Nearly a hundred years ago, the head of the Philadelphia Communist party suggested to conscripts for World War I that the draft was a violation of the 13th amendment rights against involuntary servitude. The government’s response for the expression of this presumably despicable notion was to throw him into jail for a decade, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court (it was from that decision that the “cannot falsely shout fire in a crowded theater” dictum came from.)
So now, of course, when we live in a time that’s far more conducive to open discussion, and we have a much more understanding Supreme Court, I’m moved to wonder…*is* a draft unconstitutional? The constitution gives congress the right to “raise” armies, but I didn’t notice anything that specifically said they can commandeer citizens against the will of the citizens. In fact, there’s yet another amendment–the 5th one–that says citizens will not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. That is to say, the only situation in which the Constitution seems to say it’s okay to deprive someone of their basic freedom of movement and right to have their own stuff is if they’re paying for a criminal act of which they’ve been convicted.
So…is there a case to be made for a draft being unconstitutional? And don’t tell me it’s constitutional simply because it’s existed before unless you’re ready to argue that African-Americans should never have been counted as more than 3/5 of a person because that was the way it was done before.
PAD
• 
Sorry to hog the space here, but reading this thread in more detail, I cannot believe that we’re questioning the moral right of the draft in World War II — just about the most justifiable conflict we’ve had in the 20th century.
When your nation is outright attacked, and there’s nations busy conquering other nations with no end in sight, it’s incumbent on every American man, woman and child to do their part, whatever that entails. I am stunned speechless that *anyone* could argue against a draft under such conditions as World War II.
The argument that “we had no shortage of troops back then” doesn’t hold water either. Training soldiers takes a *LOT* of preparation, so when you’re at war, you get started right away. You don’t play things conservatively, then say, “Whoops… we’ve got a troop shortage,” then enlist a bunch of men anyway and send them off, ill-trained, to staunch an increasingly bad situation. That leads to a lot more men getting killed. Preventative medicine in a conflict such as WW II is far preferable.
And frankly, I’ve yet to hear the World War II vets bìŧçh about the draft. Certainly not in large numbers. They probably didn’t *like* it, but they understood the need for it. Much more than the Vietnam conflict.
And…
>
And… that would be because a number of those “volunteers” KNEW they were going to get drafted anyway and signed up to receive better benefits. I am personally acquainted with individuals who signed up mere days before their draft papers came through for just that reason.
When I say the World War II vets understand the need for the draft, I’m not implying that some of them wouldn’t have taken an alternative if it was offered. Not that volunteerism during World War II wasn’t higher than the Vietnam conflict, obviously.
If so much time, energy and political capital can be spent on trying to make one Constitutional thing unConstitutional, why should the debate supposedly be settled by ruling on a different Constitutional thing. “We must get the Supreme Court to go back on their decision and make abortion unconstitutional…so women can be forced to have children so they can grow up, be drafted, and sent to die at a later date thanks to another Supreme Court decision which should not, by any means, be challenged.”
No offense meant PAD, but YOU, staunch defender of Free speech, yourself have often argued with a certain “gun-nut” named Dan, about doing away with protections granted under the Second Amendment because YOU think they’re no longer needed or relevant. One of the few things I’ve heard you and John Byrne agree on, BTW.
That’s the problem with characterizing the Constitution as a “living, breathing document” subject to change of the times. It actually changes over time.
But if your argument re: abortion is that once the Supreme Court has ruled it should be settled, since the Supreme Court has already decided that the draft is constitutional, why bring it up again?
Personally, I don’t have a problem with the Supreme Court revisiting some constituionality issues. After all, a lot of the rulings are based more on interpretation of the law than actual fact. As those facts change, perhaps the rulings should as well.
Craig: “It’s all “Die for your country or leave”, which is crap. Nobody gives a rat’s ášš whether the stuff we send our troops off to die for is even worth it.”
If it was a tide of death coming and there was no feasable way to stop it, and the people in charge said, “Throw your body at it”, I’d agree with you. But that isn’t the case. I’m not saying die for your country. Just because you get drafted, or enter willingly into an Armed Force, doesn’t mean you do it to die, or are goign to die. It’s a job that says you MAY die for your country. Not everyone that joins is a combat troop. I forget the actual number, but for every one combat troop, there are 20 support personnel that keep that person ready and able to fight. You have to have admin people, cooks, transportation people to move supplies, medical teams, suppy people for the medical teams, and just about every other thing you can think of. Only a small percentage of troops, no matter the branch of service, actually go into combat.
