After tabling yesterday, I think we need to bring back the Draft.

[Raven]

At least a half a dozen wise-ass 18 year old boys made a point of telling us how great they thought the war in Iraq was. We are raising a generation of thugs. And, while I'm on the subject, I was shocked at the folks who had only a vague idea of who the Presidential candidates were. These people are obviously not watching the MSM...maybe that's a blessing. Really though, the level of discourse on the street is much, much lower than last year or the year before. It really worries me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Ben saying this for some years now

and I always get attacked

We need the draft \ national service, for multiple reasons

And it is not a generation of thugs but a generation of ME and forget about the US

[tjwash]

10. Me too. I got barbequed and and ran off here for bringing that up as well.

nt

[mahina]

182. Might want to remind them that the selective serv. rules changed; they don't get to finish school,

unless they are seniors when drafted. They have to just finish the semester and report for duty.

Check out the selective service website. It takes some digging but that change was made a couple of years ago when the local draft boards were re-activated. If a draft is legislated, the boards are already in place. Being in college is no shield any more. Kids will feel differently about another blase response to trumped up war against Iraq if they realize it means they will get drafted.

[notadmblnd]

292. and COs will not get a break either

they may not have to participate in combat, but they will serve.

[Truth4Justice]

359. Amen to that. No more college deferrals like Cheney got. Fight and die.

[TahitiNut]

13. Yup.

Funny how the "not my sweet butt" crowd thinks democracy is a spectator sport.

[otherlander]

17. There's nothing democratic

about fighting the war of the oil kings.

[TahitiNut]

18. Empty rhetoric.

If you believe that then stop paying your taxes and put your ass on the line for your beliefs ... instead of letting others be the cannon fodder for the 'inconvenience' of it all.

The 'social contract' of a democracy is to participate and support the will of the majority. It's not to whine in the corner "I didn't get MY way!"

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. SOCIAL CONTRACT, read on it

then come back to me

[ben_meyers]

22. I'm sure you didn't mean me,

but I have been saying the same thing for years. The protests and activism during the 60's were much more anti-draft as opposed to anti-war. Not to say that there weren't some true believers, but a large portion just didn't want to be bothered.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Alas you hit a critical point, why this war has been borne by at most

five percent of the population.

If it affected more, then they might bother to actually do something productive.

Then there is that pesky social contract that has been suspended in this country.

As long as I got MINE, I don't give a rats ass about my neighbors...

I mean that is so yesterday and ahem inconvenient

[TahitiNut]

29. Early on, it was 'anti-war' ... but the "not my sweet, tender butt" types piled on around 1968.

The "60's" became a 'fasionable' thing to do around 1967-68. By 1969, you'd have a hard time finding anyone who wasn't just covering their own tender butt ... with the sole exception of veterans.

[tomg]

189. While I agree that many

who opposed the draft and participated in the anti-war movement did so primarily out of self-interest, one of the consequences was that it served to politicize many of them. When I was seventeen and first became involved ( 1966-1967), I was anti-war without really being aware what it meant to be on the left. Just as a number of early anti-war activists were involved in the Civil Rights movement, though, a large number of people who became involved in the anti-war movement were exposed to progressive politics. Maybe most of us entered out of self-interest, but a lot of us stuck around and stayed involved.

[wuushew]

31. You have never explained how people not of draft age now would be equally punished

i.e. all women older than 26 and men too young to have ever been eligible for the Vietnam draft.

[Truth4Justice]

360. What are you talking about?

[Blue-Jay]

115. I disagree with Ben.

[Truth4Justice]

154. I agree.Once the white bread home-boys come back dead, the war will be over quickly.

[Thothmes]

271. They came home that way by the thousands

in the sixties and it did not end the war President Johnson started nor the draft that he relied upon to stock the killing machine.

[Truth4Justice]

317. Different time. WWII parents who had been drafted. All volunteer army for 30 years now.

[baby_mouse]

305. That's not a given at all.

Many factors contribute to the willingness of a populace to sacrifice it's children, not the least of which is the extent to which they wish to shore up their myth-structures. It depends on the war, if the war is conducted under circumstances that make the waging of it look and feel cool and macho and sexy and noble people are happy to chuck away millions of young guys with the trash, honouring them with tasteful monuments.

[Truth4Justice]

316. I disagree. These rich white boys have spoiled Boomer parents who avoided the draft. Riots again!

[Tesha]

197. 'Been saying it right along with you.

Most Americans have no "skin in the game" and not even
any real idea of what the actual financial costs of the
war are.

Until they again start to feel like government decisions
directly affect them, they'll continue to remain blissfully
ignorant of everything that's going on in their government.

Tesha

[Truth4Justice]

319. Agreed. Blissfully ignorant is the word. nt

[baby_mouse]

304. Why would drafting anyone solve this?

Why do people keep making this mistake - if you FORCE people to face their demons they screw up, they mistake you or something else for the demon. The whole point about facing your demons is you have to CHOOSE to face them. That's where the power to change comes from.

Imposing circumstances on people en-masse to counter a perceived political bias is the clumsiest, most cumbersome and reactionary possible way to solve a problem like this, in fact I'd go so far as to say it was somewhat fascist.

It's not the first time I've come on this message board and seen otherwise very sensible posters propose the lumpiest, ugliest possible solution to a social problem and thought "These are LIBERALS?" I know that's not going to cut any ice with you, nadin, but I must ask you, are you truly convinced that this is only solution, in fact have you considered any other solutions at all?

Drafting morons will turn them into drafted morons. If you want people to think you have to put them somewhere they can THINK. None of them are going to transform miraculously into socially upstanding pillars of the community through being in the draft, they'll just pollute the Army with cruddy attitude problems.

Armed Forces borrow their mythologies from the greater pool of Human mythology and armies don't need to emphasize the qualities of any *particular* mythology over another to function - all they need is an alternative to their host nation's mainstream culture, sufficiently well-defined and enforced as to get their soldiers to obey instructions. Did you miss the advertising campaign on the back of comics a few years back hyping enlistment as a gateway to "An Army of One?"

[Two Americas]

314. to be consistent...

I would presume that you are also opposed to forcing people to support Social Security, and that you are opposed to public libraries, public schools and law enforcement agencies, opposed to supporting the research and development that created the Internet, traffic laws and other ways in which we are all asked to sacrifice for the common good.

[nadinbrzezinski]

325. Or supporting this war by the simple act of paying taxes, federal taxes

It is time people face the ugly truth. They may be against this war and make all kinds of convoluted arguments as to how they don't support it

In the end we all own it... every time we send our check to uncle Sam in April

The crisis in Central Asia may develop into something that may force the hand of the state and require a draft... mark my words, they will continue to scream foul, even as WE all have supported the present conflict by simply paying taxes

[baby_mouse]

385. I can't imagine that you make that comparison seriously...

...given the considerable difference in the level of sacrifice required. You would suppose it inconsistent of me, then, to suffer 5c in the dollar for a public library but not the lives of my family for a fat dose of the greatest plague that mankind has ever faced? You may assume them to be equivalent, I suspect otherwise.

The OP directly signals the desire for a personality change to be brought about by a draft, and that is what I was addressing. Your post reads very much like a response to the following: "public works are to be avoided as an imposition on the rights of the individual to spend their money as they see fit" and does not, that I can see, follow from what I posted, other than in the sense of a somewhat "token riposte".

[Canuckistanian]

2. So, were they on their way to the recruitment office?

Let them talk to the 20-somethings that have just come BACK from Iraq after their third tour.

I expect they'll get an education.

[CrazyDude]

116. The veterans from Iraq may actually be more pro-war in some cases

At the same time, it does take a nutcase to enjoy killing the "enemy".

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. I have met only ONE combat veteran in the last twenty years

that is pro war.

I mean in the blind sense of it.

And you could say I have met plenty of combat vets... hell I am married to one, and due to the war on drugs, you could say I am one.

It gives you a very sobering point of view on life

[AwakeAtLast]

224. I can assure you my OIF Veteran husband is not one of them

and I don't know any in his unit that enjoys dancing on anyone's grave.

[CrazyDude]

269. What about these douchebags? Don't tell me they don't get off on killing Iraqis.

[nadinbrzezinski]

283. cannot say one way or the other

but writing things on bombs is a classic going back to the first use of artillery back in oh... the age of siege warfare

And those troops above... just because they don't agree with you that John Kerry is a swell guy does not mean that they get a hard on every time they pull the trigger

Of course you forgot to mention the role that Rush had on this particular one, given that AFR mostly has no progressive voices on

But I can say this with certainty that you are making way too many leaps of logic that have seriously very little to do with reality.

[CrazyDude]

287. What about the hijack this fags?

I don't know if that picture is still on my original post.

[nadinbrzezinski]

291. That was your bomb photo

not different in intent or meaning than many other written phrases on bombs going back 500 years

Hell, some of the ostraca found by the wall in England left behind by Roman Legionaries have similar feelings on them

They have all to do with a phenomena very familiar to troops and those who study the psychology of war... and it is called the dehumanization of the enemy

Read on it... there are some classics on this by the way.

That said I am willing to bet, and I KNOW I will be right most of the time, that if we took that sailor to the side and asked him exactly that, does he get a hard on every time he launches... chances are he will tell you no.

And the best part is, he ain't lying. He does not get a hard one every time his aircraft launches on a mission.

Here are some readying resources for you

http://www.popmatters.com/books/reviews/p/psychology-of-war.shtml

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views04/0506-07.htm

Now every war has a very small percentage of troops... perhaps on the high end at 5%, that would get a hard on when fighting the enemy, and truly are not normal. You can be thankful that this is such a small number, and these are the folks who have the hardest time coming back... but in some ways they were damaged goods already and no, you cannot test for that either.

Oh and my bad I forgot Lifton on the readying resources as well. Lifton is far more accessible to most folks than most specialist books as well

[wtmusic]

3. Easy way to shut them up.

Bring a stack of enlistment forms, and you can hear a pin drop.

http://www.army.com/forms/dd-forms.html

[Raven]

5. I've thought about doing that! Then there's the woman whose son

just got back. She said "We have to get out of there" and she had a very sad, haunted look on her face.

[wtmusic]

9. Tabling is a great experience.

I've done a lot of that, a lot of solo streetcorner petitioning/protesting.

For the antiwar stuff I can remember specific people I talked to five years ago. The grizzled Vietnam vet who showed me his VA card and just said, "It's the same shit all over again", the angry Republican-looking man who came up to me and said, "I can't believe our country's come to this", the mother of a soldier in Iraq who stopped her car in the middle of a city street to come and shout in my face that I "didn't know what I'm talking about" and that I should be over there fighting for my country".

But most of all, the hordes of people who just didn't care. That scared the shit out of me.

[TomInTib]

7. That'll do it.

Along with some MapQuest printouts of directions to the nearest recruiting stations.

[bigtree]

4. only if it offers a choice in ALL aspects of public service

. . . not just warring.

Why institutionalize warring as our most important priority?

[tbyg52]

26. Absolutely.

And, as a liberal Heinlein fan (not mutually exclusive, IMHO), I'd like to throw in that this is exactly what the world of _Starship Troopers_ has, at least if you wanted to vote and/or run for office.

A lot of people think the service in the book was just military service, which shows that they either hadn't read the book or hadn't retained what they had read.

There are a lot of interesting political ideas in science fiction, which makes sense when you consider that it is fiction that speculates about the future.

[fascisthunter]

230. good point

[ikojo]

6. Right now what we have is an economic draft

True poor kids are not mandated to join the service. They are enticed by the offers of a free college education, something their parents would never be able to afford.

I think the sacrifices ought to be shared by more than just the working class and poor people.

[TahitiNut]

14. Health care ... for them and their dependents. Try finding that in the 'hood these days.

:shrug:

[MH1]

62. EXACTLY. N/T

[Truth4Justice]

361. Why would you get a college education when you are dead or sick from DU poisoning

[eshfemme]

8. Uh... they're 18 years old. They're kinda gonna be retarded like that.

Just as there will always be callow 18 year olds (boys or girls, mind you), there will also be mature 18 year olds. I mean some of our great literature was written by teenagers and many true stories of heroes have 18 year olds.

But you are right that the common man seems to know less and less. I can't help but feel elitist just because I happen to know how to speak and write English. And that's worrying.

[tjwash]

11. Are they by chance Mike Savage fans?

Some of my nephews buddies are like that. Same age range; and don't even bother with the "freeing the iraqi people" talking point that the neo-cons were pushing. They just think we should stay there and take all of their oil.

They are all avid Savage listeners as well.

[Truth4Justice]

322. Savage never served a day in the armed services. All talk, no walk.

[GoesTo11]

12. No effin' way.

Draft is basically enslavement. Being taken by threat of force to go off and fight and be wounded or killed or at best lose years of your life for someone else's convenience. Damn, it's not that the country needs the size of military we have. And wars don't do us any good. If you want a draft just to make sure that there is more opposition to war, well, screw that. What if that doesn't wars. Even what if it does? The cost to a kid who would be broken by the military (say, a non-conformist who would get sent to the brig) is huge - a life ruined. Just to help promote your anti-war cause? Have you contributed $100,000 to anti-war causes or $500,000? No, well then don't make someone else do it just to be a pawn in your cause.

I'm not in any way saying that military service isn't honorable. And people who have been drafted and done their duty are to be honored. But they're also victims to varying degrees. There will be some people who say the military changed their life for the better, and great for them. But on average it doesn't (especially Viet Nam vets did worse over life on average, and in all likelihood the costs to Iraq war vets will be high too).

And back to money, since we spend almost a $1 trillion a year on military, shouldn't that be enough for people to want to scale it back and to oppose unnecessary war? That's $3,000 per citizen per year. $12,000 for a family of 4. That could be your tax cut or rebate, or if not, that's how much could be spent on things that benefit people. This hasn't happened because nobody connects the dots. It could easily happen if our public discourse was reality based.

Throwing virgins into the volcano to quench the war god? We're past that primitive idea. Just no way.

[12string]

15. the draft

My 3 sons all went to college on academic scholarships.They know who the presidential candidates are.They are all anti-war,compassionate human beings.We did not raise our sons to be cannon fodder and anyone who thinks they can make that decision based on meeting a few losers can go get fucked.I don't agree with you.If you want to send your own kids thats your business.Leave my kids alone.

[MadrasT]

208. Word.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[Two Americas]

334. college graduates and state institutions

College graduates play a critical role in supporting, promoting and defending the interests of the wealthy and powerful - they almost have no choice but to do that, since that is what intellectuals get paid to do in this society - and that is the direct cause of the illegal wars and global exploitation that leads to conflicts.

If intellectuals want to eat, they are channeled into corporate jobs, and enjoined from making waves if they want to succeed. That plays a much more essential and critical role in advancing the empire than any poor grunt in a foxhole ever will.

Participating in the benefits the country offers, such as higher education, implies a moral responsibility back to the larger community in return.

[Warpy]

16. Yes, let's give a madman access to our children to get them killed

just because a bunch of swaggering teenage boys are witless assholes.

Do you have any clue about why we haven't attacked Iran and gotten ourselves into a world war? It's because the Pentagon doesn't have the manpower to face the Iranian army and they have consistently told Stupid and Cheney NO!

No draft.

There is a reason we fought so hard to get rid of the draft. Please learn what it is.

[The Gunslinger]

20. No Draft.

I have 2 kids, and I don't want the government forcing them to fight for whatever corporate interests there are at the time when they are of age. The people who are calling for the draft should send you own kids, or go themselves.

[CookCountyResident]

23. You took the words

right out of my mouth.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Dearie, been there, done that

any other questions?

We need a new social contract and as long as only five percent face the horrors the Murican people don't truly give a fucking dam!

I will add, this is about YOU and how this will affect you than the NATION... one reason why we are in the hole we are

[baby_mouse]

306. Are the positive qualities contrary to militarism in place to support your reverse pyschology?

You run the risk of converting millions of assholes into millions of ARMED assholes.

Why are you assuming that being drafted is going to improve the temper of these people? The national myth structure you're trying to prop up isn't missing from the young assholes of America because they haven't seen difficulty or faced authority its because they see no benefit in it. The question of WHY they see no benefit isn't addressed by your solution.

[nadinbrzezinski]

328. My solution will make their role in this immediate... what I could be sent to the sands

It has a way of focusing people

Like all those parents screaming NOT MY KID!

Go to a funeral of a service member and tell them that, and then prepare to duck... fist may come your way

That said....

You and I are full participants anyway... as we both pay taxes...

I will add, national service does not necessarily imply carrying a rifle... but it does focus people into the WE and not the I

Are we a nation, or just a collection of regions? From the evidence of recent natural disasters... it is the latter.

[SammyWinstonJack]

33. Thank you! nt

[Two Americas]

345. we have a madman in charge?

Do you really think that?

If so, a draft should be the least of your worries.

It seems to me that the very reason we have a madman in charge is because too may people wash their hands of any responsibility, look out for themselves, and are not willing to make any personal sacrifice for the greater good.

The reason that "we" got rid of the draft was because spoiled and privileged young people wanted to save their own skin, but had no problem with the war once the fighting was all being done by poor kids and minority kids. That destroyed the anti-war movement - destroyed the left - and prolonged the war. It took pressure off of the government to end it, and took all of the wind out of the sails of the social justice movement and has paralyzed the political left for 35 years. That led to an almost complete take-over of the country by right wing extremists.

[tuckessee]

19. Bring back the draft. Slavery is cool! n/t

[TahitiNut]

28. "Slavery!" The typical whine of a spoiled brat told to clean up their room and take out the trash.

:puke:

It's not only the whine of a spoiled brat, it demeans and trivializes what REAL 'slavery' is and was. Despicable.

[MH1]

64. thank you.

:thumbsup:

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Damn you do know the difference between slavery

and service to one's nation?

Oh never mind...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. Yes - slavery is when other people do it.

One is just a nice name for the other, I'm afraid.

Enforced servitude is wrong. End of story.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. You do not understand the difference, thank you for making this clear

By the way you also probably do not understand what social contract means either

[GoesTo11]

55. The social contract applies for defense, not aggression

I don't want a social contract that says you can be taken as an empire's cannon fodder. I don't want a country that seizes young people and makes them cannon fodder. Sure, we all should rise to the nation's defense, and when it's at stake, few begrudges the call. We are so far from a situation of needing a draft for that, it's not relevant. The main argument of progressives who want the draft comes down to holding some unlucky 18 year olds hostage against their will so that their parents and peers will become activists on their behalf. You miss the war protests of the 60s. Well, those war protests weren't such a great thing because a generation of young men got screwed for them to happen.

[wuushew]

58. In the ancient world Sparta also had a social contract

and Sparta like the United States was belligerent and a bunch of assholes. I don't see how we benefit moving even further away from the Athenian ideal of art, liberty and personal happiness.


Not to mention that all these universal service proposals have serious economic repercussions as millions of young workers would invariably drive down the monetary value of the tasks they are required by the government to perform.


Two years is not an insignificant amount of time for many people considering the compounding nature of personal debt and the invariable decline of fertility as a function of age. The government doesn't know our ambitions, talents and skill set better than we do.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. No, the social contract APPLIES To all aspects of life in organized society

if you do not want it to be used in an offensive manner then it is YOUR responsibility to act as a citizen

One reason Rome collapsed was the fact that the social contract became unoperative... and the sense of citizen died as well

We are seeing the exact same thing happen RIGHT NOW in this country

It is all about ME... not WE

[tomg]

196. We are seeing something similar

The parallels are quite close. Actually, as to the shift from a Republic to an Empire, one of the changes that allowed that to happen started when they went from a citizen, "draftee" army (initially one had to be both a citizen and to have a certain amount of property in order to serve) to a close equivalent of an all-volunteer army manned by the economically dispossessed and non-citizens. Now one could become a citizen by serving and one could gain property (normally in the way of land or a pension) after putting in 20 years. They also introduced something similar to stop loss around the same time. Like us, they turned the military into a profession, and they started to do so after they eliminated the Carthaginians and found that they had a vast empire to administer that required a large, professional, standardized army ( standardization of weapons was great for the Roman equivalent of the defense industry; gigantic standing armies solved a major unemployment problem caused by Rome's reliance on slaves; land grants in the provinces helped to establish Roman cultural dominance).

