Draft Bill exists - what are your opinions?

[dylcool]

I'm sorry if there's been a topic about this before, and it is old news, BUT...

There had been a bill created (by Democrats, ironically enough) about a year or two ago (correct me if I am wrong) that would reinstate the draft, if ratified. Not only that, it do away with college exemptions. Women would be included. That would mean that every able-bodied American of age would be drafted.

I always thought that if there were a draft that I were eligible, if worst comes to worst, my family would move to Canada or other such extreme possibilities. However, with this draft, there would be no moving to Canada. Americans moving to Canada to get out of the draft would be extredited back to America.

Now, there's really no chance of this bill being ratified, its too radical. It was drafted by the democrats most likely just to put it out there how much damage George Bush could do to the country. However, with the growing need for troops and basically no end in sight with our current predicament, some sort of a draft may be imminent.

Again, I'm sorry if this has been posted before, but what are your opinions on a possible draft? Would you be ok with it? Does it scare you (it scares me)?

Please, keep the Democrat/Republican superfan banter to a minimum in this thread.

[DruidMettool]

Goddammit people. This isn't going to happen. This bill was started by fanatical DEMOCRATS (yes, democrats) by in January of 2003 (yes, 2003) to try and get people angry at the war. There is no chance of it passing, and there hasn't even been any progress on it in congress since February 3rd, 2003. It has never gone up for a major vote, and it wouldn't survive one anyway.

We have less that 200,000 troops in Iraq. Just our army alone has 500,00 troops, and more than 700,000 reservists to back them up. We don't need a freaking draft.

This stupid draft bill scare has been going all around the internet, and it's a pointless waste of time and discussion. It's not going to happen. LEARN THE FACTS.

[dylcool]

On 2004-07-05 14:23, DruidMettool wrote:
Goddammit people. This isn't going to happen. This bill was started by fanatical DEMOCRATS (yes, democrats) by in January of 2003 (yes, 2003) to try and get people angry at the war. There is no chance of it passing, and there hasn't even been any progress on it in congress since February 3rd, 2003. It has never gone up for a major vote, and it wouldn't survive one anyway.

We have less that 200,000 troops in Iraq. Just our army alone has 500,00 troops, and more than 700,000 reservists to back them up. We don't need a freaking draft.

This stupid draft bill scare has been going all around the internet, and it's a pointless waste of time and discussion. It's not going to happen. LEARN THE FACTS.



Hey buddy, how about you read the post. I said there's basically no chance of it happening. But anyway, thanks for not contributing to the thread.

[Madzozs]

Also, the one in congress doesn't do away with college exemptions completely. It allows underclassmen to finish out the semester, and seniors to finish out the year.

But either way, I also believe this will never happen.

[dude3282]

Well, if my country needs me, I'm going, none of this pansy run-to-Canada crap. Sure, there's stuff I'd rather do with my life right now, but then again there's no pressing need. So, there's my two cents.

[Dangerous55]

Rummy just said yesterday he couldnt see a draft coming back. It isnt going to happen, unless Aliens attack or WW3 starts.

If it did, I would just join up.

[DruidMettool]

Why the hell does America need such a big army anyway? It's not like anyone ever attacks America...

[navci]

On 2004-07-05 15:04, DruidMettool wrote:
Why the hell does America need such a big army anyway? It's not like anyone ever attacks America...



But you see, some people might think nobody attacks America BECAUSE they have such a big army.

Can someone explain the concept of "college exemption" to me please?

[DruidMettool]

College Exemption is uhh...

When you are attending college, you are exempt from the draft and other military services. That's basically it. Not much more to it than that.

[Madzozs]

That was in the original draft(college exemption). The new draft that won't happen WILL take you from college, but the big thing is, they will only draft people in a field of study that will be useful to the gov't. for that time period.

I used to think of jumping the border and heading to Canada, but the past few years have proven that would be useless. I can sit here and not get drafted due to permanent knee damage in both knees.

[DarthFomar]

On 2004-07-05 14:16, dylcool wrote:
Again, I'm sorry if this has been posted before, but what are your opinions on a possible draft? Would you be ok with it? Does it scare you (it scares me)?


Ok, the draft sucks......we don't need it. There are so many people going into the military as we speak and in the present future that there is really no need for one unless there is some sort of nuclear holocaust kind of threat. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

The draft is a hateful thing. I am an only son to my mother, so if I was drafted and killed.....she better be getting some serious apologetic donations/grievances.

There shouldn't be a need for a "draft" at the present time *nor in the near future*, but then again....desperate times call for desperate measures. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/anime2.gif



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DarthFomar on 2004-07-05 16:06 ]</font>

[Nai_Calus]

These aren't desperate times.

[DarthFomar]

On 2004-07-05 16:08, Ian-KunX wrote:
These aren't desperate times.


