If your country drafts you for a war...

[Azarkon]

If I were drafted, I would serve my country to the best of my ability.  I wouldn't line up civilians and slaughter them, but I am not naive to the realities of war.  If one is not willing to fight for one's country, well, there are a lot of countries out there.  Choose another one.

 

I'm deadly serious.  When a country is at war, real war, its citizens shouldn't have the luxury of deciding whether they will participate or just take the benefits that others will bestow upon them through their own sacrifice.  I hate the Iraq war.  I believe it to be a massive mistake.  Yet people I care about are serving there, and doing their level best to perform their duties, whether those duties are trying to enforce security in the midst of chaos (yes, yes, a chaos that wouldn't exist if they hadn't been sent there in the first place, but that is a discussion for another thread) or rebuilding schools and hospitals and trying to get decent water and electricity to ALL of Iraq, not just the Baathist areas in and around Baghdad, which was the only place Saddam offered these nice little perks of civilization.

 

Maybe it's old school, but JFK was right.  People who only take the good stuff from their country without being willing to give back to it, whether they refuse to give back under the guise of "personal morals" or just plain lazy selfishness, should find another country, one that they care enough about to be part of society rather than just a drain on it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That argument only applies if you chose to join a country, as opposed to being born in it, and having no choice as to whether you can leave it (people in the US are often unaware of how priviledged they are in this respect, being able to generally freely move between the US, Canada, and various EU countries).

 

And even if you do choose to join a country, that argument would only work if the war in question was a war in defense of those aspects of that country that you joined it for. It's one thing to fight a war in defense of the place you chose as home and of the qualities that made it your choice, another thing altogether to invade some other people's home in an effort to force your values upon them.

 

Sorry, but nations exist for the benefit of the people; there is no nation without the people, and JFK is dead wrong if, by what he said, he meant that people should serve the country unconditionally. People should give back to the community around them - to the people with whom they share the world. People should not give back to corrupt, war-mongering governments utilizing lies and deceit to safeguard their own interests.

 

Truly, I find it ironic, at times, the contradictions that exist within American society. On one hand, you have this whole individualist framework that condescends upon collectivism - that, indeed, believes that what a person is is wholly the result of his or her own efforts; yet, on the other, when it comes to military service it's all "serve your country - it's your duty." Why? If, in a capitalist society, it's every person for themselves and what a person accomplishes is solely the result of his or her struggles, then what does said person owe to his or her country?

 

Nothing - that's my view. People should fight in defense of their freedom, their happiness, and their way of life; they should not fight out of some abstract sense of duty. Ideological democracy is one of the most dangerous inventions of modern nationhood, for it confuses loyalty to one's country with loyalty to the government of that country. When a country is under threat not by outside forces, but by its own power-hungry elite, then it is most certainly not your duty to serve in the demolishing of other people's homes - and your own rights.

 

Indeed, it is your duty to do otherwise.

[Laozi]

I've got asthma

[Weiser_Cain]

You know, if Darpa get's that super armor online I'll join.

[Diamond]

You know, if Darpa get's that super armor online I'll join.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wearing a super armor = being in a front line.

Not so much of a joy.

[~Di]

That argument only applies if you chose to join a country, as opposed to being born in it, and having no choice as to whether you can leave it (people in the US are often unaware of how priviledged they are in this respect, being able to generally freely move between the US, Canada, and various EU countries). 

 

Indeed, and it is not a privilege that was handed to citizens of the USA or any other country on a silver platter. It is a privilege fought for and died for by those who came before us.

 

And even if you do choose to join a country, that argument would only work if the war in question was a war in defense of those aspects of that country that you joined it for.  It's one thing to fight a war in defense of the place you chose as home and of the qualities that made it your choice, another thing altogether to invade some other people's home in an effort to force your values upon them. 

 

So how do you express your displeasure with a government that has made a decision you disagree with? Do you become active in your society, joining organizations that fight for political positions you agree with? Do you (if you were drafted, which is the topic of this thread... ) put your money where your mouth is and serve your time in the brig rather than in a war you don't like? Or do you merely sit back and take what you want from the country, using the "I disagree with the government" excuse to avoid giving anything back in return?