We are seeing the same thing right now, but I don't think it is so much WE are shifting to ME as the power structures really wants to destroy any real sense of community ( I was/am a conscientious objector and I would argue that a conscious citizen soldier and a conscious citizen resister at heart share the same sense of what it means to be a member of a community). For all intents and purposes, the nation state is pretty much on its last legs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

220. The American republic you mean

and in that I fully agree... it died... to be specific, on December 12, 2000

As to the nation state, it is still necessary to the corporations.

As to the Empire... well if Rome and the UK (to name only two) are an indicator... it will not last either for the same reasons... use auxiliaries (all those people joining for citizenship) and professional troops

Why the Founding Fathers warned us about it.

[Two Americas]

347. great post

Thanks.

"I would argue that a conscious citizen soldier and a conscious citizen resister at heart share the same sense of what it means to be a member of a community."

Well said. I agree.

This is not about whether or not we are going to be soldiers, it is about whether or not we are going to be citizens.

Refusing to be a citizen, at the same time that powerful people are already trying to wrench that away from us, is not freedom, it is slavery.

[bean fidhleir]

187. You don't want a social contract like that? Then make damned sure you have one that

says imperialist adventurism results automatically in p-r-i-s-o-n.

Until we have a social contract that prevents imperialists from consuming the rest of us in their profitmaking schemes, the next best thing is a social contract that includes an inescapable draft.

[GoesTo11]

200. the next best thing is a social contract that includes an inescapable draft.

What the hell?

That's the country you want to live in?

10 million conscripts? Or do you mean 100 million?

The whole point of having a government of the people, and of having a social contract, is for us to be better off than we would be just as a bunch of animals doing as we want in nature. Why would we design one with people snatched up and sent to die? Why would that be better than an alternative. Why would a person choose to raise their children in such a country or stay in it? Or would your next best thing also include a wall to keep people from fleeing.

I agree with you that imperial adventurism that includes criminal acts should be treated as criminal (although that's different than saying adventurism automatically results in prison). So, I want a nation with just laws and where those laws are enforced. I don't want to use unjust laws to try to keep it together, i.e., taking children hostage so that their parents will insist on government accountability.

Why are Democrats talking this way? You don't like the Republican wars but you don't want to come off as wimpy so you say, oh yeah, let's draft everyone and then see you go to war? Yeah, take the militaristic frame.

No, we can do better than that and we shouldn't accept that.

[bean fidhleir]

203. No, military adventurism MUST result in prison. That's the sine-qua-non for a no-draft society

If you don't want a inescapable draft, then end the system that lets the rich profit from the death and maiming of the poor. Prison must be the immediate and inevitable result of warmongering no matter how disguised.

There is no other ethical choice.

[TahitiNut]

216. Exactly. "You pay me now or pay me later."

We pretentiously CLAIM "illegal war" and NEITHER share the burden NOR prosecute the illegality. That makes us a nation of cowards and criminals. We have abdicated our responsibilities. We no longer deserve to call ourselves a 'free people' or a 'democracy.' "Land of the free and home of the brave"?? Nope. Land of spoiled, self-indulged brats incapable of behaving like responsible adults and stepping up to the task of self-governance.

[BlooInBloo]

44. Rankin's Theorem: If you abstract out far enough, any two things are the same.

[noamnety]

254. Donald - agreed.

If you don't have sovereignty over your own body, you aren't "free." Not even if the government declares it's enforcing servitude "for the greater good" of society.

This idea that we must sacrifice our individual sovereignty in order to be free isn't any more believable than folks who argue that FISA spying makes us more free.

[Two Americas]

348. others did

Others sacrificed so we could be free. Our parents did. Those who developed medicine, built schools, and did so many other things sacrificed, did things that were hard or unpleasant or dangerous. We benefit from their sacrifices, do we not?

Would you give up your life - sacrifice your individual sovereignty - to save the life of a loved one? Does that willingness make you more free or less free? Should the government force you to sacrifice your individual sovereignty to protect the life of your child? To stop at red lights?

Someone has to sacrifice, or there is no freedom. Why should all of those who enjoy the benefits not share in the burden?

[noamnety]

351. I am not sure you understand the concept of sovereignty.

When you ask if I would give up my life - that implies I get a choice, and thus have sovereignty.

That's not the same thing as the government deciding for me that I will give up my life for someone else.

I think you've confused sovereignty and sacrifice here.

[Two Americas]

352. maybe

I am not sure what you mean. Do you have a choice to run red lights? Should that be voluntary, with no interference from the government, lest our sovereignty is violated? Which things should the government decide for you, and which not?

Sovereignty means the exclusive right to have complete control over oneself. There are numerous ways that this sovereignty over oneself is subordinate to the needs of others.

Everyday we sacrifice some of our sovereignty for the good of others or the benefit or protection of the group.

[noamnety]

353. Nope.

With sovereignty there are limits of what can be done - but you are still empowered with self-determination. They can forbid you from running a red light - but you have sovereignty to decide whether or not you are driving in the first place. You are empowered to make your own decisions (with restrictions) so you don't harm others. State mandated servitude is not analogous to traffic laws.

With national sovereignty, countries have self-determination with limits (international law - in your metaphor, they aren't allowed to run red lights).

[Two Americas]

355. all right then

Jury duty? A subpoena?

True you have a "choice" whether or not to drive. How about jaywalking then? Or do you have the "choice" to merely go nowhere? How much restriction on your life is tolerable in order to preserve your imagined sovereignty? And if you must sacrifice your freedom in order to enjoy this sovereignty, or else be penalized by the government, how is that "freedom?" How is that sovereignty?

What would you say to the government denying you public services as a consequence of refusing to sacrifice for the country? Use of public roads for example, or public utilities, or public education, or protection from law enforcement and the fire department? That would be within the scope of proper government actions under your sovereignty theory.

[noamnety]

363. jury duty is closer

but you and I both know that is not anything in the realm of sending a person to their death.

(I'm not a supporter of mandatory jury duty either specifically because of the possibility of being sequestered away for a long time)

I am pro-choice when it comes to sovereignty over one's body. Anything less is not freedom, and there is a logical breakdown in the government denying your freedom under the guise of giving you more of it.

[Two Americas]

367. ok

Do you think it is possible to have a country where all are free to pursue ballet careers without interruption by any social obligation and to not serve on juries because of the disagreeable disruption to their lives? If so, how? If not, do you think it is fair that some do have this option of sovereignty and some do not?

[noamnety]

368. I don't think our society is fair at all.

We come into this world with different assets, different connections, different rights. The laws and courts are set up to help some classes of people more than others. The courts I'm expected to serve on? They don't serve my interests in the same way they serve others. That's been proven to me several times.

Having a draft didn't change that. So long as capitalism is the driving force behind our economy, and so long as racism and sexism are driving forces behind our laws and the ways they are enforced, it's a myth to think a draft is going to equalize people's stations in life. It's also a myth to think not having a draft is going to equalize that.

Having or not having a draft is not going to counteract the effects of capitalism, nor is it going to prevent wars.

The ONLY thing it will do is provide more cannon fodder for politicians who are beholden to the interests of the military industrial complex.


Sometimes we talk about an economic draft, and I think everyone in this thread can agree that's a problem. We need to ensure economic problems are fixed so people aren't forced into military service because of poverty.

Half the people, however, seem to think the solution is to ensure other people are drafted, too. That's not the kind of solution we are looking for. You don't help oppressed people by oppressing more people.

[Two Americas]

384. I don't so claim

I am not claiming that a draft would counteract the effects of capitalism, nor that it is going to prevent wars.

I am saying that the refusal by so many to share in the burden, or to see any obligation to do so, is certain to lead to tyranny.

A corrupt and tyrannical system arises - has arisen - precisely because people are placing their own desires and interests above the greater good.

You say that because the system is corrupt and evil, that therefore you are free to pick and choose when and how you participate, according to your personal feelings. I say that it is because people feel free to pick and choose how they participate that the system has become corrupt and evil.

I agree with you, by the way, that the system is hopelessly corrupt and evil and that we are duty bound to do whatever we can to correct that and overthrow the tyranny that controls our lives. That, however, does not obviate the principle of sacrificing for others and sharing the burden, and placing the general welfare above our own personal desires.

It will not be possible to overthrow the system without people being required to make the same sacrifices for the greater good, the same surrender of personal sovereignty, that you are resisting in your arguments against the draft.

In fact, I would say that the very reason that we in the opposition have been so ineffective in stopping the takeover of the government by the extreme right wing on behalf of the wealthy and powerful few is because of this absolute resistance to sacrificing for the greater good.

Your position is causing the very things you abhor, and that you are then using as a rationale for your position.

The system is corrupt and evil because we have all been doing our own thing. Doing our own thing is not justified by the fact that the system is corrupt and evil.

[noamnety]

389. I disagree with your conclusions here:

Statement 1: "You say that because the system is corrupt and evil, that therefore you are free to pick and choose when and how you participate, according to your personal feelings."

No, I'm saying that sovereignty/freedom does not exist when people are forced into servitude, and pointing out a large number of reasons why the result is abusive - including forcing women to remain with their abusers, forcing people to commit acts of violence, forcing people to become victims of violence.

Statement 2: "I say that it is because people feel free to pick and choose how they participate that the system has become corrupt and evil."

The system has proven itself to be corrupt and evil even when we do have mandatory service. You don't have any alignment here between cause and effect. We can all come up with examples of horrifically corrupt and evil governments which forced their citizens into service.

[Two Americas]

390. thanks

Thanks, by the way, for the interesting discussion and for considering my view on this.

I think we are misunderstanding one another.

I do not see national service as "servitude" or "slavery." Yes, there is some sacrifice of personal liberty involved, but that is true in many other ways, as well.

I don't mean to say (and I didn't make this clear before) that a lack of a national service program is the only cause of immoral and illegal wars, rather that they are symptoms of the same problem - people are committed to their own welfare and comfort ahead of having any sense of responsibility to the larger community.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. It would be amazing how unpopular war became...again.

[GoesTo11]

56. How about we cut out the middleman

and start executing 10 eighteen year olds a day until the people say uncle and war becomes so unpopular it ends? Wouldn't that be great?

[XOKCowboy]

99. I believe what the OP meant was...

that no one has a stake in this "war" like we had in Vietnam and other wars. Only when everyone's sons and daughters will to be called to fight in this war for oil will people wake up and demand that it be stopped and our troops be brought home.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

212. Well, the one's volunteering to be executed now hasn't made it unpopular.

[Truth4Justice]

324. The country would be filled with Cindy Sheehan's if the draft came back.

[Two Americas]

350. yes

And we would have a damned good chance at overthrowing the entire rotten and corrupt structure that will continue to wage these obscene and illegal military actions if they are not stopped. We might actually run the criminal gang out of town and put them out of business, rather than just being "against crime" and patting ourselves on the back for that and imagining ourselves to be oh so free and superior to our neighbors, as we try to move to a nicer neighborhood where the gang won't bother us - we hope. "Not my problem. That is all happening over there in that neighborhood. I am against all of that ugly stuff and lead quite the gentile life."

[Truth4Justice]

356. I agree. Your handle is apt: Those that live in ignorance and those that are forced to see reality.

[Truth4Justice]

358. Indeed, and VERY fast with the "internets" so handy now, unlike the "1969" era.

[blue neen]

32. Those half dozen wise-asses do not represent all of their generation.

Like me, my 25-year-old has been against this war from the start. He also is well aware of the who the Presidential candidates are. George W. Bush has been POTUS for all my son's voting life. He has seen the devastation the Bush administration has wracked upon this nation and this world.

My son's eyes are wide open as to the travesty of Iraq, and NO ONE should be saying that he should be sent to there. None of these brave soldiers who are serving our country should have been sent to Iraq.

My son and his friends are not even close to being a generation of thugs. The thugs are residing in the White House.

[LeftyMom]

34. As a college student, I know a lot of eighteen year olds. I can't think of any who support the war.

So either it's where you live or you happened to have the bad luck to encounter more of your fair share of idiots.

But even if they are idiots, forcing them and their age mates into indentured servitude to the government and to go risk their lives and sanity who-knows-where isn't the solution. Shame on you for even suggesting it.

[bean fidhleir]

188. "forcing them to go risk their lives isn't the solution"

I don't believe you've thought it through completely. We are ALREADY forcing people to go risk their lives and sanity. It's just that they're the poor, the ones without other choices.

Either no one should be forced to go risk their lives and sanity or everyone should.

[MellowDem]

35. How old are you?

You have some nerve advising a draft be implemented if you won't be part of it. So you talk to a couple wise ass 18 year olds and deduct that this whole generation of thugs needs to be drafted? You are no better than Bush if that's the case. What age group is most for Obama? YOU may be raising thugs, but this generation is no worse or better than any previous or any to come. I hate such simple-minded categories as "generations". You're really condemning a lot of people there.

[cherokeeprogressive]

37. Excellent point. I think EVERY poster who supports a draft should have to state their age. n/t

[TahitiNut]

49. Yeah... better to keep paying taxes and have the poor kids dying.

On top of that, let's just all sneer at the "baby killers" and "rapists" and talk about how much better we are than those losers serving IN OUR NAME ... after all, that's what it's all about.

:eyes:
:puke:

[MellowDem]

54. I'm sure McCain would agree with you in full

All those damn liberals sneering at our troops. Give him the draft so he can have a REAL army, one which can take on the whole world!!

Seriously, though, where did you get from my post that I am sneering at our troops as baby killers or rapists?

And you're right, a draft would set all those Obama supporting, anti-war kids straight... what planet do you live on?

I guess it's all about what you want, a draft so you can beat your chest and say "now we will have the support we need to stop the war!" Quite a gamble with lives there, and a sickening display of ageism and generationism. Why don't you volunteer along with those you are willing to draft?

:puke:

[TahitiNut]

57. I was a draftee. I did a tour in Viet Nam. Been there. Done that. HAVE YOU?

So, you can take your "McCain would agree" and "beat your chest" bullshit snark and shove it where the sun don't shine.

That's part of the 'bargain' (the 'social contract' of democracy) we make. Participate. Show up. Take responsibility for our own self-governance. Anyone that claims we don't have a democracy so what's the use should be out fighting tooth and nail to get it back ... because the DEATHS WILL COME SOONER OR LATER ... and hiding out is the act of a coward, NOT a person deserving to be free.

I lived (and live) in the Detroit area. I could have run to Canada. It's nothing but a commute. But then someone else would have had to go in my place. So I didn't run. Anti-war? Udamnwellbetcha. Anti-draft? No fucking way.

Every asshole who whines about how the rich and powerful won't have to send their kids ... apparently was jealous of them instead of taking a stance against the inequity. So, now the "top 80%" have their piece of the action. We only 'draft' the poorest ... the people with no better way to get health care for themselves and their dependents and the people with no better way to get a college education and the people looking for a "fast path" to citizenship.

We have an economic draft and the GAP between the rich and the poor has INCREASED continuously since the 'deactivation' of the (lottery) draft in 1974. That GAP is our 'draft' ... and it's worse for people with brown skins or black skins.

But sit back in your oh-so-principled comfort and keep paying taxes and let the least advantaged bear the brunt of the sloth, cowardice, and criminality of the rest of us. After all, we're "better." Not really "democrats" but better. Uh-huh. Riiight.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

It disgusts me that so many on DU don't have the slightest fucking idea what's involved in REALLY being a democracy.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. It's not DU, it is the country

some of the things truly missing since the end of any kind of national service in this country is a sense of nationhood

People should be outraged over Katrina and now the Midwest Floods...

But it happened OVER THERE, didn't affect me...

Now if Joe from LA was forced to serve with Pete from Kansas City... there would be more of a connection... at a national level

Instead, I got mine, leave me alone

I agree with you

:puke:

And then people wonder why we are in the kind of trouble we are... one reason... lack of truly a national identity and sense of citizenship any longer

The most we ask these days is taxes (most do) and jury duty (which most try to skip on)

[TahitiNut]

75. The MAJOR reason civil rights advanced in the 50s is because guys served together in WW2.

... and in the Korean War. The ENORMOUS 'educational' experience of living and serving together (and COOPERATING) with people from vastly different backgrounds cannot be overstated.

In one of the more PERVERSE examples of clouds with silver linings, the sheer NECESSITY of getting to know others during a war is, in large part, the difference needed to get Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 64 and the Voting Rights Act of 66.

The divisions in this 'nation' are far more than merely Democrat vs. Republican and liberal vs. conservative. The major division in this country is that we've become a bunch of Dick Cheney's ... all with "better things to do" than serve TOGETHER.

Let George do it. :puke:

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. I know, while I served (somewhere else) I got to work shoulder

to shoulder with people that otherwise I would have never had the HONOR of knowing... or keeping their backs covered... and they kept mine covered.

And you are right, that is what leads to a sense of we are all in this mess

I keep saying that one reason we are not outraged over Katrina as a nation is that we are no longer a nation, but a collection of regions that are loosely kept together

This is also why things like the Edwards flap matter to folks, while quite possibly a guns of august scenario in Georgia does not...

Now if the latter becomes a WW kind of a scenario all these, but NOT my little kids will learn why we do those things in time of war

[Joe Fields]

236. It is a fallacy to equate WWII with Vietnam.

Two completely different sets of circumstances.

[MellowDem]

90. What's your problem?

I don't understand where you get the idea I think that the current system of our military is just great and not unfair. But that wasn't what the OP was about. I agree with you that the current system still puts the brunt of warfare on the poor. What I think is ludicrous, per the OP, is that a draft would necessarily fix our woes, or that the current generation deserves it because of their supposed attitudes.

You are obviously angry, and in your anger you are blaming the wrong people and the wrong cause. You were the one insinuating I thought of the troops as nothing but rapists and baby killers, a repeated right-wing mantra towards liberals, so I don't know why you were expecting a different response. I appreciate your service, but I hope that doesn't mean I can't have an equal discussion with you and call you out on your disgusting accusations towards me that were totally baseless.

You make yourself look foolish when you accuse me of things that I never said and without any knowledge of my position on things. Personally, I mostly agree with your opinion of the draft. I think that we should have a permanent draft, though one that allows for options of domestic service as well, much like in Germany, a sort of social service opportunity. But as our military-industrial complex stands right now, our country is not really ready for such a draft. We've had an all-volunteer force for decades now, one which we spend huge amounts of money on. To have an effective citizen army, always on call, a lot of things would need to change in the pentagon and elsewhere. I would think that the vast majority of draftees, given our huge population, would be given the option to serve in a non-military capacity. However, for the current situation, where we are in two wars and where our military spending is through the roof, I think that a purely military draft is a very bad idea. It would take years to re-haul the system, the military would have a fit about it, and it would be a very appreciable amount of time before the draft came to any use at all in terms of actual fighting capability. And even in that sense it would be (in my mind) counter to the goal of cutting military spending and reducing our involvement around the world.

As to whether or not the draft would help end the war in Iraq faster or not I think is besides the point. Instituting a draft for purely political interests and not out of need is a dangerous precedent to set. I agree that people need to get more involved in politics and pay more attention, and for the most part I think they are becoming more involved. But there are a lot of young people out there who are very politically involved. What really angered me from the OP is that according to their solution, the only people who should pay for the lack political awareness are those of draft age.

Ideally, the draft should only be used in wars that are justifiable as a response to a direct and serious threat to the US. Iraq does not qualify as a war worthy of the draft, neither did Vietnam. Just because it was used unwisely before doesn't mean it should be used the same way again. It was only through the draft that the US was able to escalate and prolong the conflict in Vietnam. Who is to say that it wouldn't be used to do the same in the Middle East? Like a said, a rather risky political calculation that plays with lives.

Either way, you need to really reevaluate your comments to me. I don't know where the hell you get your holier than thou attitude towards me or your baseless accusations, but they are embarrassing.

[Two Americas]

119. hear hear

Thank you, TahitiNut.

[Joe Fields]

235. What you did and what you are saying was your desision and is your opinion.

You have no more right calling anyone a coward who will not serve, anymore than someone who would call you stupid for going to Nam.

I know a lot of Nam era vets, and to the person, they all wish they had gone to Canada.

