You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
Based on your short political quiz score of 100% libertarian, I assume that you both oppose the militarty draft without exception. I too oppose the draft in most situations, but not all. For example, I think the military draft was wrong in Vietnam, because I think that war did not serve our national interests. However, I fully support the fact that the draft was used in World War II, because I think it was very much in our national interest to win that war. Would you have opposed the draft in World War II, assuming that without the draft, we could not have won it? In that instance, I think the sacrifice to our personal freedom (ie. the draft) was justified in order to win that war. How do you feel about it?
As a current example, I would not support a draft for the war on terror unless something drastic happened. For instance, if terrorists set off a nuclear bomb anywhere in the U.S. and killed thousands and thousands of people, I would support a draft if the government felt that was the only way to win the war.
Based on your short political quiz score of 100% libertarian, I assume that you both oppose the militarty draft without exception. I too oppose the draft in most situations, but not all. For example, I think the military draft was wrong in Vietnam, because I think that war did not serve our national interests. However, I fully support the fact that the draft was used in World War II, because I think it was very much in our national interest to win that war. Would you have opposed the draft in World War II, assuming that without the draft, we could not have won it? In that instance, I think the sacrifice to our personal freedom (ie. the draft) was justified in order to win that war. How do you feel about it?
As a current example, I would not support a draft for the war on terror unless something drastic happened. For instance, if terrorists set off a nuclear bomb anywhere in the U.S. and killed thousands and thousands of people, I would support a draft if the government felt that was the only way to win the war.
Opinions?
The attacks on the World Trade Center killed thousands of people, and wasn`t that drastic?
There really isn't a whole lot to say. I'm 100% against ANY sort of forced combat duty. I'm thrilled to live in a country with a volunteer Armed Forces, and I think that is the way to go. If there is a manpower shortage, then military wages should go up, just as in any other industry.
Does that mean that poor people will unfairly shoulder the burden of defending the nation...certainly. But I think that any system that randomly deprives people of their freedom and presses them into military service is monstrous. By contrast, paying people to voluntarily face risk for reward is a much better system.
Pete (thinks our military is underpaid)
__________________
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." --Thomas Jefferson
Originally posted by plezercruz There really isn't a whole lot to say. I'm 100% against ANY sort of forced combat duty. I'm thrilled to live in a country with a volunteer Armed Forces, and I think that is the way to go. If there is a manpower shortage, then military wages should go up, just as in any other industry.
Does that mean that poor people will unfairly shoulder the burden of defending the nation...certainly. But I think that any system that randomly deprives people of their freedom and presses them into military service is monstrous. By contrast, paying people to voluntarily face risk for reward is a much better system.
Pete (thinks our military is underpaid)
The arguement can be made that because of a sagging economy, and few job opportunities for young people with out some kind of post secondary education, or the money to get that education, the military seems to be the only way to go. So in a way, it is the poor or lower middle class that are shouldering the burden of defending the free world.
I`m just playing devil`s advocate
Sorry if I sound too "Micheal Mooreish"
Actually cart, I would argue, from a libertarian point of view, that a forced-service system, if necessary, would be acceptable. However that case could only occur in extreme situations, ie sheer manpower requirements offset any funding capabilities.
The problem is that war is not a revenue-generating exercise, therefore Pete's example of a risk v reward scenario would tend to not be feasable. Military jobs are not necessarily all about killing people. Most people that enlist join up because:
-Job Training
-Travel The World
-Don't desire to go to college
-Consistent pay/benefits
-Get to serve country
I would say most people that join the military have no particular desire to go around killing people. But they understand that they may have to use force to accomplish their goals. If we enter a conflict where victory will be by sheer manpower, then by all means a draft might be necessary to preserve our way of life.
If they drafted me, I'd go.
__________________
There's a fine line between rubbing lotion on yourself and rubbing yourself with lotion.
Most legal battles are "net-loss" scenarios...meaning that one party may gain or lose, but on the whole...both lose. And yet lawyers eat quite well. I think that war is very similar, only on a global scale, and that there is a profit motive, if not a revenue-generation motive, in military operations.
It may be true that there is no winner in war, but often one side loses a whole lot less.
Pete (sticks to risk/reward view)
__________________
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." --Thomas Jefferson
Yeah but Pete, in a courtroom you don't get your head blown off. . .
Now, when you say that for instance there is often a profit motive, consider Islamic terrorists. How can we profit off defeating them, other than protection of our freedom and way of life?
