Iraq anyone? or North Korea?

[Sander]

A draft is the worst thing, in my opinion, a democratic country can have. SImply because it removes freedom from ones actions.

And it certainly will change people's opinions, anybody who isn't VERY pro-war will probably become anti-war in the blink of an eye. I doubt many young people will be pro-war, and I severly doubt that Bush will even get close to re-election if that happens.

 

[welsh]

Well, Sander, there is the issue.

If you have a conscript army (essentially a draft) you will also have a public that will be more restraining and vocal about international adventures. On the otherhand, in a professional army, they are seen more like public servents.

Also, if people were forced to go to war, I think a lot of folks that are kind of "in the middle" on this would suddenly shift to the opposition.

 

[John Uskglass]

King, I think you are well on the path of the Dark Side (neo-conservativeism), young Padawan, but you need a kick in the ass.

The draft does nothing but get semi-communists in a hissie fit. It is moronic and useless. If people do not want to fight, then dont make them. Donald Rumselfd (may he live forever) said as much.

 

[Paladin Solo]

One day, if volunteers keeps running low and dry, a draft would be unnaviodable. Our military is currently at what, 2.5 million. Only about a fraction of that being ground forces who fight. I would support a draft, if we plan to fight a war, than we are going to need troops. The only problem with drafts, are people who are scared of dying will cry and whine about civil rights! Move to Canada then, I say! Or become the guy who cleans the crappers. If you are going to live in our world, you need to accept the fact that you're going to die one day. Many nations out there have required service, they aren't crying to their mommies about fighting in a war. It's a duty towards your country. If it was something like Vietnam, then I could understand protests, but this is a global war, and we can't fight it with 2 million troops and expect to win here and there. Especially if we have troops spread all across the world.

 

[Ozrat]

King, do you have any idea what you're talking about? Or at least a clue about what reality is?

One day, if volunteers keeps running low and dry, a draft would be unnaviodable.

Oh, so we'll just have to resort to slavery then, eh? Oh wait, we had to fight a civil war a century and a half ago just to get rid of that. Please, let's try not to break any rights here, constitutional, civil, or human.

The only problem with drafts, are people who are scared of dying will cry and whine about civil rights!

You're right, it's a damn shame that not everybody is born to be a soldier with no emotions. And to think that they would demand their basic rights to live! The fools! Why don't we just kill 'em all off or make them into our servent slaves as well?!

In case you couldn't tell, the above paragraph was a parody of your terrible logic. Please, use your head.

If you are going to live in our world, you need to accept the fact that you're going to die one day.

Excuse me? Who's world? You're strong mistaken if you think that the world belongs to the United States.

So the whole world is supposed to conform to the demands of the American government without any hesitations or critical thinking? That's hardly the case. America does not control the world and there's absolultely no reason why it should. Claiming this is just damn stupidity and I hope that you realize this. The government cannot tell its own citizens how they should live and die, nor should it even attempt to tell citizens of other nations how they should live and die.

It's a duty towards your country.

Error
Fail/Abort/Try again?

Wrong, buddy old pal. I don't owe my country anything besides taxes.

If it was something like Vietnam, then I could understand protests, but this is a global war, and we can't fight it with 2 million troops and expect to win here and there. Especially if we have troops spread all across the world.

I'm confused here. Are you proud of the fact that America is starting the next world war then? We have the biggest military in the world and yet you're still worried that it is being stretched too thin because of all the military conflicts we're engaging in. Wouldn't this tell you that we're fighting waaaaaaaay too many people in way to many places all at the same time?

King, you are so out of the loop with that whole post it's not even funny. I strongly recommend to you that you review what you call "facts" and learn that you can't believe everything that army recruiter told you at the career fair in school. This is real life, not Civilization III. Even CCR is saying that you're a friggin' loony.

 

[welsh]

The US has had a draft before and recently too. Remember Vietnam? Part of that reason was because, as big as the US army was, the forces were stretched too thin globally.

But that was also a different time. There was a sense of threat and a policy of containment around that threat. There was also popular feeling that communism had to be fought and that nuclear war was probable. It was a different world.

Does everyone owe a duty to their country that goes beyond taxes. Well a lot of people think so, and have done so throughout time. At the beginning of both World Wars people from all countries were eager to enlist. Even after 9-11 there was an increase in people enlisting in the military.

That number has gone down dramatically. Perhaps one of the reasons is that people thought, after 9-11, that if we were going to go to war it would be quick. A lot of people said Iraq would not be like Vietnam because it wasn't a jungle and there were not Soviets or Chinese supporting the commies. Well perhaps we didn't examine low-intensity warfare well enough, especially in urban environments or in the middle east.