 

As you've pointed out, the borders of this country and other countries swing both ways. If you are unwilling to be a part of society by doing service for it or fighting to maintain it for all its citizens, either fighting figuratively or literally, then you simply do not deserve to live in that place. Please leave and find another place.

 

Sorry, but nations exist for the benefit of the people; there is no nation without the people, and JFK is dead wrong if, by what he said, he meant that people should serve the country unconditionally.  People should give back to the community around them - to the people with whom they share the world.  People should not give back to corrupt, war-mongering governments utilizing lies and deceit to safeguard their own interests.

 

Nice excuse to justify selfishness and personal greed.

 

Truly, I find it ironic, at times, the contradictions that exist within American society.  On one hand, you have this whole individualist framework that condescends upon collectivism - that, indeed, believes that what a person is is wholly the result of his or her own efforts; yet, on the other, when it comes to military service it's all "serve your country - it's your duty."  Why? If, in a capitalist society, it's every person for themselves and what a person accomplishes is solely the result of his or her struggles, then what does said person owe to his or her country?

 

The above rant has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. If you wish to start a "capitalism sucks" thread, or a discussion of multiculturism vs individualism vs collectictivism, feel free.

 

Nothing - that's my view.  People should fight in defense of their freedom, their happiness, and their way of life; they should not fight out of some abstract sense of duty.  Ideological democracy is one of the most dangerous inventions of modern nationhood, for it confuses loyalty to one's country with loyalty to the government of that country.  When a country is under threat not by outside forces, but by its own power-hungry elite, then it is most certainly not your duty to serve in the demolishing of other people's homes - and your own rights.

 

Indeed, it is your duty to do otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hogwash. This is just a rambling justification of why one can supposedly shrug off any and all personal responsibility by simply declaring disagreement with governmental policies, then mosey through life taking all the good things without giving a damned thing in return. As I've said, if you do not agree with governmental policies then you have a duty to work... and fight... to change those policies. You do not have a duty, or a right, to use your disagreement as an excuse to sit on your posterior raking in the benefits of life in your country and being a leech on society.

 

Big words and tomes of text do not a reasonable rationalization for selfish laziness make! And frankly, that's what it comes down to. People who do not contribute to society nearly always justify themselves by citing government corruption or bad policies without acknowledging any of the good said government does... and the government must obviously have a lot of good policies in place, or folks wouldn't be living the good life in the first place. The whole thing sounds a lot like a houseful of ungrateful adolescents complaining about mom and dad's rules, only to be horrified when mom and dad close down the refrigerator and change the door locks. The rules don't seem quite so onerous when one suddenly has to forage for one's own food and find one's own shelter.

 

People in most western societies take their comforts and their countries for granted, just like spoiled teenagers who are so busy complaining about what they don't have and what they don't like that they forget to take a look at what they do have, and give serious thought to the sacrifices somebody made to give them those things.

 

That's my take on the "one's duty to country" argument, and I'm sticking to it!

[Azarkon]

So how do you express your displeasure with a government that has made a decision you disagree with? Do you become active in your society, joining organizations that fight for political positions you agree with? Do you (if you were drafted, which is the topic of this thread... ) put your money where your mouth is and serve your time in the brig rather than in a war you don't like? Or do you merely sit back and take what you want from the country, using the "I disagree with the government" excuse to avoid giving anything back in return?

 

I'm curious - what exactly do you take away from your country? Your sense of an individual owing the greater society makes little sense given that in a capitalist society, the doctrine of enlightened self-interest governs the way things are run. People do not establish policies because they have a sense of duty towards you; they do so because it benefits themselves and allows for mutual existence. The wealth of the first world nations does not come from a group of altruistic ancestors who wanted to better your lot; the wealth of first world nations come from people who wanted to better themselves and their own children. It is to your lineage, if anyone, to which you owe your allegiance.