No......these aren't desperate times. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/anime1.gif

But if WWIII or something like that were to happen, eventually there would be a draft. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DarthFomar on 2004-07-05 16:12 ]</font>

[Dhylec]

we aren't in a dire situation enough for drafting

also it isn't so bad to be in the US army.. not like everyone will bear arms & go to the battle field?

[Ketchup345]

I wouldn't mind it going through. I know it isn't though.

It may make thew leaders of a country think twice before sending soldiers there, knowing their relatives will be there (while most of the current military is made up of people who either want to do something for their country or need to get help for College).



On 2004-07-05 14:23, DruidMettool wrote:
We have less that 200,000 troops in Iraq. Just our army alone has 500,00 troops, and more than 700,000 reservists to back them up. We don't need a freaking draft.

The US may have only have lesthan 200k Troops in Iraq, but our military is spread somewhat thin (it could be thinner obviously). We have about 170k troops in all of just southwest Asia. We are going to send at least 15k more troops into Iraq alone. We also have 20k troops in South Korea (which are basically needed there), and a large number in Germany. We also have thousands of troops situated in various other countries.


And to those who won't serve:
Why not?
You are going to die sometime, why the hell not die defending your country, your friends, your family, and others who you love and care about?


Edit: Source (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm) for some of this info. Soem of the rest was remembered from fairly recent issues of Time.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ketchup345 on 2004-07-05 16:33 ]</font>

[Bradicus]

And to those who won't serve:
Why not?
You are going to die sometime, why the hell not die defending your country, your friends, your family, and others who you love and care about?

Who can say that WW3 would be justified to all people in America? Not all conflicts are as black and white as WW2.
Plus, some folks just don't like the idea of taking a bayonet in the intestines for any reason. Others would rather stand by their personal ethics than kill another human.

Anyways, "zombies" (as they were called in the great wars) can often do more harm than good.

[Ness]

On 2004-07-05 14:51, Dangerous55 wrote:
Rummy just said yesterday he couldnt see a draft coming back. It isnt going to happen, unless Aliens attack or WW3 starts.

If it did, I would just join up.



If aliens attacked they would just nuke them, but I agree. It's not going to happen.

[Ketchup345]

On 2004-07-05 16:40, Bradicus wrote:
Who can say that WW3 would be justified to all people in America? Not all conflicts are as black and white as WW2.
Plus, some folks just don't like the idea of taking a bayonet in the intestines for any reason. Others would rather stand by their personal ethics than kill another human.

Anyways, "zombies" (as they were called in the great wars) can often do more harm than good.


1) Ok, it depends on the war. But if there is a draft, the person drafted can choose to join either the Coast Guard or the Merchant Marines. to avoid offensive battles.
2) If it comes down to kill or be killed, most people will defend themselves (some exceptions apply, but only for tthe truly idiotic, or the ones that would be placed in non-combat anyway).
3) They don't have to be in a combat position. There are many non-combat jobs that are offered, such as being in the kitchen or supplies or in the Air Force guiding planes, etc. People can take a tesat or something to find out whether it is neccessary to have them in a non-combat position.
4) There are worse ways to die, and most of them can happen in everyday life (the car accident scene of Final Destination I believe). Also, Bayonets are rarely used, and are more for the shock value (and they were designed for this too). Fighting rarely comes down to this.

[Bradicus]

On 2004-07-05 17:00, Ketchup345 wrote:


On 2004-07-05 16:40, Bradicus wrote:
Who can say that WW3 would be justified to all people in America? Not all conflicts are as black and white as WW2.
Plus, some folks just don't like the idea of taking a bayonet in the intestines for any reason. Others would rather stand by their personal ethics than kill another human.

Anyways, "zombies" (as they were called in the great wars) can often do more harm than good.


1) Ok, it depends on the war. But if there is a draft, the person drafted can choose to join either the Coast Guard or the Merchant Marines. to avoid offensive battles.
2) If it comes down to kill or be killed, most people will defend themselves (some exceptions apply, but only for tthe truly idiotic, or the ones that would be placed in non-combat anyway).
3) They don't have to be in a combat position. There are many non-combat jobs that are offered, such as being in the kitchen or supplies or in the Air Force guiding planes, etc. People can take a tesat or something to find out whether it is neccessary to have them in a non-combat position.
4) There are worse ways to die, and most of them can happen in everyday life (the car accident scene of Final Destination I believe). Also, Bayonets are rarely used, and are more for the shock value (and they were designed for this too). Fighting rarely comes down to this.


http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_lol.gif
I only used the bayonet example because of its shock value.

Though you won't find me helping a war i don't believe in (in any capacity), i will fight for a cause that i see as justified. I can't agree with drafting, as it takes away that choice.

[klepto]

Die for my country?

Are you people fucking insane?

What good can you do for anyone by going out into a battlefield, and getting owned by a grenade or a cheap bullet. Nothing. You haven't defended anything, made any contribution of any sort. In short, you were a dumbass.

