to fake some kind of illness so theyre deemed unfit for service.
While I was in bootcamp, a guy actually hit himself in the head with a frozen porkchop in hopes that he would get a concussion and be sent home because he would miss most of bootcamp. It didnt work.

But the army is really alot better than most people think it is, it changes you, makes you stronger both mentally and physically and teaches discipline and responsibility. And the guys you room with and the guys on your team become the closest of friends.
Its really an experience worth having in my opinion.

There is a price to pay for freedom, a year of your life being taught to fight for your country if need be is not much to give for a lifetime of freedom.

[Bartleby]

Essex, many countries also have a non military service component. My suggestion was military or a civil service "corps" to aid at home and abroad. "Volunteering" (even when it's not really voluntary) is good because it forces people into situations where their perceptions of the world are challenged, and in turn offers those individuals the opportunity to grow and learn. In your case, if homosexuals were excluded or were allowed to exclude themselves then they rob those heterosexuals that are unsure or no little about the subject (besides what their equally uninformed parents told them) of the opportunity to have their beliefs challenged and for them to make up their minds based on more complete information. Likewise, you would rob yourself of a more complete understanding of why heterosexual men think or act a certain way when in "testosterone filled places" as well as a way to get over your anxiety.

[Essex]

I see where you all are coming from but. Graav that does sound a lot better than i imagine but I also imagine that the Norway Military is different in attitude than the American military. Not worse than the american military just the attitudes are different.

And bart what you described sounded a lot more like the real world than a military base :) (least in my limited amount of knowledge)

now i'm ok with the volunteering, civil work stuff that's ok by me.

[Bhs Crew]

Any "free" society is free because of what it does, and the discipline it enforces. Go up to a ww2 vet and ask him the price of freedom. Serving in the militarty need not be slugging through mud, carrying a rifle. I'm all for manditory service, for the reasons Bartleby stated.
No. A free society is free because of various liberties the people have that the government respects.
War doesn't make a society free it only keeps that free society from being conquered by another. At this point we aren't going to get conquered. The most likely way for America to stop being a free society is if the American people truly lose control of the government and stop protecting said freedoms.

The founding fathers feared that this country would be conquered, but they found it unlikely do to its size and population (which is far bigger today). What they feared the most was that one person or group would end up taking control of the central government and making this country no longer free from the inside out.

Ben Franklin put it better than I can. The French Minster asked Franklin during the revolutionary war why they had not instituted a draft and used Americas vast population to crush the British. Franklin replied,
"We represent a congress who must work within the authority granted to it by the states. There is no means for us to compel anyone to take up arms. There is a general feeling in the congress, and throughout America that the assembly of a professional army is a threat to the very freedoms we are fighting a secure.
...It may be that the only way for America to survive is to impress its citizens by force, to compel men to take up arms against their will. But such a success would cost us the very principles for which we fight."

It is my feeling that when you force people to fight in a war they don't see a purpose in, that you lose the whole idea of what America is or should be. We currently have an army full of mercenaries. If we institute a draft it becomes an army full of slaves.

[TheDagdaMor145]

i dont know about you guys, but i know some people i would prefer to never receive any kind of formal combat training. bad mojo.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

No. A free society is free because of various liberties the people have that the government respects.


Seems you may have forgotten our talks. Freedom is not the ability to do what you want, its the power to do what you ought. If a government allows proliferation of a culture that is self-destructive, is that granting freedom? At this stage of the game, we need laws to guide cultural compass.


It is my feeling that when you force people to fight in a war they don't see a purpose in, that you lose the whole idea of what America is or should be. We currently have an army full of mercenaries. If we institute a draft it becomes an army full of slaves.

One of the things Bartleby mentioned was the fact that order and discipline guides people to a sense of purpose. Not all can see clearly, and as such, they must be led by those who can. Going to war has a relatively small part to play, unless a state of war is precipitated. Peace time is a very important time for training, and building cultural identity - its what kept Rome going for 800 years. Now, times certainly have changed, but human nature has not. You believe that freedom means just "doing what you want". THis is not so, if a definition of freedom means conforming to mediocrity. In truth, it is those who believe they are free living in licentiousness that are the real slave population. THe only way we could be free in "doing what we want" would be if we were different kinds of beings, not subject to time, space and its laws (and also freed from the demanding law of human nature). Understand these concepts, and you will understand the merit in a military system in this day and age.

[Bhs Crew]

If you force someone to do something than they have no choice. It is the choice that makes us free. I could easily make a population of slaves into people doing moral actions but that wouldn't make them moral people.