I fully support a volunteer army, and I think they should be well compensated for their risks. In some ways we do, because we offer 'combat pay' while in a combat area, not to mention they don't pay federal taxes. RJ, I think you're right, it is the lower & middle class that will do most of the fighting. However, for many lower/middle class people the military offers a tremendous way to refocus their lives, learn new skills, experience new things, etc... Its also in support of the concept of a random draft system in the event of major warfare - nobody should be allowed to escape from the call of duty if the country requires it.
__________________
There's a fine line between rubbing lotion on yourself and rubbing yourself with lotion.
Originally posted by plezercruz There really isn't a whole lot to say. I'm 100% against ANY sort of forced combat duty. I'm thrilled to live in a country with a volunteer Armed Forces, and I think that is the way to go. If there is a manpower shortage, then military wages should go up, just as in any other industry.
Does that mean that poor people will unfairly shoulder the burden of defending the nation...certainly. But I think that any system that randomly deprives people of their freedom and presses them into military service is monstrous. By contrast, paying people to voluntarily face risk for reward is a much better system.
Pete (thinks our military is underpaid)
Besides, the military is immeasurably more efficient when it is solely comprised of volunteer professional soldiers.
Originally posted by WashUJon Besides, the military is immeasurably more efficient when it is solely comprised of volunteer professional soldiers.
I totally agree. What kind of fighting force would it be if it was made up of people rushed through training to fight that did`nt want to be there in the first place?
I don't support the idea of a military draft. Not because I don't think a government has the right to force its citizens into duty. I am opposed to a draft because a highly paid, well trained and equipped professional military is much more effective.
I do believe that in times of a true national emergency a government has a duty and obligation to mobilize all its resources to protect it's citizens. Everyone who lives in this country and benefits from its protection and opportunities has an obligation to defend it either by volunteering to serve in its military or in some other alterntive service. If one refuses to help in this effort then I believe the government does have the right to force that duty.
This is one of my biggest complaints about the Bush administration. I believe that this current war we are engaged in (not just in Iraq or Afganistan) is a significant enough threat to our national security that the country should be put on a war footing. No cutting taxes, increases if necessary (better pay and equipment for the military), requiring all its citizens to share in the sacrifice to keep this nation free and safe.
Oops, I didn't read this thread until now because I thought it was another one about a draft rumor. I sure didn't think my name would be on it!
>> So in a way, it is the poor or lower middle class that are shouldering the burden of defending the free world.
Hey, people should go with their best opportunity. If that's the military, it's fine with me. (I never would have joined because I was overweight and didn't like the prospect of community showers, plus I couldn't run 1/2 mile without almost dying.)
>> However, I fully support the fact that the draft was used in World War II, because I think it was very much in our national interest to win that war. Would you have opposed the draft in World War II, assuming that without the draft, we could not have won it?
This isn't an issue I've read anything about. But I think that if we even need a draft, we're doing something wrong. If we had a stronger military going into WW2, and better technology, we probably wouldn't have needed a draft. (Now we're doing it right.) Plus, as soon as we need to take away a person's choice about whether or not to serve in the military, we're no longer a free country. We can't really fight for freedom as slaves!
__________________ You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
>> If we had a stronger military going into WW2, and better technology, we probably wouldn't have needed a draft. (Now we're doing it right.)
Kinda makes you wonder at what point a "war" is just going to be our robots fighting someone else's robots with nobody actually dying... (sounds good to me, as long as our robots can remember the difference between british & metric (low blow against NASA)).
Lets also not forget that realisitically a military is a self-defeating proposition. In a perfect world our military would be so good that nobody else would want to bother to fight us so they'd dismantle their armies. With the other armies dismantled we would not need a military so therefore we could then dismantle ours. Theoretically. Unfortunately as long as men are in charge its never going to come close to happening...
Dave (believes there's too much prick-waving going on)
__________________
There's a fine line between rubbing lotion on yourself and rubbing yourself with lotion.
I guess I would be considered a liberal, but I'd join up in a second if I thought it was a well founded cause. I'd never go over to murder innocent Iraqi citizens, regardless of if I were drafted, they could throw me in jail before I'd ever fight in the middle east. However if there was a LEGITIMATE reason, I'd have no qualms about dying for my country however, I say "my country" very lightly.
Originally posted by nbdyfcnsqnc Would you have opposed the draft in World War II, assuming that without the draft, we could not have won it?
Briefly...yes. Although I'd argue against the assumption.
Pete (thinks that free men make the best fighters)
__________________
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." --Thomas Jefferson
>> Lets also not forget that realisitically a military is a self-defeating proposition. In a perfect world our military would be so good that nobody else would want to bother to fight us so they'd dismantle their armies.
How are militaries self-defeating?
A lot of other countries need their armies so their people don't take over their governments
>> With the other armies dismantled we would not need a military so therefore we could then dismantle ours. Theoretically. Unfortunately as long as men are in charge its never going to come close to happening...
