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
• 
Russ:
>>So you could easily serve with a clear conscience — provided you don’t back off from your “direct involvement” rationale.
Being an active part in this conflict, whether pulling a trigger, smacking a protestor or loading a supply ship all smacks of direct involvement to me, but we have both made our points. Thanks for the conversation. 🙂
Jonathan (the other one) wrote: “Well, Russ, in some specialties, it depends on how strictly you define “direct involvement. When I enlisted in the AF, I was a computer programmer, sent directly to HQ SAC in Nebraska. Sounds pretty peaceful, right? Especially during the ’80s? My job was writing software to help plan the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) – to make sure that if the balloon went up, our weapons wouldn’t destroy each other on the way in.”
Oh, I agree with your point about the vagaries of “indirect involvement.” That was actually the crux of my discussion with Fred. When I argued that a conscientious objector could use the exact same rationale he suggests for draft avoidance to also avoid paying taxes that subsidize abortion and criminal executions, Fred said the two were not the same. Fred said he believes being drafted into the military is one of direct confrontation, i.e., pulling the trigger; and the “murder taxation” issue is more benign and indirect. To counter his argument, I explained how very few military people actually “pull the trigger,” and hence, are as indirectly involved as the conscientious objector taxpayer that subsidizes government-funded abortions and criminal executions.
The whole reason I raised this line of reasoning is because of a discussion I had with a co-worker several years ago. When the person found out I was former military, she went off about how war and killing was wrong, and how if we all sat down together and embraced, there would be no wars, etc., etc. Well, with all the irrational hate floating around out there, I happen to think that that is a simplistic and unrealistic view of today’s world. And, playing Devil’s advocate, I asked her what her views were regarding abortion and the death penalty. When she said she was for the former and against the latter, I looked at her and said something like, “How can you be pro-abortion but anti-war? That makes no logical sense. Killing is killing.” If she had said she was anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, I could have made the same argument. Personally, I think she was entitled to whatever view she wanted — all I did was point out what I thought were the inconsistencies of her position.
So anyway, I’ve been down most of this road before, albeit for different reasons.
Russ Maheras
Tim,
Respect your opinion as always. However, seeing as one of the primary responsibilities of our president is to be the nation’s commander-in-chief, I am slightly perplexed as to how service in the military – and therefore firsthand experience with the military and the benefits and – more importantly – the cost of war cannot be considered important.
Also, if you think about it, high-profile veterans like John McCain and Colin Powell tend to be less “hawkish” and more pragmatic when it comes to military action, because they know all too well the costs.
I truly feel Clark had a chance to beat Bush for this reason. When he talks about alternative military plans, he has automatic credibility.
As for Dean, I actually feel he would have been at least more interesting than Kerry. He seemed to speak to a lot of people who feel the Democratic party is becoming Republican-lite. But he rose so fast he became a target early, and the other Democrats just beat him up. Kerry actually got off pretty scot free. Even Edwards and Clark spent more time bashing Bush than explaining why they were BETTER than Kerry.
That’s where the front-loaded primary season, I feel, will turn out to be a mistake. Kerry was able to win by watching Dean and Gephardt knock each other out, and then watch Clark and Edwards undermine each other in trying to be The Kerry Alternative.
He was never really tested, unlike Clinton with Tsongas and Brown, and i think that’s really going to cost him.
Dee,
I think you might be pleasantly surprised. Sure, a lot of people would protest, and there would be draft-dodgers, like always.
But I think a lot of our young people would answer the call.
“Everyone seems to be of the opinion that Kerry’s status as a veteran- in fact, a war hero- makes him the better choice in a presidential election”
See, whereas I think what makes him a better choice is that he seems articulate, intelligent, well-informed, and not interested in–as Aaron Sorkin put it–raising being disengaged to a sort of Zen state.
PAD
“He was never really tested, unlike Clinton with Tsongas and Brown, and i think that’s really going to cost him.”
No, what’s really going to cost him is that he has no more clue how to get out of Iraq than Bush. If all he’s going to do is continue the quagmire of what Bush has gotten us into, then people will figure they might as well stick with Bush. Because they figure that, however staggeringly stupid, sleazy, and inept Bush was in the endeavor, at least he was *sincerely* staggeringly stupid, sleazy and inept.
Or, in the words of Obi-Wan, who is more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him? The fool got us into this, but how much more foolish is the guy who then continues on the fool’s path? At least, that will be the perception.
If Kerry is really going to be a leader, he might have wanted to consider taking a position that was markedly different. One that might not have been instantly popular, but he could have gotten some good discussion going on it, maybe even swayed people with passion and vision of his own. For instance, he might have said, “We need to pull out. Get the troops out of there. We need to say to Iraq, ‘We wanted to help you. You keep killing our people. You know what? Fine. We said we wanted to free you from Saddam. We’ve done that. We’re out of here. Everybody: Soldiers, contractors, aid workers, the whole shebang, gone. We will be happy to send people back in to help you rebuild, but you have to ask us to return, and you have to promise not to keep killing the people who are trying to help you, because what’s happening right now, it’s bullsh*t.”