People have the power to do what they ought. Whether or not they do it is their choice. Forcing them do it turns this country into a dictatorship. A moral dictatorship but one nonetheless.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Bhs, people are forced to do things daily, by means of the things they enslave themselves to. Being a moral person entails taking ownership of actions, and they does not happen overnight. So, to create a moral society, infastructure must be maintained to aid this process, and the military is one such protocol.

[Bhs Crew]

As long as the only thing required is peaceful service than I have no problem with it.

However, this country has a habit of getting involved in wars in far away places and I assume those drafted would be fodder as they have been in the past.

[Bartleby]

We've had professional armies since before the Civil War. The idea of an army of citizens only made sense in that particular time frame because the only potential enemy that could actually reach then US citizens were the native americans, but by that time they were'nt much of a threat. Our British ancestors had to bring a war to us by way of the sea, limiting their capacity to mount enough forces to conquer the allied colonies. There is not a desired (or undesired) country today that could survive without a professional military.

[Bhs Crew]

We've had professional armies since before the Civil War. The idea of an army of citizens only made sense in that particular time frame because the only potential enemy that could actually reach then US citizens were the native americans, but by that time they were'nt much of a threat. Our British ancestors had to bring a war to us by way of the sea, limiting their capacity to mount enough forces to conquer the allied colonies. There is not a desired (or undesired) country today that could survive without a professional military.
We didn't have the draft until the civil war and that's the important part. I have no problem with people volunteering. I'm talking about people being forced to get shot.

And we still don't have an enemy that can reach us. And your last statement is incorrect. Switzerland survives without a professional military.

[Bartleby]

Switzerland has four branches of military (army, airforce, and two other ones that I can't remember)
Switzerland has mandatory service of one year (maybe two, not sure though) and if you don't want to serve in the military, you have do twice that in civil service, assuming the courts accept your application (odds are pretty good).

Now what was that about no professional military? :scratch:

[Bartleby]

al-Qaida reached us

[Bhs Crew]

Yeah I regret the Switzerland comment (being as I realized I was wrong) so I apologize for that.

As for the draft. We don't need a draft to go after Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda reached us but they hardly conquered us and our volunteer army is plenty good to do the small amount of fighting that needs to be done against them.

Most of the work that needs to be done to break Al Qaeda is non-millitary anyway.

[Bhs Crew]

On an entirely seperate note I like all those avatars you've scrolled through in the last 15 minutes. Each one is better than the last.

[Eiger]

Freedom is not the ability to do what you want, its the power to do what you ought. If a government allows proliferation of a culture that is self-destructive, is that granting freedom? At this stage of the game, we need laws to guide cultural compass.



One of the things Bartleby mentioned was the fact that order and discipline guides people to a sense of purpose. Not all can see clearly, and as such, they must be led by those who can. Going to war has a relatively small part to play, unless a state of war is precipitated. Peace time is a very important time for training, and building cultural identity - its what kept Rome going for 800 years. Now, times certainly have changed, but human nature has not. You believe that freedom means just "doing what you want". THis is not so, if a definition of freedom means conforming to mediocrity. In truth, it is those who believe they are free living in licentiousness that are the real slave population. THe only way we could be free in "doing what we want" would be if we were different kinds of beings, not subject to time, space and its laws (and also freed from the demanding law of human nature). Understand these concepts, and you will understand the merit in a military system in this day and age.
Your comments are a recipe for tyranny rather than freedom. They are paternalistic and presuppose that many people are incapable of guiding themselves.

Fortunately, our country was founded on different concepts. From the Declaration of Independence we have: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Critically relevant (here) among these are the puruit of happiness and the consent of the governed. For better or worse, freedom to us means the ability to largely do as we please within the reasonable framework of laws. And that the people have a big say in how they are governed. It may condemn us to mediocrity and I'd agree that American culture is often "lowest common denominator" oriented. However, there's a lot of good with that bad but, unfortunately that's price of living in a society which is as free as possible.

You clearly have a different definition of freedom, and I for one sincerely hope that that definition does not come to pass in my country.

[Eiger]

Switzerland survives without a professional military.
Sorry, just can't resist...

Can you say "Swiss Army Knife"? ;)

[Bhs Crew]

Sorry, just can't resist...

Can you say "Swiss Army Knife"? ;)
..........I hate you.

[Bartleby]

I am so frickin ready to play WoW... it's getting to the point where I've made several mage builds and have avatars for each... I need help. :bonk:

[Booms]

I am so frickin ready to play WoW... it's getting to the point where I've made several mage builds and have avatars for each... I need help. :bonk:

Haha, yes, you definitely do.