Could the US bring back the draft- sure. The US doesn't today in part because it prefers a professional force and because a draft would be too expensive.

But I think the main reason why people would be upset to get drafted is that most people don't want to give two years of their lives to something they don't necessarily believe in, least not to fight a war begun by a president who spent most of his time in the air national guard on AWOL.

Me, ha ha ha, I'm too old! (I hope!)

But an interesting comparison is France before World War 2. The military elite wanted a professional force (which it argued could fight an offensive war against Germany- which a conscript couldn't). The political elite wanted conscripts- why? Because a conscript force would be less likely to follow the military in a coup against the government and would also be more loyal to the political will of the country.

The more professional the army becomes, the more autonomous of society it becomes.

 

[Loxley]

King, please study politics and history. I recomend you to go through the world history at least once. (it is actually pretty funny i recomend you too start at, let us say, the ancient greeks). Also try to study not only world politics but internal in the US. Look at all the political directions and see where you belong. Then keep yourself upp to date on news (and please keep in mind that most are biased) and you would be a velcome adittion to this board

Also how old are you?

Myself i have lost a lot of contact with news in this folk high school, damn i´m happy if i find a newspaper that is two days old. That is also why i don´t reply so much.

As for the draft. We have draft in Norway, and i don´t think we should have it since most people don´t like it, and that many just sneak away from it one way or the other. Beeing forced into combat is not good thing, and probably demoralises the forces.

King "it is a duty towards your country" was what the US said when they said when they sendt soldiers into vietnam, what the germans said when they wrecked war on all of europe, when the germans entered soviet toowards the final defeat, that is what they were told. Now tell me was it the americans soldiers duty to their country to go to Vietnam? Or the germans, was it their duty to enter Stalingrad?

What dutys does a man have for his country King?

Hey everyone what duty does a man/woman (this one is for you katja) have to their country.

 

[Ozrat]

I don't owe my country anything besides taxes.

'Nuff said.

 

[John Uskglass]

What dutys does a man have for his country King?

That is an oversimplification, and you use some of the worst examples. What about America for WW2? I would say one would have a pretty big god damn obligation to defeat the Nazis in this situation. Or in the possible WW3? Or in Afganistan? All of these where threats to American lives-threats to your neigbhbors, and your family. It is not as much about thinking "I am in love with the White House, and I want to protect it", it is about a way of life, and your neighbor and your friend.

 

[geekpocket]

Ozrat wrote:

I don't owe my country anything besides taxes.

I think that's a very selfish outlook on ones responsibilities to their government. When you say that, I think of other things that you don't think you owe your country. Things like loyalty, or the possibility of duty during a draft. It may not have been your intention to dismiss these things merely by omitting them, but that's how im led to interpret it.

Think of all the things that your government is supposed to do for you. Get trade from other countries, provide health, education and protection services for the citizens, and defend the country against threats. There's more, but only a few need to be listed to bring up the point that it's not an equal balance between what your country is/should be willing to do for you, and what you are willing to do for your country.

You may not always agree with what your government is doing, and that's your right. I believe in a citizens responsibility to support their country as much as I believe in their right to disagree, protest, and vote to change the policies they don't agree with.

It's almost an issue of ownership. The more you feel you are responsible to something then the more likely you are to take ownership of that, be it an idea or a country. I don't call myself American simply because I pay taxes. I say there is more to being a loyal citizen than merely residing in a country. It's an investment made by every person. Sometimes being loyal means pointing out your countries faults. I love being American, but it doesnt mean I turn a blind eye towards our faults.

There's also a converse to your statement. If all you owe your country is taxes, then what does your country owe you? What do you think are the basic benefits of citizenship that you are entitled to? The one I listed earlier would look to be the most prominent, but the issue of protection from other countries seems to be a discussion in itself. Do you owe your country your time by serving in the military? If your country had to fight to gain and then maintain it's independence, it seems likely that a responsibility for a citizen would be to help in that respect. If someone was willing to fight and die for your countrys freedom then why would you feel that you aren't held to that same responsibility? Personal beliefs aside, a person enjoys the benefits of living in a certain country, yet are unwilling to serve in the military to protect those rights and benefits. That's again an unequal balance of rights and responsibilities.

There's the old business idea, There is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone, somewhere along the line ends up paying for it. The idea of dodging a draft is to me an example of someone unwilling to own up to their responsibilities as a citizen of their country.

----------------

oh yeah. hello, new to the boards.

 

[welsh]

Actually I think GP has a good point here and goes to the point that most people think that what you owe a country goes beyond paying taxes.