I would never fight for this goddamned country. How can we call this country free when I have to go through 5 months of legislation and zoning and taxing bullshit, just to put up a 5 foot fence in my yard? I would run to mexico, or hide, or go to Australia (the people are nice and the surf is great).

Life is meant to be lived, and if I have to look like a pansy for staying alive, so be it. Your stupid ass will be dead.
--
Don't vote because it doesn't matter, both the candidates are dumbasses anyway.

"the colt owns the face, but I prefer the ak"- Ronald "Rambo" Kim

#defuse
#team3b

[Ketchup345]

On 2004-07-05 17:26, klepto wrote:
Die for my country?

Are you people fucking insane?

What good can you do for anyone by going out into a battlefield, and getting owned by a grenade or a cheap bullet. Nothing. You haven't defended anything, made any contribution of any sort. In short, you were a dumbass.

I would never fight for this goddamned country. How can we call this country free when I have to go through 5 months of legislation and zoning and taxing bullshit, just to put up a 5 foot fence in my yard? I would run to mexico, or hide, or go to Australia (the people are nice and the surf is great).

Life is meant to be lived, and if I have to look like a pansy for staying alive, so be it. Your stupid ass will be dead.
--
Don't vote because it doesn't matter, both the candidates are dumbasses anyway.

"the colt owns the face, but I prefer the ak"- Ronald "Rambo" Kim

#defuse
#team3b


1) You are going to die at some time. You can't control it. If you take out just one "bad guy", you have contributed. If you join the right branch, you can make a huge difference alone.
2) I'm sure most of the fence stuff is local ordinances. The US does allow individual states to controll some things.
3) "Run to Mexico" http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_lol.gif Just watch out for the water, have a fun time getting a job, I hope you speak Spanish!
4) Like I said before, there are thousands on non-combat jobs availible.

[DruidMettool]

We don't die for our country anymore. We die so Bush can gain popularity and take Iraq's oil. (Operation Iraqi Liberail... O.I.L.)

I would die fighting for my country. Just not this one.

[Ketchup345]

On 2004-07-05 17:45, DruidMettool wrote:
We don't die for our country anymore. We die so Bush can gain popularity and take Iraq's oil. (Operation Iraqi Liberail... O.I.L.)

I would die fighting for my country. Just not this one.


You mean the country as in under Bush? If so, I said basically the same thing at a different board in the same topic.

What you are saying depends on where you are deployed in a way though. If you are deployed in Afghanistan, it wouldn't be for an unjust cause.

[GuerillaPimp]

And to those who won't serve:
Why not?
You are going to die sometime, why the hell not die defending your country, your friends, your family, and others who you love and care about?

I would kill for my friends and family, but not a country.

[dude3282]

In 1868, John Stuart Mill wrote:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

He said it pretty well.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dude3282 on 2004-07-05 18:16 ]</font>

[GuerillaPimp]

On 2004-07-05 17:26, klepto wrote:
Die for my country?

Are you people fucking insane?

What good can you do for anyone by going out into a battlefield, and getting owned by a grenade or a cheap bullet. Nothing. You haven't defended anything, made any contribution of any sort. In short, you were a dumbass.

I would never fight for this goddamned country. How can we call this country free when I have to go through 5 months of legislation and zoning and taxing bullshit, just to put up a 5 foot fence in my yard? I would run to mexico, or hide, or go to Australia (the people are nice and the surf is great).

Life is meant to be lived, and if I have to look like a pansy for staying alive, so be it. Your stupid ass will be dead.
--
Don't vote because it doesn't matter, both the candidates are dumbasses anyway.

"the colt owns the face, but I prefer the ak"- Ronald "Rambo" Kim

#defuse
#team3b



co-sign!

[Dangerous55]

If you wouldnt fight for your country and possibly die I have no respect for you.


You people don't know how good you have it or what people have done so you can live like you do. That goes for not just America, but every free nation.

[Ness]

What amazes me is that everyone puts so much emphasis on "dying for you country." What aobut living for it? Not everyone wants to "die for their country" and most people would contribute more to it by living for it.

[BlackRose]

I'd probably be exempt from the draft... I was going to go into the navy, but I would've had to lie about a few things to get in. I dunno what this new bill says (or whatever other ones get proposed) but it's probably not far different from current rules.

Anyway, I'm mixed about the draft. It'd make people care a hell of a lot more where we commit our troops, and think a lot more before we barrel in with our shock and awe. However, a drafted military is inherently less effective. So I dunno. As things stand now, I see no need for me to decide on how I think about it... since it probably won't go through this time.



On a side note, I think most young people these days could use a trip to boot camp anyway.

[RuneLateralus]

On 2004-07-05 15:59, Madzozs wrote:
That was in the original draft(college exemption). The new draft that won't happen WILL take you from college, but the big thing is, they will only draft people in a field of study that will be useful to the gov't. for that time period.

I used to think of jumping the border and heading to Canada, but the past few years have proven that would be useless. I can sit here and not get drafted due to permanent knee damage in both knees.



