Political Crossfire Forums

[Tek]

Canada_Rocks wrote: Tek wrote: I would fight the war even if I did not like it out of respect. If I get killed then so shall It be.

And this prove percisely why the US does not need to draft soldiers.

1) it goes against freedom and liberty
2) It is fascist
3) The government will always have reserve forces to fight in a just war.

Whether you choose to fight or not is irrelevant. The fact is you are choosing, not being forced. You can't justify something by saying "Well I would do it anyways so who cares if they force us." You don't speak for other people.

Quote:
But unless It was a Civil war ( in America) that would be a whole different agenda.( Just to help you use the SpelChek(tm) not tring to be a jerk just making you seem a bit smrater :). )

Huh?

I mean I would have to see the sides different and how is it Fascists? Do you know what that means?(A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control. ) IF the Unites States is Fascists then my ass is a banjo.

[Heinz]

JDinPhilly wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: I thought the military has no political affiliation?

As a group they don't, but the individual members of the military are in political parties.
I was trying to do a search online to find that statistic. Can you post a link so I can read more about that? (the 75% republican thing)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040709-121020-3190r.htm

[Canada_Rocks]

Tek wrote:
I mean I would have to see the sides different and how is it Fascists? Do you know what that means?(A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.


..and?

When you don't have the ability to choose, you are being ordered to do something...dicatated to.

There is nothing more socioeconomic then the government saying "This is how you are going to be earning money for the next 4 years".

Suppression.....opposition through terror. Coercing somebody to go and die is not suppression and terror?

...natioanlism!!!! HA. You have just descibed in your above posts how your view on the draft is driven by nationalism...


NEXT!

Quote:
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control. ) IF the Unites States is Fascists then my ass is a banjo.

So this is the best you can do? Bust out Websters and critique me on a word fully ignoring the fact your argument has no logical purpose as I have shown?

Don't waste my time.

When you c n come and explain to me why "the draft" is the american way and not fascist then we can talk. When you can explain to me how it is justified then we can talk. This is called debate. This isn't 'opinion period'

[Lumina]

Canada_Rocks wrote:
When you c n come and explain to me why "the draft" is the american way and not fascist then we can talk. When you can explain to me how it is justified then we can talk. This is called debate. This isn't 'opinion period'

I think, historically, conscription has been the world's way.

[Ek0nomik]

So, yet again, I still don't understand the difference between our current system and this proposed one.

[Tek]

ook Canada_Rocks your 100% right :rolls: and im wrong. But to think of it neither side is !00% right so which one is justified as the true answer?( BTW its not that I don't agree with you its just not 100%)

[ubikk]

Kilo Tango wrote: cool_chick wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: cool_chick wrote:
You were mislead. That never, ever was true. That was another lying talking point on the part of Republicans. No, it's true, most "anti-war" voters vote democrat.

No, it's not true. The party is not "anti-war." Never have been. Well, it's still true that most "anti-war" people currently vote democrat. Are you disputing that?

The voters may be more anti-war but the party as a whole is not anti-war. They got us into WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.

[JDinPhilly]

Heinz wrote: JDinPhilly wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: I thought the military has no political affiliation?

As a group they don't, but the individual members of the military are in political parties.
I was trying to do a search online to find that statistic. Can you post a link so I can read more about that? (the 75% republican thing)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040709-121020-3190r.htm
Ok. You sent me the link from the year 2000. I didn't see where it said that 3 out of 4 servicemen and woman are republican?

[Heinz]

JDinPhilly wrote: Heinz wrote: JDinPhilly wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: I thought the military has no political affiliation?

As a group they don't, but the individual members of the military are in political parties.
I was trying to do a search online to find that statistic. Can you post a link so I can read more about that? (the 75% republican thing)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040709-121020-3190r.htm
Ok. You sent me the link from the year 2000. I didn't see where it said that 3 out of 4 servicemen and woman are republican?

It was from 2004. It clearly highlighted that Bush got at least twice as many military vote then Gore in 2000. He did the same against Kerry.

[Canada_Rocks]

Lumina wrote: Canada_Rocks wrote:
When you c n come and explain to me why "the draft" is the american way and not fascist then we can talk. When you can explain to me how it is justified then we can talk. This is called debate. This isn't 'opinion period'

I think, historically, conscription has been the world's way.

Perhaps but it is not the way of freedom and liberty. This is what America is built on. It was rather ironic that they were fighting commie north vietnamese by means of the draft and it is funny that freedom at home is ignored when there is some other greater cause to persue over seas. Some other greater cause that the average joe doesn't recognize. Silly them.

