Has anybody heard any news about the Draft being re-started in the U.S.? I haven't heard anything specific but somebody mentioned that they might reinstate it soon, i'm just wondering if anyone has heard anything about this.

Somebody in Senate wants to reinstate the draft, I believe it is Charles Rangle but I am not sure.

It's not gonna happen though. US has more than enough professional soldiers. One thing that really kills the support back home is casualty, and politicians don't want that. It hurts their careers. From the past, US has learned that the casualty is waaaayyyy down if the war is fought with purely professional soldiers.

Originally posted by Joeman
Somebody in Senate wants to reinstate the draft, I believe it is Charles Rangle but I am not sure.

It's not gonna happen though. US has more than enough professional soldiers.

Could it be possible, ….I mean could it really, really be possible. That since we are preparing to pickup a fight against any insolent out there that doesn’t drink coca-cola and eat McDonal’s once a day, …That we’re going to need to replenish our arm forces by the time Bush’s is out????
…..Just a thought!!
:D

I have no problem with this. Heck, they cant draft me because I have too many medical issues.

This time around they are planning to draft equal amounts of men and women IF it is passed. I doubt the bill will be passed.

I doubt it, where is the need? Did this person really hear reliable information or just some rumor?

Originally posted by aitrus
I doubt it, where is the need? Did this person really hear reliable information or just some rumor?
Yes, it is in the news.
I just got back from Tokyo and it was in CNN. :m:

I live here in America and it is absolutly true that reinstating the draft is going to the legislature.

This goes to the legislature every year, ever since we removed the draft.

Anyways, so this thread isn't totally worthless, I'll post something from happy fun pundit (http://www.happyfunpundit.com):HFP: Hi, everybody!
Conyers and Rangel: Hi, Happy Fun Pundit!
HFP: Thanks for stopping by. Now, would either of you like to explain why the U.S. needs a draft?
Rangel: To make our military more effective!
HFP: But the military doesn't want the draftees. What would they do?
Rangel: Well, we could employ them in non-military work then.
HFP: You mean, like slave labor?
Rangel: I wouldn't put it that way. Our nation would be stronger if there was a feeling of shared sacrifice among the population.
HFP: There was. It was called the Clinton administration. Nyuk Nyuk. I kill me.
Rangel: Shared sacrifice is important. It pulls a nation together.
HFP: But isn't there a cheaper way to do that? Like, couldn't you just hire someone to just go from door to door slapping people in the head? Or, you could pass a law forcing all cable TV stations to broadcast 'Donahue' for six hours a night. Hell, I'd sign up for military service to get away from that crazy bastard.
Rangel: Go ahead and laugh, but America was built on shared sacrifice. Here - read my copy of the Declaration of Independence. I carry it with me wherever I go. That's how much I love my country.
HFP: Let me check. Let's see... Life...Liberty...Pursuit of Happiness...Oh, here it is. "To maintain the security and freedom of the people, the people should be enslaved for two years upon reaching their 18th birthday, just to teach them that life sucks." Wow. How did all those constitutional scholars miss that?
Rangel: It's a mystery.
HFP: I notice that clause is written in pencil. Oh, look: You've got a copy of the constitution here, too...
Rangel: Give me that!
HFP: I see you've crossed out the second amendment...
Rangel: Can we get back to the issue? Seriously, part of the problem is that there are too many minorites in the military. We need to even that out.
HFP: But they are volunteers, aren't they? Don't minorities have a right to choose? I thought it was a good thing when opportunities were open for minorities. Isn't the military the very embodiment of equality? Aren't minorities disproportionally signing up because the military provides them excellent opportunities for job training and career advancement?
Rangel: But if we go to war, minorities will be killed disproportionately.
HFP: So, let me get this straight - it's bad to have too many minorities voluntarily sign up for military service, so the solution is to force more minorities into the military at gunpoint, so long as an equal number of white people go with them? Is that what you're saying? And since the military says that an all-volunteer force is more effective than a drafted force, you're willing to lower the efficiency of the military and therefore also risk the lives of the minorities who are already there? Is that your point?
Rangel: Well, now that you put it that way, it sounds kinda nuts, doesn't it?
HFP: Okay, Mr. Conyers: Didn't you sponsor a bill last year calling for a permanent end to the draft? Didn't you say the draft was immoral and unnecessary? Why the change?
Conyers: Uh, well, we weren't fighting a war then.
HFP: Yes we were.
Conyers: Oh yeah. Well, the military didn't need the people then.
HFP: It doesn't need them now. Nor does it want them.
Conyers: Look, the logic is impeccable, if you just... LOOK OVER THERE! A BABY WOLF!
[Conyers runs out of room]
HFP: It would appear that Mr. Conyers has a previous engagement. Let's put our cards on the table, okay? You don't really want a draft, do you? Aren't you really just trying to raise opposition to the war by threatening the population? Aren't you really saying, "If you support this war, I'll take your child away from you for two years"?
Rangel: No, no. We just want people to understand what the risks are.
HFP: You mean the risk that your elected representative will do something incredibly stupid, like call for a draft when the military doesn't want or need it? And isn't part of this that you're trying to whip up a bunch of anti-war sentiment by threatening students? Aren't you trying to bring back the peace protests of the Vietnam era?
Rangel: I dig hippie chicks.
HFP: Okay, Charlie. I think we've asked enough questions for today. I'll let you get back to 1972 now.
Rangel: Far out, man.