[bean fidhleir]

248. Agreed, some weren't cowards - they were overprivileged with an inflated sense of their own

importance and entitlement. Bush, Cheney, and all or nearly all the rest of the neocons, for example. Also Dean, Edwards (who escaped rather than ducked), and a number of other chickenhawk or enabler Dems.

[Joe Fields]

261. so, now we have progressives calling those who chose not to serve

in vietnam cowards, overpriviledged neocon chickenhawks?


Hmmmmm.....

[bean fidhleir]

263. Yep! Betcherass. Anyone willing to send the poor where they wouldn't go themselves

is nothing but an overprivileged ethical void, unworthy of public office.

[Joe Fields]

272. If you are talking specifically about the power brokers who hawked the war,

but were too chicken to fight it themselves, or too chicken to allow or push their own children to join it, then I agree with you.

But if you are lumping everyone who opposed the war, and had the courage to defy the government on principle with the first group I mentioned, then I strongly disagree.

[bean fidhleir]

275. The elites, plus anyone who ducked out and got on with their life are scum in my book.

The ones who get credit from me are those whose lives were disrupted as much, and who risked as much by their opposition as would have been the case if they'd gone to Nam.

The ones who stayed in school or job, went to a nice peaceful demo once a week, had a good time, never suffered? The ones here talking about how they oppose any fair draft because THEIR kids are too good to go? They get no pass from me. Feh.

[Joe Fields]

276. I don't think we seek or need your credit.

History has proven that they made the correct decision by choosing not to go to Vietnam.

Secondly, if it weren't for those "scum" as you are apt to call them, we might still be fighting that fucking war, and who knows just how hight the body count would be?

[TahitiNut]

289. What "history has proven" is that the FAILURE to prosecute the claimed 'illegality' ....

... of Viet Nam is being repeated and the same cowardice (and hypocrisy) of We The People is playing out. As a nation, we're demonstrating we don't deserve to call ourselves a democracy.

[Joe Fields]

308. Participating in illegal wars has nothing to do with democracy.

You can call it cowardice. I call it standing up to the government, when it counts. Our protests ended that war and saved a hell of a lot of lives and you sit there and call us cowards?

And now you sit here and try to tell us that we are again cowards for refusing to fight for an unjust cause and an illegal regime? You really need to check yourself on this issue.

[TahitiNut]

309. Tell me how we "stood up" when some court actually declares a war "illegal"

... and we have the war criminals imprisoned. Until then, it's EMPTY RHETORIC ... bullshit rationalization.


I see absolutely no moral superiority in a 'democrat' whining about an "illegal war" (continuing to pay taxes) and doing NOTHING as compared to some Rambo wannabe yelling "bomb 'em back to the Stone Age" from his mommy's basement. NEITHER is putting their ass on the line ... WHILE HUMAN BEINGS ARE BEING KILLED IN OUR NAME with war equipment built in our factories and paid for with our tax dollars.

That includes me. I'm ashamed.

[Joe Fields]

315. So then, your rationalization is for us to participate in the war,

or else we're just talking bullshit rhetoric? Man, that is fucked up thinking; pretzel logic. Again, I say you need to check yourself.

[nadinbrzezinski]

327. i hate to do this Joe but do show me where LEGALLY the Vietnam war

was declared ILEGAL

I want the legal document

Until then... sorry, but the war in the terms that matter to most students of warfare, is not illegal... immoral perhaps... but morality and warfare don't belong in the same sentence MOST of the time.

By the by... declaring the current conflict illegal may be easier.. given that there is prima fasciae evidence that this was a preemptive, expansive war... fitting the definition of article one of the general indictment of Nuremberg. That said... care to show me what Congress and WE are doing about it?

That said, there are moves to actually declare this war illegal in that narrow definition of the word abroad, which is also an early move to eventual prosecution, but this is not happening because WE are putting the proper pressure...

Ah Empires are grand... and the Empire will do what the logic of empire demands... and we, yes you and me, continue to be played for fools

And in the common responsibility for the war the folks at Code Pink are actually doing SOMETHING... but most of us are not... beyond posting uselessly on a message board. It makes us feel better, I'll grant you that, but the effect where it matters is none whatsoever.

And I ask this legal definition since that is the kind of LEGAL standing that you need before a COURT to actually prosecute somebody. And so far, correct please if I am wrong, the Vietnam war has never been declared illegal in that legal narrow sense of the world... so it is just rhetoric to call that an illegal war.

I like you Joe... but it is time to face facts. WE all support this war.. we pay taxes. Our actions are not sufficient, if we even try to do something, and people continue to die... so far forty four thousand + American GIs, about the same number for allies and over a million Iraqis. Oh and Afghanistan... actually fits the definition of article 51 of the UN Charter, hence in the whole cloudy definition of legality of a war, it is a legal war. I may even remind you that on September 12 Article Five of the Nato Charter was also enacted. But then again I am looking at this extremely narrow legal field, and that is the one that matters when you go screaming about the legality of wars.

So I will ask again... legal document please.

[Joe Fields]

331. Nadin, show me the document where I said the Vietnam war was illegal.

When talking about fighting in an illegal war, I was discussing the current war/occupation. There was mention made of not standing for democracy, and I stated that there is nothing democratic about fighting illegal wars, created by a corrupt regime. (meaning this regime)

So, I will ask again, show me where I stated that Vietnam was an illegal war?

[nadinbrzezinski]

333. That is the understanding I got from you

and this war is well on its way to that declaration

Until then... in that very narrow definition there are plenty of legal fig leaves (US Congress and UN Security Council)

So until then... in the narrowest of definitions, this war is still legal...

And I hate to say it, but UNLESS we do something about it... beyond posting on a board, I fear IN THE US, it will remain such, as even the Democrats in Congress are in the take. (See Nancy Pelosi)

[nadinbrzezinski]

266. It didn't start today by the by

though most chickenhawks are still republicans some are indeed amongst us

[Truth4Justice]

362. Bingo!! Puking my guts out too.

[annabanana]

250. I suggest you spend a little longer reading posts. Get to know

who's who around here before you spout off.

[MellowDem]

288. Sorry

I didn't know that I could not reply to certain people based on an intimate knowledge of them and not on the content of their posts. Thanks for your concern and frat-boy like superiority, oh superior 1000 poster.


:silly:

[tavalon]

349. I'm not positive what the cutoff age is, but her son is likely in the range

and she's hardly an idiot, anyway. She knows what she's saying. And I don't think it's nice to assume that she would advocate this only if she and her family were safe from the draft. That's a straw man argument.

Actually, though, I think this was more venting than her actual opinion.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. How many of those condemning these boys volunteered for e.g. Kosovo, Sierra Leone etc.

The idea that if one thinks a war is just then one has a moral duty to fight in it is exactly as absurd as the Republican canard that opponents of the Iraq war should have been made to go and live under Saddam, and for exactly the same reason.

[Jakes Progress]

48. No. It isn't.

The point to a draft is to make the war a part of the democratic process. If we had a draft, the war wouldn't have lasted a year, and Bush would never have been re-elected. I know dozens of republican parents who support the war, love bush, and would never -ever - vote for anything that would put their precious children in harm's way. They support the troops like they support all their other hired help.

If you support the war, you have a moral duty to make the same sacrifices that you require of others. As far as opponents of the war being required to live in Iraq, that is a long line of illogical jumps. If you live in America and vote to continue a war, you are responsible. If you do not live in Iraq, you have no control over what their government does. As you said, a republican concept - therefore, stupid.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

52. I disagree.

"If you support the war, you have a moral duty to make the same sacrifices that you require of others."

makes exactly as little sense as

"If you oppose the war, you have a moral duty to make the same sacrifices that you require of others."

and for exactly the same reasons.

You're quite right that a draft would make the US declare fewer wars; so would a law stating that every time war was declared the first-born in every household would be executed. That's not, in itself, a sufficient justification.

[Jakes Progress]

74. So would requiring

the president to do a double back flip over a vat of butter cream.

Your comparisons are just ludicrous. You keep saying that your examples are "exactly the same". They really aren't

What I think it sounds like we disagree on is the matter of libertarianism. I do not believe that we owe nothing to our country and that we owe nothing to our fellow citizens. Not having a draft during a war is essentially saying that you want someone else to do your dirty work. That you feel that you somehow are above doing those things. Wars are serious business. The country is morally wrong to continue a war that people don't believe in enough to fight it themselves. (All the "yous" in this paragraph are plural and generic.)

I do not find the draft to be wrong. I find the war to be wrong. We evidently disagree on at least one of these.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

185. No, that's not exactly what I believe.

What I do believe is that when service to a country is required, it is better for the country to specify how much it needs from each person, and that person be allowed to choose how to supply it.

People should be allowed the choice of "pay higher taxes, and use those taxes to pay a volunteer army" or "join the army, and get paid for doing so".

If not enough people are joining the army then raise taxes to increase the pay for doing so.

This produces an all-volunteer army, and hence one with better morale and probably better training, and it makes everyone happier - people who don't want to be soldiers don't have to be, and people who do get paid more. It's a win/win situation, when compared with a draft.



The decision on whether or not to institute a draft should not be influenced by whether or not the war in Iraq is wrong (I agree that it is, incidentally), because exactly the same policy will be followed in future wars, right or wrong.

[nadinbrzezinski]

260. Sorry for interrupting but you end up with the same result

somebody else is doing the dirty work you are not willing to do yourself

Somebody else is paying the price

Tell me... why did the founding fathers warn us against this volunteer force and INSISTED on the concept of the citizen soldier?

They gave very good reasons for that. Perhaps it is time you do some reading on that.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

285. I'm not interested in what the founding fathers thought, I'm afraid.

They were, in the main, a bunch of mysoginistic, genocidal, racist, anti-semitic slavedrivers, of whom the best that can be said is that they were ahead of their time, and better in most ways than the empire against which they rebelled.

An awful lot of what they set down was intended for situations that they foresaw that never arose - they were very concerned with not becoming a monarchy, and with preserving states power - they would by (wrongly, in my view) horrified by the centralisation of power in America today. That preoccupation gave us the 2nd ammendment, one of the worst laws around; if they tried to warn against volunteer armies too then I'm just relieved they failed.


"Somebody else is doing the dirty work you are not willing to do yourself"

Yes.

"Somebody else is paying the price."

No. Somebody is receiving the benefit of being paid to do that work, pay which they clearly value more than the cost of doing it; the people not in the army are paying through taxes, although those are less onerous to them than the draft.

Your arguments apply exactly as well to coal-mining or deep-sea fishing - or, for that any other line of work (incidentally, what do you mean "dirty"? - onerous? immoral?) - someone else does the work for you, and you pay them for the fruits of it; you do you job, and they pay you for that.

You haven't provided, or even tried to provide, an explanation as to why "someone else doing the dirty work" - because they've chosen to do it, because they're paid - is a bad thing.

[Jakes Progress]

290. Your kind of army

was used by the Union in the Civil War. The rich and influential paid the poor to take their place. It was one of the final straws that led to the New York riots. Read up on the Watts riots. What you propose would be like rich people buying the organs from the poor in third world countries or getting to the front of the donor line. Just having money doesn't make someone worth more than someone else.

[nadinbrzezinski]

293. In your world then Blackwater should be not only allowed

but applauded

And all you want are the cozy life coming from you NOT having to do that dirty work of killing for you.


We part company

What you want are mercs

And not to have to bother with the morality of what is done IN YOUR NAME

For the record, that is not a democratic society either

[Donald Ian Rankin]

300. All of that is non-sequitur.

All mercenaries are paid soldiers; not all paid soldiers are mercenaries.

It is easier to be objective about the morality of an issue if one has less personal stake in it.

Whether the army is conscripted or voluntary is nothing to do with whether or not a country is a democracy - that's a piece of rhetoric, not an attempt at an argument.

[nadinbrzezinski]

326. Read on the meaning of CITIZEN SOLDIER and then come back to me

That said, you WISH to hire OTHERS to do your dirty work.. and do not own to your piece of the pie in the responsibility we all hold in this war

[noamnety]

337. You're very condescending in some of these posts.

No offense, seriously, but you act a little like you think you are the only person who has ever seen the term "social contract," the only person who knows the term "citizen soldier." I mean you even tried to explain to me what public service is - gee, thanks for the examples, cause we're all imbeciles here except you, and the whole concept was foreign to me. :eyes:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

378. Again, all of that is rhetoric rather than argument except the last part

And I've already rebutted that - the cost of a war should be evenly spread, but everyone should be allowed to choose how they bear their own fraction of the cost.

And you still haven't explained or justified "dirty work".

[Karenina]

39. So, draft 'em all and train them to kill.

Na, Logo. Super Idee.

[Hekate]

41. Aggravating, isn't it? But I still don't want the draft back unless the Bush Gang goes to The Hague

When I see those murderous bastards in the docks then I will talk about the draft, because a message will have been sent to our corporate masters and any future presidents that abusing our troops in this fashion (i.e. by invading a country that didn't invade us, based on a pack of lies) will not be tolerated.

Hekate

[bean fidhleir]

251. Having a non-duckable draft brought in might be what SENDs the Bush Gang to the dock.

People find it easier to connect the dots when they're one of the dots.

[Hekate]

303. I know, since every young man of my generation was acutely aware of the draft...

Having your own draft number in your wallet made it real personal.

But I have a son and daughter of my own, and they came very close to enlisting when our country was attacked on 9-11. They didn't; they decided on a wait and see policy, and I thank God for that.

But you see, it makes it personal. Every one of those kids that is killed or maimed in this lousy war -- could be my own. I can't bring myself to wish the draft reinstated.

Hekate

[BlooInBloo]

42. Yah - so kill those bastards! That's the answer!

(shrug) 18 year old boys are jackasses. And water is wet.

[Jakes Progress]

43. Without the draft,

we would have stayed in Viet Nam indefinitely. To too many people the war is just a television show.

[Truth4Justice]

364. Thats absolutely correct. If the wealthy White-bread boys get sent to Iraq by force, it'll end!

[MrSlayer]

45. There is no way I'm sending my kids to the meat grinder.

They don't deserve to be slaughtered because of some assholes that think war is cool.

[TahitiNut]

50. Do please attend the furnerals for those that died and tell THEIR parents how ...

... much better YOUR kids are than theirs.

Now... tell me ... how much MORE would you do to protest the Cheney/Bush regime if there was a draft?

How much MORE would all of us do if it were OUR asses on the line?

Why aren't we doing it now? Hmmm? :eyes:

Sure is comfy in the cheap seats. :puke:

[MrSlayer]

71. Hi. Those people's kids signed up for this.

Mine did not and will not. Suggesting they should be drafted is ludicrous. Suggesting that we should have a draft so that more people will protest is equally as ludicrous. It did no good during Vietnam and it will simply provide more cannon fodder for more wars if instituted today. I'm in the so-called cheap seats by choice and my kids should have that same choice. Your attitude is ridiculous.

Do I think my kids are too good to be killed off in some rich cocksucker's oil wars? You bet your ass.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. Ah the old but they volunteered canard...

free clue, those kids singed up to defend and protect the country, not fight for halliburton

But hey, it is really comfy in the cheap seats at Talihut put it

And it is also damn easy to blame the victims instead of taking responsibility for your part of this war.

[MrSlayer]

77. I have no part in this war.

I bear ZERO responsibilty for it. To suggest that I do is insane. I am not a member of Congress and if you think these bastards would have listened to Congress had they voted the right way or the people, if they had been on the right side of it, on this matter you are sadly mistaken. This war was going to happen no matter what. Certainly the neo-con cartel is responsible for the wrongful deaths of our soldiers but said soldiers did join up on their own to be used as the powers see fit, there is no denying that fact. It is what it is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. You pay taxes? Then you do

[MrSlayer]

82. In the very loosest sense I guess you could argue that.

But I have no control over where my tax money goes. Would that I did. Not a single cent would go to the MIC.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. It is not in the loosest sense... if you want to live by your principles

refuse to pay taxes


Otherwise, yes, you are supporting the war with the rest of us.

Oh and by the way I do love the moral superiority of they volunteered, given that the stop loss- economic drafts are fully on

[MrSlayer]

86. I don't care enough to go to jail over it.

Sorry that I'm so selfish in that way. The well being of my family is more important to me than protesting a war that was going to happen no matter what anyone did. Stop loss is terrible but again, they wouldn't be stop lossed if they hadn't joined. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's how it is and that is how it is. And economic draft? Well there's not much I can do about that either. I'm not a mutlibillonaire philanthropist in a position to save a poor neighborhood or something. I can't save the world on my own and life is too short for me to worry about everyone else when I have my own to support. If I had my druthers none of these wars have happened and we would have universal healthcare and free college for everyone but they did and we don't. It's not on me and I sleep well at night.

[TahitiNut]

92. How many days would you spend in jail to save one life?

Is there any principle or value that you'd give your life for?

[MrSlayer]

94. It would depend on who's life we're talking about.

I would suffer any hardship to save my family. But I'm not going to do jail time for tax evasion in a fruitless protest against a war that could not be stopped. How would it benefit my family to have their breadwinner in jail for reasons that make no sense? It's a no win situation. The wars would continue despite the absence of my paltry amount of tax money, I'd be in prison and my family would end up as starving homeless people or worse. It's just not worth it.

Principles and Values are great but you can't eat them, you can't live in them, they don't keep you warm in the winter. Is there a line? Certainly, but we're not even close to it yet.

I seriously doubt anyone on this board is evading taxes to protest the war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. People did in the 60s, but then again, their asses were on the line

[Arugula Latte]

214. TahitiNut --

I'm just wondering ... Have you been paying your taxes? If not, have you gone to jail?

[TahitiNut]

217. Read much?

Try reading my posts. I do NOT give myself a 'free pass' ... and share in the shame. It's "WE" ... got it?

:eyes:

Try this one. It's here AND in my Journal.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3771389&mesg_id=3774664

[Truth4Justice]

365. For draft-dodgers its five years in Leavenworth, Kansas or someplace like it. Bring on the draft !!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. Thanks for clarifying this.. most people are not willing to

go to jail for their principles until it is literally their asses in the line

Thanks... and thanks for your support of the war.

Now can you get your head out of the sand realize that we do have a draft, just one that is convenient for people like you?

[Two Americas]

120. that is the cause

The attitude you are describing is the very cause of the horrors to which you object.

You have the luxury of taking this position only so long as someone else is paying the price. It is morally bankrupt, yet you describe it as though you had the moral high ground.

[TahitiNut]

134. Amen.

In the early-to-mid-60s (when it was still more anti-war than anti-draft) it was "If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem!"

Funny how people have flocked to being part of the problem. :puke:

[nadinbrzezinski]

138. It is far more comfy to be on the cheap seats

bitch a little on a message board...

And pay taxes and not make any connection on how much part of the support structure for this war we all are.

At least I get it... I SUPPORT THE WAR by paying my taxes... (I hope a few cents go to schools and roads, but I do not delude myself)

But I try to fight every day to bring the troops home... in small ways... or do other things... that are open resistance.

[MrSlayer]

339. So, you're going to tell me you refuse to pay taxes?

What horseshit. I do what I have to do to make my family's life better. There comes a point where everyone is responsible for their own choices. I bear no responsibility at all for these wars and these deaths and acting as if I do simply because I pay my taxes is clearly insane.

[Two Americas]

344. self-contradictory

You can't be a participating non-participant, as it suits your personal desires and needs.

Certainly, you can look out for yourself and for your own, and deny any connection with the rest of the larger community. The fact that you are able to do that is not the result of your choices, nor you taking responsibility for your choices, it rests on a complex set of conditions that are unearned by you, but which many paid a stiff price for.

Yes, there comes a point where everyone is responsible for their own choices, and the everyday choices you make are part of an interconnected whole, and you are contributing to what happens in that larger community by the choices you are making. Yet you set some arbitrary line of demarcation, beyond which you refuse to take responsibility for the effects of your choices. You take responsibility for your choices provided they suit you and benefit you and are judged solely by the impact on your life. Otherwise, the consequences of your choices are someone else's worry.

[Two Americas]

124. you are responsible

You are responsible for the fact that you have no control over where your tax money goes.

You benefit from being part of a community. You cannot with integrity deny all responsibility for and to the community.