 

From this perspective, the only people who do not contribute to society are those who live off of welfare with no reason for doing so. Anyone else, be it worker, business man, artist, or scientist - contributes to society by virtue of self-interest, since their works increase a society's wealth and its assets. As for the increase of social progress, why you'd have to go to the activists, intellectuals, and movement leaders, many of whom do - indeed - speak out against the war. Thus, if there indeed exists a debt to which you owe society, this debt is paid by virtue of your living as a productive individual. Therefore, the duty of military service not in defense of country is an extraneous requirement that must be justified on a case to case basis.

 

I do not expect to change your mind, of course. Your patronizing attitude towards ulterior viewpoints makes it obvious that that you hold your values with the same constancy as I hold mine. Truly, our values are more the product of tradition and upbringing than rational discussion, but I am curious, nevertheless, as to the reason behind feeling such a sense of duty towards your community. It is a good attitude to have, normatively, and I'd otherwise support it - but it seems that in your case the vehemence is turned more towards the people than the government, which is highly odd since it's the community that you owe a duty to, not the government (which, after all, is supposed to be representative of the people; though, these days, it's more a coterie of elite, power-hungry politicians than anything else). No one can possibly leech off of the government, because the government's coffers come from *you*.

 

And the community's will, in this case, has been expressed - the Iraq War sucks and we want a change of government. How you can possibly call these people lazy and spoiled is beyond me. What must they do in order to be "worthy" of their society? It is, after all, their society - not the government's - and seeing as it's a society built upon greed and (enlightened) selfishness, I can't see how you could possibly argue that what they're doing is wrong.

Edited December 2, 2006 by Azarkon

[~Di]

I'm curious - what exactly do you take away from your country? Your sense of an individual owing the greater society makes little sense given that in a capitalist society, the doctrine of enlightened self-interest governs the way things are run.  People do not establish policies because they have a sense of duty towards you; they do so because it benefits themselves and allows for mutual existence.  The wealth of the first world nations does not come from a group of altruistic ancestors who wanted to better your lot; the wealth of first world nations come from people who wanted to better themselves and their own children.  It is to your lineage, if anyone, to which you owe your allegiance. 

 

From this perspective, the only people who do not contribute to society are those who live off of welfare with no reason for doing so.  Anyone else, be it worker, business man, artist, or scientist - contributes to society by virtue of self-interest, since their works increase a society's wealth and its assets.  As for the increase of social progress, why you'd have to go to the activists, intellectuals, and movement leaders, many of whom do - indeed - speak out against the war.  Thus, if there indeed exists a debt to which you owe society, this debt is paid by virtue of your living as a productive individual.  Therefore, the duty of military service not in defense of country is an extraneous requirement that must be justified on a case to case basis.

 

I do not expect to change your mind, of course.  Your patronizing attitude towards ulterior viewpoints makes it obvious that that you hold your values with the same constancy as I hold mine.  Truly, our values are more the product of tradition and upbringing than rational discussion, but I am curious, nevertheless, as to the reason behind feeling such a sense of duty towards your community.  It is a good attitude to have, normatively, and I'd otherwise support it - but it seems that in your case the vehemence is turned more towards the people than the government, which is highly odd since it's the community that you owe a duty to, not the government (which, after all, is supposed to be representative of the people; though, these days, it's more a coterie of elite, power-hungry politicians than anything else).  No one can possibly leech off of the government, because the government's coffers come from *you*. 

 

And the community's will, in this case, has been expressed - the Iraq War sucks and we want a change of government.  How you can possibly call these people lazy and spoiled is beyond me.  What must they do in order to be "worthy" of their society? It is, after all, their society - not the government's - and seeing as it's a society built upon greed and (enlightened) selfishness, I can't see how you could possibly argue that what they're doing is wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's obvious I am expressing myself poorly, and we are apparently talking about two different things. Yes, I believe one owes alligiance to ones country, a country which gives us a relatively safe, comfortable, modern existance. If you do not believe the citizens of the USA are blessed with a relatively safe, comfortable, modern existance, then I encourage you to visit a few third-world and oppressive societies that do not provide such things to their citizens. As I've said, it's easy to criticize rules and motives when one is warm, safe, well-fed and on the inside looking out. Those rules and motives may not seem so sinister when one is cold, frightened, hungry and on the outside looking in.

