The Bill to re-instate the draft now in Congress

Discussion in 'Politics' started by K.C., Apr 20, 2004.

  1. I turn 26 in a few weeks and I'm extremely glad that I'm out of the age range of any type of draft. It's one thing to enlist to protect freedom and democracy for this country. But its quite another to get drafted into a war to protect Haliburton and their cronies in the Whitehouse!

    Iraq has never been a threat to us. They don't have ICBM's. They never once threated our freedom or democracy. We were allies with them in the 80's for crying out loud. It's insanity.

    Instead of proposing a draft, how about proposing to get our military forces out of Germany, Iceland, Turkey, Central Asia, Japan and scores of other countries were we shouldn't be.

    When George W sends his children to the front lines in Iraq, then we could take this draft proposal much more seriously. Or we could institute a new rule. The kids of Congressman need to enlist before proposing any type of new draft registration.
     
    #51     Apr 24, 2004
  2. OK, "expecting" people to perform their duty for the freedom they enjoy is reasonable. People can't expect to simply walk around enjoying what others have sacrificed to bring them, at least not when the country's security is threatened. The only question is whether that is the case today, and I don't think our security situation is such that we need, nor will have, a draft.

    RGELITE made a good argument on page 5 for why, even under these circumstances, military service should be voluntary. And yet, I would still have to respectfully disagree. When a nation is faced with a powerful and serious thread/adversary, even the people who want to help defend their nation will be reluctant if they think they will be left in the wind. Compulsory service when the nation is most threatened is necessary for a nation's survival, and not having one, history has shown, is virtual suicide.

    Some people will argue that newer institutions that have been created to create and maintain peace and security, institutions like the UN, NATO (a job the EU is trying to take over), and others, renders this view obsolete. To that, I say oh contraire mon frair.

    These institutions are only as powerful as their members, including the willingness of these members to use force when necessary. When Japan invaded Manchuria, when Italy invaded Ethiopia, and finally when the Nazis invaded Poland, the League did nothing except to express its disappointment. Ultimately, this led to a worldwide conflict that brought the deaths of tens of millions. Without compulsory service by the allied nations, the Nazis and the Emperor's army might still be ruling and plundering much of the world today. Even many principled and patriotic people would not join without knowing that a significant number of their brethren were ready to join them, which of course likely becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy (by which hardly anyone joins because others aren't joining). Let's be honest, how many Pat Tillmans are out there?

    Moreover, the most important method used for a nation's preservation, after assembling its own military, is entering into alliances. Yet, you can't enter into an alliance on the basis of "if we're attacked, you must help defend us, but if we're attacked-by a nation where compulsory service is the rule-we'll send whoever cares enough to volunteer. Yet we are protected by agreements where people enjoy the protections of these agreements, and therefore if and when the time comes that volunteers are insufficient, people must be ready to perform their duty.

    Another question we must ask is what responsibility we have to protect those who are the weakest and most vulnerable. If a powerful group decides to massacre and "cleanse" a minority group (from the Kurds in Turkey and the Jews and others under the Nazis to the Tutsis and the Christian/Animist Sudanese).

    Rgelitie is right that the question of when to take action requires subjective and sometimes controversial decisions. And worse, there is always the potential for intentional abuse in determining when we truly are facing grave security threats. And there lies the point of contention that can never be truly resolved in any debate over compulsory military service.

    We have great luxuries today that allow the great majority of us in the West not to be burdened with worries over duty or the end of our society as we know it. Yet threats to our security and way of life still exist, but the nature of these threats has changed in many cases. And if our security and way of life are in grave danger, and the number of volunteers becomes insufficient, I will certainly support the return of the draft!
     
    #52     Apr 24, 2004
  3. Darn, you beat me to it! But don't forget about all these "courageous" and "selfless" athletes and movie stars who are "survivors" that have overcome divorce, bulimia, poor performances, and other great tragedies!
     
    #53     Apr 24, 2004
  4. Actually, you beat the draft the "last" time around, not the first. And if you were around to "beat the draft" before, you obviously are too old to have to worry about any future drafts.
     
    #54     Apr 24, 2004
  5. I don't agree about all of your deductions from this premise, but I certainly agree with the premise!!
     
    #55     Apr 24, 2004
  6. I don't think regulating and limiting the extreme conflicts of interest and opportunities for otherwise legal corruption is a major infringement on the First Amendment. As a matter of fact, people can give as much as they ever could to issue organizations, and they have always been restricted in how much they could contribute to candidates directly. This simply limits corporations, unions and organizations to raise unlimited funds (and gain what we know was often unlimited access and influence). Instead, people can give to issue organizations that lobby and advertise for their issue, often clearly in support of a candidate, while still limiting much or all of the potential access this used to buy for the special interests.
     
    #56     Apr 24, 2004
  7. Actually, there is plenty of defense for free market capitalism as a benefit to the masses, if only because of the inevitable and worse problems with the alternatives.