No. If you get drafted while in college, you must finish up the semester (or if you are a senior, the academic year) and then you are sent off. You are then to resume classes after you serve your time.

Convinantly, if the draft goes into effect (about June if it we are still in there), that would be the time I graduate...making nice prime meat to send over there. If I do get sent over, here is hoping I am not sent on battlefield, where the only use I would have would be a sacrificial human shield. Then again, what a perfect way to send someone over there for a cause he doesn't believe in.

I would also hope the rumor that if you remain unemployed for a year in my field, there will be a good chance you stay that way would be pardoned due to military service, but since I am studing to get into the entertainment industry, there could be a good chance they won't.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: RuneLateralus on 2004-07-06 00:15 ]</font>

[WraithVerge]

Draft or no draft, if someone asked me to join the military, I would. Now, don't get me wrong, I won't be a mindless drone and follow every single order or command to the period. If I don't feel something is right, I won't do it. If I get flak from it and get court martialled, so be it. I'd rather disobey an order than do something I'll regret for the rest of my life.


And to those who say 'I won't fight for my country'...

[Go live on a fucking island. Move to Antarctica or something. You won't have to fight for anything, let alone 'YOUR' country.]



... as I read what I just typed in [ ], I find it stupid and just me being angry, but its the first thing that came to mind.

[Phaesphora]

sometimes the rather unrealistic possibility of a draft still worries me, cause i have a little brother who's now nearly of age. more often i worry about my future nieces and nephews, now that we are in the middle of world war 3, the war on terror; war without end. what kind of world will they live in?

since everything else i have to say is basically flamebait, i'll leave it at that.

[Ketchup345]

On 2004-07-05 18:38, Ness wrote:
What amazes me is that everyone puts so much emphasis on "dying for you country." What aobut living for it? Not everyone wants to "die for their country" and most people would contribute more to it by living for it.


True.

But as said many times before, there are thousands of non-combat positions that may need to be filled. If you can't do anything useful on the front lines, you can do something in an office (paperwork, I'm sure the militry has a ton of it), moving supplies, landing planes, etc.

[dylcool]

What makes it viable that we're expected to "die" for our country? And, in fact, how are we dieing for our country by fighting against Iraq, a nation which has never really attacked us?

I have to agree with Ness. We probably do more good "living" for our country than "dieing" for it.

Have any of you read All Quiet On the Western Front? It is a 1st person story about German soldiers in World War 1. It describes the horrors of war, how it desensitized an entire generation in Germany. The protagonist expresses his frustration in saying that nobody who fought in the war like he did could ever possibly go back to living a normal, functional life.

Do any of us really know what its like to kill someone (if someone posting does, I'm sorry)? Just from reading what war does to people, and what affects it has on the world, I can firmly say that I think that there are very few things that are cause for war.

One more thing, in liu of Michael Moore's new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11," have any of your opinions changed on this topic? I was particularly moved by the soldier who said something like, "Whenever you kill someone, I think a part of you dies."

War is just a really ominous thing to the average American, I think.

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-07-06 12:28, dylcool wrote:

Just from reading what war does to people, and what affects it has on the world, I can firmly say that I think that there are very few things that are cause for war.







True, but when a nut starts one(Hitler, Saddam, etc) you have to fight back and stop them.

The draft isnt "dying for your country", of course that is possible but that isnt why its there. The draft is fighting and helping your country when it calls you.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dangerous55 on 2004-07-06 12:38 ]</font>

[Nai_Calus]

Saddam didn't start the current war in Iraq. We(Americans) did. Striking back? We hit the first blow. Talk about mindless...

[AUTO_]

I'd just like to point out that none of us posting in this thread deserve to live in America.

It's fun for everyday people to bash this country because we can, but half of you have no fucking clue how lucky we have it to be here. I'm sure many of you disagree with things President Bush is doing...congrats, be a US citizen and cast your vote. Or, better yet, come to the realization that things could be much worse.

If a draft was issued (say, WW3), I'd fight without question. Forget the leaders who ordered it, forget dying on the battlefield; it's all about willingness to make a difference in the future for your country and those you love.

And if you want to call this your country, act like you give a shit about it...and if you don't give a shit about it...then you truely don't deserve to live here.

[Ness]

On 2004-07-06 08:15, Ketchup345 wrote:


On 2004-07-05 18:38, Ness wrote:
What amazes me is that everyone puts so much emphasis on "dying for you country." What aobut living for it? Not everyone wants to "die for their country" and most people would contribute more to it by living for it.


True.

But as said many times before, there are thousands of non-combat positions that may need to be filled. If you can't do anything useful on the front lines, you can do something in an office (paperwork, I'm sure the militry has a ton of it), moving supplies, landing planes, etc.



All of which probably have plenty of people lined up to do those jobs. There is no need to force people from outside to do them.

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-07-06 13:20, Ness wrote:


All of which probably have plenty of people lined up to do those jobs. There is no need to force people from outside to do them.