If you need something to do in your free time, ask Spens if you could serve as his cucumber for a few days :wink2:.

[Bartleby]

I would hate to put you out of a job Booms, besides I'm not THAT bored.

[Graav Wolfsong]

Ugh! Cant y'all discuss pie some more instead. Pie is much more interesting than ... cucumbers.


Anywaaaay, I got bitten by the WoW bug today as well when I saw the "European Closed Beta Test Starting Soon" news item at the beta site. We're talkin' 'bout days, I feel it! I wanna play so bad, I'm so bored.
We were hit by a heat wave this week, so warm I cant sleep so now I suddenly have an extra 5-6 hours a day to kill.
Dont matter tho', wouldnt be able to play it anyway, there was thunderstorm last week, lightning hit by my house and my PC was on, fried the whole thing, not just the cables, the whole thing just went kablooey. :( So I got a free place holder PC from a freind. A leet 700 mhz celeron with 128 mb SD-RAM and an incredible 4 mb graphicscard. Seriously, it lags when I play Warcraft 2. Wonder what idiot put windows XP on a computer like this ... oh right .. it was me. :uhhuh:

[Pogo]

The draft has always been reserved for the most extreme and dire circumstances.

It was instituted during the Korean and Vietnam wars not really because of the scale of the conflicts, but because of the potential for rapid and horrific escalation. Especially considering that the U.S.S.R. made it clear in diplomacy and state doctrine, for decades, that they very much intended to spread Soviet style dictatorships into every nation on earth.

No one thought they were joking, and they proved it by directly backing the communist sympathizer factions in those countries with generous support. In the case of North Korea, in the late 1990's they admitted that for most of the war the entire enemy MiG inventory was driven by Russian pilots including WWII veterans. Ouch.

I don't think we need to cover WWI and WWII.

Unless there arises an enemy that is motivated, intelligent, technologically advanced, has access to enormous amounts of varied natural resources, can equip a force of at least 5 million with state of the art hardware and training including nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, multi-role air superiority aircraft, mechanized infantry, and a huge laundry list of sophisticated coutermeasures, and has stratigically advantageous terrain options (like the Ural Mountains for example), a draft won't be needed.

Of course having a ICBM borne nuclear weapons is manditory if you plan on going to war, and actually achieving the best possible outcome available to a nation facing the U.S. and allies, stalemate.

None of that will do any good unless you can talk at least a couple of other similarly capable nations of going along with you on an act of lunacy like starting a full scale war with the western allies.

If all that can be accomplished, then yeah, you will get our attention and we will start the draft. By that time, they will be lining up outside the MEP stations anyways.

[Booms]

I would hate to put you out of a job Booms, besides I'm not THAT bored.

That was supposed to be a secret!!!

Who told you?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Your comments are a recipe for tyranny rather than freedom. They are paternalistic and presuppose that many people are incapable of guiding themselves.


In your eyes, it would be. Welcome to the post modern era. Now, Kant laid out the nuances associated with the public and the private in his texts (conflict of faculties, critique of judgement), as well as a host of his contemporaries. THe post modern age, hailed as a new enlightenment by rhetoricians posing as intellectuals, claimed to throw off the notion that truth is discovered. Rather, it is made (M. Foucault on power, R. Rorty - contingency, irony, and solidarity). Rorty is still alive, and is hailed as great intellectual. However, he's a poet, as he admits that he wants to arbitrarily create a utopia.
Fact of the matter is Eiger, people are incapable of guiding themselves from the start. Can a baby guide him/herself? We are taught. We will make decisions in accord with the goods and norms we learn, which either conform, or do not conform with an ordered lifestyle. In truth, you're subject to a tyranny every day - a tyranny that feeds you one kind of thinking - your brand of relativism and empirical skepticism, which is a far cry from any sort of sound reasoning.


Fortunately, our country was founded on different concepts. From the Declaration of Independence we have: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...


To put it more succinctly, your country was founded on a platform of norms and laws that would allow for a precipitation of good values in people. Human nature being what it is, it's certainly not been perfect, but there have been worse systems.


Critically relevant (here) among these are the puruit of happiness and the consent of the governed. For better or worse, freedom to us means the ability to largely do as we please within the reasonable framework of laws.


Yes, a framework that allows for truth to be sprouted in the people, by steering them along certain lines of thought. Thats why this notion must be adhered to. Once you lose culture, you lose much.