And just so you know, I give a rat’s ášš. Every time one of my brothers or sisters goes into a combat situation, I give a rat’s ášš. In fact, I give way more than a rat’s ášš. I’d give my own ášš to be there and help them. I may not like what the fight is for, but the point is that I care, as do a lot of other people.
I’m not liberal or conservative. I’m American. Take that however you want.
Steve
And Craig, a lot of them are “children of conservatives”.
I should probably have made my statement to be teh children of our conservative leadership, which would be more accurate.
Or hëll, of our leadership period.
I read something yesterday that said the whole of 5 children of members of Congress are serving in the military right now.
Leaves one to wonder a bit.
But I’ve read alot of knee-jerking from people about how liberals are just a bunch of whiners who don’t deserve this country because they aren’t willing to die to defend it.
I just wonder how many of them would be willing to send their children off to Iraq.
The wealthy young man’s name?
George Herbert Walker Bush, our 41st President.
Well, that just goes to show that the son is not the father, doesn’t it?
But then, I’ve never said that WWII was not worth fighting, or that the draft wasn’t necessary *at that time*.
I forget the actual number, but for every one combat troop, there are 20 support personnel that keep that person ready and able to fight.
And now we’re seeing that more and more non-combat personnel are being targeted in Iraq. It’s an ugly situation all around.
And yes, I have family and friends in the military as well, so I’m not speaking from a position of ignorance.
I’m speaking from a position of necessity – and my position is that a draft isn’t necessary because this dámņ war in Iraq wasn’t necessary. And that the leadership of this country doesn’t seem to give a rats ášš.
Draft versus Mandatory Service:
Someone was reading over my shoulder just now and brought up the way Israel handles such matters..
Although I’m a little vague on the specifics, basically, unless completely mentally or physically incompetent (i.e. paralyzed, mentally challenged, etc) ALL Israeli young adults (male and female) of a certain age MUST perform x years of military service. Don’t matter if you are rich, poor, whatever (although I’m sure money can insure you are assigned perhaps to guard the southern border, not that pesky one near Lebanon).
A few side effects of this are:
1> Israeli’s (in general) are more physically fit than counterparts in most other countries (at any age)
2> Armed robbery is relatively non-existant and most is committed by people who did not serve. (Would YOU attack someone you know to be trained in the art of self defense and who might have been in an anti-terrorist unit?)
Would it work in America (put aside for the moment the fact that our government would never pass anything remotely fair – the number of expemptions would be staggering)?
It might, if we did something like the following:
1> Upon completion of, OR DEPARTURE FROM High School, a citizen of the US (of age 18 or over) would be required to report for Basic Training within 3 months, for a service time of 1 year, which may be extended to 2 years if the nation is in a state of war declared by an official act of congress. The only exception to this requirement shall be if the citizen is physically or mentally incapable of performing a useful task within the military.
2> Upon completion of initial term of service, a soldier shall receive an honorable discharge, if so warranted, a credit of $3000 towards the educational institution of his or her choice, and the right to participate in a federally subsidized low interest student loan program. Soldiers who complete ONLY the minimum service term would not be eligible for the more generous benefits of the GI Bill or Veterans Medical services (unless an injury occured while on duty). Soldier of course would have the option of extending their tours of duty in 2 year increments.
There’s a bunch of other stuff that could go along with this, and right off the bat I could see it cutting the number of high school dropouts. Plus every serving american would have a college fund. And I suspect that quite soldiers would extend their tours…
“I read something yesterday that said the whole of 5 children of members of Congress are serving in the military right now.”
That’s quite possibly true. The other thing that you should look at is how many members of Congress have children of the correct age to be serving in the military.
It’s not generally a club for younger people.
Sacre-mongering??
No one in the civilian or military leadership wants to reinstitute the draft. A volunteer force is infinetly better in terms of morale and dedication, and the sophistication of modern military equipment make short-term enlistment through a draft problematic at best, and most likely detrimental due to the numbers of ‘real’ soldiers it would take to constantly train (largely unwilling) civillians in short rotation. The only person calling for a draft is Rep (D) CHarlie Rangel, who is using it as a political attack against President Bush, employing the typical liberal tactic of trying to scare the hëll out of everybody by lying. “There’s a draft acomin so watch out” is right up there “The majority of people in the military are poor black kids” (less then 15% of the military is African American, statistically less then the overall popoulation)
Although I’m a little vague on the specifics, basically, unless completely mentally or physically incompetent (i.e. paralyzed, mentally challenged, etc) ALL Israeli young adults (male and female) of a certain age MUST perform x years of military service.