If you are that powerless, you have a responsibility to do something about that. No matter how far down that road of distancing yourself from what is being done in your name you travel, you still do not escape moral responsibility.

[H2O Man]

199. Perhaps you could

share with us exactly how you deal with your personal responsibility in regard to your role in US policy in Iraq.

[Two Americas]

311. not a fair or honest question

Your question suggests that the validity of a person's opinion is somehow contingent upon what they may or may not be doing. I reject that premise.

What I am doing - what we all are doing here and now - is expressing my opinion on a message board. Asking what I am doing other than that is attempting to change the subject from being about the message to being about the messenger.

[janet118]

206. I have no dog in this fight either way . . .

but I do think that if the children of Congressmen and women were up for the draft, the Iraq War vote might have been different. True, back in the Vietnam days, their kids were immune because of deferments and other excuses for the rich and powerful. But without those safeguards for the well heeled and well placed, the vote in Congress would most likely have been against the war. Also, with 18-year-old girls being drafted in the mix, it might make going to war less a test of "manhood."

I do recall the Vietnam era draft. What it did was make everyone think about what this country was doing in our name. Many women, who were not up for the draft, were on the front lines of the anti-war movement. Many men, who were against the war, said no and applied for CO status, left for Canada or went to prison. You couldn't just sit back and pretend everything was "business as usual." Being forced to take a side made more people decide to join the anti-war movement.

That said, remember that the Vietnam War lasted 5 years after the anti-war movement peaked. A relatively few frustrated anti-warriors resorted to violence which was exaggerated by the media and used to turn everyone who protested the war into "extremists."

The most effective part of the anti-war movement was that a significant number of GIs refused to fight. See the movie "Sir! No, Sir!" for the history of those serving in Vietnam who knew they were cannon-fodder and rebelled in country and when they returned.

[Truth4Justice]

357. Yes, you will or they will face 5 years in prison and a lifetime of exclusion from benefits.......

Thats how it was for everyone, but the wealthy, back 35 or 40 years ago.

What goes around, comes around.

[H2O Man]

46. No.

Violence is not the appropriate response when we are frustrated by other people's stupidity. The type of young people who you describe are the least likely to serve, even with a draft.

[Radical Activist]

47. So you think they should die in war? Doesn't that attitude make YOU a thug?

Or just a jerk?

[dsc]

51. We actually have a draft

but it is restricted to those who have already served. It is called stop loss. I too get tired of hearing youngsters who have no desire to serve and no fear of having to, extoll the virtues of the war.

[TahitiNut]

60. We have TWO 'drafts' ... stop-loss and economic coercion.

When 47 million don't have access to health care, then the military's health care benefits for troops and dependents becomes damned attractive! When so many are completely priced out of the market for a college education, then the GI Bill looks awfully damned attractive!

It's NO ACCIDENT that the gap between the rich and the poor has INCREASE CONTINUOUSLY since the lottery draft was deactivated in the early 70s!!

That's the 'draft' ... and we're too fucking comfortable letting a MINORITY shoulder the greatest burden.

[bean fidhleir]

205. You mean like Dean, who ducked Vietnam?

Note that he had to test the wind a lot in '02-'03 before he decided it was safer to "be against" the Iraq crime.

"Bad backs", "other priorities", champagne ANG posts ...these a-holes all have some get-out-free card.

[Truth4Justice]

374. There will come a point where stop-loss ends and the draft begins. At that point the war ends.

[noamnety]

53. My compromise draft

1. Everyone gets drafted.

2. Everyone has the option to register as a conscientious objector and state in writing the reasons why. Approval is automatic, no board gets to decide on your behalf what your real beliefs are. BUT - the statement becomes a matter of public record.

3. A person can also opt out of an individual war by objecting to its rationale - conscientious objector status can be on a war by war basis.

Reasoning:

1. Those who publicly support the war are then required to put up or shut up. Either a war is important enough to be worth people dying for, or it isn't. None of this "it's important enough for other people to die for" bullshit. No "it's important enough to die for unless I am a half credit away from graduation" bullshit. No deferment bullshit, period. If it's worth some civilian in Iraq getting killed - even if their mom is on their deathbed, you'd best be willing to put your life on the line as well - even if YOUR mom is on her deathbed.

2. If the draftees feel a particular war is unjust, they have no obligation to serve in it - but their statement again that it is unjust is public record. The government then has the obligation to prove to its citizens/soldiers that each war is worth dying for, or they won't have the bodies to fight it. Burden of proof is on them.

3. Nobody is sent to be cannon fodder for someone else's beliefs.

[Cleita]

59. My thoughts are that we should have a citizens military, meaning that

everyone has to serve sometime in their lives so that we have a trained and ready military in case the need arises to defend our country. However, we really need to make the declaration of war a democratic process, where the people decide and not the President and some corporate millionaires in Congress. In other words, I believe the individual has a right to refuse to go to war if he doesn't think it's a just war. Most Americans will go to war if their country is truly threatened. That isn't a problem.

[MH1]

61. Universal national service.

Have financial incentives for more dangerous assignments. (Military service is very dangerous. So is smoke jumping - so incentives wouldn't be exclusive military service).

Citizenship should be earned. Maybe then people would put a little more effort into how they exercised it. Like not voting for f***wad idiots who would invade countries for no good reason.

(Of course there would be exclusions for the profoundly disabled and perhaps other compassionate exclusions or mitigations.)

[TahitiNut]

65. I adamantly support Universal National Service ... and here's part of HOW ...

EVERYONE serves for a minimum of two years .... male, female, black, brown, yellow, white, gay, straight ... with ANY ability. Only the 100% disabled and institutionalized are exempt.

EVERYONE gets basic training in the military. Based on aptitude, merit, and performance, people are TRAINED and deployed (IN TIMES OF PEACE) into Public Health Service, VISTA, the Peace Corps, Teacher Corps, Flood Reliefe, Forest Fire fighting, and other areas of service to the PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. Advanced training and preferred assignments incur a greater service obligation.

When "We The People," exercising our sovereign authority through the democratic process, engage in any war whatsoever, then people in national service are transferred increasingly to that effort, to some degree based on a lottery.

EVERYONE must share in the burdens ... no exemptions.

[wuushew]

66. I better earn more than minimum wage while doing that work

n/t

[TahitiNut]

67. Does the widdle baby need mommy and daddy to give him a bigger allowance?

:puke:

Here's what you get: three hots and a cot ... uniforms ... and $13,809.60/year flat. No 'overtime' and no union.

[wuushew]

69. Puke all you want dude

nobody forced you to complete induction. You could have gone to jail instead of whatever you did in the 1960s.

I am 29 now and pretty impovershed. How much were you making when you were my age? You like wage slavery? Federal jurors get paid $40 a day, what does $13,809 work out as an hourly rate?

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. So that pay is fine for an E1 in the military but not for you?

base pay is about 1300 US per month....

There are somethings like hazard pay and things like that... but give me a break!

What you';d get of that service is far more valuable for the rest of your life than mere dollars

And I cannot help to even try to explain it

Here are the pay charts by the way of base pay

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/fy2008paycharts/a/bpayenlless.htm

[wuushew]

83. Didn't you join the armed service because you wanted to?

It is really not appropriate to project your interests/aspirations onto other people. I don't get how you can claim people are not interconnected enough as there exists now more and faster lines of communication than at anytime previous.

How do you propose to measure and fine tune the proper amount of patriotism? Doesn't excessive nationalism and jingoism concern you since it has been a primary factor in much of the world's conflict in the past two centuries? Amerika is not exceptional and it certainly needs self-doubt and nihilism more than it needs a call to national "glory".

Blah, blah, blah we are a nation in decline. How do you know this, how do you separate your view from an unbiased reality?

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. I joined the Red Cross (which was part of the reserves back then as in Mexico)

My pay, if you are curious, was a thank you three times from patients over ten years

What I got out of that service was not something I can describe

But it didn't even fully include three squares and a cot either... and plenty of sleepless nights

But you know what? I had a sense of accomplishment that I guess you would have to experience yourself

After all I did save, in the real sense of the word, more than one life.

And I had several partners that I am still friends with, years later.

That is what you get from national service

I also got a sense of knowing what was going on in that country, which was my country, in ways that otherwise I'd never have gotten otherwise,

And you know why I joined?

A sense of Noblesse Oblige... and an obligation to the country that opened its doors to my dad after WW II. You understand what MORAL obligation means?

I guess you don;'t

[noamnety]

93. That's not a fair statement

"What you';d get of that service is far more valuable for the rest of your life than mere dollars"

considering veterans on average earn less over their lifetimes, and are more likely to be homeless, and considering the PTSD both from combat and sexual assaults if we're female, and given exposure to DU, agent orange, and lord knows what else was involved in the Desert Storm illnesses, I don't think it's reasonable for anyone to be singing the praises of what we "get" out of being veterans.

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. The way we treat our veterans also is reflective of what we allow

to be done to active duty troops

By the by, there is much I cannot put into words about service... that is something you have to experience.

But these days service is for others... and ahem, they volunteered... as we were told by somebody up thread

[Sanctified]

152. A college education is far more valuable than involuntary servitude.

I say we give college educations to every child instead of selling our kids into slavery so corporate interest can profit at the cheap labor our children will provide.

[nadinbrzezinski]

159. So you have no problem with the economic draft as it stands right now?

[Sanctified]

162. What is the alternative, forcing children to go to war or work for Halliburton or Black Water.

Sorry but give all children a college education and you will have no need for a draft nor an economic draft as you call it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

163. The alternative is citizenship

that is the alternative

And as is, YOU, yes YOU are supporting Halliburton, Blackwater and the war right now, unless you are not paying taxes.

[Sanctified]

164. So Citizenship should be based on punching a time card for the State?

Sorry sounds too 3rd Reich for me, I do not need to prove my allegiance to the State or Governing body.

[nadinbrzezinski]

166. Care to read Jefferson and Madison on that? Or you believe that

this only is suggested by fascist states?

Or perhaps you may care to read FDR on this and the different civilian corps formed during the great depression?

Sorry, I forgot Kennedy and the Peace Corp

Or the California Conservation Corp...

I could go on...

By the way, you are right now, by your definition supporting the state. or are you not paying taxes?

[Sanctified]

179. I respect both Jefferson and Madison but...

both were slave owners so forgive me if I find their philosophy on involuntary servitude to be a little on the bullshit side.

Do I pay taxes? That depends on what you consider paying taxes to be, I do not own the money I posses it is printed and owned by the Government so when I pay taxes I am just giving back to the Government what they already own.

I do own the blood in my veins unlike the dollars in my wallet and because of that I can decide whether it is to be given to the Government.

[noamnety]

181. Ha. That's a keeper.

"forgive me if I find their philosophy on involuntary servitude to be a little on the bullshit side."

[nadinbrzezinski]

218. What a nice damn dodge!

You are a participant in this war, whether you like it or not.

Now the first step is to admit it.

The second is to deal with it

The third, is do something about it.

During the sixties people were willing to go to jail and NOT pay taxes... they also hit the streets in numbers that were quite large

If you were not part of the solution, and you are not, you were part of the problem

By the way neither Jefferson or Madison were perfect men... but their IDEAS of public service and the duty of the citizen to work for the well being of their neighbors have precious little to do with their personal practices

I am also amused that you chose only those two and ignored twentieth century examples of public service in this country... I wonder why? No, let me correct that, I don't/ This is exactly why this country is in the hole it is

[Sanctified]

240. Because of my religious beliefs I am required to pay taxes and submit myself...

to the rule of the state, however I am not required to be obedient to the State as long as I am willing to take the punishment for my disobedience. Do I like the idea that my tax dollars are used for warfare, no. Am I willing to rot in prison to prevent the State from abusing it's powers, absolutely not.

Sorry but I can do more to hinder the State's war efforts outside of a prison than inside of one. To those individuals who decided to take the prison time for their convictions good for them, unfortunately they were unable to vote while in Prison and were unable to give money to anti-war causes so the only thing they did was prevent the State from collecting taxes on wages they would have earned if they were not incarcerated.

And your two 20th century examples advocated for non-compulsory service which is completely different than mandatory service. I support people who volunteer their service to their communities but I don't think their volunteering requires a time card or a two year limit. My wife and I volunteer in our communities all the time, when we have community members who are sick or have a new baby we deliver meals, do their shopping, run errands and assist in house hold chores for them. I also provide support and make myself available to young men who suffer from addiction, this is something I do willingly and gladly I don't believe I need to prove my worth to a community by holding up a time card of how much service I have done, the community knows.

[nadinbrzezinski]

242. As I said nice dodge

In some ways the way of the coward

I will continue to pay taxes... insert reason why here

And I have no problem with the current draft we have, after all it is damned convenient.

Sorry... time we face this, fully

And yours is one more dodge

In the meantime, Jose Ramirez is signing his enlistment papers, either because he wants that citizenship, or because he lives down in the hood, and has no real economic choice

And Andrew is signing up because in the Appalachia there are no jobs either... partly Wally mart has taken them away

But hey, they volunteered...

Nice dodge...

At least I face the fact that I DO support this every day of the week and twice on Sunday when I send my check to uncle sam and I do not bring nice excuses to it. I AM supporting the war. Blood drips from my hands. Clear enough for you? I am not taking any dodge using any excuses. Morally I am just as guilty as the trooper loading his M=16 (or these days AK-47) in the morning before going outside the wire on patrol where he may have to pull that trigger and take a life. I walk by his side in a manner of speaking.

[Sanctified]

249. What is your point? That we all need give our children to mammon because there is a war in Iraq?

Sorry but just because Jose wants to become a citizen and Andrew wants more material wealth I do not feel obligated to enlist in any mandatory service nor should my children.

If you are are satisfied with your support for the war and feel that you do not need to do anything to counter that involuntary support then good for you. I on the other hand prefer to voluntarily give money and support to anti-war efforts and voluntarily give my support to my community without having to be told or have some corporate overlord checking my time card to verify that I have indeed given my 2 years of service to the corporate interests who run the State.

[nadinbrzezinski]

252. No my point is that we need a new sense of the WE not the pervasive I

we need to shoulder both the good things and the bad things of this society

And if war is our choice, then it should be an equal risk (and there are some wars that need to be fought, even if that does not apply to the current one)

That said, NATIONAL SERVICE, as I have made this point before, does not necessarily only mean shouldering a rifle. It never has, and it never will.

But the first step is to admit that yes, YOU AND I are responsible... that is the absolute FIRST STEP to responsible citizenship

[noamnety]

171. You know what?

I think every one of us is aware that our tax dollars are being used to fund the war. It actually doesn't need to be repeated in each of your posts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

173. I was talking to somebody else

[noamnety]

175. So was I

when you initially responded to one of my posts. That's how forums work.

[NNN0LHI]

78. I got a question for you TN

What about during the times when we are NOT at peace which is just about all the time?

Who gets to decide which young men get sent to the front lines to be turned into pink mist? And who decides which young men are best suited to stay home here to protect the women folk?

Any idea who exactly will be deciding these kind of things because this is sort of an important detail you left out of your plan?

Don

[TahitiNut]

88. Just when do you think "We The People" will TAKE responsibility for the acts of OUR government?

I'm tired of the "Oh woe is me THEY aren't doing what I agree with" ... now, what's on "American Idol" again?

I'm tired of "We The People" sitting on our asses while we watch what is taking place IN OUR NAME as though it's some form of entertainment ... or a target of our oh-so-enlightened opinions that show "we're" better than "them."

We've become a nation of cowards and criminals. Apparently ACTING to TAKE responsibility for our own government is "off the table" too.

I guess the "table" only has room for fast food, 'reality' TV, and the opportunity to be keyboard warriors.


Join the Dick Cheney Brigade, Don ... y'all have "better things to do."

[NNN0LHI]

89. What happened man?

I thought we could have a civil discussion here and you go completely ape shit.

See ya pal.

Don

[TahitiNut]

91. The question of whether "we" are at peace or waging war should and MUST ...

... be a reflection of the will of "We The People" and NOT some minority where the vast majority shrugs their shoulders, mouths some platitudes, points the finger at those lesser people (call 'em "volunteers" or "baby killers" or "rapists" or whatever - EVERY ONE OF THOSE NAMES are one's I've heard far too often), and proclaims themselves 'smarter' or 'more moral' ow whatever.

The fact that we're getting further and further from that fundamental (inherent in our Constitution) and "We The People" aren't in the streets and TAKING back our responsibility for self-governance is a slow erosion I've been watching for over 30 years.

The specious notion that will... I guess I could go along with a draft ... but we have to stop what we're doing first ... is (imho) deluded. A cop-out.

You asked "WHO decides?"

I answered.

No... I have no optimism that the U.S. will, in any foreseeable future, regain a semblance of democracy. It's going to get a LOT worse before it gets better ... and a lot of the (NIMBY) attitudes I repeatedly see espoused on DU is, in no small part, why that'll happen. I'm really glad I don't have kids. I cry for those of others.


I go apeshit over this stuff because EVERYTHING I've argued will happen since this nation embraced the "all-volunteer military" has come to pass in EXACTLY the way I've been saying.

I've heard this crap for 40 years. I've heard the same old sophomoric talking points. It wears thin.

I hated being in the Army. (Being in Viet Nam was INSANE.) I am NOT a "military type" by any stretch of the imagination. (Even though I entertained the idea of doing it for a career when I was in high school since I saw no other way to get an education - I was in the same spot as the economically-coerced 'draftees' are today.) There are few people who appreciate the situation (been there, done that) from the perspective of both the 'volunteers' and those who can't even imagine being in the military as I do.

The WORST jobs in a democracy MUST be done by EVERYONE.

There's no other way, imho.

[noamnety]

96. I'm confused.

you think the US would have been more moral if everyone in it had a chance to fight in an illegal immoral war? That's something everyone MUST do?

Come on. That doesn't make any sense. Deciding NOT to fight is equally/more valid.

I dunno, maybe I misunderstood something there.

[TahitiNut]

98. Of course you are.

:shrug:

[noamnety]

101. so enlighten me.

You think the country would be better if all of us took part in the occupation of Iraq?

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. The country would be better if all of us served

and the occupation of Iraq would be impossible to maintain politically if everybody had a stake in the game

If we had an all volunteer army in 1960 I am willing to bet we'd be still in the 'Nam, why they have not brought any draft (beyond the economic \ back door ones) in

Of course many of the divisions in the country would be hard to pull off, as people would know each other

And by the way, national service does not necessarily imply ONLY service in the armed forces

[noamnety]

106. No, the country would not be better if we all fought illegal wars.

And if we were all in "National service" would would get called up to serve in illegal wars, I don't have any doubt about that.

Doctors or nurses serving the public good would be pulled off their assignments to patch up soldiers to send them back to illegal wars, for example - in the same way national guard people are often suckered into thinking they'll be doing disaster relief for civilians and end up in Iraq. Or even FEMA employees - thinking they'll be helping victims of floods, and when they get there, they get orders to send relief workers away and refuse to provide aid. NOBODY should be forced to follow orders they find unethical and immoral, without the option to quit.

And as I said elsewhere, nobody should be forced to serve alongside someone who is sexually harassing them or worse, but the reality is what it is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. The point is... your chances of serving in an illegal war

would actually go down

After all your ass would be on the line

They are ahem, easier to fight when you have volunteers and auxiliary troops.

Just ask the brits and rome how well that worked in the end.

Incidentally this is precisely why the Founders believed in citizen soldiers and not professional armies

[noamnety]

111. it's not about "the odds" - it's about the ethics.

there ARE no ethics in demanding that someone else fights an illegal war. It's not ethical when republicans demand that. It's not ethical when we demand it.

Furthermore, a draft makes it MORE possible, not less, to engage in warfare. If that weren't the truth, they wouldn't have resorted to a draft to fill the ranks for WWII or Korea or Vietnam.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. You should know some factoids

WW II was a very legal war under any definition of international law, as we were attacked by Japan and Germany declared war two days later.

Moreover, they had a draft, but had to turn many people out of the recruitment stations after December seven

Korea was a sanctioned action under international law, by the UN... it was a UN action, to DEFEND the territorial integrity of S.Korea when it was invaded by N;Korea... and you will have a very hard case making the case that Article 51 didn't apply...