Kyle, that's hilarious. Thanks for cheering me up a little, lol

I like the part "i dig hippie chicks" HAHAHA

:D

time for all the right wing morons to put there lives where there mouth is


i bet all the pro solders are all for using you morons for canon fodder the way you have been talking about THERE lives

When I first heard news of Rep. Rangel's plan to reinstate the draft I was slightly concerned about being drafted, but the fear went away just like it did after 9/11. I'm a liberal, and am more concerned about far-right politics like the draft being introduced into our governement. Conservatives and their politics must be stopped! :eek:

Hey pine_net if they do make a draft come here and ill put you up well away from your evil goverment:)

Apparently most on the enlisted personnel come from low income people, statically cover overwhelming all arm forces. In contrast, (CNN) children from our political and economic elite seem to have always developed and allergy to serve “militarily” their own country.

The idea behind all of this, is that if draft is approved, all sweet boys and girls will have to park their Ferraris on the side and go to clean dishes in the army and of course based on where our political system’s is driving, to possible WARs.

By doing this, it is expected that when we play the drums of war, the wealthy sector of our population spectrum will also feel the risk of loosing love ones and may act a little more consequent in supporting diplomacy or instead bully brainless attitudes.

I think this drafting issue is a Fair thing!! It is about fairness anyway.
;)

No way! The millitary apparatus is perfect to cover up a lot of the social/economic contrasts in the states. When preppies are drafted, the army will get full and the new generation of poor americans will roam the streets instead, wanting a piece of the cake, causing trouble.

No it is much better to have some of the poor people in the army, have an occaisional war so that the casualties allow for new poor recutes to take their place. The remaining poor people, you make one halve policman to watch the other halve, you know catch thieves with thieves.

Workz for North-Korea, why do you think they have a million people in the army, because they are starving in the country and they need the army to keep the people in the streets from revolting and they split up the army in 5 or 6 pieces to watch the other parts of the army to prevent palace-revolutions....

Not approved regardless how patriotic it sounds!

It is customary to train recruits with empty brain (sort of speak), so that they can easily indoctrinated if not brainwashed to defend our mother land with toothpicks if necessary.
This is clear when noticing that most indoctrinated militias have a one-tracked mind, the only thing they respect is chain of command and shit in they trousers when kick by a superior.

If the drafting is approved as it is intended, more and more youngsters with higher education and able to think by themselves will compromise the good old military doctrine, complicating matters and questioning the real faculty of our current leaders in the various corps.
:o

If the drafting is approved as it is intended, more and more youngsters with higher education and able to think by themselves will compromise the good old military doctrine,
All the smart ones will get out of the draft some way. The districts with a poor education system are where the soldiers will come from. Especially now, the government can hold back school aid for poorer towns. These school districts will become the breeding ground for the army.

The military will give these people an education much better than the one that was available before. All those commercials about a hundred ways you can be part of the US Army is crap. For most unorthodox jobs you need a college education. There is one way to be apart of it without having the money and time to go to college, and that is to be the first group sent out there when war is "declared."

sad

here they pay you to train

ie they pay you to go to uni, cover the hex debt ect

There are about one billion Islamics who absolutely hate us. There is also An equall number of Chinese who feel the world would be better off without us. A few years down the line when the chinese have become technologically superior to us, and start supplying the Islamics with sophisticated weapons, all hell is going to break loose, and there will be a draft. OK OK so now you are wondering how the Chinese could ever become techhnically superior to us. We are exporting our technology to them at a rate unsurpassed in history. While American kids sit around and play video games the Asian kids are learning how to design, build, and sell video games. There is a lot more profit in producing and selling weapons and the chinese are well aware of that fact. .................INCOMING

Speaking as one who was drafted, I can tell you it sucks. Still, the idea does have merits and ones that maybe aren't being displayed.

In these days of liberal raising of kids, many have no idea of what it means to make a living. Many have no idea of respect for authority or what law abiding is. For those things the military is great.