Not sure about the male/female stuff, but a fellow on the MUD I play is from Israel, and yes, he was serving in the military.
He’s no patriot, just that he lives there so he has to serve.
It’s not generally a club for younger people.
No, which is why I’d be interested in seeing more numbers regarding the situation (perhaps how many children of the current serving Congressman have served period). But then, Bush’s daughters are the right age to serve in the military. 🙂
The only person calling for a draft is Rep (D) CHarlie Rangel
Hmm. He called it, according to articles I’ve read, back in December of 2002.
This newest call is from a Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican from Nebraska.
Maybe you missed the article?
Here’s a link to one: Click here
The only person calling for a draft is Rep (D) CHarlie Rangel, who is using it as a political attack against President Bush, employing the typical liberal tactic of trying to scare the hëll out of everybody by lying. “There’s a draft acomin so watch out” is right up there “The majority of people in the military are poor black kids” (less then 15% of the military is African American, statistically less then the overall popoulation)
Actually, African Americans are 13.8 percent of the overall population according to the latest census info as of July 31, 2002.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmcensus1.html
But you’re right. Mr. Rangel has made this claim before.
Omigod…Rangel AND Hagel??? The groundswell seems well nigh unstoppable!
The military doesn’t want it. The public is against it. The number of lawmakers who have expressed support for it can be counted on one’s hands and still have enough fingers left to play piano….in all honesty, I’m more worried about the possibility of giant radioactive dinosaurs at this point.
Now as an indirect way to attack the war or the president or whatever it makes sense–it gets young folks all scared and brings back memories of the Vietnam era…but unless the North koreans attack or we have a massive WMD disaster I don’t see the need likely arising.
in all honesty, I’m more worried about the possibility of giant radioactive dinosaurs at this point.
So, how do you feel about a draft to protect us from a sudden attack by Gojiru? 🙂
Craig wrote: “All this talk about how each of us should put our lives on the line, and how many in the Bush Administration have walked the plank themselves? How many of them actually saw combat?”
You can say the same about the Clinton administration, yet President Clinton routinely sent troops to places like Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda and many other lesser-known places around the globe. For example, in 1993, after floods in Nepal destroyed some key bridges there, huge C-5s from Dover (where I was stationed) flew new bridges and tons of supplies to Katmandu in a relief operation. I can cite plenty of other examples as well. And if you think these lesser-known missions aren’t as hazardous as an Iraq War mission, tell that to the next-of-kin of the nine C-141 Air Force crewmembers who never came from a mission to Namibia in 1997; or the next-of-kin of the 24 Air Force crewmembers who died in 1995 when their AWACS aircraft crashed during a flight over Alaska. It’s a tough business regardless of what the mission is, but when the president or other senior leaders say, “Go,” the military is duty bound to go. Politics are never part of the equation.
The fact of the matter is, even in the civilian world, every day we put our trust in people who hold life-or-death sway over our lives. When you fly, you trust that the pilot and the air traffic controllers won’t make a “big” mistake. The same thing applies when you go to the doctor, or to the auto mechanic, or when you have a maintenance person come out and fix your furnace or re-wire your house. That elevator you may have stepped in the other day — was it properly inspected? Did the last maintenance person who worked on it know what he/she was doing? When you’re driving, you trust that the people in the oncoming lane won’t get distracted by a screaming kid or ringing cell phone and swerve over the yellow line to hit you head-on. And the list goes on, ad infinitum.
In the same way, people in the military have to trust our country’s civilian leadership to make the best decisions they can, with the information they have available, whenever they send troops into harm’s way. It would be nice if the people making these military decisions had a military background, but these days, that rarely is the case — regardless of which party is in power. For example, even if Kerry gets elected, you can bet your last dollar that the body of military knowledge for most of the people in his administration will come from Hollywood. Yeah, that’s a scary thought, but it’s also reality.
Russ Maheras
//As for the Supreme Court having said the draft was Constitutional twenty years ago…that’s nice. //
At the risk of being snarky, I have to wonder why you bothered framing the discussing in terms of the constitutionality of a draft if that’s your response to someone providing the rationale of a Supreme Court decision on that very issue. Why don’t you address the specific points raised instead of dismissing the Court’s decision as irrelevant?