I’m not saying he should have necessarily said that, but saying *something* outside of the box would, I think, have served him better than just saying, “We can’t pull out now.”
PAD
“See, whereas I think what makes him a better choice is that he seems articulate, intelligent, well-informed, and not interested in–as Aaron Sorkin put it–raising being disengaged to a sort of Zen state.”
See, whereas I think what makes him a worse choice is that he is just a career politician who knows how to talk the talk, spins every question thrown at him(No, no, my family owns an SUV..not me!), and is so well informed that throughout the 90’s he proposed intelligence cuts and labeld them as a “common sense direction”. He offers nothing new to the table other than he isn’t Bush. Like you said, PAD, he has no idea what he is going to do with Iraq. Beyoned that his economic plan is a joke and his job creation plan is funnier still. Most of all John Kerry is too far left for this country and most fence sitters aren’t ready to swing that far left.
Eclark,
I respect your disapproval of my “monkeys” thing and appreciate your politness about it all. However, I tell you with all honesty that it isn’t some personal in-joke insult that I’m sitting back and laughing about. Something anyone of my friends and family members, hëll, anyone who has had a passing acquaintence with me in the last eight or so years could tell you about me is that I like monkeys. I don’t know why (although my mother recently remembered that she was overdue with me, went to a local circus and suddenly went into labor), I just think monkeys are neat and funny.
So, if you choose to not take me seriously, I guess I’ll live with that. You wouldn’t be the first person to do so. Perhaps if I have a comment specifically for you, I’ll avoid my usual sign off if it offends you so much. Otherwise,
Monkeys
PAD,
I agree with most of what you just said. Kerry has not really drawn a distinction between what his plans for Iraq are and how they differ from Bush’s.
So, if you support what Bush is doing in Iraq, why wouldn’t you stick with Bush? And if you don’t, why would you vote for Kerry?
These are questions Kerry has yet to sufficiently address.
Unless he does, I think we may see a Reaganesque landslide this year, which only last month I never thought would happen.
“So, if you support what Bush is doing in Iraq, why wouldn’t you stick with Bush? And if you don’t, why would you vote for Kerry?”
Because Bush is an inept clod (whom the majority of the country didn’t want in the first place) who cynically and ruthlessly capitalized on Post Traumatic Stress of this country after 9/11 to pursue a vendetta against Saddam whom he and his advisors had targeted before setting foot in office.
He did so while repeatedly misleading the country to such a degree that 72% percent of the credulous voters came to believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11 when it was, in fact, Saudis, but the Bush family protects the Saudis due to their history of business dealings. He had spent the last 3 and a half years fulfilling every worst case scenario that our detractors have spent years laying out and has created a new generation of terrorists with concommitant future damage that we can’t even begin to measure yet.
The simple truth is that if 9/11 hadn’t happened, he would have nothing to run on, so miserable is his track record. He owes the prospect of a continued presidency entirely to Osama bin Laden.
I’d vote for Kerry because the *only* shot we have is for Kerry to go before the world and say, “The American people realized Bush was a suck-ášš president and they threw him out. Let’s work together to undo the damage he did.” Definitely worth a try.
PAD
Toby,
So are you the guy who came up with this little ditty that people keep sending to me and I laugh at it each and every time?
I like monkeys.
The pet store was selling them for five cents a piece. I thought that was odd since they were normally a couple thousand. I decided not to look a gift horse in the mouth. I bought 200. I like monkeys.
I took my 200 monkeys home. I have a big car. I let one drive. His name was Sigmund. He was retarded. In fact, none of them were really bright. They kept punching themselves in their genitals. I laughed. Then they punched my genitals. I stopped laughing.
I herded them into my room. They didn’t adapt very well to their new environment. They would screech, hurl themselves off of the couch at high speeds, and slam into the wall. Although humorous at first, the spectacle lost its novelty halfway into its third hour.
Two hours later I found out why all the monkeys were so inexpensive: they all died. No apparent reason. They all just sorta’ dropped dead. Kinda’ like when you buy a goldfish and it dies five hours later. Ðámņ cheap monkeys.
I didn’t know what to do. There were 200 dead monkeys lying all over my room, on the bed, in the dresser, hanging from my bookcase. It looked like I had 200 throw rugs.
I tried to flush one down the toilet. It didn’t work. It got stuck. Then I had one dead, wet monkey and 199 dead, dry monkeys.
I tried pretending that they were just stuffed animals. That worked for a while, that is until they began to decompose. It started to smell real bad.
I had to pee but there was a dead monkey in the toilet and I didn’t want to call the plumber. I was embarrassed.
I tried to slow down the decomposition by freezing them. Unfortunately, there was only enough room for two monkeys at a time so I had to change them every 30 seconds. I also had to eat all the food in the freezer so it didn’t all go bad.
I tried burning them. Little did I know my bed was flammable. I had to extinguish the fire.