 

You seem to have twisted every word I've written in order to label me patronizing, and once again presume me to be in favor of a war I've already repeatedly expressed disapproval of. This leads me to believe that you are not understanding what my words are saying; you are interpreting based upon your own presumption.

 

Obviously it won't help for me to heap more words which will also in all probability be misinterpreted. We are both talking... but we obviously are neither listening nor hearing.

[Azarkon]

Very well: if you believe that we owe allegiance to a country, rather than to a government, is it so preposterous to say, then, that if a person believes that a war is against the principles upon which the country is founded, they should evade the draft associated with said war?

 

What do you gain by serving in a war that you believe is the antithesis of what your country should stand for? By the same token, how do you know that when someone resists the draft they are doing so out of laziness or selfishness, as opposed to doing so on principle?

 

Yes, it is more cowardly by far to escape the draft by fleeing to another country, than it is to resist the draft by allowing yourself to be arrested. Yet, given the alternative of serving in an evil war, either of these would be preferrable. In the former, at least you're not part of the problem, while in the latter, you're clearly part of the solution.

 

As I've said, it's easy to criticize rules and motives when one is warm, safe, well-fed and on the inside looking out. Those rules and motives may not seem so sinister when one is cold, frightened, hungry and on the outside looking in.

 

You claim that I misconstrued your comments as being patronizing, yet this thought here is precisely what I'd consider the epitome of a patronizing attitude - ie you imply that those who disagree with you are children of priviledge ignorant of the depravity by which the rest of the world lives, and whose comments should therefore be brushed aside as mere naivete.

 

If that isn't the impression you wanted to give, then I suggest you respect opposing viewpoints without assigning preconceptions to the people behind them.

 

Moreover, though you might think that it's necessary for the government to do what it's doing in order to maintain the luxurious American way of life, that is far from being a given. With the gap between rich and poor ever enlarging, I'd argue that much of what the government does today serves to benefit only a small segment of American society, who exploits not only the rest of the world, but American citizens, towards the maintenance and increase of its own priviledge. Does "jobless economic recovery" mean anything to you? It should, because it's a symptom of what's happening.

 

If the government really wanted to benefit society in general, there are much better ways to spend money than on either the War in Iraq or the War in Afghanistan, both of which will do more harm to us in the long run than investing in, say, education or employment. If I did not believe this, I would not be arguing with you. And of course, even beyond these arguments of what's the best thing to do for America, there's the more pressing moral question of what's better for the world. It maybe that, in some twisted way, the American way of life demands other people's suffering. If this is the case, then duty to one's country men might have to play second fiddle to duty to mankind - if this were a cut and dry matter, I'd be working towards the destruction of American priviledge right here and now. Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, this is not a given and I'm not convinced that the whole world can't live like the average middle-class American if the right policies were adopted.

Edited December 2, 2006 by Azarkon

[Walsingham]

If I may interject, and frankly the board lets me do so ( ) then I'd say we've got two analogies for the body politic.

 

On teone hand I'd say Azarkon is saying you can treat your country like a pizza. It comes as whole, but if there's something on there like shrimp you can pull them off and eat the rest.

 

~Di seem to be implying that your country is like a gobstopper. You can't pick out things in it that you don't like. You just have to suck on it, and grimace if you come across something that disagrees with you. You either do that or spit the whole thing out.

 

I hope neither of these analogies comes across as condescending to either viewpoint. However, I would say personally that the former is a fallacy springing from our capitalised consumer-oriented upbringing. We are used to 'having it our way'. But the reality is that our country is much more like a gobstopper.