    As far as health care, are you saying that an industry as vital to the lives of the people shouldn't be the least big regulated? We regulate other areas that most impact our infrastructure and, as such, national security and the ability of our society to function smoothly. Why would we not have some regulations for an industry as important as health care, and why would we not try to do what we reasonably can to help everyone gain access affordably while not stifling the medical industry?
     
    #57     Apr 24, 2004
  8. rgelite

    rgelite

    Actually, I was trying to say that the question of when to take action (take up arms in this case) is an objective decision that can be framed correctly only within the context of an individual's life.

    From my reading, you're assuming the very thing we're discussing. Your posts sometimes switch context from the individual to the collective, seemingly at their own convenience--first about independent decisions which may be controversial, then how "our" security and "our" way of life is threatened and requiring actions others deem correct, in their timeframe, with those they choose to perform them.

    My point is and always has been that there is no "our" except when people's individual decisions actually overlap voluntarily. I used those words explicitly; there is no "our" when one of the "agreeing" parties has a gun to his or her head. There is also no "our" when one of the parties engages in fraud. I think the clarifying framework might be these next points, not necessarily to convince you, but just so we're clear on what I see are the lines:

    One either respects facts of reality and roots out even one's most fondly cherished illusions when realizing their contradictions, or one doesn't.

    One either gets that all living things, by their nature, require life-sustaining maintenance in order to survive (as opposed to, say, a rock), or one doesn't.

    One either knows that the uniquely human requirement is the proper application of the mind to understand nature (and that nature includes humans and all their behaviors) and affect it in order to survive, or one doesn't.

    One either understands that people's lives are their own, that they alone must make their decisions for better or worse, and that no one has the unearned authority to dispose of another individual's life, or one doesn't.

    One either grasps that the product of one's efforts is exclusively one's own and that the cost of producing additional portions of a value is often much cheaper than the first cost, or one doesn't.

    One either chooses to interact voluntarily with others who will trade value for value (each being set by the seller, to include each party simply walking away if there is no meeting of the minds at that moment), or one doesn't.

    One either realizes that each individual's set of values, and the hierarchy that orders them, is unique to them by the judgment of one's own mind (including default judgments arising from blindly following what others say), or one doesn't.

    One either sees that individual values hierarchies can coexist with others who share similar values, but that the overlap is rarely if ever 100%, or one doesn't.

    One either perceives the distinction between essential and minor differences in values, or one doesn't.

    One either trusts other people to honor these facts, to let others live by them so that they themselves can enjoy them, and to know that there are consequences when attempting to deny or otherwise circumvent these facts, or one doesn't.

    One either chooses to live among others who will protect their own interests, their values, or one doesn't.

    One either acknowledges, through candid introspection about how one would prefer to be treated oneself, that the way to enroll others in action is to convince them rationally in a way that appeals to their self-interest, or one doesn't.

    Those who find that the majority of time they are drawn to the latter conclusion about the people they live with have shown in history a predilection to either suicide, or to adopt trickery (fraud) and compulsion (force) to get their way.

    The appeal to these kinds of minds is that it often works short-term. They are willing, like criminals, to drop or attempt to evade the consequences long-term of overtly demonstrating to the rest of the community that they believe that they can suspend gravity whenever it suits them. Why? Because they want what they haven't earned. And to achieve it, couch their arguments in terms of "duty" and "sacrifice" and other ways that priests and politicians regularly employ.

    But to answer the essentials of all your posts, the direct answer is this: If not enough people volunteer, then it's a sad but true fact that the illusion of the country is not worth saving either. To force other citizens to prop up that illusion, to point a gun at their heads and tell them, "You will shoot that person otherwise I will shoot you," is the height of hypocrisy in a free society.

    The uniquely human phrase that distills these principles, that is common to all peoples down through the centuries but perhaps best expressed in American lore is, "Give me Liberty, or give me death!" And that is why to my way of thinking Pat Tillman was a hero. And that in my sober optimism, there will be many more heroes like him in America, including those who are fortunate enough to live to enjoy another day.
     
    #58     Apr 24, 2004
  9. I thought I made it clear that what I was saying is that anything less than standing up to evil aggressors, who themselves use compulsory service, with compulsory service, particularly once a nation's security is under grave threat, is suicide (for the nation, and thus for the way of life for its individuals). And since we have a history of using the draft, and we never felt so strongly against the potential for a draft (which is why men register with selective service), then everyone who CHOOSES to live in this nation accepts that as a nation the majority have been, and continue to be, prepared to defend our liberties by making sure that everyone able participates in defending it when necessary. Otherwise, even most good people will fear committing suicide by being left in the wind, at least until they see most of their peers joining the service.

    If a person is, more than anything, opposed to potential compulsory service (and even during draft time in the US, there are ways to get out-claim to be gay, claim conscientious objector status, and other ways), that person can always move (as you talked about under different circumstances) someplace where an anti-draft provision is in the Constitution. But otherwise, the majority who are not opposed to a draft under the most dire circumstances have a right to expect that their nation will not tolerate those in the minority who may want to freeload. We do this by leaving open the possibility of a draft under critical circumstances.