For free thinking, that falls by the wayside. It is one of the things the military does not on the whole value. Free thinking leads to questioning. Something the military can not have and survive in its present form.

The idea that maybe the rich would support diplomacy more is a welcome thought. The US is far to warlike in its present form.

I too was faced with the draft. I joined the Air Force shortly berfore the draft notice arrived. And I agree entirely with the eloquently written comments of the previous reply. My greatest concern is that we currently have a generation of young people who have never had to be responsible for their actions. And whether they will be able to adjust to the strict regimented life that will be needed for them to defend this nation in a "major" conflict.

Yes, Charlie Rangle introduced a bill to re-instate the draft. BTW, Rangle is Congressman from NY, not a Senator. His thinking is that it is not just the children of the poor and middle calss that should have to fight "to uphold the American way of life." He believes that the children of the rich should also have to fight for their country.

Rest assured, there is no way in heaven or hell that this will ever pass the Congress. Besides, it is rather untenable. One cannot just take recruits from a draft and turn them into modern day soldiers. The U.S. military is now a very complex fighting unit that requires a great deal of training., education, and dedication. Oh, and the costs would be astronomic.

In the unlikely event of a draft for an unjust war, just leave the country. Flip burgers in Canada, which will be glad to have you because you’re of high intelligence. After the war you’ll be pardoned by the President due to pressure from business wanting back the young brains.

My thoughts exactly..more or less.

I have plans, and having the draft ruining those plans..arent part..of the plans..yeah :rolleyes:

But you know what i mean.

There are about one billion Islamics who absolutely hate us.

Blatant, complete generalization. I don't doubt that the people our upper class are trying to kill think the same thing about every american.

There is also An equall number of Chinese who feel the world would be better off without us.

Also a generalization. The Chinese government is changing for the better, it's taking awhile, but I feel that based on what I've seen it's at least trying to move in the direction of republic or at least capitalism under despotism. Capitalism=youth with intelligence. Youth with intelligence=democratic revolution.

A few years down the line when the chinese have become technologically superior to us, and start supplying the Islamics with sophisticated weapons, all hell is going to break loose, and there will be a draft.

I see a consistency in this post of yours, however if the chinese are dependent upon us I doubt that they will go beyond our technology. At the moment the US and Japan are the forefront of scientific discovery--not the chinese, they're decades behind in several key achievements (space station, man-in-space, etc, which they are working on). They've worked their asses off to get to where we were a long time ago and that's not going to change because their population isn't allowed to innovate for itself like ours is.

While American kids sit around and play video games the Asian kids are learning how to design, build, and sell video games

Generalization. Like a great deal of my friends (if not, all of them) I play and enjoy video games. I do many other things and delegate equal amounts of time to them. I write, I do schoolwork, I read about history and politics, I play video games, and I sleep. I will stress to the previous generation (of which you undoubtedly belong) that not all video games are violent, brainsucking entities bent on taking up time we would have spent setting fires. While a great deal of them are, others require creative thinking to accomplish goals against challenging opponents that can rival human logicities. Just try to keep that in mind;)

When I did my radio show one fellow called up who asked us if he thought it would be better to reinstate the draft, so that we could change the military from the inside, those of us that hate wars and hate fighting. Although I didn't exactly understand his question (he didn't quite make himself clear) he made an interesting point and I later thought about it.

The fact is, if all of us were drafted, only a few of us would remain in the military after our time was up, the rest of us would at least try to pursue a more lucrative profession. If all of us were to remain and replace the career soldiers and ascend the ranks, then yes, possibly we could attempt a coup and reorganize the US government, but that idea alone suggests that a civil war would undoubtedly erupt, one on a scale never seen on this planet before. As such, maybe it is better to live the way we do and hope for things to change over a longer period of time, that way the genocide that would take place would be averted completely.

I feel that if you vote conservative, you should be the first to go to war, the first to be laid off from your job, and the first to lose your social security. If this is how our nation worked then it would take less than a decade to have a legislature that worked for the majority and not the representatives of the minority. They deserve that fate, not the innocent people that know the sublime difference between good and evil.

I am glad to see such a brilliant reply from a young writer. And I encourage you to pursue your goals.
Do remember however that much in life can only be learned through experience.
I can only use generalizations because there are no true facts. Every thing about this world is in a continuous flux and what is fact one day is a falsity the next.
I do know that I would not want to walk down the street of an Islamic city with an American flag in my hand. There is just as much prejudicial propoganda in their culture as there is in ours.
The Chinese have in fact gained a tremendous amount of technology in recent years due both to their own efforts and to the fact that hundreds of factories have been esatablished there by the Americans, Koreans, and the Japanese. Hopefully the Chinese people will use this knowledge wisely, but that is not something that can be predicted.
The old addage "history tends to repeat itself" still applies. The United states continues to make the same mistakes over and over.
I am not an advocate of war. Our return to Iraq is, to me, one of those repeated mistakes. I am a disabled veteran and believe me I know what it is like to be used, lied to, and then forgotten.