Correct, right now there isnt. But in the future it could be needed.





On 2004-07-06 12:55, Ian-KunX wrote:
Saddam didn't start the current war in Iraq. We(Americans) did. Striking back? We hit the first blow. Talk about mindless...



He started the last one which started the second one. Even though I wasnt talking about this current war.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dangerous55 on 2004-07-06 13:32 ]</font>

[Nai_Calus]

No one living anywhere 'deserves' to live there. They were born there, or they moved there for whatever reason, but they don't 'deserve' to live there. They just do. So, your point is?

Wow, not being mindless sheep who'd happily shuffle overseas to go get immediately killed just because the government says we have to makes us horrible people undeserving of being from where we're from. Clearly all of us who prefer to be autonomous need to be squished. Thanks for this wonderful enlightenment. Any more totalitarian ideas you'd like to share?

[Ketchup345]

On 2004-07-06 13:31, Ian-KunX wrote:
Wow, not being mindless sheep who'd happily shuffle overseas to go get immediately killed just because the government says we have to makes us horrible people undeserving of being from where we're from. Clearly all of us who prefer to be autonomous need to be squished. Thanks for this wonderful enlightenment. Any more totalitarian ideas you'd like to share?


One of the points is that there will be less pointless conflicts, since the people who send us to war will have friends and family in the military.

Also, "immediately killed":
Huh? There is a very high chance that you will live, especially given the training you will get, and the current "trend"/whatever (for the "just" wars at least) that very few get killed.

And anyway, there are other branches besides the Army and Marines. There is the Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, and the Merchant Marines. 4 branches that rarely see ground combat versus 2 that don't.

[astuarlen]

It's fun for everyday people to bash this country because we can, but half of you have no fucking clue how lucky we have it to be here.
I'm sorry, but the "it could be worse" argument just doesn't cut it. Tell the countless homeless or destitute individuals who are barely making it through today without any guarantee that they will still be here tomorrow how outrageously lucky they are to be here. Tell the many people who suffer the effects of racism and other forms of prejudice that they had better be grateful for the privileged lives they lead. I don't think these men and women are exceptionally lucky to live in the US. And I don't even believe that just because the lives of mainly middle- and upper-class white folks seem great on the surface, we should be satisfied with our country as it is. Things could be much worse, but they could also be a whole lot better. But I'm sure it's just better to sit around and congratulate ourselves for living in such a wonderful, earth-friendly, neighborly, egalitarian, plenty-of-opportunities-for-everyone country.


If a draft was issued (say, WW3), I'd fight without question.
Let me ask you this: do you feel every war the US has ever fought was justified? Do you feel the US has always taken the side of justice, with no ulterior motives lurking in the shadows? How could you be open to killing a dying for the sake of a cause you might not even believe in? Not every war is as clear-cut as, say, WWII. Not every war is actively started by a dictator bent on mass-murder or genocide. So, maybe we do need to question and be able to choose our causes, even if the government is incapable of doing this itself.


it's all about willingness to make a difference in the future for your country and those you love.
Being drafted pretty much negates the whole choice and willingness part of fighting, because, you know, you don't have a whole lot of say in the matter. Have you considered the fact that some conflicts may not be in the best interest of "your country and those you love"? What about the citizens, soldiers, and their families you might kill? Are the human beings who happen to live within the boundaries known as "your country" more valuable than those who live in "the enemy's country"?


And if you want to call this your country, act like you give a shit about it
Yes, because it is, in fact, entirely impossible that "your country" is ever wrong, ever gets involved in unjust conflicts, or ever takes advantage of any individual or group of individuals. There are other ways of "act[ing] like you give a shit about it" besides fighting. A country is, after all, only meaningful as a body of people within the entire human race. The collection of valuable human lives does not stop at the borders, so maybe we need to stop thinking about doing things for our country, and start doing things for humans.

My appologies for any incoherency in the above post. I do my best.

[Ketchup345]

On 2004-07-06 15:12, astuarlen wrote:
Let me ask you this: do you feel every war the US has ever fought was justified? Do you feel the US has always taken the side of justice, with no ulterior motives lurking in the shadows? How could you be open to killing a dying for the sake of a cause you might not even believe in? Not every war is as clear-cut as, say, WWII. Not every war is actively started by a dictator bent on mass-murder or genocide. So, maybe we do need to question and be able to choose our causes, even if the government is incapable of doing this itself.


Until the Gulf War II, the US has been on the defensive side. Isn't that justified?

You will still be protecting other people, and most of the time fighting for other people who may help us in the future. Also, there is only a small chance of dying.

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-07-06 15:31, Ketchup345 wrote:


Until the Gulf War II, the US has been on the defensive side. Isn't that justified?

You will still be protecting other people, and most of the time fighting for other people who may help us in the future. Also, there is only a small chance of dying.



Agreed, and even your first statement is arguable(let us not get into that though...).