You'd have a somewhat easier case with the Nam, except that no international body has declared this an illegal war

As a former humanitarian worker I care about those LEGAL distinctions.... after all they also frame how those humanitarian workers get to act in a region in conflict and vis a vis the combatants...

Now if you tried to make those cases for our involvement in Central America... there are many in the international Law community that would have liked it to go there, and in fact the only reason why it didn't happen is because a DEMOCRAT didn't pursue Iran Contra in '92,never mind our congress passed laws making our actions in CA ilegal, This is to the chagrin of many of us who know some of the sordid details, including our involvement, directly that is, through Air America... especially after the capture of one Mr. Hassenfus and the mining of Nicaraguan Ports. This action was actually declared illegal and we were ordered to pay reparations by the International court.

Kuwait, also fell loosely under article 51 of the UN.

And given the current war was given the legal cover of the UN security council and the US Congress... you'll be hard pressed to get International Lawyers declare it illegal... that said, under the revelations of people like Suskind chances are that this is an illegal war and we will see a move towards that declaration under International Law SOON.


That said, what are you doing right now to actively resist this war? Posting on a board with the usual platitudes is not enough. And that is what citizenship implies.

And I found it funny that you did not address at all any of the points made about either the British Empire, the Roman Empire, or for that matter, our founders view of citizen soldiers and how they were an intrinsic part of the system and how they abhorred professional militaries.

[noamnety]

118. No, I didn't address the history of the Roman Empire in my post.

Because that are not relevant to the most basic ethics involved in legislating that a citizen must endanger their life against their will doing something they believe is unethical.

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. What part of Conscientious Objector status are you missing though?

We have done this with every draft

many COs served as MEDICS... others served in civilian industries... but they served, with honor and not putting their principles on the line

You also still refuse to address the concept of citizen soldier... or for that matter, sorry to say this, of citizenship

[noamnety]

125. What my friends who were medics sometimes discovered

is that they were still contributing to the war effort.

If they were patching up veterans at home, they probably would have felt differently. Instead, they were patching up soldiers to return them to the front line to go kill more civilians. I don't know if you saw the Ground Truth or not, but Perry in it talks about that medic role. Medics get to help amputate the hands of prisoners who were tortured by being hung from their wrists for days on end - and then released because *oops* we thought you were someone else - sorry about the missing hands, dude.

There's no concept of citizenship that I can embrace which includes being forced to take part in such things.

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. Then those medics didn't get it

refusing to obey illegal orders is part of the deal... and reporting gross violations is also part of the deal

And citizenship comes with the good, the bad and the ugly... it is a whole package

It includes the concept that we are in this all together

Oh and I have refused to obey an illegal order before you even come with the usual retort, but, but.. but.

And on the most basic level... are you still paying taxes? If you are... you are supporting the war.

Thanks for your support.

[noamnety]

128. They didn't report an illegal order

because medically - at the point when he became their patient - his hands had to be amputated for his own good. It wasn't an illegal order to amputate the hands, they had gangrene from the previous treatment.

Taxes, no taxes, still irrelevant to the ethics of demanding someone shoot another person they have no quarrel with, still irrelevant to the ethics of demanding someone endanger their life against their will.

It's a fundamental question of morality.

Not of esoteric argument about the history of Roman empires, not a debate about tax laws and tax resistors. Having or not having a draft is just a basic question about the morality of that question.

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. Did they participate in torture? Or the effects of torture? Did they report it?

No...

Sorry... they broke many a standard under the Geneva Convention... would you like me to quote chapter and verse? After all I TAUGHT International Humanitarian Law to my cadets for the Red Cross, what guided us in how we acted, especially in a combat zone.

And yes, you are supporting the war RIGHT NOW... every time you send a check to uncle sam

Just that those doing the killing FOR YOU... are ahem... "volunteers."

Wake up and smell the roses, we have an active draft...

It is an economic draft, with a good percentage of back door as well

I guess you can sleep at night then.

And until people LIKE YOU, yes like you, realize this little disconnect, we are in real trouble

You don't want to dirty your hands, but others are for you. That is the problem.

[noamnety]

141. Those are all questions you should ask him, not me.

http://www.tomjoad.org/warheroes3.htm

like the admission comment, I am not understanding your comment about dirty hands. You are trying to imply something you've ASSumed about me, apparently.

[nadinbrzezinski]

143. You pay taxes, you support this war

yes, it is that simple

Your hands, my hands, are dirty... even if others are doing the real dirty work for you.

And I just stated some facts about how this works... and you used him as an example... I went from what YOU posted.

[nadinbrzezinski]

145. Oh and one more thing... that medic did not break the conventions

and he was given the status of CO... he acted within the parameters established by the conventions and not like you said, working around interrogators

[noamnety]

148. You are exceptional

at reading things that aren't written.

"not like you said, working around interrogators"

[nadinbrzezinski]

151. From your post above

Medics get to help amputate the hands of prisoners who were tortured by being hung from their wrists for days on end - and then released because *oops* we thought you were someone else - sorry about the missing hands, dude.

[noamnety]

160. Good, you can copy and paste.

Now. Does that say he was working with interrogators?

Or does it discuss the prior situation of a person that was being operated on?

Kind of like ER doctors working on a victim of drunk driving - they aren't so much working among drunk drivers, eh?

[nadinbrzezinski]

161. Under the conventions you are supposed to NOTE every one of these instances and

if need be jump military authorities and REPORT to the ICRC... that KEEPS track of all these instances... and let them know where they can contact victims at the very least

It is like when a patient admits to a crime in your ambulance... you are supposed to actually tell the cops, or become accessory.

[noamnety]

168. and like I said, that's an issue to take up with him, not me

because I do not know what specific reports he filled out, although I know he has testified about the things he witnessed.

My point in posting it is that if you are in a noncombat support role to a war, you are arguably still fighting the war. Many COs have come to that conclusion, though not all of them. It's why it's unethical to demand that doctors practice medicine in support of a war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

172. And many more have concluded that service in the medical field

during a war, whether serving as part of a national red cross society, (which is just as risky, if not more if you are a front line medic evacuating civies) or as a military medic, alleviates some of the horrors for all involved and I mean all involved, why Jean Henry Dunnant organized the first teams during the Battle of Solferino using medical staff from both combatants.

And it is not for me to ask those questions... I went by your description

It remains in the consciousness of every medic (and soldier) who has ever served, how they act under fire.

[noamnety]

176. Not exactly

"It remains in the consciousness of every medic (and soldier) who has ever served, how they act under fire."

Yes, that part is true, but also - and this is the key thing - it also remains in their consciousness what their part in the larger picture was. A person can be heroic under fire and serve honorably to the best of their ability - but still be enabling a larger thing that is against their moral code.

Some medics as I acknowledged come to one conclusion, and some to the other. Those who think they are serving the greater good by being medics during a war should have the option of doing that.

Those who feel that by patching up people on the front line they are enabling them to go out and kill more civilians should not be forced to use their medical training to do something that - ultimately - supports more death.

[H2O Man]

202. Perhaps the part of CO

that you appear to be missing involved the case of the most important CO during the Vietnam era. That was the case of boxing's Heavyweight Champion, Muhammad Ali. When Ali had changed his name from Cassius Clay, and publicly embraced the Nation of Islam, Uncle Same changed his draft status from the lowest to the highest level, although Ali had not changed in any manner in terms of testing.

The Champ went from being a regular citizen, to being a target of a significant part of the federal government. Records of taped phone conversations between Ali and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., (which were illegal) documented the federal goverment's concern that the opposition to not only the war, but the military draft, would influence young black men to refuse to serve in the war in Vietnam.

Ali was offered a cushy position, not unlike that of other celebrities in previous wars. He was told that he would have to go through basic training, then would only have to entertain troops by taking part in boxing exhibitions. He would have retained his title in boxing, and remained a rich man.

Instead, Ali refused to take the step forward. He was told by his attorneys that he would most likely have to serve five years in a federal prison. Ali famously told an audience that not only was he willing to go to prison, but that he would face machine guns before he would participate in an immoral war.

It might be tempting to say today that the Champ was grandstanding, and that there was no chance of him facing machine guns. However, it is worth remembering that Uncle Sam was illegally listening in on his conversations with King, because they were considering charging Martin with breaking the espionage act, by discouraging others from cooperating with the draft. King would, of course, be a victim of a rifle shortly thereafter.

Ali was denied the right to make a living while his case was being appealed. This was later ruled to have been in violation of his rights as an American citizen. More, when his case was heard by the US Supreme Court -- and the Nixon USSC, at that -- Ali won an 8-0 decision. It remains the single most important legal case involving CO status.

It is a shame that people in the progressive and liberal democratic party would lose sight of Ali's case, and what it means to those who oppose wars such as those in Vietnam and Iraq.

[Two Americas]

131. it the illegal wars that are the problem

That doesn't justify the burden - whatever that may be - not being equally shared.

Just because some are paying a higher personal price for the illegal occupation of Iraq, that does not mean that we are all not responsible for it. Some are able to comfortably deny they are supporting it, and are able to get away without paying a personal price. That is the only difference.

We are all supporting what the government is doing. We are all morally responsible. Some are in harm's way, many are not.

[TahitiNut]

144. Thank you. YOU get it!

Funny how some RUN LIKE HELL from that fundamental comprehension. :eyes:

:puke:

[Two Americas]

354. separate issues

Illegal wars and the draft are separate issues. If, as you say, a draft means that people will be forced to serve in illegal wars then we have already lost our freedom, and this freedom you imagine you have by allowing the burden to be carried by the few is an illusion. You are in compliance, in other words, and in compliance with what you say is morally unacceptable. You accept - demand - that you have the freedom to go about your life as though we did not live under tyranny, while you say we should not share the burden equally because we do live under tyranny. Which is it?

I assume that you would have no problem with a draft for legal wars, or in peacetime, then?

[noamnety]

380. Disingenuous

I've already explained multiple times - multiple reasons why I oppose the draft.

Forcing people to carry out acts of violence for causes they find morally reprehensible is ONE of those reasons - and whether or not YOU find a war morally acceptable is not relevant to whether THEY find themselves forced into violence and risking their own life for a cause THEY do not believe in.

If you find a war legal and ethical and worth dying for - go fight it.

[Two Americas]

136. ok

Then we all need to drop our lives, and be in all-out resistance to the government. There is no sitting back with a "don't blame me, I didn't agree with it" rationale that alleviates the moral responsibility involved.

Some one, somewhere, is on the perimeter one way or another so that the rest of us can enjoy the safety of the campfire. Someone pays the price, someone makes the sacrifices. In an era when the liberal activist community takes the blue collar workers and service industry workers for granted - looking right through them as though they don't exist and not including them in their political calculus unless it is to spew hatred and bigotry toward them, and when the plight of the other America and the poor and homeless is at best given lip service, I do not think that it is any coincidence that so few are willing to serve their country and so few are willing to make any personal sacrifice for their political principles.

"Let someone else do the dirty work, I am an enlightened progressive and deserve my life of status, privilege, safety and ease" has become the unspoken mantra of many in the Democratic party and liberal activist community. The general public can smell that arrogance and selfishness a mile away, and that costs the party millions of votes.

This attitude is morally bankrupt, and it is the main reason that the political left - such as it is - has become so weak and ineffective, and it makes it less likely that we can stop illegal wars - much less likely.

[H2O Man]

207. Easily said.

Perhaps you could share with us exactly what you have done in the context of dropping your life, and exactly what you have done in your "all-out resistence to the government"? Otherwise, it sounds as if you are advocating that others engage in activities that you are unwilling to engage in yourself.

Perhaps while you are at it, you would be so kind as to provide details of how your actions are different from those of us who are engaged in activities defined by the Bill of Rights in our humble attempts to influence government/social policy? I trust that I am not alone in eagerly anticipating your non-bankrupt description of your current actions.

Thank you.

[TahitiNut]

210. Do you or do you not believe a free people can have a representative democracy?

We claim to have (or want) a democratic form of governance. The moral legitimacy upon which the Founders rested the stance that only the people themselves are the legitimate sovereigns and ALL governance rests upon the "consent of the governed" was articulated by Hobbes and Locke and others. The reasoning of the enlightenment is as follows: the people themselves re the lonlyy legitimate sovereigns over their own governance since it is THEY who bear the costs and perform the labors. To those who claim (from time immemorial) that someone trained and raised from birth to do the job of ruling a nation (i.e. monarchs) can do a "better job" we can only observe that the FRUITS of such a form of governance are always distributed inequitably ... the sweeter fruits to the rulers and the sour fruits to the ruled, no matter what the result of such rule is. Equity demands that those who self-govern share the fruits of their own self-governance equally. It's upon this very reasoning of moral legitimacy that our nation was formed.

The 'social contract' of a democracy demands both participation AND taking responsibility. In agreeing to follow the "will of the majority" (with prohibition upon infringement of the basic rights of minorities) we equate the shring of the fruits (sweet or sour) with equiatble participation in that self-governance AND the acts in which it chooses to engage.

Over thirty-five years ago, We The People demanded that we NOT share equitably in the dirty work of our nation. We deactivated the draft. (In essence, we decided to exploit the poor and disadvantaged ... "sharing" the PRIVILEGE of FORTUNATE SONS (instead of eradicating such illegitimate privilege) and letting the least of us bear the greatest burdens.

The "cover" for this has been the claim of "illegal war." Yet We The People HAVE NOT STEPPED UP TO THE RESPONSIBILITY of prosecuting and convicting those who have committed such an illegality. Oh No ... much easier to "have our cake and eat it too."

In abdicating any participation in sharing the risks of dying for the "illegal wars" and, at the same time, FAILING to assert our sovereign responsibility to prosecute that whcih we claim is "illegal" we have behaved as cowards (in not asserting our soveriengty) and criminals (complicit in the illegality).

When I (and others) assert that an equitable draft is ESSENTIAL in "keeping us honest" with regards to both the responsibility AND the burdens of self-governance, it is with an eye to the FACT that we have not succeeded in "giving the war to which nobody came" ... and instead have regressed to the state of spoiled children refusing to clean up their own rooms. We're over-indulged children who seem to think we can "Vote" on how many candy bars we can have for dinner.


In my view, a draft is absolutely necessary but probably not sufficient. In the last 50 years, the WORST thing to happen in terms of preserving and sustaining our representative democracy was the creation of the delusion of an "all-volunteer military" and the abdication of We The People in asserting our sovereignty. We are now operating under the insane delusion that all we have to do is express an OPINION ... and somehow it'll all get better. Bullshit. We have amply demonstrated that we're UNWILLING to prosecute war criminals. We CLAIMED Viet Nam was an 'illegal war" but we NEVER walked the walk! We have CONTINUED to operate under the delusion that other can do the dirty work and somehow we're still in a democracy. That's totla and complete bullshit ... and Cheney/Bush know it and are LITERALLY getting away with murder. But prosecuting them is "off the table" and we can't be bothered with getting in harm's way to demand JUSTICE. Guess what? We're fucked ... and We The People have done it to ourselves.

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)

[H2O Man]

237. Of course I do.

I had asked the above person (Two Americas) to let us in on what it is s/he has dropped and picked up in his/her taking personal responsibility for his/her part in the war. I do not think that asking for clarification on that in any way implies that I believe in the possibility of a representative democracy. What I do think is that those who place demands upon others, which they are unwilling to do themselves, are not people to be listened to. Perhaps Two Americas will have a detailed list, complete with solid examples of what s/he has done to show that s/he is not simply advocating that others do something s/he is not doing.

In terms of a draft: while I almost always agree with you on social/political issues, this is an example of where we hold very different views. That's one of the corner stones of a true democracy -- people can think differently, and still get along. That can be difficult in a large nation, with numerous people from diverse backgrounds. It requires that even in cases where one person does not share, or even understand, another person's beliefs and values, they still respect the other person.

I think it is worth noting that one of the major influences on our Founding Fathers, in their development of the US Constitution (which created a republic, that transformed within 30 years to a democracy) was the Haudenosaunee, or Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy. In cases of conflict with other peoples, the Council of Chiefs would decide upon the issue of if they would engaged in battles (or, post-contact, warfare); then the Clan Mothers decided to either endorse or reject that decision. In those cases that both the Council of Chiefs and Clan Mothers decided to go to battle, they depended upon the young men to serve. Still, they recognized that it was an individual choice for each and every young man -- there was no compulsory service. If the cause was just, the elders were confident the young men would defend the nations.

A draft is, in the most literal sense, the opposite of democracy. It forces one group of adult members of the society to fight, wound, kill, be wounded, and die, for the decisions of a group of elders who do not share nor respect their individual values. More, because military drafts are never accomplished "in theory," but only "in reality," the simple truth is that the poor always are drafted, the middle class sometimes are, and the wealthy very, very rarely are drafted.

That people like Bush and Cheney have violated their oath of office, crushed the Constitution, and created an immoral war in Iraq is something we no doubt agree upon. Where we disagree is on the approach that we should take to correct that. A draft denies a large segment of citizens their rights as individual, thinking human beings. It adds fuel to the fire that Bush and Cheney have set. And it causes more suffering and death in places such as Iraq.

As noted on an earlier post on this thread, the most significant CO case in the Vietnam era was that of Muhammad Ali. He refused to be drafted, lost millions of dollars, faced a prison sentence, and had numerous threats made against him. Eventually, the Nixon Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that Ali was correct, and that an American citizen in a democracy, that he had the right to exercise his individual conscience. It would be a shame if citizens concerned about Bush/Cheney's lack of conscience were willing to throw that victory away. It was, in my opinion, as important as any other victory from the Vietnam era.

[TahitiNut]

247. It's too bad we're not the homogenous tribal culture of the Haudenosaunee.

The cultural context in which each and every individual understands that what happens to all happens to each is far from the cultural context in which so many believe that the misfortune of some is the fortune of others. We can no longer regard ourselves as a 'nation' in anything remotely akin to the Iroquois 'nation.' We're in an "everyone for themselves" era.

We proclaim ourselves free of any obligation to serve in an 'illegal war' and AT THE SAME TIME abdicate the associated responsibility to ensure that such ILLEGALITY is prosecuted and determined.

That's a cheat - a cop-out. That's intellectual and political cowardice, imho.


I have no objection to Conscientious Objectors serving in an unarmed capacity ... but I think it'd be fascinating to know how many folks claiming to be CO's ALSO favor capital punishment. We human beings have an almost unlimited capacity for hypocrisy ... and not even admitting it.

[H2O Man]

258. Yet the draft

would not make any distinction between those who in no sense abdicate their responsibilities as citizens, and those who do, or anyone who falls in between. Advocating a policy that proposes to force one group of adults to engage in an immoral war, where they will be forced to wound and kill, or be wounded or killed, because one believes that part of that group do not exercise their rights and responsibilities correctly, seems unlikely to promote the goals of democracy.

More, without taking the time to document that the Great Law of the Iroquois was not limited to a homogenous culture (I can, if needed, though it seems bside the point), I would note that it is a state of mind that offers more promise for non-violent conflict resolution and promoting democracy than other options, such as a draft. It is worth considering that the Haudenosaunne have been involved in presenting to the United Nations, and that their efforts are backed by individuals from Rubin Carter to Nelson Mandela. As I've said numerous times, Rubin and Mandela were among a group that recently began work towards conflict resolution in the Middle East, based on their knowledge that much of the violence was based upon tribal rivalries.

We need to work towards changing people's conscious understanding of the problems we face, not forcing people to behave in unconscious, destructive manners.

Here is a picture you may enjoy:

[Two Americas]

330. we agree then

"What I do think is that those who place demands upon others, which they are unwilling to do themselves, are not people to be listened to."

Agreed.

That is the rational for a draft - all share the burden.

[nadinbrzezinski]

223. I will waterman

I have written amicus briefs to the US Supreme Court regarding the Hamdan Case... no my dear, you do not need to be a lawyer either

That is open resistance in many ways, especially in the days after 9.11

I have talked to many a legislator trying to get them to openly resist the USPA... and I am directly responsible for Hawaii being one of the few states, in fact the first, that declared itself a USPA free zone... and in fact one reason why protest zones were never set when Bush visited... and he had to see the protestors all the way from almost the gate to Hickam AFB.. almost, that is a freeway, H-1, H-3, to the Hyatt downtown.