    And there was no contradiction in my pointing out that, yes, there will never be a completely objective method of determining when the line that separates an urgent national security crisis from a manageable security issue begins. Nor will the issue of national security, with or without a draft, always be void of the potential for abuse, or the perception of abuse. So absolutely, this is an issue that will always be controversial, and I don't think it will ever be as simple as you would like it to be.

    As time goes on, the world changes, circumstances change, and each decision has to be put in some context. Take for example the possibility that, as absurd as nuclear proliferation has already become, if and when it becomes that much easier for terrorists and individuals to get a hold of, then the level of privacy and civil liberties that we expect will have to change if we are to survive. At some point, when one small group can kills hundreds of thousands or millions or people, rather than just hundreds or several thousand people as we've seen so far, things must change. This example does not relate to a draft directly, but rather to the point that circumstances change, and if nations don't devise and utilize practical methods for their survival (methods that may require the use of nearly all citizens to combat the compulsory use of force of aggressors, for example), then those nations will (and have) disappear. Then, all the flowery talk of leaving the decision for when each individual must actually perform his duty to said individual will become obsolete, as a new power takes over.
     
    #59     Apr 25, 2004
  10. rgelite

    rgelite

    Again, you state that everyone who has chosen to be in this country has to understand the need to protect themselves, with the true implication that such defense against outside aggressors necessarily and correctly involves the national military.

    If that premise is indeed the one you hold, then your conclusion that compulsory service is needed is illogical. You yourself have admitted that those who choose to remain here as Americans understand what they need to do. Even if that premise is valid, you still want to draft them. You still want to tell who, what to do, when, and how. Because you're still focused on what others do, not on simply doing what you want to do, and let others do what they want to do. Your last proffered reason: They must be drafted because others will be afraid to be left out in the wind if they end up enlisting by themselves. Good grief.

    And if you want to quote history, let's not be selective. The United States was founded by volunteers, who succeeded against the most powerful nation on the planet at the time. And from there all the way to the present, I don't recall one sentence read where Pat Tillman considered for a moment what others thought about his decision. A real American hero was Pat, in the mold of the very first Americans. He saw what was important to him; he went and did it. And man, did he.

    It's the same error you made, but I politely omitted pointing out in my prior post because I thought my reply would encompass it as well, when you stated that you agreed with the premise that politicians think they own citizens, but then didn't view that dynamic as a clear and present danger to those very citizens. Apparently, and now I see consistently, you believe that a citizen's right to his or her life is negotiable in some instances where you define their value. To you and your ideals. (Or else, you're just a politician not at all interested in principle, but rather the pragmatics of gaining and keeping power over others.)

    It's the same error you made when you asserted that health care should be provided to everyone, dropping the context that the government, even now and still not completely socialist yet in the United States, wholly dictates the practices of physicians, their procedures, and what they are allowed to charge in many cases. Today. Since the rise of Medicare and Medicaid in the 60's, the costs of health care have skyrocketed, as they always will when governments "guarantee" what cannot be guaranteed. The push for socialized medicine in this country is a call to enslave health care practitioners. It's an abomination. The rationale goes like this: Somebody needs it. You can provide it. You will provide it in the manner and with the reimbursement we decide. Otherwise you will not be permitted to practice the very love of your life. Or, if you choose to continue to do so hidden, when we find you we will kill you. First we'll do it with fines. Then with prison. We will ruin your life if you don't do things our way.

    I'd discuss with you further if I didn't already see where this is going; I've seen it thousands of times. Your last sentence, now branding what I wrote as "flowery talk" speaks more to your ideas, or absence of them, than of mine--ad hominem is the haven of the intellectually bankrupt, and as I so "flowerly" wrote, the refuge of those who then invoke force or fraud as an "argument." Veering off in the direction of analyzing my style rather than the content is one step closer to both. It attempts to make the person, me, in some way the issue instead of remaining on the issue itself.

    From my view, you've already left this discussion. And I'll honor that essential without abusing you for choosing it in the way you did. There remains a third choice. One doesn't need to injure or allow oneself to be injured, as so often happens on these threads. And it's what I will now invoke: I will not trade insults with you, nor will I repeat myself, as so many do, talking at each other rather than conversing with each other. I will not lower myself to that behavior; and, at least with me, I will not allow you to lower yourself either. If you want a discussion that devolves that way, you'll do it with someone else and perhaps now get for the first time exactly what I mean by voluntary and its implications.

    At this point I'm just going to state for this thread that I disagree wholeheartedly with you on the disputed items in this topic and wish you a good night. Thanks for the opportunity to present my views in a cogent and convincing way, even if you yourself found them flowery and unconvincing. If it helps things, and in the spirit of friendly disagreement about how we would approach others, please know that I would be volunteering right there shoulder to shoulder with you.

    Until we meet on other threads...

    Cheers.
     
    #60     Apr 25, 2004