I leave you with a quote made by A general in the United States Army whose name I cannot remember.
The United States military is and always will be the pawn of big business This quote was made in 1917.

do we want the army to crush out all free thought tho?

Originally posted by Pollux V
[QUOTE]
I feel that if you vote conservative, you should be the first to go to war, the first to be laid off from your job, and the first to lose your social security. If this is how our nation worked then it would take less than a decade to have a legislature that worked for the majority and not the representatives of the minority. They deserve that fate, not the innocent people that know the sublime difference between good and evil.

That is an exceedlingly absurd idea. Militaries are not formed to defend worthless errant pacifistic liberals too immersed in their preoccupation to care about their own nation. Militaries protect countries, not those too indolent and self-absorbed to contribute.

The draft, if instituted and enforced once more, will engender a new age of dedication and fervor. It may include considerable if not overwhelming drudgery and tedium, and it may not even be economically or strategically prudent. However, it will foster and augment the conviction of patriotism which America lost decades ago (porbably some time after the McCarthy Era). The modern youth, devoid of any conception of proud devotion to a greater body than one's own career, will partake in the lurid practices of war and "see the elephant." The draft is not about expediency or politics. It's about obligation.

Good and Evil? Those are fanciful dellusions, misguiding fallacies in the realm of the military recruitment. It's as simple as this: If you reside in a particular country with need of you, pick up a gun and lend aid. If you refuse, leave and never return. Without the draft, it's no longer requisite for any one citizen to assist his or her country. If anything in this world of idiotic policies can be "evil," this sad paucity of resposibility and noble spirit is.

Originally posted by Pollux V
I feel that if you vote conservative, you should be the first to go to war, the first to be laid off from your job, and the first to lose your social security. If this is how our nation worked then it would take less than a decade to have a legislature that worked for the majority and not the representatives of the minority.

Bush was picked by the majority of the electorate which he now represents. Don’t underestimate his supporters; many of them can take unlimited abuse without realizing they’re doing it to themselves.

Originally posted by Redoubtable
The draft is not about expediency or politics. It's about obligation.

More often it’s about money and power. There’s no nobility in slicing up Iraqi kids so your leader can pay off his campaign contributors.

It's as simple as this: If you reside in a particular country with need of you, pick up a gun and lend aid. If you refuse, leave and never return.

Unless you’re brainwashed it’s not that simple. Draftees can often better serve their country by going AWOL. Many in Germany circa 1940 realized that.

Do remember however that much in life can only be learned through experience.

I've learned this all too well. Unfortunately it doesn't apply to everyone...

(paraphrase) "The rich are wealthier, therefore they're more liable to spend money."

--Our current President

I'll never underestimate the value of experience. I've looked back through my posts over the years that I've been here, and the person that came here in april of 2000 is completely different and would not recognize the person that he is now.

Anyway

I can only use generalizations because there are no true facts. Every thing about this world is in a continuous flux and what is fact one day is a falsity the next.

I can see this philosophy applied to some circumstances but not to others. "The only true fact is your own opinion." I do agree that opinions on a broader scale do change, and therefore then so do the facts or really just "common knowledge," but some facts, or words, rather, as well as their definitions, have remained over thousands of years. The Bible is the best example but I'd rather get into that, even if religion and politics are the same word...

I do know that I would not want to walk down the street of an Islamic city with an American flag in my hand. There is just as much prejudicial propoganda in their culture as there is in ours.

No, no neither would I. You'll never see me walking down a street with an american flag anywhere--what it represents locally, nationally, and internationally is too great a reason to ignore. I'd only use it to hide a protest sign, so that I'd be able to stick around until I could get my chance to shout negative things at politicians.

Hopefully the Chinese people will use this knowledge wisely, but that is not something that can be predicted.
The old addage "history tends to repeat itself" still applies. The United states continues to make the same mistakes over and over.
I am not an advocate of war. Our return to Iraq is, to me, one of those repeated mistakes. I am a disabled veteran and believe me I know what it is like to be used, lied to, and then forgotten.


Yes, history repeats itself, often times looking at small populations and their conflicts with one another can eaily be applied to the world as a whole. Unless there is a massive social reform it cannot be doubted that sooner or later this new technology--which I might point out, China doesn't really need in the first place [to kill us all]--will be used for negative purposes. In spite of the evil that the atomic bomb represents, without its presence a war with the USSR would have erupted over sometime in the last century. Although it can be a terrible weapon it can also be and has been for fifty years the safeguard of global war and mass genocide on a scale like that of WW2.