 

And just in case you are wondering, yes it is lunchtime, and I haven't even had breakfast. :D

[Guest The Architect]

If your country drafts you for a war that you really don't believe in (as in you don't believe in killing the other people because they did nothing wrong, or if not in a direct combat position, then push the paper work that gets them killed which is just as bad since the blood is still on your hands) and they will imprison with *unpleasant*-hardtime inmates or execute you for refusing the draft, will you still refuse?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No.

[Guard Dog]

A little background on me. I served in the USMC from 1989-1995. During that time I participated in a number of actions including Desert Shield/Storm. With that said, there are two things stated here I agree with wholeheartedly.

 

First, barring an event with the scope of WW2 a draft is the absolute worst thing that could be done to the USA and it's military. It would erode public support without which no war effort could succeed be it just or unjust, necassary or needless.

 

Second, it would fill the ranks of the armed service with unmotivated, undisciplined people. It would drag down performance and be devastating for morale. Bad morale is a cancer. It kills a unit slowly from within. One could argue the US military today is the most effective fighting force in the history of man. The reason why is not just the technological advancement, its the professionalisim and espirit-de-corps of the soldiers, airmen, sailor and marines.

 

It will never happen. Not without a major confontation with a major world power and I think WW2 was the last of the great wars. I spent my entire military career training to fight against Soviet tactics. Never once had to face them.

 

Two more things. Sorry Raven, women cannot be drafted. Draftees are nearly always sent into the army for a 2 year stint in the infantry. Second, when we left Kuwait in 1991 we ALL thought "We'll be back". By not finishing off Iraq then, Bush 1 left us with another war to fight. Whatever you think of Bush 2 and Iraq, right or wrong, the war MUST be won. Or 10 years from now we'll be back there again.

[metadigital]

It wasn't really Bush Sr's fault: he was just following the conditions set out by the UN and "The Coalition of the Willing" (and in direct contrast to Stormin' Norman's unequivocal advice).

[Pop]

If our intent is to stop participation in a war, a draft would theoretically be effective. Boys get drafted, and families who don't want those boys to die at war then exert pressure on the legislature to have restraint when declaring it, and war is not declared. This was the point of the draft legislation that was recently "considered". Since war cannot be declared without an okay from congress, if more congressmen had children in the military who didn't volunteer, the logic goes, we wouldn't be at war.

 

But that doesn't work, obviously. That craftiest of the governmental branches, the executive, discovered after Vietnam that war can easily be waged without congressional approval. Thus we had all kinds of "police actions" that committed troops to foreign soil, and there was about **** all anybody could do about it. After 9/11 congress virtually issued a mandate giving Bush freedom to do whatever he wanted. I can't fully blame the bastards, at least they gave it up with the intention of not being useless, like they usually are.

 

But yeah, drafts are bad for ongoing war efforts, but the point of the draft in this case would be to get us out of a war effort, not bolster it.

Edited December 7, 2006 by Pop

[Guard Dog]

I just realized I was a little OT in my post. Two answer the question, yes if drafted I would go. I would not begrudge any who would not. Loyalty and love of country must never be forced. As long as it's given freely, it will always be sincere.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

The Ironic thing is I am an Immigrant to the US, from England and I have more "National" Pride for the US than I do for the UK.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why is that Mortis? ( For once, I'm not being a smartass, just curious what might cause a person to change their allegance. )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well what patch of soil I was conceived doesn't mean that I automatically hold some philosophical belief that I must defend that patch of land with my life. To quote Bill Hicks "It's a round world the last time I checked."

 

I grew up in England during the Thatcher years, if there is anything that can kill any sense of nationalism it's that mad woman in office.

 

When I was 10 years Old my mother moved us up to Scotland, and when I was 17 I decided to move to America.

 

I have traveled all over this country, I have met a great many different people from Billionaires whom own Newspapers and TV Stations too Homeless runaways without a penny to their name.

 

Since being here I have both suffered and prospered, there have been times where there was no food in the cupboards and I had to live off Ramin, and there were times that I ate out at the finest restaurants the world has to offer.