How many soldiers fought in Vietnam but thought we shouldnt be there? Alot. When your country calls on you, you go, that is what alot of them did.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dangerous55 on 2004-07-06 15:37 ]</font>

[Ness]

On 2004-07-06 15:37, Dangerous55 wrote:

How many soldiers fought in Vietnam but thought we shouldnt be there? Alot. When your country calls on you, you go, that is what alot of them did.




That's my point excatly. I don't want to be forced to put my life on the line for something I don't agree with or believe in.

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-07-06 16:05, Ness wrote:



That's my point excatly. I don't want to be forced to put my life on the line for something I don't agree with or believe in.



How the hell is what I said your point? I said those guys didnt want to be there and didnt believe in what they were doing, yet they went anyway because they knew they should.

[Ness]

On 2004-07-06 16:36, Dangerous55 wrote:


On 2004-07-06 16:05, Ness wrote:



That's my point excatly. I don't want to be forced to put my life on the line for something I don't agree with or believe in.



How the hell is what I said your point? I said those guys didnt want to be there and didnt believe in what they were doing, yet they went anyway because they knew they should.



I didn't see that last part. All I saw was this:


How many soldiers fought in Vietnam but thought we shouldnt be there? Alot. When your country calls on you, you go, that is what alot of them did.


I ineterpreted that than you did.

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-07-06 16:43, Ness wrote:


I didn't see that last part. All I saw was this:



I ineterpreted that than you did.





So....what?


I'm lost.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dangerous55 on 2004-07-06 16:57 ]</font>

[Ness]

Okay, I admit it. I was trying to use your arguement against you.

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-07-06 17:07, Ness wrote:
Okay, I admit it. I was trying to use your arguement against you.




I don't see how, but whatever.

[lain2k3]

I suppose I would go If it was actually needed. If another situation such as WWII arose, i would not have a problem.

But I wouldnt put my life on the line for some bullshit like the current war in Iraq, some crap in Africa, or A racist Invasion of Haiti.

[dylcool]

On 2004-07-06 15:37, Dangerous55 wrote:


How many soldiers fought in Vietnam but thought we shouldnt be there? Alot. When your country calls on you, you go, that is what alot of them did.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dangerous55 on 2004-07-06 15:37 ]</font>


Yeah, and in hindsight, Vietnam and the draft was looked at as a mistake.

[astuarlen]

I said those guys didnt want to be there and didnt believe in what they were doing, yet they went anyway because they knew they should.
Tell me again why they should be there? Because their government said so? And yet, the government has made mistakes, one of the most egregious being the Vietnam war. What these men "should" have done, if you ask me, is followed their conscience.


Until the Gulf War II, the US has been on the defensive side. Isn't that justified?
So, the US was on the defensive in the Vietnam war and the war with Mexico? If I recall correctly, we were also the aggressors of the Spanish-American war. All perfectly justified, I'm sure.


You will still be protecting other people, and most of the time fighting for other people who may help us in the future.
Fighting for other people? Which people are these--the ones we're killing? There are cases in which we may be fighting for other people, but there are just as many in which we are not. But with a draft, there is no opportunity to choose. Likewise, without questioning, there is no opportunity to make an informed decision based on the facts of the war and one's conscience.


Also, there is only a small chance of dying.
It's not just about dying; it's about killing, too. But, you know, I suppose we really shouldn't care as long as we aren't the ones getting slaughtered. What do those other guys matter anyway?

[Ness]

On 2004-07-06 16:36, Dangerous55 wrote:

How the hell is what I said your point? I said those guys didnt want to be there and didnt believe in what they were doing, yet they went anyway because they knew they should.



No, they went because they would face prosecution if they didn't. Like I said they were forced to go whehter they wanted to or not. I reiterate, I don't want to be forced to put my life on the line for something I don't agree with or believe in.

[Ketchup345]

On 2004-07-06 19:03, astuarlen wrote:
So, the US was on the defensive in the Vietnam war and the war with Mexico? If I recall correctly, we were also the aggressors of the Spanish-American war. All perfectly justified, I'm sure.
Vietnam, yes. Defensive for some of the Veitnamese (or wheatever). Also, it was defending American policy.
Spanish American war was a defensive for the Cubans.
I never said defensive of the US, but just defensive.


Fighting for other people? Which people are these--the ones we're killing? There are cases in which we may be fighting for other people, but there are just as many in which we are not. But with a draft, there is no opportunity to choose. Likewise, without questioning, there is no opportunity to make an informed decision based on the facts of the war and one's conscience.
Not the ones we are killing. The ones who want to try to live a better life, or want to live in a secure place.


It's not just about dying; it's about killing, too. But, you know, I suppose we really shouldn't care as long as we aren't the ones getting slaughtered. What do those other guys matter anyway?
There is also a large chance of being in a position to not kill anyone (example is in WWII, for every 1 soldier, there were 10 people who were supporting them at home). Also, if you are a terrible aim, or are in the right branch you may not be forced to kill anyone. Like I said, there are 4 branches where you may not be required to kill anyone, and only 2 where you will face ground combat and even then, there is no guarentee you will face any combat.