And that the people have a big say in how they are governed. It may condemn us to mediocrity and I'd agree that American culture is often "lowest common denominator" oriented. However, there's a lot of good with that bad but, unfortunately that's price of living in a society which is as free as possible.


Who can qualify for a leadership position in a contemporary democracy? Could you? Could the beggar on the street? Who? There is an inherent filtration system already in place. Do you really think you have that big a say, or leverage with the powers that be? Only those who fit certain criteria for leadership - which is in accord with the popular thought of the day, and the values that are prevalent, will succeed. Who is the tyrant? The "democrat", or the philosopher?


You clearly have a different definition of freedom, and I for one sincerely hope that that definition does not come to pass in my country.

Happily for you, it would take an absolute miracle for the solution I offer to manifest itself in today's culture - we are a people who cannot think properly - epistemologists who can't even decide what we look for. Freedom starts with the individual, and one's understanding of their place in reality.

[TheDagdaMor145]

hehehe, then so much for your point about taking personal responsibility earlier in the thread. my tyrranical society forced me to think that way and made me do it!!!


anywho, that piece of the current debate translates into this:
is there a difference between actions that we force ourselves to do (via our way of thinking which is at least partially forced on us), and those things we are forced to do by others? and should there be, based on the idea that we are not capable of thinking for ourselves?



and the other part of the discussion is:
do the rights of the person take precident over the responsibilities of the government. aka, the government has the responsibility to protect its people. but does that give the government the right take away a persons 'unalienable rights' in order to accomplish that goal? (obviously from his statement, mr. franklin says no)

[Maullus]

Greetings,

I am so frickin ready to play WoW... it's getting to the point where I've made several mage builds and have avatars for each... I need help. :bonk:

:D Much needed levity for a thread that was taking itself far too seriously. :thumbsup:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

hehehe, then so much for your point about taking personal responsibility earlier in the thread. my tyrranical society forced me to think that way and made me do it!!!


anywho, that piece of the current debate translates into this:
is there a difference between actions that we force ourselves to do (via our way of thinking which is at least partially forced on us), and those things we are forced to do by others? and should there be, based on the idea that we are not capable of thinking for ourselves?


My point was that cultural influences will teach us to think a certain way. People will think for themselves, but where are the influences? THus, any no system is free from influence.



Much needed levity for a thread that was taking itself far too seriously.

Just a heads-up, "serious" discussion has its place, thats why we have this section on our site. Not all content has to be heavy, but many people do like discussing it. Some of the subject matter people discuss here should be taken seriously. As such, you have the option of simply not reading it, or participating in lighter threads.

[Eiger]

1) Fact of the matter is Eiger, people are incapable of guiding themselves from the start. Can a baby guide him/herself? We are taught. We will make decisions in accord with the goods and norms we learn, which either conform, or do not conform with an ordered lifestyle. In truth, you're subject to a tyranny every day - a tyranny that feeds you one kind of thinking - your brand of relativism and empirical skepticism, which is a far cry from any sort of sound reasoning.

2) Who can qualify for a leadership position in a contemporary democracy? Could you? Could the beggar on the street? Who? There is an inherent filtration system already in place. Do you really think you have that big a say, or leverage with the powers that be? Only those who fit certain criteria for leadership - which is in accord with the popular thought of the day, and the values that are prevalent, will succeed. Who is the tyrant? The "democrat", or the philosopher?

3) Happily for you, it would take an absolute miracle for the solution I offer to manifest itself in today's culture - we are a people who cannot think properly - epistemologists who can't even decide what we look for. Freedom starts with the individual, and one's understanding of their place in reality.
1) Sure, people are incapable as babies, but babies don't vote. By the time a person is 18 they are presumed to have some capabilities. While it's obvious that many don't have the maturity/experience/wisdom by then, many don't have it age 75 either. That's life. Nevertheless, all adults should have a say in their governance even if they don't meet your standards or mine. Ya, it's kind of a bummer, but it's better than the alternative.

2) Beggar in the street? Be serious. And the fact is that lots of morons are able to manage to get themselves into a position of leadership - especially at the local and state levels. I deal with them everyday and lots have the IQ of a toothpick.

3) Yup! That's the way it will always be, too. You'll never bring critical thought to the masses. A very many just aren't receptive. Way too many live day to day with no concept of the results of their actions much less the concept of an ideal society. Nevertheless, we muddle on in spite of everything. Take a few steps forward, a few steps back.

I'll vote for the philosopher as tyrant anyday - as he seeks to implement his will over others, while the democrat works within the confines of the polity to change things from within and with the consent of those he represents.