Steve wrote: “Dave Bjorlin, right on. Russ, maybe we served together, and if we didn’t, it was my loss.”
Ditto here — it was my loss, too. You know, even when I was grumbling about some crisis or goofy SNAFU, I loved being in the Air Force — especially my nine years in SAC (eight of which I spent working on SR-71s). The Blackbird was the coolest plane ever built.
Russ Maheras
Omigod…Rangel AND Hagel??? The groundswell seems well nigh unstoppable!
The point is that when Rangel brought it up, he was laughed at.
When Hagel brings it up, people start going “You know…” as if he were suddenly Einstein.
And there is continual talk of sending even more troops into Iraq. Not to mention we can’t even get the existing ones in there rotated out.
Those “new” troops have to come from somewhere.
You can say the same about the Clinton administration, yet President Clinton routinely sent troops to places like Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda and many other lesser-known places around the globe.
And the only “mess” Clinton got into was Somalia. Granted, we pulled out after one bloody battle, but it was a UN effort to begin with. That’s more than can be said of Iraq.
As I said, some progressive scare-mongering.
The Bush administration says it’s opposed to a draft.
— The military is opposed to the draft.
— Support for a draft in Congress — on either side of the aisle — is almost negligible.
— Pushing through a draft would be political suicide.
— The military is currently meeting its recruiting goals.
— There has yet to be any sort of mass exodus from the military or National Guard despite the war on terrorism.
— They are not THAT short on troops. 160k+ in Europe and South Korea right now for example.
— Armies filled with military conscripts have proven to be far less effective than armies composed of volunteers.
in all honesty, I’m more worried about the possibility of giant radioactive dinosaurs at this point.
So, how do you feel about a draft to protect us from a sudden attack by Gojiru? 🙂
Wow, to tell the truth, I’m not entirely sure which side I’d be fighting for. I mean, I love Amaerica and all, but Godzilla is very very cool. I know I sure as hëll wouldn’t be one of those guys in the little tanks firing away to no effect, witing until I get stepped on. Boy, the Japanese always brag about their public education system but they go and do that tank thing each and every time and it never ever works.
i read this over @ comic book resources. i put this here because i know tons of you will be looking here. this is about how to prevent books we love like CM from going the way of the dinosaur. this article was written by steven grant.
“Recently the comics world was “rocked” by the sudden cancellation of Wildstorm’s WILDCATS 3.0 and STORMWATCH:ACHILLES, despite a recent high-profile crossover that involved both books with on-off hit THE AUTHORITY and another tenuous but highly-regarded title, SLEEPER, and brought a sales bounce to them. Both brought new ideas and new takes to the well-trod superhero genre. WILDCATS 3.0 was a unique attempt to upgrade superbeings to a corporate environment. STORMWATCH:ACHILLES was a highly politicized series about paramilitary human response to super-action. Both were well done. Both had audiences. And only an idiot would be surprised by the cancellations.
Because, good as they were, they weren’t selling.
The fact is: cancellations are a fact of life in the comics business, and all cancellations upset someone. (Besides the talent involved, I mean.) It’s easy to rave about how good a book was and how it didn’t deserve cancellation, and y’know what? It probably didn’t. Hëll, I’ve been there. When I was doing X-MAN at Marvel, it got big raves and I still get e-mails from people telling me how much they liked the book. I appreciate it, but the time to bring it up was when the book was being published, and I’m not the one who should’ve been told. Neither are Joe Casey or Micah Wright, the respective writers of WILDCATS 3.0 and STORMWATCH:ACHILLES. Or the talent behind any book. Not that we don’t like to hear it.
But the people you should be telling are publishers, editors, retailers and other readers.
There are a few factors at play here.
By now you may have recognized that comics companies do a crappy job of promoting, particularly with new “untested” concepts. Comics companies, like most other American entertainment media these days, are geared toward The Franchise, that “iconic” product that can generate sales on name alone and will, theoretically, continue to do so for the indefinite future, from a variety of sources. (With a big enough franchise, like Superman, the actual comics sales become irrelevant to the secondary market money.) New properties have a major liability: they aren’t franchises and most aren’t likely to be, and no one has yet figured out the formula for deciding what the next big franchise will be, try as they might to pretend they do. (I did an interview last week on the basis of the PUNISHER movie
I’ll support the draft if I could assured that it would be totally balanced by both social and (sp?) and racial(sp?) status, which of course will NEVER happen.
Judas Priest, Joe, next time just link the dámņ thing. That way, you’ll avoid both pìššìņg øff people reading the topic *and* copyright violation.