I have worked every day to bring the troops home

I have participated in the many failed national strikes that have been called... yes the ones that every so often are posted here, and people laugh about... after all that would be damn inconvenient... to strike that is

So has my husband

And I have not done enough either. And I do participate in the system, fully conscious by the way, every time I pay taxes.

Hell, I am damned surprised I have not ended (to my knowledge) on any list yet.

[H2O Man]

243. Very good.

I note that those are all examples of a citizen exercising their Constitutional rights -- which, by no coincidence, is what I advocate. It is distinct from a military draft.

I am quite familiar with the right of common folk to participate in the legal system. I have taken part in cases, including writing and filing briefs in a NYS Supreme Court case (the first test of the 1991 US Burial Protection and Repatriation Act); provided information to the US EPA and DoJ in the first two federal cases testing the federal MSW laws; and was a longtime participant in the most important habeas corpus case in the 1900s (which F. Lee Bailey called "one of this century's most important legal sagas"). I did all of that without having been drafted, or having any of my children drafted.

In regard to the Bush administration, I have been actively exercising those rights defined in the Bill of Rights, which are intended to allow citizens the right and opportunity to influence government policy.

"Two Americas" said that s/he wants people to drop everything and engage in an all-out effort against the government. My simple question -- now asked for the 4th time -- is what exactly s/he is advocating: what has s/he done personally, and what is being advocated for others? Simple questions, yet unanswered as I write this.

I thank you for your answer. It provides a solid example of how any common citizen can take actions which do not require that others be forced against their will to do that which is against their conscience.

[nadinbrzezinski]

245. If it is against your conscience then you can apply for CO status

that is number one

Number two, we are to a point where there is no sense of citizenship... (talking in a very general sense here) And why the country seems more like a collection of regions anymore than a nation

National service, in my view, would not only involve the military, should not, but we need mandatory national service.

Whether a person serves in the inner city working with at risk youth, or serves in the army is not the question right now, but how to imbue a population back with a sense of the WE, not the I... which is pervasive and is partly the problem... why people are not going to care what happens in NOLA for example, and I mean today...

And yes, there are days I think Robert Heinlein had a point about earning citizenship and not just automatically getting it.

[H2O Man]

253. National service

is a great idea. But making it mandatory for one group of adults is the not democratic.

There are chances, for example, for people who get college degrees in human services to work in counties which are deemed "underserved" to help pay off their debts from their education. This includes working with at-risk youth. The problem with this, at present, is that there are far too few openings for people to access the programs, and far, far too many "at risk" youth.

There are community-based employment programs where young people working towards degrees (or not) are able to serve their area in numerous ways, often working on environmental and land-scaping projects. The problem that exist in our area is that there are only a fraction of the slots needed, and those are almost entirely filled by those who are connected to a family with social influence.

My father was a big advocate of the CCC camps. They served the local communities, and provided people who needed work with a job. A up-dated variation on that type of thing is, in my opinion, one of the most progressive options available to our society.

However, forcing a group of individuals to serve against their will is not democratic. Forcing one group of people to participate in, for example, a Bush-Cheney war against their conscience is not only not democratic, it is morally corrupt. And I am quite familiar with CO .... enough so to know that the proposed CO options for if there is a draft are significantly different than they were in the Vietnam era.

[nadinbrzezinski]

255. I;ll give you a very practical example

the country south of the United States

Every kid that goes to college has to do a year of Social Service, national service if you will. EVERY KID

That meant that my brother worked in some of the worst served places in Mexico City rendering health care.

And until he finished his social service period, was his degree released by the National University.

It did not matter if you went to a private college, (like my sis and I did, we never finished since we came to the states) or a public university. Everybody had to serve, no buts, ifs or wheres. Everybody did... you got a degree, that is a privilege, and it is seen as such.

Other countries have similar programs... and it helps to get people to work down in the trenches and get a sense of WE.

( Served for ten years as a medic, but that is another story)

That is a way to implement a national service program. I know it works, since not only Mexico uses that model.

The benefits are widespread across the society. But even that one is seen as antidemocratic in the US... forgive me for saying this, but this is a cop out... why? Living in a democratic state also involves doing things that may not be voluntary but benefit the whole. (Jury duty comes to mind, which reminds me I have to go serve AGAIN, I get called every so often since I DO show up)

We, yes we, want all the beanies, but damn it don't bother me and you cannot force me is antithetical to living in organized society. And this is one reason we are in the hole we are.

[H2O Man]

262. Earlier this decade,

I was involved in the burial of the remains of Native American people who were killed by that government that you mention to the south of us. Those Indian people were advocating for democratic rights.

In a true democracy, a specific group of adults is not forced to engage in actions/activities that others are not forced to. Those who advocate for such a system have every right to believe they have some wonderful insight that allows them to decide how others should live. But they are not advocating democracy, and as a person who values democracy as defined by the Bill of Rights, I hope they fail.

[nadinbrzezinski]

264. NIce sedway, the system is also used in France, Norway and Germany

so about them? are they evil as well?

Look I used the system as an example, and I KNOW in full details, probably better than you, some of the real ugly details of what has happened down there over the last 20 years Hell, I TREATED some of the victims... so do you want details? I can give you some.


I still have NO PROBLEM with mandatory national service

Nor did the founders, their ideas were not as extensive, but things like Social Security could not have been even conceived off by the founders either.

Perhaps it is time you do some readying on their concept of the citizen soldier and why they abhorred professional (aka volunteer) militaries.

Perhaps it is time you read what they meant when they spoke of citizen... trust me, these days we don't even get close to their concept and come up with every cop out available in the book and then some

[TahitiNut]

257. Creating an economic condition where the least benefited are coerced into military service ....

... is hardly "democratic" either. The huge gap between the rich and the poor (the co-called "war on the middle class") has increased CONTINUOUSLY since we adopted the specious notion of an "all-volunteer military" over 30 years ago. The only thing about today's 'draft' that's different than the pre3-lottery draft is that the one we've implemented is far less equitable.

We've become a nation of people who proclaim our INNOCENCE ... as we're HIRING (and coercing) others to do the killing in our name. That is NOT a higher moral ground. No way. Since when is hiring hit-men to murder for us not a crime?

[H2O Man]

268. I agree

that the economic conditions in this country do not promote democracy. Obviously, they make it difficult, if not impossible. A draft does very little to address those economic injustices. Quite the opposite: it only helps promote the program of those who control the wealth of the country.

The concept of individual rights and responsibilities is central to democracy. That is what is known as social conscience. It is a level of being that should be constant, from the local to the national to the international level. To use an extreme example, but one that I intend very seriously, if I meet a Charles Manson-like character, and he tells me to kill some people in the next neighborhood, if I have a social conscience, I will not. Even if he tells me it is my duty, and that if I do not, others will have to do it for me.

If the mayor tells me to kill citizens in the next town, or the governor tells me to kill people in the next state -- even if they tell me it is my duty -- I will not.

If a Hitler tells me that it is my duty to kill people from my community, the next town, state, or country, it is still the same. My social conscience tells me that it is wrong.

I accord the same right to a social conscience to others, including young adults as well as others. And I recognize that those who believe part or all of what Manson/mayor/governor/Hitler are saying has been tricked. They aren't seeing things clearly. And if they advocate that any other group be forced to follow the commands of Manson/mayor/governor/Hitler, I can only patiently say that this is not the way of social conscience.

[TahitiNut]

277. We again confront the core meaning of a representative democracy.

You present a parade of strawmen where some elected (or not) official "tells" you to kill someone. One of the strawmen is Hitler. Inherent in these examples are assumptions regarding the legitimate exercise of delegated authority in a democracy.

It's time that we more explicitly examine these assumptions.

It seems pretty clear that George W. Bush and his ilk believe that a republic is legitimately served in electing an individual to office and that individual is then authorized to wield his authority in ANY way that he (or she) wants ... that we somehow, as an electorate, abandon any say in our own governance on every issue by accepting EVERY position held by the elected "representative." We see this tacit assumption in discussions on DU every day if not every hour or minute. On every "wedge issue" and every nuance, there's an insistence (or accusation) that a candidate must be in 100% agreement on each and every issue.

I regard this paradigm as simplistic, false, and completely contrary to what constitutes a representative democracy. In MY view, an elected official is morally and ethically obligated to subordinate their own preferences to the majority preferences of an informed electorate. Once upon a time we called this the "democratic process" ... where issues were presented with some degree of intellectual honesty and the will of the electorate prevailed. Thus, an elected official could not, merely due to their religious convictions, for example, outlaw contraception where the vast majority of the electorate opposed such criminalization. Further, we constitutionally prohibit the majoritarian oppression of the rights and liberties of minorities.

I am, therefore, far more interested in the MANNER and PROCESS by which an elected official might exercise their delegated authority than what their own singular view on every particular hot-button issue might be. We should be able, in all confidence, to elect an "anti-choice" candidate whose HIGHER moral obligation is to enact and promulgate the secular and political will of the majority. Indeed, this is why I was totally appalled by the posture taken by right-wing Roman Catholic Bishops that threatened to excommunicate an elected official for accommodating, through their votes in Congress, reproductive choice! That was an appalling demonstration of dictatorial power and an abdication of the role of religion in INFORMING the individual human conscience.

In a very real sense, it seems, even self-proclaimed "democrats" are accepting the corrupt meme of an elected dictator ... which, I assert, is the most fundamental corruption of today's GOP. George W. Bush called it a "mandate" and proclaimed his authority (in 2005) to enact HIS agenda irrespective of the fact that it, in MANY instances, reflected the will of a narrow minority with an unbounded appetite to assert their will on the majority. That's the essence of what most see as fascism ... under the specious cover of an 'election.' It does NOT become less dictatorial by having an 'election' every four years ... any more than if we were to assassinate a dictator every four years only to have the reins of power taken up by his relative or crony.

What's even MORE appalling is the indolent willingness of the electorate to "Let George Do It" ... and ignore any moral duty to TAKE back our responsibility for self-governance. The elimination of ANY mandatory national service of ANY kind only serves to enable and facilitate such moral cowardice. IMHO.

With regards to WAR ... this is the most essential area in which the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS must be enforced. EVERY individual has a "politics of personal convenience" that's externally indistinguishable for their "politics of personal conscience" ... particularly where their personal risk is concerned. It's a question of where the boundaries of one's "social conscience" are and where they would resort to deadly force under the guidance of that "social conscience" ... around one's own immediate family? around one's extended family? around one's tribe or proximate community? around one's state? around one's country? How about the whole world 'community'?

At what point do we put ourselves in harm's way in alliance with people elsewhere? How close does it have to be? What makes a Hutu or Tutsi less deserving of our support than a New Yorker? Do I, as a Michigander, say to you as a New Yorker "deal with that yourself!" ??? At what point do I join with others in national service in projecting military force? Ever? Never?

The BEST we can do is make such a decision as "democratic" as possible. That's why the Constitution was more EXPLICIT regarding War than anything else and took pains to place the sole decision in the MOST DEMOCRATIC area of the Federal government: The House of Representatives. That's why the Constitution PROHIBITS fuding for the military for more than a period of two years. That's why the Constitution emphasizes a "well-regulated" militia and a "standing Army" is eschewed.

We have abdicated our democratic repsonsibility for self-governance in the area designated as most essential ... in waging WAR. Why? Because it's "not my ass."

[H2O Man]

280. No.

It's not a "straw man" at all. It is George Bush. It is any and all phases of George W. Bush. It is any and all manifestations of George Bush. Calling it a "straw man" is merely an attempt to avoid that simply truth.

[TahitiNut]

281. Then we're back to the fundamental conundrum.

If we purport to be a democracy AND we claim it's an "illegal war" then we have a PROFOUND duty to prosecute and convict the war criminal. Unless and until we do that, we're cowards and criminals, NOT a people deserving of democracy.

That's the choice, as I see it. EITHER share the burden of serving in a war waged IN OUR NAME or TAKE control of our own self-governance ... TAKING WHATEVER ACTION IS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.

Sitting back and pointing fingers is NOT one of the choices.


We played this out with Viet Nam. As a Viet Nam veteran I'm STILL treated like some leper ... some lesser moral being ... for serving in an "illegal war" (despite absolutely no prosecution to that effect) ... by those who pretend to occupy some "higher moral ground." Indeed, as I returned to a wife who was sleeping with her lover and had to recover both from Viet Nam and from the ruins of a marriage ... I was treated as some pitiful fool.

The fact that those with such morally bankrupt postures prevail and we have the same shit going on is testimony, imho, to the fact that we no longer deserve to call ourselves a democracy.

[H2O Man]

296. Right.

Our duty and responsibility to to do everything possible to advocate for the end of this immoral war, and to do whatever we can to hold those who are at fault responsible for their crimes. To do that, we need to exercise our Constitutional rights, even though we know that at this time, the foundation of our Constitutional democracy is severely damaged.

Many of us have tried for years to get Congress to uphold its oath of office, and to do its duty in terms of impeachment. A very few individuals in Congress are willing to do that. The fault lies with them, not those of us who have pressured them .... nor, of course, our children as they reach adulthood.

We have an opportunity to support Vincent Bugliosi's attempts to insure that Bush, Cheney, and Rice will be prosecuted for murder. Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights provides us with the right way to support this effort.

We have an opportunity, also, to actively support those candidates who are pro-impeachment, pro-criminal prosecution, and who will bring this war to an end. Some of these candidates are democrats, and DU provides a good place to discuss their campaigns. Some of them are not democrats, and out of respect for this forum, we do not discuss our active support for them. And many democrats are "better" than republicans, but do not support impeachment, prosecution, or taking meaningful steps towards ending the war. DU allows us the opportunity to discuss them, to a certain extent.

[TahitiNut]

299. It is not sufficient to say that "the fault lies with them."

To say that and then say "Oh well, I did what I could" denies the lessons underlying very origins of this nation. The "buck" NEVER stops at the desk of ANY elected politician. The ULTIMATE "buck" stops in the lap of every citizen that has any interest in leaving a legacy of democracy to their children and grandchildren. Lacking the intestinal fortitude of investing AT LEAST as much as those dying for this "illegal war" we deserve the contumely of all succeeding generations.

The absence of an EMBRACED national policy of service creates the delusion that somehow our duty to "Live Free Or Die" can be escaped ... because, after all, we can point the finger at those who'd fail in THEIR duty. That's the path to the gas chambers. That's the train to the gulag. That's the error of every "Good German" and every person nation that surrenders to tyranny from within.

It's clearly a question not of necessity ... but of sufficiency. The absence of a national service commitment is a symptom of our failure to recognize the ultimate responsibility of all citizens ... and it ain't pointing fingers.

The Declaration of Independence was NOT merely an angry letter to the editor ... or a mere petition. I think we seriously delude ourselves when we pretend it's not that serious. It is. And it's getting worse.

[H2O Man]

310. Absolutely.

This deserves a better response than this tired old man can present tonight. But I will address it in the morning. For now, however, I will organize a few thoughts, and perhaps look for a few quotes from Victor Frankl that may help explain how we can best identify what we can do, and what we cannot do. And perhaps read some of Leon Shenandoah's book, "To Become A Human Being."

I'll see you and our good friend Nadin in the morning.

[Two Americas]

332. not quite

I didn't demand that any particular other person do anything, I suggested what we would need to do in a hypothetical situation based on the other poster's thoughts. The emphasis there is on "we."

I will answer your question by pm if you would be interested in that, describing in detail my activities both during the Viet Nam era as well as during the current illegal occupation of Iraq. I will say that I do not feel that I have done enough nor been as effective as I could be, and I would not and have not cast aspersions on the efforts and decisions of others. My point was - and I believe you are in agreement with this - that we all have a moral responsibility. Resisting the draft when there is an illegal war being prosecuted can be the honorable path, and during the Viet Nam era I helped both resistors and veterans. But the current situation - a de facto draft of the most vulnerable among us, along with the rise of a privatized mercenary force - is a moral abomination, and it is one that we all share some moral responsibility for.

Followed, wire-tapped, harassed, arrested, jailed, gassed, clubbed, ostracized...I don't know what else a person can do. Others paid a far higher price than I ever have, whether they served their country in the military, or served their country by putting their comfort and safety on the line to resist the government, and I freely admit to many instances over the years of cowardice, indecision, and escapism. I don't know the answer. I never, in 40 years, have failed to speak out against the illegal military actions of the government in every day conversation and correspondence.Is that much? Do I get any plaudits? That can have an enormous impact on your personal life, but no, it is not enough and I don't know what would be enough.

I also agree with both nadin and TN that many have gone from resisting illegal actions by the government to no longer having any sense of responsibility to others and to the greater good for all of the citizens. That cannot be a good thing.

Whether through confusion, denial, apathy, a desire for personal comfort and safety, we are all participants one way or another in the horrors that are going on. Support from the home front is as critical as the military force in the field, and merely by omission, or simple daily decisions we can be supporting what the government is doing. I am no better than anyone else. That was not my point. My argument was solely with what sounded to me to be a total rejection of any responsibility to the larger community that we know as our country. That I cannot embrace.

A couple of months ago, there were two threads here within 24 hours of each other, asking these two questions:

"Would you be willing to put your life at risk for your country?"

"Would you be willing to go to jail for the sake of your principles?"

I was alarmed at how few people answered "yes" to either question, and at how many people said that under no circumstances whatsoever would they consider either action.

I do not imagine that I have the last word on this, nor any great wisdom, and I appreciate your thoughts and do not think that we have any fundamental disagreement about this.

Thank you for considering my thoughts on this controversial subject.

[uppityperson]

227. Nadin, I agree with you often but not here

1) everyone will not have an equal chance of being drafted. The rich/powerful will be able to keep their kids out.
2) The draft is not what ended USA being in VietNam. It may have helped, but was not a major factor.

I do think there should be some sort of national service for everyone, but do not see how it could be at all equitable, again the rich:powerful would find was and would continue to use/abuse the others.

[nadinbrzezinski]

238. It is up to us to make it equitable

as it right now we have a draft, a horrible draft, an economic draft

The burden, as in the real burden, is carried by less than five percent of the population

People seem okay with that UP... after all they volunteered. :sarcasm:

[uppityperson]

341. I do not see how, realistically, to make a draft equitable

There is so much wrong going on, so much wrongly passed or not passed by congress:etc, I see no way they would pass a draft bill that would truly make it equitable. The rich/powerful would not let it happen.

I understand the theory behind "if everyone's kids were at risk, a draft would stop crap wars" but in reality? I see those running the war machine as being pleased as punch that theyùd have more kids to use up and they'd figure out a way to not risk their own.

As far as being ok with backdoor draft (stop loss, economic draft, lies), on the 1 hand people in the military did volunteer but were lied to, manipulated by masters, and many are unable to quit while being misued and very much abused in the meantime, then being discharched with minimal support afterwards.

I asked for help last winter for a friend's vet son and got several local resources which I turned over to his parents. First they took down the jingoistic patriotism stuff in their shop, then renounced their support of the repubs, then disappeared for a month, closed shop doors and disappeared. They finally reappeared, closed shop, moved near son (in another state) to help him. Another's kid is due back from 3rd Iraq tour, hoping to be home more than 6 months but doubtful and having family (mental health) issues.

I spent my college yrs with VietNam vets and these people now are in serious trouble, I am very concerned they will top Viet Nam vets issues.

No, it is wrong. But throwing more very unwilling bodies into the mix won't help because I see no way to truly make it equitable. Congress can't agree on much already, and who knows what will happen next president.

[TahitiNut]

108. Enlightenment, like democracy, is a "do it yourself" project.

I'm still working on both. DU is neither Nirvana nor a democracy.

I see nothing that would indicate to me there's much interest in other than posturing and spouting self-aggrandizing talking points ... rhetorical rationalizations for cowardice, sloth, and/or criminality.

I'll give you one example.

You say (and others have said) Viet Nam was and Iraq is an "illegal and immoral war." Yippee fuck. While I happen to agree regarding Iraq and am INCLINED to agree to some degree regarding Viet Nam, there is ONLY ONE action that's legitimized and necessitated by such an opinion. That action is to fully and COMPLETELY prosecute the law-breakers and bring them to justice. The People, acting as sovereigns over our own self-governance, are RESPONSIBLE for what is done in our name.