Then I had one dead, wet monkey in my toilet, two dead, frozen monkeys in my freezer, and 197 dead, charred monkeys in a pile on my bed. The odor wasn’t improving.
I became agitated at my inability to dispose of my monkeys and to use the bathroom. I severely beat one of my monkeys. I felt better.
I tried throwing them away but the garbage man said that the city was not allowed to dispose of charred primates. I told him that I had a wet one. He couldn’t take that one either. I didn’t bother asking about the frozen ones.
I finally arrived at a solution. I gave them out as Christmas gifts. My friends didn’t know quite what to say. They pretended that they liked them, but I could tell they were lying. Ingrates. So I punched them in the genitals.
I like monkeys.
Toby,
So are you the guy who came up with this little ditty that people keep sending to me and I laugh at it each and every time?
I like monkeys.
The pet store was selling them for five cents a piece. I thought that was odd since they were normally a couple thousand. I decided not to look a gift horse in the mouth. I bought 200. I like monkeys.
I took my 200 monkeys home. I have a big car. I let one drive. His name was Sigmund. He was retarded. In fact, none of them were really bright. They kept punching themselves in their genitals. I laughed. Then they punched my genitals. I stopped laughing.
I herded them into my room. They didn’t adapt very well to their new environment. They would screech, hurl themselves off of the couch at high speeds, and slam into the wall. Although humorous at first, the spectacle lost its novelty halfway into its third hour.
Two hours later I found out why all the monkeys were so inexpensive: they all died. No apparent reason. They all just sorta’ dropped dead. Kinda’ like when you buy a goldfish and it dies five hours later. Ðámņ cheap monkeys.
I didn’t know what to do. There were 200 dead monkeys lying all over my room, on the bed, in the dresser, hanging from my bookcase. It looked like I had 200 throw rugs.
I tried to flush one down the toilet. It didn’t work. It got stuck. Then I had one dead, wet monkey and 199 dead, dry monkeys.
I tried pretending that they were just stuffed animals. That worked for a while, that is until they began to decompose. It started to smell real bad.
I had to pee but there was a dead monkey in the toilet and I didn’t want to call the plumber. I was embarrassed.
I tried to slow down the decomposition by freezing them. Unfortunately, there was only enough room for two monkeys at a time so I had to change them every 30 seconds. I also had to eat all the food in the freezer so it didn’t all go bad.
I tried burning them. Little did I know my bed was flammable. I had to extinguish the fire.
Then I had one dead, wet monkey in my toilet, two dead, frozen monkeys in my freezer, and 197 dead, charred monkeys in a pile on my bed. The odor wasn’t improving.
I became agitated at my inability to dispose of my monkeys and to use the bathroom. I severely beat one of my monkeys. I felt better.
I tried throwing them away but the garbage man said that the city was not allowed to dispose of charred primates. I told him that I had a wet one. He couldn’t take that one either. I didn’t bother asking about the frozen ones.
I finally arrived at a solution. I gave them out as Christmas gifts. My friends didn’t know quite what to say. They pretended that they liked them, but I could tell they were lying. Ingrates. So I punched them in the genitals.
I like monkeys.
Oh well, jeeze, I didn’t mean to post it twice. It ain’t THAT funny.
Everyone seems to be of the opinion that Kerry’s status as a veteran- in fact, a war hero- makes him the better choice in a presidential election.
Actually, if you look at the context of my comments, the question, who understands military strategy more, Kerry or Bush. When the question is put that way, I’ll always go with the guy who has actually seen combat, even if it was “just four months.”
Kerry isn’t my first choice to be president, but after seeing what as disaster Bush has been for our economy, the federal budgement, the environment, and our international relations, I see Kerry as the lesser of two evils.
“Because Bush is an inept clod (whom the majority of the country didn’t want in the first place)”
Actually, no candidate for president has gotten a “majority” of American voters since the elder Bush in 1988. And Bill Clinton only received 43% in 1992 (38% went to Bush’s father, and 19% went for Perot, so 57$ of voters did NOT vote for the winner.) But I don’t think that stopped him from accomplishing some things.
“who cynically and ruthlessly capitalized on Post Traumatic Stress of this country after 9/11 to pursue a vendetta”
This is pretty cynical. You make the man sound more evil than Satan himself.
“The simple truth is that if 9/11 hadn’t happened, he would have nothing to run on, so miserable is his track record. He owes the prospect of a continued presidency entirely to Osama Bin Laden”.
This is not simple truth. It is opinion. If 9/11 hadn’t happened, he would run on the improving economy,his tax cuts, the medicare prescription drug benefit that was supported by the AARP, the No Child Left Behind legislation that he worked with Ted Kennedy to enact, Medicare reform, daring to try and fix Social Security and the usual “hot button” issues like abortion and capital punishment.
You may disagree with all of these things or of their success.
But it’s hardly “nothing to run on”.
You know, at this point I’m convinced if Bush cured cancer people would blame him for throwing people out of work.