[Bartleby]

I know it's the off-topic forum and all, but unless we're talking about pie or the draft, then we're way off topic.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I'll vote for the philosopher as tyrant anyday - as he seeks to implement his will over others, while the democrat works within the confines of the polity to change things from within and with the consent of those he represents.

If this is true, than everyone is a philosopher - we all want things the way we would prefer. Your understanding of the philosopher is a Nietzschian one - "will to power". As Kant maintained, it's all about discovering things, not assertion.

[Eiger]

If this is true, than everyone is a philosopher - we all want things the way we would prefer. Your understanding of the philosopher is a Nietzschian one - "will to power". As Kant maintained, it's all about discovering things, not assertion.
Whatever. I was just using "philosopher" as you seemed to be using it - as someone who lords their will over others. I think my intent is clear.

[Bhs Crew]

Which brings us all back to the original question.

Is it a good idea for the government to force a bunch of kids to be cannon fodder because the leaders feel a need to invade some far away country?

(I realize this is a biased way of saying it, but that's how I see it.)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Put in those terms, no. Service should be manditory, but wars should not be initiated by unjust terms.

[Bhs Crew]

Wars shouldn't be initiated by unjust terms, but it happens all the time and I don't see any way of preventing it 100% anytime soon.

That being said I don't feel like shipping over to some far away country that I don't even know why were there and getting my leg shot off.

[Graav Wolfsong]

"Violence doesn't solve anything. Except all of Americas problems!"

[Bhs Crew]

"Violence doesn't solve anything. Except all of Americas problems!"
Who said that? That quote is awesome.

[Andarcel]

If I might try and prevent more shadowboxing -

You're using completely different bases for your arguments, and you don't seem likely to come down to the fundamental conflict anytime soon. So: AoA, despite his expansive use of modern philosophers, is basically a premodern. He falls with Plato and Aquinas in believing that the purpose of a government is to develop its citizens into the best people realistically possible through culture. He reconciles this with the moderns by arguing (although he never actually argues this point, leaving it rather a weak spot) that better people, that is more informed, aware, disciplined, experienced, moral people, are more free than lazy materialists because they are not ruled by their environment and basic passions.

Eiger and Essex take the modern stance: the purpose of government is to ensure the greatest freedom for the greatest number. Under this model, the question of whether there should be a draft becomes, "Will a draft sustain greater freedom in the long run than an all-volunteer force could provide?" This question can only be answered in specifics, not in general.

[Bartleby]

Must... kill... Graav... :rolleyes:

[Bhs Crew]

If I might try and prevent more shadowboxing -

You're using completely different bases for your arguments, and you don't seem likely to come down to the fundamental conflict anytime soon. So: AoA, despite his expansive use of modern philosophers, is basically a premodern. He falls with Plato and Aquinas in believing that the purpose of a government is to develop its citizens into the best people realistically possible through culture. He reconciles this with the moderns by arguing (although he never actually argues this point, leaving it rather a weak spot) that better people, that is more informed, aware, disciplined, experienced, moral people, are more free than lazy materialists because they are not ruled by their environment and basic passions.

Eiger and Essex take the modern stance: the purpose of government is to ensure the greatest freedom for the greatest number. Under this model, the question of whether there should be a draft becomes, "Will a draft sustain greater freedom in the long run than an all-volunteer force could provide?" This question can only be answered in specifics, not in general.
Are you talking to me? I thought the draft was the fundamental conflict.

In answer to your question I say no. I don't believe that a draft will sustain greater freedom in the long run because a draft is inherently a tool of tyranny. I thought I had made this clear.

I was trying to argue against the draft using problems in the real world rather than general hypothetical terms. See for me the draft represents the very real possibility of getting forced to go to a country I don't want to be in, kill people I don't know, and ultimately get crippled by someone who had nothing against me personally.

I'm sorry if this caused you a problem.

[Eiger]

If I might try and prevent more shadowboxing -

You're using completely different bases for your arguments, and you don't seem likely to come down to the fundamental conflict anytime soon. So: AoA, despite his expansive use of modern philosophers, is basically a premodern. He falls with Plato and Aquinas in believing that the purpose of a government is to develop its citizens into the best people realistically possible through culture. He reconciles this with the moderns by arguing (although he never actually argues this point, leaving it rather a weak spot) that better people, that is more informed, aware, disciplined, experienced, moral people, are more free than lazy materialists because they are not ruled by their environment and basic passions.