There has been ABSOLUTELY NO finding, in any court of law with proper jurisdiction, that either Viet Nam or Iraq was or is "illegal." Without such a determination and the ABSOLUTE DEMAND (I'm talking blood in the streets!) that such a determination be made, such a posture is sheer bullshit bloviation. It has NOTHING to do with the FACT that OUR TAXES are used to kill people (and have our own children, husbands, and neighbors killed) and that the burden of being in the military and having to fight those wars, IN OUR NAME, is being born by those with the least political, economic, and social opportunity in this nation.

It's fucking disgraceful. The claim is made ONLY TO THE EXTENT it rationalizes cowardice ... and never to the degree that We The People actually ACT to PROSECUTE what we so conveniently (to cover our own lily-white asses) claim is 'illegal.'

That's hypocrisy on a Grand Scale.

Absent such a VERDICT, the implicit social contract in a democracy (and any nation that pretends to want it) is to equitably SHARE the fruits, sweet or sour, of our own self-governance (or lack thereof).

The abysmal failure of so many here to comprehend this fundamental ethical basis for democracy itself is appalling to me.


We've become a nation of spoiled, self-indulged brats - cowards and criminals. We insist upon having our cake and eating it, too. While "they" do the dirty work. We're "better" since we "know" what's "right." Yeah. Sure.

People are dying, NOT because of the crimes of Cheney and Bush ... but because WE HAVEN"T STOPPED THEM!!! We (the People) HAVEN'T DONE OUR JOB!

For what it's worth, I don't give myself a "free pass" in this regard. I'm no better than anyone else. I'm ashamed of this nation. I'm ashamed of myself and my neighbors and my countrymen. Future generations should spit on our graves.

[noamnety]

117. The current sexual assault rate in the military

is running at 42% according to the latest thing I read.

Demanding we put all the women in this country in that position to roll the odds on getting sexually assaulted, and leave them no avenue for escape isn't "sharing the burden of democracy." It's abuse.

So I start from that point, and work from there. Working from there entails giving the government access to your body so they can shoot it full of mystery vaccines and poison you, it entails ordering you to take part in free fire zone bullshit. It entails giving them permission to screw you up for life mentally and physically.

So no. There is no ethical excuse for allowing a government to abuse its citizens in the name of "sharing burdens." That's a myth. All you're endorsing in that myth is more of the same - socializing the costs, while the corporations will continue to privatize the profits. That draft in Vietnam? The war in Iraq? With or without the draft, these are not examples of sharing the "fruits, sweet or sour." Don't kid yourself.

[nadinbrzezinski]

122. I can bet that the boys will be boys attitude we have right now

after all they are all volunteers, will die once Suzy is in the service... you know your neighbor down the street

Of course this is also poor leadership from the top... and don't get me started on that one either. Suffice it to say I had some issues with some of the personnel under me. In the end we had to face what we had and it wasn't rape... but it took leaders getting ahem, directly involved.

And yes, women should also serve... if nothing else in support in the rear or civilian national service.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noamnety]

129. It's not "cowardly" or "self-serving"

to take a stand against forcing women into situations where they have a 4 in 10 chance of getting sexually assaulted.

If anything, it's cowardly and self-serving to be dismissive of that reality if it serves your goals.

You are acting foolish with your keyboard warrior crap - you and I both are typing. If that makes me a keyboard warrior, it makes you the same.

[nadinbrzezinski]

132. What part of this can be dealt with (and should) are you missing

And unlike you.... he has paid the price of admission and understands what citizenship is

FULLY

I at times believe Heinlein was right...

By the way... this comes from the top... all the way... to the WH... it is a pervasive attitude, and lets not go into how this is a characteristic of a fascist state. It has to change, so what are you willing to do to help?

[noamnety]

133. Sorry, not understanding your post.

"unlike you.... he has paid the price of admission "

huh?

[nadinbrzezinski]

137. After you read Starship Troopers you may get it

or for that matter the writings of many of the Founding Fathers regarding Citizen soldiers and the role of citizenship

[noamnety]

139. I'd just like to know what "admission" you think he paid that I didn't.

:)

[nadinbrzezinski]

140. Service....

that is the admission he paid for

By the way, thanks for your support of the war... with your taxes.

[noamnety]

142. Well, that didn't answer my question at all.

"I'd just like to know what "admission" you think he paid that I didn't."

[nadinbrzezinski]

146. He has served... and unless you have done ANY kind of public service

you haven't

[noamnety]

147. You're being a little slow here.

Do you have avatars turned off?

[nadinbrzezinski]

149. Voted... that is public service? Not quite... that is the duty of every citizen

Peacecorp would work

Teaching in inner cities would work

Working with at risk youth

teaching

Working in EMS, either volunteer or paid

Workign in the fire service, again volunteer or paid

Working with the conservation corp

Working in the medical field in disadvantaged areas of the country such as the Inner City...

That is PUBLIC service. And there are MANY opportunities to do this...

You see, service is not only putting on a uniform and reaching for a rifle.

Voting, just like jury duty is a duty of citizenship.

[noamnety]

150. voted?

is that what you are seeing in my avatar?!

[nadinbrzezinski]

153. vote peace that is what is in your avatar

with a very nice symbol... the dove with the olive branch on it

[noamnety]

157. ha, that's kind of funny.

[nadinbrzezinski]

158. Your avatar is not clear then... sorry

then you have paid your entry fee,

But you will still have to face the fact that by paying taxes we are both still supporting this war

[noamnety]

165. For the record, several other items on your list also apply to me.

Also for the record - my military service did not make me a better citizen, and I find it offensive and militaristic to consider that "an entry fee" to citizenship.

People who were COs from the start - and those who became COs after serving - were better citizens than me for having made that decision.

Regarding the avatar, many activists recognize the logo. If you knew Dave Cline well, you'd have likely recognized it - and if you didn't know him, it's your loss. So I will take time out from the bickering with you to link a piece about him:

http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2007/09/15/dave-cline/

[nadinbrzezinski]

169. Sorry for not recognizing the avatar

that said, I did include items of NOT MILITARY SERVICE

I hold service in the peace corp to the same exact level as a tour of duty in the armed forces

I hold service in the inner city to the same level

But I am sure you could deduce that

And if you think I am not an activist for not recognizing the avatar, to each his or her own

[noamnety]

178. I don't think you "aren't an activist" for not recognizing a logo.

I do think it was silly to continue implying I hadn't "paid my admission fee" when I was giving you some pretty strong hints you were off base there. Always best to ask before assuming. Or at least check a person's profile. ;)

[TahitiNut]

170. Your avatar says "Vets4Peace". You may THINK it says something else. It doesn't.

:shrug: It's VERY difficult to distinguish between "Vets" and "Vote" at that size




See?

[noamnety]

174. It says Vets4Peace.

We abbreviate it that way sometimes.

With you being a vet, I'm surprised you didn't recognize the logo.

[TahitiNut]

177. Your avatar is not their logo. This is their logo ...

And this ...



It has the distinctive profile of a helmet and the words "Veterans For Peace."

Anyone can rip-off a logo and make it say anything.

[noamnety]

180. People who know the logo

recognize it, even when it's scrunched and cropped to fit our tiny avatar restrictions. We recognize it even if it's just a glimpse in a portion of a banner.

Sometimes we take the words off completely. Generally we're a bad lot overall and lack discipline - especially when it comes to displaying symbols properly. :)

[TahitiNut]

155. Here's the ultimate model of a pacifist, imho.

This guy "walked the walk."



Many who claim to be 'pacifists' are really just self-serving and indolent.

[nadinbrzezinski]

156. Yes one of the most iconic images of the Vietnam war

I have another one for you... MLK

A third, would be Ghandhi

But what exactly are YOU doing beyond voting? That is a duty bud, not service.

[mahina]

183. Aloha Lwfern,

Just want to say, right on.

[Name removed]

195. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TahitiNut]

209. You obviously found a shoe that fits. Wear it.

Human beings are being killed in OUR NAME, with our tax dollars. It is COWARDICE to fail to either SHARE THE BURDEN or STOP those waging an illegal war. We have two moral choices, and hiding out blaming others isn't on that list.

We're a nation of cowards and criminals. Period.

[TahitiNut]

112. As a trivial aside: I just passed 60,000 posts.

Such a waste .... to think I've wasted all that time and effort ... like posting in this thread.

Not all of them were PEARLS.
Not everyone are SWINE.
On with the show.

:puke:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

213. Not all pearls...but almost all have been goood reading.

:applause:

[tomg]

201. Couldn't agree more, but with one

very small issue. "Everyone gets basic training in the military." I was and still am a CO (1O). ( Of course, COs still serve in alternative service as they always have and they still should have to apply as they always have). Otherwise, great idea.

[TahitiNut]

222. I have no objection to CO's serving as medics and other life-saving duties.

I do, however, object to people who think that CO means "no risk." The BEST people with whom I served in Viet Nam were CO's.

[tomg]

284. I never met a CO - IO who

thought of it as "no-risk," given that for some of us having our appeals turned down meant (if you were serious about it), a few years in jail. This was particularly true of those who voluntarily gave up deferrments in order to register and go up as CO's. Then there are some who go further and flatly refuse any and all draft registration and who faced immediate jail for noncompliance. I hope it is clear that my respect for CO-1AOs is immense. In fact, my father was in the same brigade (I think it was brigade) as Lew Ayres, a CO of ther 2nd World War. I, at least during Vietnam, was not 1AO. I had a pretty intense case that went on for a couple of years, and now thirty eight years later, I have to admit that in another war I might very well be a CO-1O. Not then, though. The United States does not allow for objection to a particular war (the Gillette case). In fact, it was only very late that active membership in a church was not required.

For me the issue is that one makes the conscious, honest and sincere choice to act according to their conscience and for their community. I might disagree deeply and I might try to convince them of my position, but how, in good conscience, could I disparage them? It really is an issue of stepping up to the plate and making that choice,( whether to be in the military or to face jail) in defense of what you believe to be the community good.

[NNN0LHI]

63. You want to draft my grandchildren because of a couple of stupid 18 year old punks?

Good luck.

Don

[Truth4Justice]

371. Yes. No luck about it. They don't go they get to spend time in prison as draft dodgers...

what you don't like that idea? Then lets end the war in Iraq!!!

[NNN0LHI]

382. My grandkids will have an ironclad medical deferment in the event of any draft pal

They won't spend a minute in no prison. Take that to the bank.

Any parent with any sense at all would do the same thing.

That is why the draft doesn't work. A draft only catches the low hanging fruit.

Don

[Lyric]

70. NOT a military draft. A civil service draft.

Two years of compulsory civil service, with the option to *choose* service in the military if that's what you'd prefer. There are a thousand important ways that people can serve without being forced into the military. I'd have no problem at all being drafted into civil service, so long as it isn't military. I am 29 years old, btw.

[noamnety]

95. I have to oppose that as well.

There are some careers where a mandatory two year break is a career ender. I work with a lot of ballet dancers. A two year break just isn't feasible for an 18 year old.

On top of that, given the appalling rape statistics of women in service, on that basis alone I am absolutely opposed to forcing anyone into a mandatory situation that they can't legally leave. The abuse that stems from that is real, and it's devastating.

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. During the 1930s artists were able to serve INSIDE their professions

why not?

[endarkenment]

192. The CCC and WPA were volunteer organizations.

I have zero problem with volunteer organizations where you voluntarily serve. I have a huge problem with involuntary service.

Any lipstick over the draft-pig is just that. You are proposing to supply the war machine with an bodies and the war machine, as it has already demonstrated, will use those bodies in war after endless war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

228. As a NATION we need national service

you won't get a pass from me

And one proof of this need is how we care nothing about Katrina... you and I as individuals may, but as a nation we really don't

Oh and voluntary is a matter of degree

Three squares or starvation... due to lack of jobs

Sounds familiar to the hood?

[Lyric]

215. I think there are ways to work around that without throwing the idea out completely.

For example, service within a Roosevelt-type organization specifically meant to uphold the arts and bring them into public awareness would be a good way for ballet dancers (and other dancers, musicians, and artists) to fulfill a civil service requirement without sacrificing career. They wouldn't lose their physical conditioning, they'd still be performing and perfecting, and yet they could be putting on shows for the public benefit--perhaps for underprivileged people who would never otherwise have the opportunity to experience the fine arts in a meaningful way.

As for sexual assault issues, I hardly think that it's fair to compare civil service with the military. The military is far more volatile and male-dominated than civil service would be. As a woman, I wouldn't feel safe in the military either, but if I were working with other civilians in a more gender-equal situation, I don't think I would be afraid. Are the rape statistics for the Peace Corps and Americorps higher than for the general population?

I think that my idea has merit, even if there are details that need to be worked out. Our nation is heading into another depression; it stands to reason that we need another New Deal to lead us back out. We could even remove the "mandatory" requirement, if necessary; creating another set of Roosevelt-like ND organizations would likely lead to a monumental increase in volunteerism, making a "draft" unnecessary.

It's something to think on.

[noamnety]

338. The issue is partly the rate of assaults, but also partly

it's the issue of sovereignty and free will to leave when it does happen. One of the worst problems in the army is that once you enlist, continued service is compulsory until you are discharged. So if you are assaulted, you often have to continue to serve with the same people that assaulted you - you can't leave. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think in the Peace Corps and Americorps, you can walk away from your contract if you need to leave - so the two are not comparable.

Most women opt not to report rapes for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of them being that the women who do report it are further traumatized by being treated as potential criminals making up stories to try to ruin the reputations of men. That's part of the reason why they NEED to have the option to walk away from a situation - if they report a rape, odds are they won't be believed and no action will be taken. It's abusive to force them to stay in that situation. It's abusive to force them to stay even if rape in the Peace Corps is at a 5% rate or 2% rate. And rapes DO occur in the Peace Corps. http://www.daytondailynews.com/project/content/project/peacecorps/daily/1026peacecorpsletter.html
The difference - again - is that women aren't forced to stay with their rapists.

(Same for men who are assaulted - I'm using women because overwhelmingly they are the victims, but it's certainly not exclusive to them - and a man in that situation also needs to be able to leave.)

Adding to the women's issues is pregnancy. I'm a Vietnam baby - my mom deliberately got pregnant and went through childbirth to save my dad's life, because it altered his draft category. If she'd been picked for a co-ed draft, I assume she'd have also gotten pregnant.

Now I assume my folks are charmed by my existence and have no regrets, but the fact that she was coerced - as were others - into giving birth under those circumstances is fucked up.

Sovereignty over one's own body/life is THE key thing behind being a free society.

[proud patriot]

79. where were you at Raven ?

What kind of event ?

[HEyHEY]

87. Why? So the draft can be used for left wing purposes intead of right?

We can put people in harm's way for our politcal purposes?

[deaniac21]

97. Dumb idea which will never happen. When Obama is elected

if this happened it would hurt the democratic party for a long, long time.

[XOKCowboy]

100. That's not the point...

and it's never going to happen. The point of the OP was to point out the apathy that most people have about the "war" in Iraq and that most people have no stake in this "war" like we did in Vietnam. If everyone's kids were liable to be sent to fight these wars for oil then people would wake up and end this charade.

[Evoman]

110. *shrug* It's not the teenagers who got us into war or into debt.

I say the U.S. should do a draft and send everyone over 30 into the meatgrinder.

I chose 30 because I'm 29. Ha!


Btw: I'm Canadian, not American, but for the sake of this thread, let's pretend I am American.

[CrazyDude]

114. Only if you volunteer to fight in Iraq

Deal?

[Sanctified]

135. I vote no, I am not going to sacrifice my children so you can punish some punks. n/t

[Mind_your_head]

167. Sure....thanks for floating this VERY BAD idea.

It's a 'rat in a punchbowl'

[barbtries]

184. how would bringing back the draft

make these kids smarter??? how about bringing back public education?
i have a 16-year-old son. do you?

[Karenina]

190. Her son would not be affected.

No skin in the game.

[and-justice-for-all]

186. If they think its so great....

point them to the nearest recruitment office. Oh, and don't forget to tell them what they are not dying for.

[endarkenment]

191. Heck let's bring back slavery. That'l learn 'em.

As we said back when I was 18: Fuck The Draft.

Oh, and if you would like to commit political suicide, that is a sure recipe.

[PVnRT]

193. My, there are some sanctimonious shits in this thread

Apparently, enforced military service will make everything wonderful, like it did during Vietnam. I suppose I owe my country my life because my parents fucked and gave birth to me here.

Cue the boomer moralists to lecture and mock me for not being good Americans like they are.

[Truth4Justice]

372. You didn't live it. We did. You want a war? Fine, then you get to fight it!!

[Jim__]

194. One really good thing about not having a draft ...

... Iraqi militias bogged down and strained our ground forces for 5 years because we didn't have the manpower to fight them. Without a draft, we can't get enough troops to fight "optional" wars. If we have a president with any sense, we won't get into "optional" wars unless we have a draft.

[SarahB]

198. It sure is easy to say when your son is pushing 40!

My 4 boys (ages 7-13) aren't going to be cannon fodder to prove anyone's point. We'll leave the country first.

[Karenina]

278. I cannot tell you how perturbed I am by the OP!

:mad: The miseducated, snarky teens she met tabling SO DISTURBED her "beautiful mind" that she would gladly see OUR CHILDREN maimed and murdered by a corrupt plutocracy. :puke:

[nadinbrzezinski]

295. So what are you doing to make sure that jose, in the hood, is not abused and mained

it is easier to have that plutocracy abuse our troops since 95% don't have no skin in this game

By the way, you are paying taxes, that makes you an accessory as well

I recognize that reality, but what makes you better than them?

[Karenina]

297. Dearest Nadin,

You are a treasured poster on this board. :loveya: My position is that anyone who suggests that my or anyone else's children be forced into military slavery to a corrupt, murderous government NOW in the conditions we have NOW, not what they might someday ideally be, but NOW, can kiss my black ass while I pass a wet one. Your post makes no sense to me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

298. I will paraphrase TH on this

next military funeral near you, attend it... and tell the family exactly what you told me

One reason we are in the hole is that WE, yes, WE as a society, have abdicated our responsibilities as a society

It is time we reclaim them, or just stop pretending.

One of those facets IS the need for national, yes NATIONAL service

[Truth4Justice]

373. If this war isn't over soon and a draft begins, guess who is going to call the Feds on your kids?

Because you can talk the talk, but Canada WONT take you now.

END THE WAR NOW!!!!!

[DIKB]

204. We need. . .

a draft to end their love of war, b/c no one who has seen the horrors of war wants it any more.

and

an economic collapse so that they learn to manage finances and not live a deficit/debt-ridden existence.

[leftyladyfrommo]

211. Oh my, the draft was horrible.

No one could make any plans for the future. And all my friends either got shipped off to be blown up or they ran for Canada.

Those were awful times.

[RB TexLa]

219. As long as there is no exclusion based on race or gender.

[Romulox]

221. Or AGE. No reasons the middle aged and older should be exempt. What with all that experience! nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

226. Butler had his way

the moment the war starts all members of congress go into the Army as E-1.

If under fifty to basic training and the line infantry, either the Marines or the Army

If over fifty to drive trucks

In his view that would stop the adventurism he saw in his lifetime.

A modified version of this is easy to pull

And yes, that would put me back in the army by the way.. never mind I don't support the war... but what would the chances of us going to war again under those conditions?

[Romulox]

232. Agree 100%. Old men (and women) can get blown up driving trucks just as well as the youngsters. nt

[Truth4Justice]

369. I cant imagine a 50 year old Teamster union truck driver being sent to war, but it sounds great!!!!

[TahitiNut]

229. Absolutely ... nor sexual orientation.

The fruits of self-governance must, like the labors and risks of self-governance, be shared equitably! The evasion of doing the dirty work makes the evaders (ALL of us, now) undeserving of self-governance. We no longer deerve to call ourselves a democracy (or a republic). We have NOT taken responsibility for it.

[demgurl]

225. I am 100% against the draft.

I have connections lined up in Canada so that my nephews can cross the border and be hidden or perhaps marry a couple of girls. I have duel citizenship for Canada so if we near my children coming of age, with a draft in place, I will be moving back with my family. None of draft dodging but a legal move where my kids and I can always move back if we so choose and there will be no legal complications.