Uhm..Joe? off topic much?
Oh, wait, I’ll bring it back…Frank Castle likely wasn’t drafted to fight in Vietnam.
Craig wrote: “And the only ‘mess’ Clinton got into was Somalia. Granted, we pulled out after one bloody battle, but it was a UN effort to begin with. That’s more than can be said of Iraq.”
Perhaps, but one could also argue that if Clinton had NOT played it safe politically and become involved in one or two more messy conflicts — say, against the Taliban and and their terrorist pals in Afghanistan — New York might still have a World Trade Center, and 3,000 more Americans might still be around to give us their opinions about the matter.
Russ Maheras
For example, even if Kerry gets elected, you can bet your last dollar that the body of military knowledge for most of the people in his administration will come from Hollywood. Yeah, that’s a scary thought, but it’s also reality.
As opposed to the vast military experience Bush and Ðìçk brought to the table?
Joe, off-topic: Bad
Copyright violation: so what
I’m opposed to the concept of the volunteer army. Universal service is the only concievably democratic policy. It is of course necessary to make sure that it really does apply to everyone equally so that one can’t get out of it by being part of an economic/political elite.
Den wrote: “As opposed to the vast military experience Bush and Ðìçk brought to the table?”
Did you read my entire post, or is this a selective discussion? I specifically stated, “Regardless of which political party is in power…”
Besides, do you realize what you just said? Ðìçk Cheney was a former secretary of defense, and oversaw operations for Gulf War I, for Pete’s sake. I’d say that even though he never wore a uniform, with SecDef experience and White House chief of staff experience, he’s certainly no rookie when it comes to the military.
Russ Maheras
Perhaps, but one could also argue that if Clinton had NOT played it safe politically and become involved in one or two more messy conflicts — say, against the Taliban and and their terrorist pals in Afghanistan — New York might still have a World Trade Center, and 3,000 more Americans might still be around to give us their opinions about the matter.
And thousands more lives would have been saved, US and Iraqi alike, if Bush Sr had taken out Saddam the first time around.
But he didn’t, so what’s your point?
I previously viewed draft-dodgers as weak an un-American.
However, if by some horrific fluke the draft is brought back, I’m going to Canada. I will not go to a war in a country I do not have any personal stake in. I don’t care enough about Iraq to die there. Hëll, I don’t care enough to stub my toe for the dámņëd country, let alone give up my life.
Further, I will not die because some rich, pompus áššhølëš in Washington decided that “all Americans should pay their fair share”. . . a very amusing concept, given that we have a lazy oaf for our President right now.
If the general populace gets wind of this (and I garuntee that Bush and Co will downplay it so they DON’T) every male 18-25 will say “F*** NO” quite loudly, by voting for John Kerry.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with the current war or with the draft there is one indisputable fact. Right now, no one is fighting to stop our country from being attacked. We are fighting to “rescue” the Iraqi people among others.
WWII started out as a response to us being attacked. We then realized that this Hitler guy wasnt going to stop with just Europe. He was a threat to our way of life in OUR country. The first time we are attacked in 50 years and we lost. Sure afterwards we killed a lot of people, most of whom probably had nothing to do with 9/11, and lost even more or our people. But Bin Laden is still alive. And we seem to have given up on changing that. At least for right now. Saddam didn’t have WMD’s. He may have at one time but thats irrelavent. He doesnt have any now and therefore he wasnt a threat to us personally. And now he has been captured so he isnt a threat to anyone. Yet our people are still dying. This seems wrong to me.
I think one of the most American things you can do is oppose the draft and refuse to serve in the military. Everyone talks about fighting for our freedoms. Well I believe one of my freedoms is that i shouldnt have to fight for a cause i dont believe in. And I believe that thats why most of our military personnel joined up. To not only fight for my right to believe that, but to give others the chance to believe the same. I would not join to fight in any wars we are in right now. I cant say whether I would fight an enemy attacking us but i would like to believe i would. I don’t think Catholicism is the correct religion and I will fight anyone who tries to make me convert. But I refuse to go and kill the Pope just because I dont agree with the way he runs things.
I have great respect for all our servicemen and women. And I will support them. I can do that without thinking that what they do is a good idea. My sister is currently enrolled in the Naval Academy. I disagreed with her decision to enroll but I fully support her now that she is there.
Not supporting the war in Iraq does not mean I dont support America. I do. Even when we fûçk things up. I dont believe that refusing to blindly follow my country’s leaders means i dont support my country. I love America. I am proud to be an American.