Toby,
I like monkeys too! My brother andI always thought they were extremely humorous!
Kepp your sign-off!
Bill Mulligan,
Your monkeys piece was pretty demented – and pretty funny!
Thanks.
Jerome
As a mater of history, a conscripted army never seems to work as well as a paid volunter force. Since the post Vietnam era, our military leaders have agreed that our modern volunteer force is smarter, more motivated, and easier to train. Hëll even the Romans knew this and they took over most of the known world.
After 9-11 if Bush had asked, like Roosevelt did after Peral Harbor,in mass for volunteers, he would have gotten them, but instead he asked us to shop. Now he needs them and lots of people have questions about this war he got us into in Iraq.
Let’s face it, it’s easier to get troops when we’ve been attacked than when the President lies to the world about a war. Josh
If 9/11 hadn’t happened, he would
… still have found an excuse to invade Iraq.
He did so while repeatedly misleading the country
Oh, and PAD, don’t forget about that dirty, rotten Sen. Clinton who stood up and said that her husband’s administration believed Iraq had WMDs…of course you won’t find her saying those things today. ‘Course guys like Ðìçk Morris aren’t letting her forget it.
“Oh, and PAD, don’t forget about that dirty, rotten Sen. Clinton who stood up and said that her husband’s administration believed Iraq had WMDs…”
Yeah, a pity that Clinton sank us into a quagmire of a war in order to go in and get those WMDs…
Oh. Wait.
PAD
Yeah, but he didn’t have a 9/11 to deal with. I know he usually thought with his “other” head, but if he was the president during 9/11 I’m pretty sure Clinton would have gone into Iraq believing they had WMDs.
How do you declare a war on terrorism and then let a country that, according to not only your administration but also the previous, has WMDs, is sitting in the middle of the terrorist hotbed, and is being run by a man who hates the United States?
You don’t.
Oh, sure, you play along with the UN and keep letting the inspectors get kicked out of Iraq, but then what? How long do you wait? More time you give him the more time he has to move his WMDs around. Then the UN security council won’t back the resolutin they signed(thanks to the oil for food scandal).
Then thats it?
“Well, all our intelligence from over the past ten years tells us that Iraq has WMDs but the U.N. has squashed any real ways to deal with the problem. So thats it.”
Yeah right.
Any president would have done the same thing. Most Dems supported Bush after being shown new intelligence and previous intelligence that president Clinton saw. Of course once the WMDs were not there all liberal supporters(minus Lieberman) jumped ship. Snakes.
Mister Clark? You reason well, and even when we disagree I’ll examine your arguments. I didn’t bring up
Anyone feeling a draft?
Peter David is a prolific author, script writer and “writer of stuff”. In his weblog, he writes about his projects…
Anyone feeling a draft?
Peter David is a prolific author, script writer and “writer of stuff”. In his weblog, he writes about his projects…
How do you declare a war on terrorism and then let a country that, according to not only your administration but also the previous, has WMDs, is sitting in the middle of the terrorist hotbed, and is being run by a man who hates the United States?
I don’t know. How DO we let Pakistan just sit there?
Oh wait, I’m sorry. That’s not who you meant.
North Korea?
Um …
TWL
Tim,
You know, most of your arguments are well thought out and reasoned, but this argument made by you and many others is especially weak.
Are you saying you WOULD support us invading North Korea? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Pakistan? Or Iran?
If not, then what is the point, exactly?
If we blitz through a country, we picked on someone who couldn’t fight back.
If we get slowed down, for even three days against those “fighting back”, we’re automatically in a Vietnam-like “quagmire” (liberals LOOOVE using that word. It reminds them of Vietnam, which they love because we lost).
If we attack a “defenseless” country, we’re bullies.
If we attack a country that has nukes/can do us harm like North Korea, we’re being reckless.
When Bush the Father actually got a coalition together, he was still excorciated, especialy for “not finishing the job”.
When Bush the Son “finishes the job” in an incredibly short period of time, deposes a dictator, and does it with extremely low casualties (yes, every loss is a tragedy, but the 709 soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice so far is far lower than the 10,000 projected by some “experts” and definitely miraculous compared to the 58,000 we lost in Vietnam. Of course, the fact we actually fought this war to win may have something to do with that.)and he is excorciated 100 times worse than his father ever was.
My point, as I’ve said multiple times in the past, is that the “we couldn’t just leave this threat sitting there” argument is completely and utterly specious — or utter bûllšhìŧ, if you’d rather I be less diplomatic.
We’ve let threats sit around for decades, and still do. Iraq wasn’t a necessary war — it was a war of opportunity. Every single argument trotted out to justify it is easily applied to multiple other countries we HAVEN’T seen the need to invade.
Afghanistan was a necessary action in light of 9/11 — we’ve done a piss-poor job dealing with it after the fact, but I think there are very few people diagreeing with the necessity of military action there.
Iraq had no connection to 9/11. It was bottled in and represented no immediate danger (or imminent, or “grave and gathering”, or whatever phrase the administration chose to use on a given day). Thus, it was a war of choice, and IMO an incorrect one.