Eiger and Essex take the modern stance: the purpose of government is to ensure the greatest freedom for the greatest number. Under this model, the question of whether there should be a draft becomes, "Will a draft sustain greater freedom in the long run than an all-volunteer force could provide?" This question can only be answered in specifics, not in general.
Yup, sort of. That's my take on what AoA's arguing, however I'm arguing that his position results in the elitists forming a tyrannical government which forces their will on the people. While that will might be benevolent in intent, I believe it'd just be a return to the religious aristocracy/monarchy form of government that the democratic movement grew out of and revolted against. Kind of been there, done that, and no thanks. I wasn't even thinking about the draft, but was rather off on a tangent.

I do believe that we could create a society that is high cultured, well educated, and which develops its citizens into free and critical thinkers. However, I don't see us being willing to invest that kind of money or effort - and more importantly perhaps be willing to enact the rigorous and demanding type of education necessary to achieve it. Very unfortunate really, but our culture seems to want to take the easy way out and that approach starts pretty early.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

If I might try and prevent more shadowboxing -

You're using completely different bases for your arguments, and you don't seem likely to come down to the fundamental conflict anytime soon. So: AoA, despite his expansive use of modern philosophers, is basically a premodern.
He falls with Plato and Aquinas in believing that the purpose of a government is to develop its citizens into the best people realistically possible through culture.


This notion remained from antiquity to modernity, most recently posited by Jurgen Habermas, who is a contemporary. As I keep telling people, there really is only one thinking. Aristotle said it, Aquinas said it, Kant said it, and Cassier in the 20th century said it - its the same notion. pre/post modern are labels. I do use them sometimes, but for the benefit of the reader who is used to those terms.


He reconciles this with the moderns by arguing (although he never actually argues this point, leaving it rather a weak spot) that better people, that is more informed, aware, disciplined, experienced, moral people, are more free than lazy materialists because they are not ruled by their environment and basic passions.


For a good exposition, Kant's "confict of faculties" mirrors this problematic exactly. There really is no reconciliation - its the same ideas as before, a mere re-sharpening of the tools of antiquity. If something is true, it's always true.


Eiger and Essex take the modern stance: the purpose of government is to ensure the greatest freedom for the greatest number. Under this model, the question of whether there should be a draft becomes, "Will a draft sustain greater freedom in the long run than an all-volunteer force could provide?" This question can only be answered in specifics, not in general.

Using labels, this is "post modern", which we both know they uphold. Modern philosophy is wonderful, as it understands the need to discover inherent laws in nature. Post modernism, is as Eiger put it, a mere rejection or rebellion against these laws.

In response to Eiger's post, the system Kant offered was exemplary for culture, and included all of its facets, both public and private. If a "post modern" utopia was ushered in, its not because people became more enlightened, its becasue they simply rejected truth. Eiger is right however that its heinously a remote possibility that we can get that system up and running again in the near future - we'd need some kind of disaster for that lol.. but the ownice is on us to take it upon ourselves to become actualized individuals. At least we have the "freedom" to do that ^^.

[Graav Wolfsong]

Who said that? That quote is awesome.

I heard it on The Simpsons.

[Eiger]

1) This notion remained from antiquity to modernity, most recently posited by Jurgen Habermas, who is a contemporary. As I keep telling people, there really is only one thinking. Aristotle said it, Aquinas said it, Kant said it, and Cassier in the 20th century said it - its the same notion. pre/post modern are labels. I do use them sometimes, but for the benefit of the reader who is used to those terms.

Using labels, this is "post modern", which we both know they uphold. Modern philosophy is wonderful, as it understands the need to discover inherent laws in nature. Post modernism, is as Eiger put it, a mere rejection or rebellion against these laws.

2) In response to Eiger's post, the system Kant offered was exemplary for culture, and included all of its facets, both public and private. If a "post modern" utopia was ushered in, its not because people became more enlightened, its becasue they simply rejected truth. Eiger is right however that its heinously a remote possibility that we can get that system up and running again in the near future - we'd need some kind of disaster for that lol.. but the ownice is on us to take it upon ourselves to become actualized individuals. At least we have the "freedom" to do that ^^.
1) Well you can quit using them on me because pre and post modern have absolutely no meaning to me. It's like ok, hmm I'm post modern which must mean AoA's pre historic since he's at the opposite end of the spectrum from me. I have no idea what modern is other than meaning "the present or the immediate past" or "the latest styles and fashions." So pre modern is all of history and post modern is the future or something like that.