Only fighting for that which I believe in does not make me an American. It makes me Human.
Jonathan (The Other One) wrote:
“I begin to grow annoyed.
“I have NEVER said that this country is not worth fighting for. In fact, as I recall, I believe I mentioned in there somewhere that I did volunteer to give several years of my life in its defense. I left some of my peace of mind in a room four floors under the surface of Nebraska, and very nearly left some of my sanity lying next to it. I have never questioned my decision to join, nor the services I rendered during that time.”
Nobody, as far as I have read, has questioned your service. Nor has anyone claimed that you denied the country was worth fighting for. What we have questioned whas your actual statement, “Any nation, when attacked, has the absolute right to defend itself. However, said nation should be able to defend itself ably with volunteer troops, as the United States is doing today. If it is necessary to use conscripts, if the nation cannot generate sufficient patriotism amongst its members to raise a defensive force of willing participants, perhaps that nation deserves to fall.” The implication of your two statements, read together, is that if the United States were ever invaded by a larger force, it would be eminently worth fighting and dying for… by volunteers, until we were defeated, in which case history’s verdict would be that we deserved to fall. The “larger force” I hypothesized is a chimera as things stand; no country or plausible coalition of countries could overrun the United States if they tried, but your statement is a normative one that has nothing to do with the realities of being a hyperpower, which is why in my earlier post I brought up Belgium circa 1940. Every service-age man and woman in Belgium could have enlisted and still managed to be no more than a road bump to the Wehrmacht. It wasn’t because they were insufficiently motivated, it was because they were outgunned. We’re quite a bit more powerful than Belgium, but if faced with a legitimate threat I cannot imagine why a country would let itself be outgunned by disavowing conscription. Britain in 1940 was a great power, with an abundance of popular patriotism for opposing the Nazis, but given that it was such a near miss to survive until the United States entered the war, isn’t it fair to say that full mobilization– in a word, conscription– made a difference? If the UK couldn’t have survived the Battle of Britain with volunteers, do you really mean that they really deserved to lose, and only won because they cheated?
I agree with you on whether we should have a draft now. We don’t really need it, therefore we shouldn’t have it. But your broader statement, that we should NEVER have it, strikes me as being horribly wrong.
The War in Iraq is the worst idea since Greedo shot first.
The next ones to be drafted are probably not likely to be young 18 year olds but instead those at least in thier twenties and up to 44. The Selective Service is looking at a “special skills draft” that would allow those with language skills, computer skills, etc to be drafted. They already have in place the same type of draft available for medical personal.
It is a good deal for the military as they would not have to train new recruits in the skills that they need. They can just take those from the private sector. It may be a remote possibility but it is out there and being studied.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/164693_draft13.html
Greenbaum wrote:
The first time we are attacked in 50 years and we lost. Sure afterwards we killed a lot of people, most of whom probably had nothing to do with 9/11, and lost even more or our people. But Bin Laden is still alive. And we seem to have given up on changing that.At least for right now. Saddam didn’t have WMD’s. He may have at one time but thats irrelavent. He doesnt have any now and therefore he wasnt a threat to us personally. And now he has been captured so he isnt a threat to anyone. Yet our people are still dying. This seems wrong to me.
With all due respect, let me point out a few errors in your statement.
a. We haven’t lost, nor has anyone given up on finding Bin Laden, the problem is that he can move from one country to another with relative ease, we can’t. That’s why terrorists fight the way they do. When there’s no central location to attack or defend, finding them’s hard enough. Wiping them out is dámņ near impossible.
b.Saddam had WMDs. It’s not irrelevant. Does he have them now, it doesn’t look like it, but honestly that brings up two other questions that no one is answering. What happened to the ones that he DID have? And if he had destroyed them, why was he stonewalling the UN? I still think he had them, but I also think we moved too late. Until you can answer at least the first question, It’s way too early to say with any certainty that he wasn’t a threat.
c. As for whether Saddam is a threat. Well, gee, if he’s not a threat, maybe we should let him go, if he promises not to do it again?
Andrew wrote: “However, if by some horrific fluke the draft is brought back, I’m going to Canada. I will not go to a war in a country I do not have any personal stake in.”
So, using your rationale, then I should not have to pay taxes that support causes/programs I don’t agree with?
“The next ones to be drafted are probably not likely to be young 18 year olds but instead those at least in thier twenties and up to 44. The Selective Service is looking at a “special skills draft” that would allow those with language skills, computer skills, etc to be drafted.”