It’s really a very easy argument to follow unless one is intent on misunderstanding it.
And as for such lovely out-of-far-right-field slams like “liberals love Vietnam because it’s a war America lost” — would you stop and listen to yourself for a moment? Do you honestly believe those of us on the progressive side of the aisle hate America and root for the deaths of Americans?
If so, I trust you’d be willing to say it to my face, or that of anyone else here … PAD included. Hëll, if you’re close enough to me geographically I’d even consider driving to meet you and let you do it. Make me an offer.
If not … kindly knock it off, as it flies in the face of your repeated claims to be interested in civil discourse.
TWL
who, in light of references to “Bush the Father” and “Bush the Son”, is waiting for “Bush the Holy Ghost”
“Do you honestly believe those of us on the progressive side of the aisle hate America and root for the deaths of Americans?”
Not you, Tim. Not PAD, not any of the sane folk on this board. Whatever our disagreements, there’s not a one I wouldn’t love to share a brew and/or pizza with, though I think we’d all have a better time if we argued over which was the best season of Buffy, as opposed to whether it’s Bush or Kerry who have the best likelihood to get us through the next 4 years.
But when a (rightly or wrongly) major voice of the left like Michael Moore says crap like “Why should the other countries of this world, countries who tried to talk us out of this folly, now have to clean up our mess? . . . I’m sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sac rifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe – just maybe – God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.” well, you have to wonder about some on the “progressive” side.
Had a republican voiced the hope that Americans in large numbers die in Kosovo, so that it would make Clinton look bad he would have been crucified (and I would have gladly helped to hold down his arms). Mikey will probably get a bye and I’m sure many here will endorse his upcoming movie.
Jerome wrote: “You know, at this point I’m convinced if Bush cured cancer people would blame him for throwing people out of work.”
Funny you should say that. I’m currently working on the ninth issue of my fanzine “Maelstrom,” and I was going to draw a one-page comic strip with a similar twist. The strip would have been on a right-hand page (I’ll explain why later).
The basic plot would have been this: A woman is walking down the street towards the reader. A group of people are just off to the left, but the reader can’t see any of their faces. In the next panel, switch to an overhead view of the same scene, where the reader sees an air conditioning unit hurtling down towards the woman below. In the same panel, an unrecognizeable man in the group is also turning his head just in time to see what is unfolding. In the next panel, cut back to a street view of the scene, where the alerted, but still unrecognizeable man is diving at the woman, knocking her out of the air conditioner’s path, just as it strikes the ground. In the next panel, the woman, realizing her life has just been saved, begins to thank her benefactor, but then recognizes him. “Aren’t you George W. Bush?” she gasps. Bush replies, “Why yes, ma’am, I am.” Then cut to the last panel, where the woman, storming away in anger, shouts, “@!!%#*?? jerk! You’ll do anything for a vote!!”
Now the reason this one-page strip would have been on the right-hand page is because I knew it will evoke extreme reactions in many people, depending on their political leanings. Then, as the angry, or smiling, reader turned the page, there would suddenly have been an identical strip, except with Bill Clinton as the hero.
I recently opted NOT to do the strip, however, because I usually don’t put any purely political stuff in my ‘zine. Thus, anyone reading this who has a suitable venue for the strip is free to swipe the idea and run with it. I hereby declare it public domain. Have fun!! I know I do when I think this stuff up.
Russ Maheras
This doesn’t exactly answer PAD’s question about whether or not a draft is constitutional but I’ll throw it in anyway.
As a 21-year-old male who’s life would most definetly be affected should a draft be initiated, I have to admit that recent discussions about the possibility of the “little man from the draft board” (Daffy Duck is teh sex)showing up at my door with an envelope that essentially says ‘you’re up’ puts a bit of a knot in my stomache. My plans to finish this inane waste of time called college and become a USAF fighter pilot like my father would effectively be put on hold, if not completely shot, altogether.
It’s a change. It’s uncertain. It’s dangerous. It’s frightening. And there’s NO way that I wouldn’t go.
Now, for those who would say that it’s a war we shouldn’t be in in the first place, it’s a quagmire, Bush is an idiot and such the like, I say: whatever. Complain all you want about mistakes made, but the important thing is that we’re there now. The problem is there NOW.
There are certain questions that must be asked before a country initiates a draft:
1. What kind of standing military forces do we have at present?
2. What kind of reserves do we possess to relieve said standing forces?
3. What kind of threat is posed to the homeland by the enemy that our forces presently find themselves engaged with and, secondly, what kind of threat is posed to those forces at present and in the future?
Answers:
1. Plenty. There is not a single branch of the US armed forces that is danger of running out of servicemen from lack of volunteers any time soon. Considering that in 403 days we’ve only lost 718 men and women in Iraq (combat and otherwise) and that all of the military branches are still pulling in more than their quotas for the year, question number one is not going to be a problem.