 

I have seen a great deal of America and this is now my home, this is where my family is (My Wife, My Friends) and this is where my memories and experiences of adulthood are.

 

I do not agree with Americas Political agenda, I do not agree with the war in Iraq, but I love my friends, I love my family and I would fight to protect them, anything worth loving is worth dieing for.

 

My Mother came over to visit a couple of months back, and she was spouting the same crap that people always accuse America of. That the people are fat, ignorant, lazy and stupid, that Americas health care, social system, education system is atrocious. And I found myself actually getting offended.

 

The American people truly get a bum wrap, the "American way of life" gets a bum wrap, and it is the target of a great deal of Anti-US propaganda the world over, every country is quite happy to slate the US as the bad guys, and the unfortunate part in that is that the US Government gives them a great deal to work with.

 

The simple truth is that this is one of the most privileged countries in the world, and the American people are some of the most enlightened, kind spirited and loving people I have known and I would rather live out my days and raise my children here in the mythic land of milk and honey, than I would anywhere else.

 

Sure the US Government is comprised of a few soulless money grubbing mass murdering bastards... but they are not all like that, some of them are actually decent people who do a great of good, and at the end of the day what Government does not have a few bad eggs? It's certainly not Britain's Government that's for sure... The British Empire, The Crusades, The Enslavement of Scotland, Ireland and the working class... Thatcher, The Royals... the only thing that Britain has to be proud of is that it has somehow convinced the rest of the world that it's larger and more powerful than it really is... mainly by killing and enslaving a rather large portion of the world.

 

All in all after having seen so many other countries of the world (I did a great deal of travel as a child, and even got to experience Soviet Russia.) I know just how lucky and fortunate I am to live here in the US.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm glad to see you've finally ended up where you belong, having lived in the US, I totally disagree... But each to their own, rather you there than here.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

I'd happily fight, kill, and maime for what i believe in, I don't need to be drafted for that. Problem is that folks in power won't let me fight for what i believe in without tossing me in jail... So... We sits and waits, oh we sits and waits.

[Walsingham]

Guard dog, as a Brit I absolutely concur that the draft would be pointless and even disasterous for any conflict outside of World War 4. But that doesn't mean it won't happen. I also think you underestimate the operational advantages having ten times the number of guys gives you, even if they're half as effective. I am sure you are aware of the gun being the proverbial 'idiot stick'.

[LoneWolf16]

That's slightly disturbing there, night. Only slightly. Which, to me, is even more disturbing.

 

Anywho....someone agrees with me on the drafting thing (How drafting leads to a much less effective fighting force), and it's not as OT as a few here seem to think.

 

Is it really that wrong and unpatriotic to not want to be forcibly made to fight in a war you want no part of or just don't believe in? That's what it comes down to; forced servitude, which is not what this country stands for.

[Walsingham]

Er... Nightandshade... you do realise that those sentiments expressed are simply those of a vigilante.

[Lucius]

I'd happily fight, kill, and maime for what i believe in, I don't need to be drafted for that. Problem is that folks in power won't let me fight for what i believe in without tossing me in jail... So... We sits and waits, oh we sits and waits.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sick pup

[Gfted1]

Hehe, Eddo usually recycles this topic about once a year.

 

I havent read the other 69 posts but Ive said it before so Ill say it again. If you dodge your countries call to arms you are a coward, plain and simple. You will gladly suckle at the teat your country provides in peace but the minute youre needed you scamper to the hills? Goodbye, good riddance, your citizenship has been revoked.

[metadigital]

Is it really that wrong and unpatriotic to not want to be forcibly made to fight in a war you want no part of or just don't believe in? That's what it comes down to; forced servitude, which is not what this country stands for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, purely because the MILLIONS of free citizens who volunteered their lives in order that you might live in a free country. In their name, you owe the ideals for which they fought allegiance.

[Walsingham]

I'll accept there's a paradox in being forced to defend freedom. But is that any more crazy than fighting for peace? Or living only to die?

[metadigital]

Dying to live?

[Walsingham]

Live forever?