I wonder if a 43 year old teacher with some experience as a microbiologist would qualify…’cause while I’m not jumping at the chance, I’d sure go if they thought I could do some good (this might be the “it’s almost summer and the kids are going insane” stress talking here).
Andrew,
First, what you and a lot of people fail to understand is that Iraq IS a part of the War on Terrorism. If you don’t think so, then just look at recent reports of Iran and Syria not only helping the dissidents but actually coming over to help, because they realize that a free Iraq – and the example it would set to their own populaces who largely desire freedom but as yet have no proof that such a state of affairs is possible – is dangerous to their extremist repressive ways.
Choices are not always obvious. It seems you and others seem to think thge only time it is right to fight is if they try to invade us directly on our land, something few if any countries have the capability to do.
They do have the capability of unleashing bioterror agents that would kill thousands and thousands of people in major cities, or dirty bombs, or destroying a football stadium with 60,000 people or destroying the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco or the Sears Tower. Any of these or similar acts would kill many more people, including women and children, than we have lost in Iraq.
That is what we are trying to prevent.
Russ:
>>Andrew wrote: “However, if by some horrific fluke the draft is brought back, I’m going to Canada. I will not go to a war in a country I do not have any personal stake in.”
>So, using your rationale, then I should not have to pay taxes that support causes/programs I don’t agree with?
There is a big difference between supporting programming one doesn’t agree with, with your taxes and going off to kill and/or be killed for a program one doesn’t agree with. Big difference.
Greenbaum,
The first time we are attacked in 50 years and we lost? What are you talking about?
Also, if you would read a newspaper once in a while, you would see that far from giving up on Bin Laden, we are making progress, and have come very close on a number of occasions to getting not only him but his lieuteanants as well. In any event, they are on the run, probably something they never expected.
First, what you and a lot of people fail to understand is that Iraq IS a part of the War on Terrorism.
No, it’s a personal vendetta by the Bush Administration against Saddam.
The terrorists weren’t there until we removed Saddam from power.
If you don’t think so, then just look at recent reports of Iran and Syria not only helping the dissidents but actually coming over to help
This is no more terrorism than the notion that Jesus was killed by the Jews.
They feel threatened by us. And can you blame them? They don’t need to provoke us for the Bush Administration to decide that they’re next.
Crap, need to quit posting so soon, since not everything I want to say pops into my head at once. 🙂
The above isn’t to say I approve of the actions of Iran or Syria if they are “sending” people against us, but it’s not like they needed to.
There are plenty of these types that want to be in the country to fight our troops anyways.
Andrew,
Also, regarding “every male 18-25 will say F–K NO” quite loudly by voting for John Kerry.
First, Kerry has not suggested any meaningful alternative to our strategy right now, so why do you automatically things would be different?
More importantly, you seem to feel all males 18-25 seem to feel the way you do, which is incorrect.
Many men of draft age would be willing to do their duty to protect their fellow citizens. They believe in this country and what it stands for and can see why supporting the President and our fellow troops is important.
Heck,if you look at old New York Times archives or read Paul Johnson’s eye-opening book “Modern Times”, you will find that despite the left’s relentless eforts to dishearten the nation, vast majorities of Americans consistently supported the Vietnam War. This accepted notion that an anti-war movement swept the nation is a preposterous myth (though it did give us some decent music).
Right up until our imminent withdrawal from Vietnam, no more than 20 percent of Americans ever opposed the war in Vietnam. Contrary to the image of everyone wearing tie-dye shirts, smoking weed, and “not trusting anyone over 30”, the under-thirty-five crowd SUPPORTED the Vietnam War MORE than those under thirty-five! Support for the war was STRONGEST among young white males.
Granted, we seem to have grown softer, more suburban and complacent since, but you will find that a vast majority of those called would serve. they don’t all think like you.
“The War in Iraq is the worst idea since Greedo shot first.”
I don’t agree with you but I have to admit that was the best one-liner I’ve seen on this blog in months.
Fred,
“There is a big difference between supporting programming one doesn’t agree with with your taxes and going off to kill and/or be killed for a program one doesn’t agree with. Big difference.”
Uh, no.
In either case, someone is giving up a “right”. In one case, it may be the individual “right” to keep all the money – or more money – that you earn from working two jobs so you can provide more for yourself or your family. the justification is that the tax money is for the “greater good”.