2. Refer to Answer 1.
3. Here’s the sticky one and the reason for my writing this. At present, there’s little threat to the homeland and there is always, to a certain degree, a threat to U.S. troops when in a foreign, hostile (read middle eastern) country.
Essentially what all the above is getting at is there is not going to be a need for a draft unless something changes, i.e. the Iraqie insurgents get their hands on an abundance of advanced weaponry (not likely), or another hostile country decides to get Iraq’s back (folly because there isn’t a present military that doesn’t like us with the capability to do our military much damage- ‘cept maybe North Korea, but they’ll be little problem and will probably get taken out in the next ten years when their crazy leader lobs a nuke at Japan)(then China… they’ll be a little tougher).
And now my point. If a draft is initiated in this country it will be with very, very good reason. Something that will pose a threat to the homeland itself or an ally will have to happen for a draft to be initiated, and in the unfortunate event that it should happen, any young man who doesn’t answer the call to defend his home and family can go back to France. He can then wait for the problem to work its way up to him until there’s nowhere to run, then start calling for help anywhere he can because he wouldn’t own up to his responsibility in the first place.
Panzy.
“Do you honestly believe those of us on the progressive side of the aisle hate America and root for the deaths of Americans?”
Not you, Tim. Not PAD, not any of the sane folk on this board. Whatever our disagreements, there’s not a one I wouldn’t love to share a brew and/or pizza with, though I think we’d all have a better time if we argued over which was the best season of Buffy, as opposed to whether it’s Bush or Kerry who have the best likelihood to get us through the next 4 years.
Likely true on that last sentence. 🙂
I appreciate the “oh, I didn’t mean you”, Bill — honestly. Unfortunately, you’re not the one who made the comment in the first place.
Your point seems to be that some on the left can get far enough “out there” that much of what they say becomes suspect.
I can’t disagree — but that’s just as true on the right. When you’ve got people advertising on national television for “clear proof that Bill Clinton had Vince Foster murdered!” and sitting members of Congress using pictures of Clinton for target practice on their own personal shooting range … I think that’s pretty far out there as well. (I’d also note that they didn’t get especially crucified for it — the media sentiment seemed to be more of a “oh, well, there they go again, those wacky guys.”)
Regardless, pointing to Moore and saying “therefore all liberals want Americans to die” is about as reasonable as looking at Falwell blaming 9/11 on “the abortionists and the atheists” for 9/11 and concluding that all conservatives cheered the fall of the towers as God’s will.
I realize you didn’t make the “all liberals” generalization, Bill — but Jerome has, repeatedly, and this particular liberal is just about reaching his limit on it.
TWL
“Afghanistan was a necessary action in light of 9/11 — we’ve done a piss-poor job dealing with it after the fact, but I think there are very few people diagreeing with the necessity of military action there.”
You may be surprised, but I’ve heard a large number of people who use the war in Iraq as a sign that the war in Afghanistan was completely unjustified as well. Admittedly, these are mostly college students and professors saying this, so it’s possible that in less enclosed environments most people don’t feel that way, but at least on my college campus a lot of people do.
Also:
“I think we’d all have a better time if we argued over which was the best season of Buffy”
Season three. You don’t mess with the Mayor, my friend.
“Afghanistan was a necessary action in light of 9/11 — we’ve done a piss-poor job dealing with it after the fact, but I think there are very few people diagreeing with the necessity of military action there.”
LOTS of folks argued against attacking Afghanistan–among other things we wetre going to be slaughtered like soviets in the legendary Afghan Winter and millions of innocents would starve.
In reality, the Afghan winters are not great problems for soldiers of a modern army and it would have been well nigh impossible to make things worse for the people than the Taliban had done.
I think that the exaggerated claims of the anti-war folk vis a vis afghanistan made the Iraq war more likely to happen. People stopped believing them.
re Buffy–I agree. the Mayor was the best. Like Bill in KILL BILL he seems to have genuinelty GOOD emotions as well as evil ones, which makes him MORE evil than, say, Glory or Adam, who are arguably evil through no choice or fault of their own.
Genuine sociopaths are scary in that they feel no emotions and have no empathy…but to me the true evil would be in the face of a killer who can smile at the face of their child with love and affection just hours after having slaughtered someone else’s child.
Tim,
You’re right. I made a mistake. I just got done talking about the follies of generalizing groups due to the actions or words of others on another thread, and I just did the same dámņ thing. I apologize.
Do I think all liberals hate America and root for the deaths of Americans? Absolutely not. Notice I didn’t say “of course not” because I obviously haven’t made that clear. Do I feel most do? No. But I have met many who do, and yes, they’ve said it to my face on occasion. How would you take it if immediately after 9/11, the very same week, college students were mocking your concern with “the United States deserves it”, we’re a “baby Britain”, we’re “reaping what we’ve sown” and one of my favorites “that’s politics”.
And i am at least as fed up with some people as you seemingly are (were?) with me when I constantly hear comparisons betwen this war and Vietnam. To me, this dishonors the men and women who fought there and the ones fighting now.