That is an exceedlingly absurd idea. Militaries are not formed to defend worthless errant pacifistic liberals too immersed in their preoccupation to care about their own nation. Militaries protect countries, not those too indolent and self-absorbed to contribute.

I would easily disagree. Militaries are formed to enforce interests, not protect them. They are also formed of anyone but pacifists, and if they're defending a nation, as you are saying that they do, then who do you think they're defending, eh? More militants? I've found that to centralize your opinions on your own region or nation rather than the world and greater humanity as a whole has more often than not led to conflict and war. Are you an advocate of that?

The draft, if instituted and enforced once more, will engender a new age of dedication and fervor. It may include considerable if not overwhelming drudgery and tedium, and it may not even be economically or strategically prudent. However, it will foster and augment the conviction of patriotism which America lost decades ago (porbably some time after the McCarthy Era). The modern youth, devoid of any conception of proud devotion to a greater body than one's own career, will partake in the lurid practices of war and "see the elephant." The draft is not about expediency or politics. It's about obligation

Being a part of America's youth, I can tell you, Redoubtable, that the media and our government has done the best job yet to brainwash people that I know. As far as I know the youth of america is just another bastion of support for conservative ideals, myself being part of a minority that will not support any more than a true defensive war (unlike any of what our politicians are engaged with now) and will certainly not support the destruction of the most powerful economy on Earth. Unfortunately, since its creation the ultimate power of the US has been used to smother cultures and businesses within its own borders and without, when it could have instead been used to promote peace through means other than war, and could have been used to jumpstart ailing economies of other nations, so that greater diversity could be established just as it had been for thousands of years.

Good and Evil? Those are fanciful dellusions, misguiding fallacies in the realm of the military recruitment. It's as simple as this: If you reside in a particular country with need of you, pick up a gun and lend aid. If you refuse, leave and never return. Without the draft, it's no longer requisite for any one citizen to assist his or her country. If anything in this world of idiotic policies can be "evil," this sad paucity of resposibility and noble spirit is.

I am ashamed to be associated by age to such likes as you. The philosophies of good and evil apply to everything, there is no single idea, action, or opinion that has not been influenced by personal interpretations of good and evil. To me, evil is the death of any creature or human being by means of a human being, regardless of excuse--whether it be vengeance, murder, or an order to fire. Evolution has endowed mankind with something never seen on Earth before: the ability to interpret the difference between the do. Every single person on Earth has a choice: they can take the easy way, the bad way, and fight each other, or they can labor and work out each other's differences. The very concept of a police force is understandable, people aren't perfect, but a concept of a military, to fight wars between behemoth nations is absurd, and should have long ago been forgotten with other archaic relics of a childhood past.

Our technology is advancing, our means of killing each other is advancing, and we are not advancing with it. Our philosophies promoting peace over war have not been absorbed, we are still the same age that we were when we emerged from the cradle of africa, our race has not matured. We are still two year olds sucking on the triggers of pistols, every last one of us.

If this world were all on one and the same page then much of what you say would be the bastion of truth and honor, Pollux V. Unfortunately, it seems that every one reads a different page in that book.

To quote (gasp) Rush Limbaugh (spelling is terrible), the purpose of an army is to break things and kill. That pretty much sums it up. When you get a paranoid nation such as N. Korea what do you do with it? N. Korea is going to do pretty much what it wants. It is a sovereign nation. Diplomacy only goes so far. I do sincerely hope that we never go to war with them, again. Their values are not ours. Nor will their responses be. Truly, I greatly fear them for this.

At the same time, I have a good deal of heart burn for the way our military deals with those who have received injuries due to the actions that put the solider into harms way. Vietnam and Desert Storm play the same in this aspect. Agent Orange and the Desert Storm syndrome were and are responsible for many friendly injuries. Ones that our military did everything it could to deny. Including the refusal to say it existed or to treat those that received those injuries with full medical compensation. That is not the way things are done. As such, it leads me to believe that the US plays the shell game when taking responsibility for its own actions with its own soldiers. What a sham and a disgrace. By not taking care of its own, to me, it has violated any right to a draft of the populace. As sad as I am to say this, I would not blame anyone for the abandoning of ones country because of this fact, when facing draft.

I did not do that. I served my country and was luckily enough not to be exposed to such. But it was luck only not choice or say so. It is not that I am unpatriotic or wish my country ill. It is I am ashamed of the tradition being broken the way it has. That veterans, especially disabled veterans, must put up with this kind irresponsible behavior from the party directly responsible for those veterans receiving the health conditions that they must now deal with on their own. How pathetic can ones military be when it comes to facing up to its own responcibilities...