Plus, if there is a draft, wouldn't politicians start thinking twice before sending troops somewhere knowing someone they know may get sent there? Everyone seems to be avoiding this.



Edit: Plus, the military does not force you to do something that you believe is morally wrong. You can object to orders that are against your morals.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ketchup345 on 2004-07-06 19:20 ]</font>

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-07-06 19:03, astuarlen wrote:
Tell me again why they should be there? Because their government said so? And yet, the government has made mistakes, one of the most egregious being the Vietnam war. What these men "should" have done, if you ask me, is followed their conscience.




Vietnam wasnt a huge mistake or total failure, it did more to end the Cold War then you think.

You know I am having a hard time coming up with the words to say why you should go if your country calls. Guess I can't really explain it, although I know exactly what it is. Maybe it is about your neighbor or cousin who is fighting for your nations flag, or how your Grandfather won a Bronze Star at Midway. Believe what you want though. Of course there is a time when you don't go, but that is under extreme conditions. Vietnam, or the current wars are not that.




On 2004-07-06 19:10, Ness wrote:


No, they went because they would face prosecution if they didn't. Like I said they were forced to go whehter they wanted to or not. I reiterate, I don't want to be forced to put my life on the line for something I don't agree with or believe in.




Some of them, not nearly all of them.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dangerous55 on 2004-07-06 19:33 ]</font>

[Ness]

On 2004-07-06 19:31, Dangerous55 wrote:




Some of them, not nearly all of them.




If they were drafted, they were forced into it.

[astuarlen]

Vietnam, yes. Defensive for some of the Veitnamese (or wheatever). Also, it was defending American policy.
Spanish American war was a defensive for the Cubans.
I never said defensive of the US, but just defensive.
You really believe that we were the great defenders to the rescue? It's been a little while since American History class, but I'll take a stab. Let's start with Vietnam. France had been exploiting its colony, Vietnam, prior to WWII, and after the war, France hoped to retain control of Indochina. The US eventually sided with the French, lending support to their effort to hang onto colonial possessions. Ho Chi Minh, however, had been campaigning for Vietnamese home-rule through reasonable, peaceful measures, but when all attempts at negotiation failed, he threw his lot in with the communists and declared North Vietnam independent. An agreement was reached that would provide for an election in 1956 to decide Vietnam's fate. As it happened, the US didn't like the idea of communists in control--regardless of their good intentions or the fact that self-determination was supposedly a principle espoused by America--so we basically sabotaged efforts at peaceful resolution. The US helped Ngo Din Diem take power in South Vietnam from Bao Dai and began coordinating raids against the North Vietnamese (NV) in order to provoke retaliation. The US got what it wanted: the communist NV fought back, and hopes of peace were shattered. Go team US! However, Diem proved a brutal ruler with a knack for squashing dissent. Angry South Vietnamese (the Vietcong) joined the NV, prompting the US to send troops and relocate the "good" SV "for their own protection". So that's the story of how we became involved in the war for "Vietnamese defense". I'm sure you can look up the rest if you're not already familiar. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Ah, the Spanish-American War. I suppose defending the Cuban revolutionaries was a good pretext, but we can see the US's motives were clearly not entirely altruistic. Afterall, the US did get some nice "colonial" possessions of its own: the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico. So, anyway, some history first. In 1894, the US placed a 40% tariff on sugar, causing severe depression in Cuba. A growing spirit of American imperialism was also resulting in talk of annexing Cuba, which would not only add directly to American possessions, but also help open the way for further involvement in the area. Jose Marti began the fight for independence in Cuba, but, fearful of American imperialistic impulses warned against American intervention. However, Marti was killed in 1895, 3 years before the US "came to the rescue". At the time of US intervention in 1898, both the Cuban revolutionaries and members of the American government noted that the Cubans were proceeding with success against the Spanish. Revolutionary leaders also clearly remained opposed to the posibility of the US entering the conflict. Furthermore, it is evident from McKinley's war request that the purpose of intervention was not to secure Cuban independence, but just to stop the war. Interesting...

Okay, I think my reply is long enough. Any other questions? http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/anime2.gif

Edit: I forgot to ask you, Dangerous, if you could back this little tidbit up: "Vietnam wasnt a huge mistake or total failure, it did more to end the Cold War then you think." As far as I can tell from what I have read and learned, the Vietnam war was hugely successful only in these areas: promoting controversy, dividing the country, embarrassing the US, harming our global reputation, and causing the deaths of many valuable and unique human lives.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astuarlen on 2004-07-06 20:48 ]</font>

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-07-06 20:19, Ness wrote:

If they were drafted, they were forced into it.




No shit, but not everyone of them was screaming about it. They understood it.