2) While I certainly agree that the onus is on each individual to self actualize, I don't know what "truth" has been rejected. As for enlightenment, I believe we know far more about how the mind and universe actually works and we've been able to chuck a fair amount of superstition.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Essentially Eiger, labels have been used to characterize trends in thinking over the centuries. The "modern" period was from the renissance to the late 19th/early 20th century. It's understood that the goal of "modern philosophy" was to uncover inherent laws in nature by means of analysis in empirical study, then moving towards speculation arising from these observations. This is achievable by means of a common method of thought that appies to both observable data and concepts. (kant's transcendental deduction).

Post modernism (a term we hear too often) refers to the rejection of metaphysics as the ancients and moderns held. THis is the truth I was referring to. How did this come about? Ironically, it was a realistic move away from the moderns in that though the modern philosophers "got it right", they left out a fundamental aspect of the human need for love, which ushered in Nietzsche's reaction, Kierkegaard and Scheler's warning, and later Horkheimer and Adorno's ironism (which can be seen in the contemporary pragmatic outlook on things). Essentially, the post moderns have discovered that we need God. This is the concept I will be bringing forth in my writings. The very enemies of the truth can only promote it all the more - wonderful :).
THe moderns were all about cutting down superstition (Kant was big on that), but the methodology was such that it precipitated cynicism about "relationship" to God, etc (by means of an analytic method). Kierkegaard provided a solution to that, somewhat an add-on to modernity (which you should read - the difference between a genius and an apostle). Yet, we have intellectual cattle nowadays, who not only threw out God, but also threw out reason.

[Bhs Crew]

Back to the draft. Anyone?

[Eiger]

Back to the draft. Anyone?
Ya, ok. I think there should be a draft just to get all these spoiled candy butted gamers doing something productive. Like to play counter-strike? Here's a real gun sucka. Now drop and give me 20!

Uh, kinda got carried away.

[Graav Wolfsong]

Ya, ok. I think there should be a draft just to get all these spoiled candy butted gamers doing something productive. Like to play counter-strike? Here's a real gun sucka. Now drop and give me 20!

Uh, kinda got carried away.

You expect 20 pushups from the average gamer? Good luck with that. :)

[Erebos]

I wouldnt mind the draft being implemented. I was considering doing boot camp jsust for the hell of it whe ni was in high school. Still think about all the opportunities that could possible come your way from joining a military branch. ****, free college and other job opporunities just from being a Vet.

[Andarcel]

Are you talking to me? No. But I will now.

You can't answer this question in the abstract because it's a matter of relative freedoms. You can't, that is, unless you truly believe that a draft by it's nature corrupts freedom and produces perfect tyranny. Apparently you do. Since you seem to have a functioning brain, and since the example of Norway has already emerged, that leaves two conclusions. 1) You think Norway is slowly but surely turning into an evil dictatorship, or 2) you haven't actually been paying much attention to much of this thread or history in general.

For an example of how a draft can preserve greater freedom than it sacrifices, consider Finland in the Winter War and Cold War. Their use of a draft prevented and deterred Soviet occupation and annexation, thus keeping Finland free and independent and allowing its citizens to avoid the ultra-repressive regimes of Eastern Europe. Is Finland a tyranny now?

[Graav Wolfsong]

1) You think Norway is slowly but surely turning into an evil dictatorship

The way things are going I wouldnt rule that possibility out. :lol:


-------------------------------


The draft issue has always been controversial but its been clear throughout history that "if you want freedom you have to be prepared to fight for it".
So now people are essentially saying "if I'm forced to fight for freedom, then I'm not free am I?".
But if youre not prepared to fight for freedom you'll eventually lose it. You cant go through life expecting others to fight for your freedom, you really should and sooner or later will have do it yourself.

Look at it this way, theres not an infinite amount of people ready and willing to give their life to protect the freedoms so many have started to take for granted. If a huge war breaks out, and it will eventually, there wont be enough soldiers to protect you if this indeed happens in your lifetime, you'll have to fight yourself.


But back to the example of Norway, theres a difference between our mandatory service and the notion of war drafts.
I'm not sure how America would handle a mandatory service but Norwegian soldiers serving the mandatory time in the army are there for defensive purposes only. Any and all offensive acts of war on foreign soil are done by professional forces, men and women who chose this and accepted the risks and have been given additional training. People in mandatory service will not be called into war unless Norway is attacked directly. The mandatory service just ensures that we have a capable standing defensive force at all times and that a large portion of the male population are trained in combat and knows their assigned jobs and, if needed, can be called in to defend his country on a moments notice.