Wet1 just a point that australia is no better in that

when par came home from the war he was a hero but as soon as he got sick from the posioning from horosima the department for vetrans affairs threw all that away

he never recived a $ untill after he died and mum and nan worked SO hard to get nan on a war widows pention

its a bloody discrace

Originally posted by Pollux V
We are still two year olds sucking on the triggers of pistols, every last one of us.

Hah! What then, is it you suggest we do, oh sagacious, omniscient preacher of peace? Do you exhort that we abandon those proverbial teats upon which we have suckled since times immemorial? Since antedilluvian day we have eagerly sown the seeds and gathered the harvests of war to revel in its sustenance. Nations thrive on war! The US overcame the Depression due to the sanguine yet lucrative promises of human strife in a new World War. War is a life-taker and a life-giver, and will never be abolished as were cannibalism and human sacrifice (other morbid and iniquitous exercises to which you might compare war).

As to the youth of today and their sore lack of conviction, they may never know war in their lives, but their progeny will not escape it if they do. Compromises cannot appease the "behemoth nations" of which you expound, and rationally composed treaties bolstered by tactful diplomacy will never replace the brutality of conflict. The rancor of man is too staunch, too unyielding to ever be suppressed by serene sensibility or well-performed negotiation.

All you folks can stay home with the women.

Originally posted by Mr. G
All you folks can stay home with the women.
Which brings up an interesting question, would women be drafted also?

....would women be drafted also?
Do you mean: let's nuture our enemies to death? ;)

Redoubtable – I knew under that obligation, responsibility and noble spirit was a simple warmonger. Admit it, you just want to kill kill kill. Our youth’s progeny can replace the brutality of conflict with tactful diplomacy. They need only wait until people like you are gone.

Do you mean: let's nuture our enemies to death?

Not quite.

The question is will conservatives raise the issue of women being drafted, perhaps to weaken the argument for equality with men and women in the military.

If there is a draft, this will become a issue, especially with huge influence of conservative talk radio, and Fox News.

Joining the US armed services currently is an entirely voluntary decision.

The US armed forces is an employer. People volunteer to be their employee.

Enlistees are playing the odds they'll survive the employment to realize the lucrative retirement benefits.

Those who can attain the same without enlisting don't.

Life's a bitch, and all the whiners do just that.

im surprised that ANYONE is going to defened you

if i was in the US millatary i would SHOOT you not defened you

Hah! What then, is it you suggest we do, oh sagacious, omniscient preacher of peace? Do you exhort that we abandon those proverbial teats upon which we have suckled since times immemorial? Since antedilluvian day we have eagerly sown the seeds and gathered the harvests of war to revel in its sustenance. Nations thrive on war!

I prefer that if you're going to use a big adjective to describe me, make sure that it's salacious;)

What should we do? Simple: stop fighting! It's impossible to keep individuals from fighting...but the prospect of whole nations warring is again preposterous. Disbanding armies, tanks, navies, and air forces and leaving only enough to keep order would be necessary, although this may not be the solution. Discontinuing the construction of nuclear arsenals would also be needed, but the weapons themselves should not be disbanded. If the only weapons we have to destroy ourselves are the ultimate weapons then we're less liable to do so.

Btw, let me just say that you don't appear to be arguing any of my points, do you concede defeat?

The rancor of man is too staunch, too unyielding to ever be suppressed by serene sensibility or well-performed negotiation

You lack faith in our species, I see. Again, turn your attention to microcosms. Often times a small group of people can easily represent the entire world as a whole. If you look closely you'll undoubtedly realize that it is exceedingly rare that people fight physically for reasons other than that they have to and have been forced to from various circumstances.

War is a life-taker and a life-giver, and will never be abolished as were cannibalism and human sacrifice (other morbid and iniquitous exercises to which you might compare war).

You cannot compare war to these things. Cannabalism, in its limited forms, of which, based on your opinions in free thoughts, you have limited knowledge of, is practiced, as far as I know, on only the already-dead (not killed, not sacrificed) and as merely a ritual. And rituals themselves also cannot be compared to modern war, the people and the animals killed were simply victims of their cultures, as are warriors of those periods and the current one. The difference between then and now is that we can grow out of this stage that we have remained in for the entire history of our race. With the power of the internet and other technology, with democracy, and with social reform it can be done.

You look at cannabilism as an awful thing, yet you hate human life. I find your logic questionable.

I heard about some senators wanting to reinstate the draft. It was funny because they were DEMOCRATIC senators, notorious for their anti-war rhetoric. Have they finally converted I thought? Could it be that they have seen the light? NO. They are just using it as a clever anti-war protest---a way of forcing middle america to see the war in more personal terms.