On 2004-07-06 20:42, astuarlen wrote:


Edit: I forgot to ask you, Dangerous, if you could back this little tidbit up: "Vietnam wasnt a huge mistake or total failure, it did more to end the Cold War then you think." As far as I can tell from what I have read and learned, the Vietnam war was hugely successful only in these areas: promoting controversy, dividing the country, embarrassing the US, harming our global reputation, and causing the deaths of many valuable and unique human lives.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astuarlen on 2004-07-06 20:48 ]</font>



Say whatever you want, but it stopped the spread Communism, showed the Soviets that America would fight, and overall hurt Communism.

What would have happened if we were actually allowed to win Vietnam? Would people still be arguing that it was a massive waste?

[Ness]

On 2004-07-06 23:02, Dangerous55 wrote:


No shit, but not everyone of them was screaming about it. They understood it.





That's not the point. The point is that I don't think that the government should force peopel to put their life on the line for a war that they don't believe in. Now if it's something like WW3 or if aliens attack, then yes I could see them using the draft, but for something minor that may or may not be a valid war (like the War on Terror), I don't think they should use the draft.

[astuarlen]

Say whatever you want, but it stopped the spread Communism, showed the Soviets that America would fight, and overall hurt Communism.

What would have happened if we were actually allowed to win Vietnam? Would people still be arguing that it was a massive waste?

Even if this were true (which I will get to later), at what cost? Not quite sixty thousand US citizens were killed, but the total death-count was a staggering two million. How can you possibly say it was worth it to kill two million people--not to mention the countless others whose lives were impacted by the death of a loved-one or destruction of one's home and way of life or soldiers who had to live with traumatic war memories for the rest of their lives--in order to prevent a country from achieving independence from an exploitative colonial master? The war also injured the US economy, and it would take no large stretch of the imagination to reason that it devastated the Vietnamese economy, too.

Why did America continue to pursue this war? Because the US government became obsessed with punishing the communists and being victorious in this conflict, regardless of the costs. Never mind the fact that war--and perhaps even communist involvement--could have been prevented if petitions for Vietnamese independence were accepted earlier, or if the US hadn't backed France in its colonial absorption.

So what was so wrong about Ho Chi Minh and these communists in Vietnam? Well, exactly that: they were communists, and God knows there doesn't exist a communist who isn't conspiring with the Soviets, or, at the least, their cat's-paw. So, even though Ho Chi Minh was friendly towards and favored the US as an ally, the perceived threat of communism and pressure from France under DeGaulle (who, by the way, feared communist influence within France itself) aligned the US against a former ally and supporter and the citizenry of a country which desired independence.

How effective was the Vietnam War in fulfilling the objectives of "containment", a faulty policy to begin with. Well, it certainly didn't work within Vietnam itself; after the US finally pulled out, the North Vietnamese took Saigon, and Vietnam was united under one government.

Insofar as the Vietnam War increased awareness of the cost of continued enmity and the misguided nature of American policy with respect to communism, you might be able to say that it encouraged a spirit of detente, simply because the US realized it could not bear the burden of being constantly at odds with the USSR. But this was only an unintended side-effect of the war in Vietnam. Certainly, events in the years between the end of the Vietnam war and the final fall of the USSR, along with leadership changes and severe problems on the Soviet side, had a more pronounced effect in drawing the Cold War to a close.

If we had "won"? What would we have "won", and how would we have one? Yes, I suppose we could have bombed Vietnam straight off the map--a great victory for the forces of reason and democracy--but where does that get us? I do believe there would still be debate as to the effectiveness, necessity, and degree of waste regarding the Vietnam War.

Meh, I am sick of typing. I can see that you won't be changing your mind, and I won't be changing mine, but at least I can get the message out there, right? http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/anime1.gif

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-07-07 05:13, Ness wrote:


That's not the point. The point is that I don't think that the government should force peopel to put their life on the line for a war that they don't believe in. Now if it's something like WW3 or if aliens attack, then yes I could see them using the draft, but for something minor that may or may not be a valid war (like the War on Terror), I don't think they should use the draft.




And there not so everyones happy.


Yeah astuarlen I won't be changing my mind because we only heard your message countless times in the past. That is all anyone has said for the last 30 years or so, Vietnam was a giganitc waste that did nothing at all, blah blah. Thanks for telling me it all again, how we got there, why we were there, and the supposed to results of the war.

Government obsessed with winning Vietnam? That is certainly a new one, some might say it seemed the Government didnt want to win at all. Later you asked how we could have won, well, we could start by actually taking out the enemy instead of slogging through the jungle in a war of attrition.

The American policy at the time wouldnt allow any Communism in any region if it could stop it. Just because Ho Chi Minh might possibly be a good Communist doesnt mean were gonna let him go or do whatever he wants. Would the Russians let this so called good Communist be pro-American? Hell no.


You right, Vietnam eventually became Communist. Look how long it took though and how much the relationship between the USA and the USSR changed? What would have happened if South Vietnam fell in 63 or earlier? Personally, I am glad the world didnt find out.