In the latter – it is giving up a individual “right” not to be put in a situation you don’t want to be in. The justification is that the military action is for the “greater good”.
So there is really not a “big difference’ on the face of it. If you would care to illustrate your point, I’ll be happy to listen.
Fred,
“There is a big difference between supporting programming one doesn’t agree with with your taxes and going off to kill and/or be killed for a program one doesn’t agree with. Big difference.”
Jerome:
Uh, no.
In either case, someone is giving up a “right”. In one case, it may be the individual “right” to keep all the money – or more money – that you earn from working two jobs so you can provide more for yourself or your family. the justification is that the tax money is for the “greater good”.
In the latter – it is giving up a individual “right” not to be put in a situation you don’t want to be in. The justification is that the military action is for the “greater good”.
So there is really not a “big difference’ on the face of it. If you would care to illustrate your point, I’ll be happy to listen.
Uh yeah. If you see no big difference between providing money and killing, than any point being made on this would be lost on you.
I’ve stopped replying to both your posts and replies due to your rantings, insults, condescension, illogical thinking and conclusion-jumping. You are not looking for conversation. You are looking to prove that you are right. Big difference. The first being listening and reflecting on a post before replying. Again, big difference that, after reding your posts over the past week, I no longer expect you to get.
“No offense meant PAD, but YOU, staunch defender of Free speech, yourself have often argued with a certain “gun-nut” named Dan, about doing away with protections granted under the Second Amendment because YOU think they’re no longer needed or relevant. One of the few things I’ve heard you and John Byrne agree on, BTW.”
That’s a very simplistic, and fairly inaccurate, summation of my position on the matter. I’ve pointed out that the Second Amendment clearly links the necessity of maintaining a militia as being *the* rationale for the right to bear arms, and therefore have contended that anyone who owns guns should possess them for that specific purpose. And that anyone purchasing guns must be part of a militia and ready to go to war on their country’s behalf.
If one is going to use the 2nd Amendment to say that one has the right to purchase a gun, one should use the whole Amendment, not just the half that carries no responsibility to use it to fight for America.
PAD
“At the risk of being snarky, I have to wonder why you bothered framing the discussing in terms of the constitutionality of a draft if that’s your response to someone providing the rationale of a Supreme Court decision on that very issue. Why don’t you address the specific points raised instead of dismissing the Court’s decision as irrelevant?”
I didn’t say it was irrelevant. I said that saying it’s constitutional just because the court said it was twenty years ago doesn’t really address the question. Ninety years ago, the Court espoused a doctrine of “clear and present danger” and used it to support dozens of people being tossed into jail simply for expressing disagreement with the government. I think that was blatantly unconstitutional even though the court thought it was.
This country has a history of people’s constitutional rights being trampled on, and supported by the Court, in the interest of expediency. So the question is, is a draft one of those things?
PAD
Andrew wrote: “However, if by some horrific fluke the draft is brought back, I’m going to Canada. I will not go to a war in a country I do not have any personal stake in.”
“So, using your rationale, then I should not have to pay taxes that support causes/programs I don’t agree with?”
It’s not a matter of not “having” to so much as refusing to.
Using his rationale, if you feel that strongly about it, yes, absolutely, you should refuse to pay taxes.
But there will be consequences. Andrew is basically saying that he’s willing to accept the consequence of acting upon his belief: Being an exile from his country. The consequence that would fall upon you, for your protest, would be potential prosecution which you would most likely lose, and the penalties that stem from that. If you’re willing to live with those penalties, as Andrew is, then go for it.
PAD
If Peter graduated High School in 1975 – he reported to his Draft Board as required by law. Classes of ’76 and ’77 were exempted. I was told not to report. I also remember fighting the Draft during the Carter and Reagan administrations. The Draft as stands is a bad idea. Two years of Government Service post-high school doing something positive and earning credits for the school of your choice would be better.
The AOL “Gun Nut” was not as tough a debater as his sole supporter was but I’d rather not invoke either of them. My friends who served in Vietnam mostly clerked; only one saw “action” as it were.
As to rights – people will stand up for them. People are merely being bamboozled at the moment. It won’t last.
Wait for an angry minoriry to pose as a majority soon,
Alan
“As for whether Saddam is a threat. Well, gee, if he’s not a threat, maybe we should let him go, if he promises not to do it again?”
Promises not to do what again? Run his country the way he sees fit? Invades another country for his own selfish needs? Has weapons of mass destruction? If we can do it why cant he?