But I am not surpised that it is a democrat that is suggesting the draft. It is an extreme belief in the nanny state. So far left that it isn't even funny. So far left that it passes by the "anti-war" and the "pro-peace stance continues left for a few hundred miles...gets pretty close to communism then stops just shy of it.

It is a shame.

[Canada_Rocks]

Tek wrote: ook Canada_Rocks your 100% right :rolls: and im wrong. But to think of it neither side is !00% right so which one is justified as the true answer?( BTW its not that I don't agree with you its just not 100%)

You are free to have opinions but that is all they are. If you seriously believe that a draft is justified and that you would fight in these wars regardless, I have one question for you: Why would you want to fight in any war that the US was/is involved in since most of the recent wars were/are about fighting against the same ideology you are promoting.


Kind of like shooting yourself in the foot isn't it?

[cool_chick]

Eduffy80911 wrote: cool_chick wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: cool_chick wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: I thought it was the anti-war party?



You were mislead. That never, ever was true. That was another lying talking point on the part of Republicans. No, it's true, most "anti-war" voters vote democrat.

No, it's not true. The party is not "anti-war." Never have been.

that's true, Dems aren't anti-war, they're just extremely anti-Republican.

If this war had been started by a Democrat it would be going much better. The media would be supportive and the Republicans wouldn't have spent 3 + years trying to demoralize the troops and the public at large. There wouldn't have been partisan unity, they just would have chosen other battles (taxes, regs, etc).


I highly doubt that.

[Timmytour]

I'll confess right off than I haven't read through this thread, but I wanted to say that I saw Rangel on TV this morning being interviewed.

I thought his proposal sounded a little bit strange when I first heard about it, but having listened to him I can see exactly where he is coming from.

It seems to me like his intent is to ensure that any future President that sends his country into a war on the basis that it is to protect America from an imminent threat, will know that the soldiers will come from all walks of life and include the sons (and daughters) of those deciding to take such action.

The burden of doing something that is deemed to be necessary and for the good of the country, will be shared by all, from whatever background and from whatever state they reside in.

I think the sentiments are admirable, and would certainly put more of an onus on a President to be absolutely open and honest in his assessment of why such actions in the future are vital. On the flipside, under such circumstances, people are going to subject those in office to a lot more scrutiny about the need to undertake such action.

Yes, the sentiments are admirable. I'm just not sure how practical it would really be.

[Canada_Rocks]

How about putting any declaration of war to a referendum. That would solve the problem.

[gavnook]

Ek0nomik wrote: So, yet again, I still don't understand the difference between our current system and this proposed one.

There is no draft in effect, meaning that no one can be drafted currently (ignoring stop-loss) until draft legislation is passed. Only selective service is currently in effect. This is my understanding.

[gavnook]

Heinz wrote: JDinPhilly wrote: Heinz wrote: JDinPhilly wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: I thought the military has no political affiliation?

As a group they don't, but the individual members of the military are in political parties.
I was trying to do a search online to find that statistic. Can you post a link so I can read more about that? (the 75% republican thing)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040709-121020-3190r.htm
Ok. You sent me the link from the year 2000. I didn't see where it said that 3 out of 4 servicemen and woman are republican?

It was from 2004. It clearly highlighted that Bush got at least twice as many military vote then Gore in 2000. He did the same against Kerry.

That's 2/3, not 3/4. And voting for a party's political candidate does not mean someone belongs to that party. Had I voted in 2000, when I was in the US Army, it would've been for Bush, but I was never a Republican.

[gavnook]

Heinz wrote: Quote: You were talking about signing up voluntarily. I consider that indentured servitude because when you're in the military you cannot simply quit and are considered government property. No other employment contracts are ever enforced the way enlistment contracts are.

You're nto considered government property....That has to be the funniest and most baseless thing I have ever heard.

If you intentionally or negligently hurt yourself, you can be charged under UCMJ with damaging government property. How can you be the military and not know this?

Heinz wrote:
They let you leave if they feel you can't live up to your end of the agreement that you signed. If you can, than you can only blame yourself for joining in the first place.

(emphasis mine)

You're saying, "you're not a slave because your master will free you if he feels like it."

Whatever.


Heinz wrote:
I'd also tend to think that the reason they are enforced more heavily is because it's a more important job with a far more important role than say, working at Wal-Mart.