Yet the media was calling Iraq a “Vietnam-like quagmire” after ONE WEEK! When I told an editor about it, he was like “Well, that is the comparison”. Why isn’t the comparison ever World War II, or Grenada, or even Korea?” There is almost a morbid fascination with it.
But anything I say I would say to your face, Tim. In fact, I can picture us laughing our áššëš off debating Buffy and stuff. By the way, Season Three WAS the best, but forget the Mayor. You gotta have Faith!
You’re right. I made a mistake. I just got done talking about the follies of generalizing groups due to the actions or words of others on another thread, and I just did the same dámņ thing. I apologize.
Thank you. Accepted.
The one particular thing I’d question in the rest of your post is that a Vietnam comparison “dishonors the men and women who fought there and the ones fighting now” How so?
I mean, I actually think the comparison is an awfully relevant one (and I realize we’re going to disagree on that point until the sun goes red giant), but I see it as an indictment of the policies and the decisions made by the higher-ups, not of the soldiers fighting it. I don’t see the comparison as particularly reflecting badly on the soldiers in EITHER action, and I’m at a bit of a loss as to why you do.
TWL
And okay, since several others are hopping into it…
I’ve never been able to settle on a single best season of Buffy. Season 2 is the one that sucked me and Lisa into the show, season 3’s got a lot of strong material (including the Mayor, who’s probably the best villain across seven seasons), and I at least really really like a large chunk of season 5, especially the closing episode.
I really need to have a massive DVD-marathon session to be sure, I think. Yeah, that’s it… 🙂
TWL
“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?
Isn’t your last question sort of the one I asked you? My point was that the earlier post didn’t just cite the Supreme Court case, it went into the Supreme Court’s rationale for deciding that way. It’s one thing to say you disagree with the Court’s reasoning, but you have to address the reasoning first. The theory runs thus:
1. The Constitution gives the Congress the right to raise an army and a navy.
2. The Constitution also provides that the Congress may enact laws “necessary and proper” to carrying out their enumerated powers or responsibilities.
3. The draft was enacted by Congress under the theory that conscription is necessary to increase the military to a strength large enough to successfully fight some wars.
4. The Court is traditionally deferential to the Congress’s policy decisions, particularly where the decisions are in relation to national security, and where the Congress specifically addressed the constitutionality of a statute.
Point number 4 is debatable, but also probably unnecessary to the decision. Personally, I find the Court’s position to be a reasonable interpretation of the text, and consistent with their other opinions, so I tend to agree with them (again, with the possible exception of the superfluous point 4). It’s worth noting that even though it was a 6-3 decision, NOBODY questioned the power of the government to have a draft; the issue they fought about was whether the draft was unconstitutional because it was discriminatory based on sex. I certainly agree that in general the fact that the Court said something doesn’t necessarily make that something true, but the fact is that you only get to be a Supreme Court justice by being a highly trained and respected jurist (this opinion was before Clarence Thomas, so let’s leave him out of this), and the fact that all nine of them conceded the basic constitutionality of a draft is at least some evidence they’re right.
And Buffy’s best season was Season Five. The Gift is one of the finest hours of television I’ve ever seen.
David wrote: “It’s worth noting that even though it was a 6-3 decision, NOBODY questioned the power of the government to have a draft; the issue they fought about was whether the draft was unconstitutional because it was discriminatory based on sex.”
If a draft in the U.S. is ever reinstated, and I sincerely doubt it ever will be under current societal circumstances, then, in my opinion, both men AND women should be drafted equally. After all, whatever calamity the U.S. would have to be in to prompt such a drastic reversal of policy would, no doubt, affect everyone.
Russ Maheras
“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….”
Among those opposed to bringing back the draft, if I understand correctly, is Charles Rangel himself. The purpose of bringing up a bill to restore the draft is to force discussion and debate on it before the need to raise additional forces for the war in Iraq necessitates such a measure rather than after.
It is possible to think of that as an attack on Bush and the Republicans, as some previous posters called it. Certainly that’s a frequent tactic in politics (another possible example being the call for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage). In the case of the draft, though, I agree with Rangel that it is an important issue that needs to be considered and discussed sooner rather than later, and think his tactic of introducing a bill to re-instate the draft — a bill which I understand he plans to vote against — is a clever way to bring about that discussion.
I’m inclined to think the desire to bring about discussion is the main reason for Rangel’s actions, and that the opportunity to put Bush and other Republicans in an uncomfortable position is just a bonus to him. Many Democrats are going to be in an equally uncomfortable position, which I’m sure Rangel was aware.
Complain all you want about mistakes made, but the important thing is that we’re there now. The problem is there NOW.
But the problem remains is if Bush gets another 4 years, when will A lead to B?
Meaning, where will he send our troops next to liberate/find wmd/kill terrorists/whatever other reason he comes up with to spread our forces even further?
That’s what I take issue with since we’re supposedly still trying to rebuild Afghanistan as well.