If we were to disband our military, some jerky socialist government would just invade us
__________________ You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
>> The attacks on the World Trade Center killed thousands of people, and wasn`t that drastic?
Yes, that was drastic, but not compared to my example, which was a nuclear bomb. Picture NYC after a nuclear blast with the city leveled and millions dead. Now THAT'S drastic!
>> Besides, the military is immeasurably more efficient when it is solely comprised of volunteer professional soldiers.
>> I totally agree. What kind of fighting force would it be if it was made up of people rushed through training to fight that did`nt want to be there in the first place?
>> Pete (thinks that free men make the best fighters).
While I agree that a volunteer army is more efficient than a draft army, you can't argue against the numbers generated by the draft. I'd bet on 100,000 U.S. draft soldiers against 10,000 U.S. volunteer soldiers any day.
>> Dave (believes there's too much prick-waving going on).
ROTFL!
>> I think that any system that randomly deprives people of their freedom and presses them into military service is monstrous. By contrast, paying people to voluntarily face risk for reward is a much better system.
I agree that in a perfect world, there would never be a draft army (or a need for any army, for that matter). However, sometimes for the sake of the nation, it is the duty of it's citizens to defend it whether they want to or not. Think about what America (and the world) would be like today if we had lost WWII due to a lack of troops. Now THAT's a monstrous thought.
>> Plus, as soon as we need to take away a person's choice about whether or not to serve in the military, we're no longer a free country. We can't really fight for freedom as slaves!
If every able-bodied man in America were willing to fight for their freedom, then there would be no need for the draft. However, that's not the case. I would rather have the government force people (only when absolutely neccessary, of course) to protect their freedom than to allow men to have their freedom stripped from them by defeat in a war against our oppressors. In other words, I rather be a slave to freedom than a slave to Hitler, Hirohito, bin Laden, etc. I've never been in the military, but I'd go to Iraq or anywhere else if drafted. Heck, if I was only 21 and didn't have a wife and kids, I might just sign up!
>> I'd have no qualms about dying for my country however, I say "my country" very lightly.
What are you trying to say here? It sounds like you barely claim to be a part of this great country. I hope that's not what you mean. Whatever it's current faults, there's still no better country in the world.
You argue the practical application. But consider how much technology has altered the battlefield. The gatling gun was once considered the weapon that would end war, because who the hell would challenge a gatling gun?
There's always some next-best piece of gear around the corner. We created nukes and realized that was just a little over the top. But run with the theory here. If one country (ie the US) had such a powerful army that nobody could realistically stop it (damned near true at this point), then eventually the other countries would just say "to hell with it" and shut down their militaries, jumping in our bandwagon and agreeing to be our allies. Eventually (once again theory theory theory) everyone might. And then at that point the military is unnecessary and therefore has put itself out of a job by being so damned good.
Just a long term hope for the future. . . I hope we can figure out how to stop f'in killing each other.
__________________
There's a fine line between rubbing lotion on yourself and rubbing yourself with lotion.
I realize this is simply a philosophical exercise, but I think you guys need to grow up and realize that to have freedom, you may have to make sacrifices to keep that freedom. I'm sure the "lower middle class" people you are referring to are glad to hear you think they should defend your asses while you ride around in your Z and chase skirts. The attitude of this board regarding military service makes me sick to my stomach.
Here is picture of my squad taken at LZ English in the spring of 1967. We were soldiers then, and proud to be protecting our country. I can't understand why you guys have the attitude that "other" people should protect your freedoms.
>> I realize this is simply a philosophical exercise, but I think you guys need to grow up and realize that to have freedom, you may have to make sacrifices to keep that freedom.
You tell 'em! I and others appreciate the time you spent in service to our country.
>> If one country (ie the US) had such a powerful army that nobody could realistically stop it (damned near true at this point), then eventually the other countries would just say "to hell with it" and shut down their militaries, jumping in our bandwagon and agreeing to be our allies.
Like I said, a lot of countries have armies to protect their leaders from their own people. That's how Iraq was, and probably how North Korea still is, along with many more.
They'd never get rid of their militaries because if they did, they'd be attacked by other nations and the theoretical all-powerful U.S. wouldn't even get involved.
>> Just a long term hope for the future. . . I hope we can figure out how to stop f'in killing each other.
Well, yeah, in the distant future hopefully people will be reasonable enough that we don't need governments at all. But that would require some sort of unkown change from what we are now.
If everyone in the world were conservative, or everyone was liberal, I think we'd still have wars. But if everyone were libertarian, it doesn't seem to me that wars would even exist.
__________________ You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
military draft?
ROTFL!