Onto other matters... I personally think they should re-instate the draft, but only for people over 55 because those are the ones who trully run the country, make the decisions, and vote regularly. If they want to fight a war, well then by God, let's clear the nursing homes, and let them go to battle. As an added benefit, their example of respect for authority and good citizenship will help us youngens learn.

Originally posted by Mr. G

Life's a bitch, and all the whiners do just that.
That post by Mr G is, of course, just whining...

Defense disputes racial imparity--By Bill Gertz, THE WASHINGTON TIMES (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030114-27407742.htm)

only for people over 55 because those are the ones who trully run the country, make the decisions, and vote regularly.

I have done my duty. It is someone elses time. (prehaps yours)

There seems to be a number of young people here who think that they have all the answers to our social problems. And when I still lived at home with Mommy I did also. But when you of the younger generation have to deal with real life you will be shocked down to your very souls by having to survive against the actual cruelty, frustration, and brutality that you are going to have to face. Draft only those over 55 , is a classic example of one with a gameboy mentality, totally not yet in touch with the real world.

or could it be that young people can see how the world SHOULD be (without all the fat cat companys sucking up every peice of natural resorce left) and that as you get older you get apathetic???

ever noticed that young people vote to the left?

When I was young, I had all the answers. (Or so I thought) I was ready to go out and change the world and it was my oyster, so to say.

When I got older, I realised I didn't have all the answers, never would, and that much of what I thought, either was not true or was unworkable.

Society is a marvelous ironing board when it comes to this. The bumps and dips get leveled. So is life for that matter. You find that what seemed so easy is never as easy as it appeared.

ANYTHING would be better than the system we have now with greedy corperations riping the world to bits

Ah but when I was young I did see the world as it should have been. I do agree with you about the fat cat companies. And I do vote liberal. I am not apathetic or I would not be here. But as the body ages and one loses that exuberance of youth it becomes more difficult to present a forceful opposition to those who dominate us. Don't count out all of the older people, many are on your side and you will need them to make any significant change.;)

...Mr. G is, of course, just whining...
Conceptual braggadocio: maybe. Whining: not.

Whining is the province of those powerless to affect the operations of the universe by mere protest and invective. Not neccessary for those able to shape local reality by doing--earning a brag.

ANYTHING would be better than the system we have now with greedy corperations riping the world to bits

Oh, of course, such as greedy government officials riping the world to bits. :rolleyes:

You have not replied or contested my points. Concede defeat, you coward.

Speaking of not replying, Pollux V, when you said “violence is never the answer” I twice asked you:

Someone is about to throw a Molotov cocktail into a crowd. What do you do?

Sorry Zanket, I didn't see...

If I'm in the crowd, I get the hell out of the crowd. If I can save anyone, I'll take them with me.

If I'm next to the guy throwing the cocktail, I'll do whatever I can to stop him.

If I didn't answer your question appropriately, please go into more detail. Again, I'm sorry, I guess I look like a hypocrit here...is there anything else?

Am I reading you right that you’re not opposed to violence if you’re next to the guy?

You weren't specific enough on where I was at the time. I had to take whatever I could think of into account.

Somehow I doubt that my answer was unique.

Agreed. Next time I’ll be more specific. My point is that if violence is never the answer, violence isn’t minimized.

Potential draftees take note: Speaking of the 11 million Americans who, during the Vietnam years, answered their country's draft call and the 2 million who served in Vietnam, Rumsfeld alleged ( http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/column.shields.opinion.rumsfeld/) that these draftees “added no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time, because the churning that took place, it took enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone.”

One more reason to flee the country if there is draft for an unjust war. Teach this to the kids.

The article goes on to say that the U.S. has effectively imposed a draft within the armed services. “Marines who had completed their voluntary enlistments or their 20 years and had chosen to return to civilian life or retirement will instead remain, involuntarily, in the service.” “This action ... means the volunteer U.S. military is no longer all-volunteer.”

Originally posted by Pollux V

I would easily disagree. Militaries are formed to enforce interests, not protect them.

You make some good arguments but I would have to disagree here. And the US military is an example. In the early days of the Republic the Federalists kept a standing army of 6000, plus Congress had approved funding for a handful of frigates. When Jefferson assumed office in 1801, one of his first acts was to cut military funding in half, stop the construction on the frigates (they built a few small coastal gunboats instead), and cut the army down to less than 3000 (mainly if needed on the western frontier). There was no high command. There was a Sect. of War and the president as C-in-C in times of war. It wasn't until the Barbary Pirates started raiding American shipping that Jefferson did an about face and ordered construction of the frigates, and later as France and Britian started seizing US shipping on the high seas during the Napoleonic Wars that Jefferson reluctantly asked Congress to approve funding to increase the size of the army and build shore batteries. Madison would contnue this as America moved closer to war prior to 1812.