It comes to the point that, regardless of what Bush or Clinton or whoever does, we have to suck it up rather than have them truly justify what the smeg they are doing.
Regardless of what happens, Bush hasn’t justified Iraq. And that will linger.
PAD:
“Because Bush is an inept clod (whom the majority of the country didn’t want in the first place) who cynically and ruthlessly capitalized on Post Traumatic Stress of this country after 9/11 to pursue a vendetta against Saddam whom he and his advisors had targeted before setting foot in office.”
Wow. Name calling right out of the box. A good sign of a good debate.
The first Gulf War NEVER ended. There was a truce called so Saddam could turn over and/or prove the destruction of his long range weapons and his WMD’s. Remember his WMD’s? The ones he used on both enemies and his own people? He never did turn them over or destroy them, thus the war was continued. WMD’s were found in the form of mortars filled with mustard gas and other burning agents. But I guess those don’t count. And neither do the missles that were found by the inpectors and destroyed that could have reached outside the Iraq border. Nope, these just don’t count either.
The US Senate agreed to this action, as well as the UN Security Council. Yet another case of “I voted for then I voted against”.
As for the vendetta thing, the attempted assassination of a current or former President by a foreign power is an act of war. For no other reason, the US would be justified to go after Saddam for that.
“He did so while repeatedly misleading the country to such a degree that 72% percent of the credulous voters came to believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11 when it was, in fact, Saudis, but the Bush family protects the Saudis due to their history of business dealings.”
The Bush administration never said that Iraq was behind 9-11. They said that it was a state that harbored and supported terrorists. Quite a difference there, and if some people can’t understand the difference, then they probably the same ones that accidently voted for Buchanan in Florida.
And aren’t you stretching it a bit when blaming the Saudi government (that’s who the Bush family has had dealings with)? The terrorists that attacked us on 9-11 might have been from Saudi Arabia, but they aren’t representative of their government, nor is there any proof of Saudi government involvement. The terrorists were followers of bin Laden and al-Qa’eda. Blaming a country because of the actions of some it’s citizens is just sad and prejudicial.
He never did turn them over or destroy them, thus the war was continued.
And here we are, a year after we invaded Iraq, and we have no WMD.
Apparently it’s not conceivable that he may have actually destroyed them at some point along the line.
Kind of like how the gov’t couldn’t conceive of fuel-laden planes flying into buildings…
Blaming a country because of the actions of some it’s citizens is just sad and prejudicial.
Now you know how it feels to be an American under the Bush Administration on how the rest of the world views the USA.
Craig,
Seriously, if he HAD destroyed them, don’t you think he would have tried to prove it?
Also, reread one of your earlier posts. How can you blame Dubya for invading Iraq with the explicit purpose of saving American lives (whether you believe that or not) in the long run while at the same time blame Bush the Father for NOT invading Iraq and – presumably – saving lives in the long run?
Please, help me understand.
Craig,
It’s conceivable that Saddam could have actually destroyed them, but the terms of the cease fire dictated that it was to be done by the UN inspectors, or in front of the UN inspectors. Unless you mean by destroying, transporting to Syria or something along those lines. Then Saddam was just playing games and collecting huge amounts of UN money to build palaces, buy cars, murder his own citizens and so on.
It’s obvious that flying planes into buildings was planned long before Bush took office. Who was president for 8 years before Bush when the planning took place? After all, that’s when the first WTC bombing, the attack on the Cole, the US Embassy bombings in Africa and other attacks happened. So, the rest of the world, as you put it, must have hated us then too.
It’s obvious that flying planes into buildings was planned long before Bush took office
You might want to mention that to Dr. Condoleeza “no one could possibly have imagined this” Rice. Seems she disagrees.
TWL
You might want to mention that to Dr. Condoleeza “no one could possibly have imagined this” Rice. Seems she disagrees.
Some people continue to ignore that point. I don’t know why though.
All in all, the WMD argument fails to hold water, regardless, unless we actually find them.
And it’s not like Bush actually cared what the UN had to say on the matter.
Craig and Tim,
Could you please kindly get off Dr. Rice’s back?
Cheese and crackers, it is obvious to me, and I believe anyone else who is not intent on slandering this marvelous woman in order to attack the Bush administration – that she meant her statement the same way you or I may use the term “unimaginable cruelty” to describe the treatment of some political prisoners for example, or “unimaginable acts’ to describe pedophilia by priests, mass murderers like Jeffrey Dahmer, a mother kiling her own young baby, or the murder of a teen by his own teen friends.
It’s one thing to hear and read about these things. It’s another thing when someone actually does them.
Unless you’ve never exclaimed “I don’t believe this!” in your life, could you please cut the esteemed Dr. a break and concentrate on your stronger arguments, which each of you have?
Thanks.
that she meant her statement the same way you or I may use the term “unimaginable cruelty”
If only it were that easy.
There is enough evidence to show that these attacks were long planned.
The fact that NOBODY planned for them in any way shape or form is what I can’t believe.