So in short, despite having to serve their time in the army, no one will ever be called on to travel halfway around the world and risk their lives in a meaningless war. Only the soldiers who signed up for international duties and our professional forces will do that.

Imagine this system in America, it would take unholy amounts of cash to get a system like that going in such a huge country, but no way will the USA be attacked.
Americans arent that concerned with war, simply because there havent been any acts of war on American soil since WWII. Its all fine with the current system when youre killing people on the other side of the world, but if a war is initiated on American soil, when the bombs fall on your cities, the mandatory service system would have helped considerably. I dont think NRA nutcases counts as much of a defense. :)
And if something like the imagined war with China ever happened, it sure as hell wouldnt be fought exclusively in Asia.

[Blackmoon]

I must say, that I should thank the creator of this thread. As I mentioned earlier, I'm having my draft few weeks from now, and I've had pretty negative attitude towards the mandatory service for quite a while now. Now, this thread has allowed me to view the whole thing in different light and I'm starting to see it as positive thing, which I think is good.

[Bhs Crew]

No. But I will now.

You can't answer this question in the abstract because it's a matter of relative freedoms. You can't, that is, unless you truly believe that a draft by it's nature corrupts freedom and produces perfect tyranny. Apparently you do. Since you seem to have a functioning brain, and since the example of Norway has already emerged, that leaves two conclusions. 1) You think Norway is slowly but surely turning into an evil dictatorship, or 2) you haven't actually been paying much attention to much of this thread or history in general.

For an example of how a draft can preserve greater freedom than it sacrifices, consider Finland in the Winter War and Cold War. Their use of a draft prevented and deterred Soviet occupation and annexation, thus keeping Finland free and independent and allowing its citizens to avoid the ultra-repressive regimes of Eastern Europe. Is Finland a tyranny now?
I wasn't talking about fighting to keep from being invaded. It is assumed that people will fight if troops are marching into their cities and killing their people. If the people of a free society are unwilling to fight when they are being conquered then they don't deserve the freedom they have.

This was a thread about the American draft. In America we primarily use soldiers to invade other countries for various reasons. The draft is primarily needed to get large amounts of troops to go into another country and get shot at, which is something that people don't jump to do normally.

If America were invaded we wouldn't need a draft. Lots of people would jump to defend their homeland and not just in the regular army. We don't have all these guns in our homes for nothing.

[Mad_Mat]

If America were invaded we wouldn't need a draft. Lots of people would jump to defend their homeland and not just in the regular army. We don't have all these guns in our homes for nothing.
Give me a break. I assure you if America would be invaded by land (which is the only scenario where privately owned arms might be of any use) there will be more than infantry forces standing at your doorway. There's only so much a bunch of hillbillies with M-16's can do against Tanks and SUV's. If you're still opposed to a draft under those circumstances you're simply being unreasonable.

[Andarcel]

This was a thread about the American draft. In America we primarily use soldiers to invade other countries for various reasons. The draft is primarily needed to get large amounts of troops to go into another country and get shot at, which is something that people don't jump to do normally. I have an unfortunate tendency to take comments at face value. For example, when you say, "I don't believe that a draft will sustain greater freedom in the long run because a draft is inherently a tool of tyranny," I don't automatically fill in "I don't believe that a draft designed to provide troops for an aggressive war of subjugation will sustain greater freedom in the long run because such a draft is inherently a tool of tyranny." Since this thread for some time has been a discussion of the morality of a draft in general, I had no reason to believe you were talking about the original topic, which was a factual rather than moral question anyway.

But all of that doesn't matter in the end, because it's not the draft you're objecting to - it's the war. If you think a draft would be fine for a defensive war (and you haven't given any indication that you wouldn't), then obviously your qualms are with the ends rather than the means.

[Bhs Crew]

Mad_Mat-
I said that Americans would jump to defend the country if it was invaded. Obviously most of that would be in the regular army. I was just also pointing out that enemy soldiers going into a city would be met with opposition from the populace as well. The hillbillies were never a factor.

Andarcel-
I never said a draft would be fine for a defensive war. I said if a free country is being invaded and the people aren't willing to volunteer to defend it then the freedom they have isn't deserved.

The draft is something that can be used to protect a country, as are mandatory national ID cards, wiretapping, and forced confessions. Sometimes these may be of benefit to a country but they are all so easily misused that it is better to not cross those lines.

There is little point in protecting a country while at the same time violating the principles that make it great. If the people being invaded connot see enough of a difference between their own country and the one that is invading it, to defend their homeland then chances are the liberty is lost either way.