I am also against anyone else being used either by the * administration or by the peace movement.
I am not willing to give up any more of our citizens to this atrocity they call a war.

When I moved down here there was no draft so it can not be said I should expect it or I have an obligation to give up my children to enrich *'s pockets.

I have many reasons for not wanting the draft and among them are religious reasons. In my religion we are taught that no argument or war will ever be won with anything except love. If someone acts in the "wrong" way against you, you need not punish them for then not only is their karma hurt through their actions, but your karma will be hurt by taking revenge. We are taught to always act in loving kindness and to me that does not include war or killing.

I have fought against these people the only way I know how - peacefully protesting. Their wrongs do not mean that I must take up arms against them. I must shield myself against such actions and meditate wishing them love, kindness and peace. These wishes do not extend only to the * administration but to the terrorists and anyone associated with the terrorists. I must not even wish harm on those who would do me harm.

If you really want to know what would stop the war then think back to the old saying, "What if they gave a war and no one came?" Instead of giving in to a draft, or to the "war", why not have a love in where everyone attends and pledges not to go into this war even if "Called to duty". They can not put everyone in jail and they can not fight if they do not have the troops. This would be very effective if you could sign up at least half the troops who come home on leave. All of those people would stay behind and have a much stronger influence than a draft ever could. They can not have a war without soldiers but they can ignore regular protesters. This non-violent action, where more of our soldiers need not sacrifice their lives, would stop the government in their tracks.

There is more than one way to approach any situation and if we can find solutions where the scales tip and lives can be saved, instead of sacrificed, then we must seek that path for our own well being as well as others.

In Metta,

Demgurl

[uppityperson]

234. No draft, no way. I donùt understand how forcing more into

military service would make those who control the military less likely to use them. I am with you. No draft. No way. Those who believe throwing more bodies into the mix, exp those bodies who are unable to buy their way out, would help, those people I call romantics. Reality shows me differently and I will fight for no draft as long as I can.

[nadinbrzezinski]

246. Then again the economic draft, stop loss we have right now is ok by you?

I am serious here, we are willing to surrender the lives and sanity of those who "volunteered" since they volunteered.

It is convenient... and out of sight, out of mind

Sorry if I have a problem with that.

[PVnRT]

256. Why do you continue to post strawmen?

Why do you assume that being against conscription somehow means one is fine with stop-loss?

You and TahitiNut seem perfectly fine with putting words in other people's mouths.

[nadinbrzezinski]

259. It is not a straw-man... it is a fact

five percent of the population is bearing the brunt of this war.

I know the we has become inconvenient as well.

Oh wait, what's up today on the tele?

[uppityperson]

342. This is your strawman: if you are against the draft, you are ok with how it is now.

That is the strawman, not how things are now (5 percent) but your conclusion (accusation) that because someone is against the draft, that means they are ok with how things are now. (being away from home in a different timezone is making my replies take a while, please be patient and I will get back to you)

[uppityperson]

340. I strongly believe that is wrong also and have a problem with it.

The economic draft (as I feared would happen during Raygun yrs) and stop loss are also wrong. I see a lot wrong with how people in the military are beng used/abused. And no, being against the draft does not mean I am for these. I have a problem with thm all, and with people telling me that because I am against the draft, this means I like the current system as it really pisses me off how people in the military are being abused and misused.

[HughBeaumont]

231. Well, this was productive.

I wrote this a year and a half ago. I wonder if it would still apply today, given Congress' tissue-paper-spined, "Here's your blank check, Master!" response to the Cheneys and their robber-baron politburo they're in cahoots with?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/HughBeaumont/17

[Joe Fields]

233. My son supports his country through the taxes that he pays.

He has made it crystal clear, which both his mother and I wholeheartedly support, that if a draft comes along, we will move out of the country. He will not serve a bunch of madmen for corporate causes.

[fascisthunter]

239. I'm Torn on this Issue...

Interestingly enough, I hear both sides of this issue and am a bit torn between the two. You raise a good point and two others raise even better points about our responsibilities in allowing this war to continue. Sadly enough, I am not doing enough... I see many don't want to admit the same but we as a country, as a whole, have failed...

My only contention about a draft is the abuse that may follow. Vietnam is a perfect example...

You are correct when you say, folks don't do enough to stop this occupation/war, because their asses aren't on the line... but then again, on the flip side, this government isn't trustworthy with such power, you are basically asking folks to commit suicide, sadly a deed most will shrink from.

You make a strong argument... it seems to me, that if we had a draft, more folks would not only be against the occupation of Iraq, but would do much more than they are doing today to stop it.

[Joe Fields]

241. One point that seems to be overlooked in this discussion...

The military itself does not want a draft. There were way too many problems with draftees during Vietnam.

[nadinbrzezinski]

244. That is partly mythology joe

and draftees served very well indeed under fire during the war

In fact, most of the troops involved during Tet were draftees

The military does not want a draft for another FAR MORE PRACTICAL reason... pay. It tends to go down when you have draftees.

[Joe Fields]

265. No mythology at all, Nadin. I have seen interviews on more than one

occasion with top Pentagon officials discuss this very topic, and I have yet to hear anyone wish for the draft back. I must disagree with you on this topic. The only circumstance that I would approve of a draft, would be if we were attacked, a-la Pearl Harbor by another sovereign nation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

267. And I can tell you the public face is the one you are seeing

when you LIVE in the culture it is about pay.

[Joe Fields]

273. Two reasons they don't want the draft, Nadin:

One, they don't want the war to end. A draft would surely cause demonstrations like we had in the sixties and seventies.

Two: A draft most definitely dilutes the quality of the armed forces. The Army, Navy Marines and Air Force want soldiers who want to be in the service. All of the armed forces have raised their standards for enlistment, an all are seeking young men and women with the skills they are looking for to be able to operate highly technical weapons systems.

The Vietnam experience was a major headache for the services regarding conscripted men and women. They don't want it again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

274. One you are correct

two you are wrong, the standards have dropped to levels the end of the draft, as in 1973

They cannot get qualified troops, they are taking in people with a number of what is called in the service morality exclusions that would make your head spin

Translation to this... many people with criminal records who otherwise would never be able to join up... yes they are that desperate for warm bodies,

So this excuse of better troops is no longer holding water either. Those troops tend to enlist when the military is a good choice. In time of war it isn't.

They are hopping the new GI bill will reverse this trend by the way

Oh and unofficially we have had some judges with the option of service or jail time. Some have even posted the stories here on DU as well

[Joe Fields]

279. Wrong, Nadin. I just looked up the basic enlistment requirements, and they

are still more strict than in 1973. That is not to say that there are some mighty unscrupulous reqruiters out there who will do or say anything to meet their quota.

[nadinbrzezinski]

282. Wrong the stories are abundant on gang members in the force

stories are abundant of WHITE SUPREMACISTS in the force

Wrong....

The Moral Exclusions is a REAL STORY.

The only thing that may still hold some water, and depends on how desperate they are to deploy the troops is drug use. It has been ahem ignored with a couple units who en masse took pot to avoid the deployment. They were sent. And it has been ignored in individual cases as well.

Of course I am talking of real life here, not what the DoD has on their website

Do some google searches on this... but the quality of troops has dropped dramatically over the last, in particular, five years.

Oh and don't get me started on the creative accounting to ahem, meet quotas either... that is a whole different, if related, kettle of fish.

[Joe Fields]

321. Nadin, are you suggesting that the armed forces KNOWINGLY

recruit white supremists and gang members? Tough sell, my friend. I have read the stories, too. But anyone can join, if they meet the qualifications, and I am sure that these recruit's criminal backgrounds checked out. Once again, I will tell you that the standards are higher than they used to be. I will also say that I have read stories of less than honest recruiting practices to meet quotas, but it is not the norm.

All kinds of things happen in the military. Tailhook, for example. Are you to say that they allow known rapists in the Navy, also?

[nadinbrzezinski]

329. Yes, that is what those morality waivers are all about

they need bodies.

[uppityperson]

343. Steven Green. He was recruited with a waiver. They knew about him, signed him up, then discharged

him after he raped, murdered, mutilated Abeer, and murdered her parents and little sister. Perhaps an exception, but also an example. (and no, now don't say I am saying everyone in military is like this, just giving an example of poorly executed recruitment).

[Thothmes]

307. You are correct a point. The draftees

served well during Vietnam. However only about 25% of forces incountry at any one time were draftees. The balance were volunteers.

[Joe Fields]

318. It was 30 percent, but by many accounts, including high ranking pentagon

officials, draftees diluted the quality of the armed forces. That is NOT to say that a large percentage of them served to the best of their abilities and performed well, under the harshest of circumstances.

[TahitiNut]

335. Funny then how draftees were awarded medals for valor and performance at the same rate as careerists

I can assure you that there was a STRONG bias towards awarding such medals to career military, since it made a difference in those careers - something draftees didn't plan. Nonetheless, draftees matched career military.

It's total BS (a myth no matter how often repeated) that draftees "diluted the quality" of the military. If anything, the draft of college graduates and skilled trades INCREASED the quality.

[Joe Fields]

383. That is pure revisionist history to suggest that draftees didn't

dilute the armed forces.

[TahitiNut]

387. Horse manure. It's quite the opposite, as a matter of fact.

I was there. I cited FACTS. Draftees WERE the armed forces, NOT some outside pollutant. The tradition of the "citizen soldier" is thousands of years old.

It's the propaganda by the "professional military" (with an ax to grind) that you're swallowing. The FACTS are exactly the opposite.

[TahitiNut]

336. Be careful of statistics. At the end of 1968, draftees were 38% of the forces in Viet Nam.

That statistic is even higher when you consider ONLY the ground forces (Army and Marines) and HIGHER still when you consider both 'draftees' and 'draft-motivated' (people enlisting to get a 'better deal'). The most reputable estimate is that 48% of the in-country Army manpower was draftee or draft-motivated. (That was my job at USARV ... EDP for personnel requisitioning and accountability.)

The oft-cited low-end statistics encompass the entire time period of the Viet Nam War ... AND include Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard.

[sakabatou]

270. If there was a draft

I'd be excused (head injury). I never supported the war when I knew what was REALLY UP (around 15).

[Truth4Justice]

370. We could make exceptions for head injuries, and anal cysts as well. We could all pay the piper !

[Occulus]

286. I refuse to serve a nation that won't let me marry and throws people like me

out of the military to begin with.

You who are calling for a draft do not deserve my service.

[nadinbrzezinski]

294. That too will come to an end and is thankfully coming to an end

Many people who have served with honor, full careers in the military are also calling for an end to this policy and it is a policy that is broken

So that will be gone as well

I forgot to mention, they are gays and lesbian as well

[baby_mouse]

301. You want to draft war-hungry young men?

How will giving them what they want solve the problem?

[XOKCowboy]

312. They'd change their tune if they had to actually fight a war

or even just have the specter of mandatory service in a war hanging over their futures. I know it was that way back in the early 70s when I was in high school. The gung-ho guys went to sign up as soon as they were eligible and most came back changed and completely opposed to the war. Most of the rest of us knew we were just cannon fodder for a bunch of politicians and hoped for a high lottery number.

The problem with the draft in those days was that the rich could get deferments while the rest of us were at the mercy of the draft board. A draft where every kid was eligible would elicit such an uproar that we'd be out of Iraq in no time and keep future sabre rattling to a minimum.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

302. ?

I know a lot of teens - they are mostly NOT what you describe - at least not here. Many young people are involved and they are signing on to vote Democratic in their first election. Yes, of course you will find fools but they are from every age group.

If my children were of age to be drafted, I would take them out of the country before I let the corporatist swines who own this country kill them.

Believe me, I do understand the pros and cons of the draft, it is not lost to me. I do not support forced MILITARY service. I would support 2 years of non military service to the country. I can not support sending all of Americans children to be cannon fodder for a hand full of assholes marching to the beat of the GOP Neocons.

[anonymous171]

313. Tell them that John McCain will draft them into service to fight in his war with Iran.

[KoKo]

320. Yes...as much as it sickens me to admit it. We need to Bring Back the Draft!

Too many folks today are walking around with their "earpieces" listening to whatever and when they aren't doing that they are "playing war games" on their "Wide Screens."

Until you really serve how do you know what it's all about?

We folks who were alive back then..young and full of anti-Vietnam vigor thought if we "ended the draft..our government couldn't do any more WAR!"

Sadly, we didn't foresee that ending the draft only allowed "Privatization of War" through Mercenary efforts like Blackwater, Halliburton, KB&R to rape our TAX DECUCTIONS!

So...we need a Draft. And, with that we have to hold our CONGRESS and PRESIDENT accountable when EVERYONE GOES TO WAR...and not just those who are the "least in our country" ...but EVERYONE!

Yet, how do we answer that those like Cheney and Ashcroft and others won't still manage to find ways to get Deferments for College, Ingrown Toenails, Cysts on Butt or other "ills" they can pay the "family doctor to certify?" How can we not know that "children of the Privileged" won't just do what they did during Vietnam and find a way to "get out of it."

The reason that Lefties manage to get the "Draft Thingy" out...was because only the poor without resources and connections in high places or College acceptances at Top American Colleges would go get themselves killed as "grunts in Vietnam." Or, as in the case of John McCain..the well endowed, privileged of the Military Brass whose kids were getting into West Point, Citadel or other top tier Military Collges were offered "Commissioned Officers Salaries and Permissions to go Command the "grunts" who didn't know any better who ended up in our military.

There is change needed ...but to go back to what it was during Vietnam where PRIVILEGED escape or become Officers with Privileges is unacceptable! Because we will be back to what got us into these "undeclared wars for Democracy" without any accountablility from the electorate but with thousands of innocents (millions, actually) DYING for LOST CAUSES!

[Sanctified]

323. How do you think Obama would do in the General Election if he campaigned on this?

My guess is he would lose by a landslide, any progressive who advocates a draft in any form is advocating for a regressive military institution. Sorry but if you give the government bodies they will use those bodies, they expect to see results for what they pay for and having people stand around during peace time is not what they are paying for.

I would rather see every child go to College over every child drafted into service, how about our Government pays everyone for their first 2 years at community college.

[HughBeaumont]

381. That's what I don't get about the whole pro-draft thing.

It assumes FAR too much:

* That there would be enough money to PAY for all of this. The debt is at 9 trillion and climbing. We're never going to pay off the INTEREST of this thing, let alone the principal. Are people seriously suggesting we all quit our jobs and get paid poverty level wages? And like you said, despite the people insisting "if there were a draft, there'd be no wars", is the government REALLY (especially a mercenary borderline Junta such as what Bewsh has) going to pay their 10 million new recruits to NOT fight and die for KBR/Halliburton/Bechtol?

* That the wealthy/Congress/Senate people's kids wouldn't be exempt. This point is so laughable that it's beyond debate. You're talking overturning a few decades of history. Rich kids will never be drafted. It's a big club and we're not part of it.

* That a draft in which every citizen ages 18-36 has a stake in would make an elected (or SElected, in Bewsh's case) leader actually listen to those millions of people and not start wars. PFFFFFFFFT. They didn't in Nixon's case, and they sure as shit wouldn't make the Failure Fuhrer bat an eyelash about sending all of us to conquer the middle east, blood and body parts be damned. His logic is "What are they gonna do? Take over the White House 'n have me arrested? Yeah, good luck gettin' past my mercenaries, Army and police." Some don't seem to get that Bewsh still has the guns in his favor and more than several thousand would die in a gorewash every day trying to make that happen. No one in Congress would remove him or have him arrested. I mean, Kucinich could make an attempt, but then he'd simply be shot. So what's stopping the Failure or any other jagoff who thinks just like him?

We wouldn't need a war. There'd be too many dead at home. The world's economy would be tossed in upheaval. And there'd still be rich people and their politicians making the wars that fatten their pocketbooks.

Something tells me we're going after the wrong people entirely.

[noamnety]

346. Apparently people have learned nothing.

"(we) thought if we "ended the draft..our government couldn't do any more WAR!""

Now people think "if we have the draft..our government couldn't do any more WAR!"

We have already disproven both of those statements.

[Two Americas]

366. correct

So it is not about war or no war, as some have been saying here, it comes down to whether or not we all share the burden - whatever that burden may be - and stopping illegal immoral wars is a separate battle that we are also shirking our responsibility on. That is TahitiNut's point.

This is not about whether or not we will be soldiers or have wars, it is about whether or not we will be citizens and have a democratic republic.

[noamnety]

376. Nope.

It's not really about "sharing the burden equally." If we cared about that, we'd be promoting socialism, not a two year service requirement as a bullshit "solution" to inequality in our society.

If we admit that we have wars with and without drafts, all we are left with is a feel good liberal bullshit pretense that people in poverty would have social justice if only the rich people spent 2 years pretending they are poor too, before they go back to their privileged lives.

Nobody here has convinced me that the people who enter the military due to an economic draft would have any more options if only bow-tie boy tucker had spent time in a uniform shooting Iraqis.

[Two Americas]

386. I do

I do promote socialism. All over the country, in the most conservative districts in the country. I find little or no resistance to the message among the poor and left behind people, the suffering and the forgotten, and the foundation for reaching consensus on that is the shared commitment to something larger then oneself, the ethic that we all go together or we don't go at all. The belief in traditional values and moral standards and concepts of duty, honor and patriotism.

Where is the resistance to socialist ideas, or to New Deal politics, to fighting for social justice and equality? Among the better-off liberal activists, that is where. The ones who would pick and choose, form positions of comfort and ease and privilege, what they do and don't "agree" with or "believe" in, all in a highly personalized and self-centered way.

I never see white liberal activists, or people from the anti-war and anti-draft crowd in the impoverished towns in Appalachia and other rural areas, in the minority neighborhoods - where the heaviest price is being paid - in the immigrant camps, where the full force of the police state is being felt. I never run into opposition over left wing political positions on matters of power and economics until I go into the more upscale and gentrified neighborhoods, be the people "liberal" or whatever.

I do not think that any of this is a coincidence. There is a moral depravity at the core of modern liberalism, a disconnection from the people, a self-centeredness and arrogance that has mich more to do with class and privilege than it does with any "anti-war" political positions.

[noamnety]

388. I agree with all that.

I disagree with the premise that two years of mandatory service is going to change any of that.

Particularly when some are saying mandatory service could mean doing two years of ballet performances as cultural enrichment for poor people - while others are off fighting wars and coming back in coffins. What is that? Is that someone's idea of sharing burdens equally?

You can't have it both ways - you can't say that some people should be forced to do the dirty work, as one poster put it, while others can register their CO status and be "forced" to do the nondirty work that enriches their careers at government expense, and present those options as equally dirty, damaging, painful, and life threatening - and pretend it solved the real issues you just addressed in your post.

If we have all those other jobs that need doing - if we have enough jobs to employ every young person for two years at government expense serving their communities, then for god's sake just advertise those as actual government jobs with the same pay and benefits as the military. Now you got something that might actually address the problem of the economic draft - it would open other options with equal pay to what the military gets.

The idea that we'd have to force people to take those jobs against their will is ludicrous.

[Truth4Justice]

375. I disagree. Its that the war doesn't affect Joe White-Bread now. When his kids get drafted, it will.

..change when he sees the grief of looking upon the casket of his departed sons, who died in vain in Iraq, he will he see that this is a useless war and the war will end sooner, rather then later.

Sad, but true.

[noamnety]

377. That's a theory that isn't supported by facts or history.

The reason we have a draft during most big wars is because it makes it easier for politicians to get bodies to fight wars.

[DailyGrind51]

379. College Republicans with "other priorities"!

I'm sure you saw this, but it is worth seeing again!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1UYquKlfT0

These RW punks should walk the talk before they squawk!

[Raven]

391. I had no idea that this post would cause such a flap. I neglected

to use the "sarcasm" icon and I am very sorry for that. Of course I don't want to see any of our kids killed in insane wars started and supported by people who have no idea what agony war is. I was thinking about the Vietnam era when there was a lottery in the late 60's or early 70's and the tide of public opinion turned because a lot of wealthy and middle class folks started to worry that their kids whould be sent. It makes a difference when people are all in the same boat together. I couldn't open the link you posted but I will try again.