Quote: Draft = Involuntary Servitude = Slavery

Involuntary servitude is not slavery. There is a difference. If you are a indentured servant that means you are working of a debt that you owe someone. Slaves owe nothing to nobody but are still forced to work. Don't forget that most indentured servants signed CONTRACTS to be servants if their debtors would pay their way to the new world.

No no, stop. Involuntary servitude is not the same thing as indentured servitude. Involuntary means "not voluntary" as in, there is no contract.

Heinz wrote:
Quote: No Draft = Voluntary Servitude = Not Slavery

Involuntary servitude is not slavery.

Quote: Whatever a conscript gets paid was apparently insufficient to get him to join voluntarily, so he's being compensated less than he would demand for the job, like any other slave.

Nice spin....we get paid all the same. There's much more than the pay that keeps people from joining the Army. The big one i can think of is havign to fight. I like your attempt though.

You just don't get it. If a draftee gets paid the same as a volunteer, it doesn't legitimize the arrangement because the draftee did not agree to it. If I can get a bum to drink toilet water for $7, would it also be okay for me to force you to drink toilet water and then hand you $7?


Heinz wrote:
Quote: Being drafted can destroy great opportunities for some. For many, a draft would cost them far more in lost income than they would receive in the military.

They're still being paid.

1. It doesn't matter.
2. That's not always true.


Heinz wrote:
Quote: At least these guys somewhat did it to themselves.

What do mean somewhat did? They joined, like I did, on their own.

It seems a reasonable expectation for people joining the National Guard that they will not be sent overseas to fight wars of aggression. Well, that was once a reasonable expectation, anyway.


Heinz wrote:
Fighting is part of being in the military. I know it's hard for you to get since you're not a member.

I spent 4 years in the Army. I didn't do any fighting, thank God.


Heinz wrote:
Quote: Would it be any different if they were paid $150 a month? $1500?

Yes.....and they are getting paid..That makes all the difference.

Okay, so a South Korean conscript is not a slave because he gets paid around $15 per month?



EDIT: fixed quote

[ubikk]

Timmytour wrote: I'll confess right off than I haven't read through this thread, but I wanted to say that I saw Rangel on TV this morning being interviewed.

I thought his proposal sounded a little bit strange when I first heard about it, but having listened to him I can see exactly where he is coming from.

It seems to me like his intent is to ensure that any future President that sends his country into a war on the basis that it is to protect America from an imminent threat, will know that the soldiers will come from all walks of life and include the sons (and daughters) of those deciding to take such action.

It's a symbolic gesture to focus the debate. I don't think he actually expects a majority of Congress to pass his resolutions. He's been doing it since Clinton was President.

[Kilo Tango]

Timmytour wrote: I'll confess right off than I haven't read through this thread, but I wanted to say that I saw Rangel on TV this morning being interviewed.

I thought his proposal sounded a little bit strange when I first heard about it, but having listened to him I can see exactly where he is coming from.

It seems to me like his intent is to ensure that any future President that sends his country into a war on the basis that it is to protect America from an imminent threat, will know that the soldiers will come from all walks of life and include the sons (and daughters) of those deciding to take such action.

The burden of doing something that is deemed to be necessary and for the good of the country, will be shared by all, from whatever background and from whatever state they reside in.

I think the sentiments are admirable, and would certainly put more of an onus on a President to be absolutely open and honest in his assessment of why such actions in the future are vital. On the flipside, under such circumstances, people are going to subject those in office to a lot more scrutiny about the need to undertake such action.

Yes, the sentiments are admirable. I'm just not sure how practical it would really be. He's ignoring reality if that's his motivation.

Quote: Rangel's assertions about the demographic makeup of the enlisted military are not grounded in fact.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm

[Kilo Tango]

ubikk wrote: Timmytour wrote: I'll confess right off than I haven't read through this thread, but I wanted to say that I saw Rangel on TV this morning being interviewed.

I thought his proposal sounded a little bit strange when I first heard about it, but having listened to him I can see exactly where he is coming from.

It seems to me like his intent is to ensure that any future President that sends his country into a war on the basis that it is to protect America from an imminent threat, will know that the soldiers will come from all walks of life and include the sons (and daughters) of those deciding to take such action.

It's a symbolic gesture to focus the debate. I don't think he actually expects a majority of Congress to pass his resolutions. He's been doing it since Clinton was President. I disagree, I think he truly wants it. That's what he said Sunday.

Don't forget, we've only been an AVF since 1973 and Rangel was born in the paleozoic era and has lived most of his life when this country had a draft. I think he really wants to return to a conscription based military.