Until post-WWII the US had always been loathe to keep a standing army. Too many memories of British troops staioned in America, particularly from 1763-1776. The US had always decommissioned immediately at the end of war. They did it after the Civil War and again at the end of the Great War. They decommissioned 4m men in one fell swoop in 1918. When the US entered WWII they had the 19th rated army in the world. As troops trained for war they had to build wooden frames around trucks to resemble tanks for manuevers and troops even trained with wooden guns. What guns were available dated back to WWI. At the end of WWII the US decommissioned most of its 12m man military, but with the reality that the US and Russia were now the two dominant superpowers, and that they represented capitalists interests versus communists interests, the US began to take its role very seriously. And I think it is after this point that we begin to see the arrogance that comes with power.

<i>Speaking of the 11 million Americans who, during the Vietnam years, answered their country's draft call and the 2 million who served in Vietnam, Rumsfeld alleged that these draftees “added no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time, because the churning that took place, it took enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone.”</i>

Yeah, let Rumsfeld tell that to the families of those draftees that died. He's basically saying that they were cannon fodder.

Originally posted by aitrus
Oh, of course, such as greedy government officials riping the world to bits. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately we ( NZ ) have both government and officials ripping the country off...

But the sheeple are slowly becoming awake to it ..

We do not have a constitution.. elected officials of what ever size .. ie local or central government have total control when elected..

Originally posted by Coldrake
Speaking of the 11 million Americans who, during the Vietnam years, answered their country's draft call and the 2 million who served in Vietnam, Rumsfeld alleged that these draftees “added no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time, because the churning that took place, it took enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone

Yeah, let Rumsfeld tell that to the families of those draftees that died. He's basically saying that they were cannon fodder. Perhaps they were. Would you prefer to have politicians that only tell you nice things? Would you prefer to waste another few hundred thousand lives because you don't want to admit that the first few hundred thousand were wasted? You are essentially attempting to refute Rumsfeld's statement by saying 'it can't be true because if it were true it would be unpleasant,' which is absurd.

Originally posted by Nasor
Perhaps they were. Would you prefer to have politicians that only tell you nice things? Would you prefer to waste another few hundred thousand lives because you don't want to admit that the first few hundred thousand were wasted? You are essentially attempting to refute Rumsfeld's statement by saying 'it can't be true because if it were true it would be unpleasant,' which is absurd.

No, what I'm saying is that I fought in Vietnam and while I wasn't a draftee, I met many guys who absolutely did not want to be there, but did their duty despite that. And I think Rumsfeld is dishonoring the memory of those draftees who died over there fighting for their country, and for him to make that comment pisses me off. Now, would you like to dissect that statement?

Originally posted by Coldrake
No, what I'm saying is that I fought in Vietnam and while I wasn't a draftee, I met many guys who absolutely did not want to be there, but did their duty despite that. And I think Rumsfeld is dishonoring the memory of those draftees who died over there fighting for their country, and for him to make that comment pisses me off. Now, would you like to dissect that statement? It would be tragic if Rumsfeld is correct, but you can't refute him by simply saying that you find it offensive. He might be right, or he might not. He's not necessarily wrong simply because you don't like the implications of his statement.

Originally posted by Nasor
It would be tragic if Rumsfeld is correct, but you can't refute him by simply saying that you find it offensive. He might be right, or he might not. He's not necessarily wrong simply because you don't like the implications of his statement.

I saw on the news this morning that Rumsfeld apologized for his insensitivity after he was called on his statement by several members of Congress.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say I'm refuting him. If you're implying I favor a draft by criticizing Rumsfeld's comments, you're wrong. I am against it and I don't even think it is necessary. However, whether Rumsfeld is wrong or not is not even the issue here, it was his wording that angered me. I understand the costs to train each individual, but the way Rumsfeld made it sound with the wording of his statement is that in the end it was a waste to have trained the draftees considering the outcome of the war. In other words we lost the war in spite of the draftees. It is my belief that without the draft, the US would not have been able to continue with the war after 1968. Up until then, our leaders were telling us that we were winning the war and that it would soon wind down. The Tet Offensive proved that to be a load of BS. Americans became even more dissolutioned and as the ability to maintain troop levels based on volunteerism became impossible, the draft became a necessity. While I can say that I wish that they had ended the war in '68, the fact is they didn't and the draft became a necessity. And the common soldier did not lose that war.

If I get defensive about Vietnam, well that is my burden to bear. And my comments were only in relation to that war, not about whether or not I approve of a future draft. I don't even approve of a war with Iraq. Iraq is no more a world threat than North Vietnam was.