Ozrat what you are suggesting is basically that there is an exchange. You give taxes and you expect benefits. Those benefits run towards public safety, security from external agression, economic development.

Now historically, without democracy, one's duty to one's country went beyond taxes. Take your Hobbesian idea of the minimalist social contract- your state gives you security from an anarchical world, you give them everything else, including your life. Locke's notion of the social contract would go beyond that, but that much. In essence, by giving you safety you more or less owe the governmental, with the right perhaps to overthrow the government if it's a tyranny.

But take the issue of the draft. If the government can pay for its own army and as long as it gives you security and safety, than why should the government listen to your demands? Why should you complain if you don't like what the government does, but the government isn't quite a tyranny (remember we get to vote in the US next year).

We have argued back and forth on this that one of the things that makes americans different from europeans is their sense of individualism vs european's greater sense of communitarianism. But the creation of a social community requires more than paying your dues, but being members of a social community.

Being part of that society goes past paying taxes but being a participant and being a contributor to that. But identifying yourself as a member of that community, and as such there are other costs. My wife, for instance, is Brazilian, but with time she has increasingly become an American because she associates herself with this society because she likes it. These are things that go beyond being an American, and to some extent it goes beyond what "you get" to "what you associate with."

Now back to the draft, there were signficant costs to those who didn't get drafted in past wars. Those people who wanted to go but couldn't, perhaps they were called 4F, felt some sense of hostility from society for failing to go. Americans who fled to Canada to avoid the draft had to find a way of coming back into the US, often facing the hostility of their peers who asked them why they could do such a thing.

This is not a matter of loyalty to a government, but being loyal to the idea of a country, of a society and a community.

These ideas, community or nation or society, may be constructed ideas. But they are constructions that shape us individually and have an impact upon us, both good and bad.

My wife has asked me if I were drafted would I go. And I have said, yes, probably. If I have children who get drafted they will have to struggle with that question as well. Honestly, I would not want my kids to go to this war because I have yet to believe its being fought the way it should be.

But I think that the idea of "all you owe to a government is taxes" may be true, but what you owe to your home, your country, your community may be more than that.

 

[Ozrat]

But I think that the idea of "all you owe to a government is taxes" may be true, but what you owe to your home, your country, your community may be more than that.

I couldn't have phrased that any better. This is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for being psychic!

 

[Sander]

Okay, here's my view:
YOu don't owe your government anything at all, simply because the government is there to server you and the other citizens, and you are not there to serve your government.

Now, let me then say what the government should and should not demand from you(in my opinion):
1) Respect for and acceptance of the laws.

2) Taxes.

That is all. The government should then do the following things:
1) Abide by the constitution.
2) Abide by what the majority feels is right.

With the constitution being more important.

 

[geekpocket]

That sounds like what Ozrat originally said. Read my above post for my reply to that.

When you say all you owe is taxes, it feels to me like you aren't partriotic or you prefer to maintain a business-type professional relationship with your country. It just seems cold to me. Instead of the image of a large community of people brought together under a common banner i get the impression of some people starting a business association so they can have a tax shelter.

I'm not saying you personally are not loyal to your country or patriotic, im saying there are things you are responsible to your country for beyond monetary support.

You can be involved in the local government.
You can protest against what you think is wrong and work for the benefits of your other citizens.
maybe wave a flag or two.

Maybe I just have a more emotional attachment than others do. but have some fucking pride and take ownership of your country. people have died so you can talk on the internet about how little you owe your country.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Country and government are two separate things, y'know. Relationship with government is supposed to be, as you phrase it, cold and business-type. Government is like a company you give your money to in form of taxes and in exchange for various services. If government fails to provide services you expect for the amount of money you give them, you can choose not to support that government any longer. It is a common fallacy to think that in order to be a real patriot, you must blindly support your government no matter what. That kind of thinking is for the dumb. An intelligent and self-aware citizen realizes that rights guaranteed to him by constitution are far more important than interests of any government, and that he may always refuse to support a government that would try to deny him these rights. Take me for example: I love my country and am very sensitive about its sovereignity, but I hate my goverment. In fact, I hated every government Croatia ever had, because they were all corrupted and incompetent. None of them deserved my support, and especially not my tax money. It would pain me to see Croatia come to harm, but I would feel absolutely no guilt if I avoided paying taxes to a government that does nothing for people but deceive them with false promises and push them into even deeper misery.

 

[Sander]

Well, geekpocket, the reason I didn't mention the things you did mention are that they are all free choice. There is absolutely no obligation for you to get involved in politics, or to actually have an opinion about it. It's good if you do have an opinion and you do get involved in politics, but you can't expect everyone to feel involved, nor can you expect anyone to do anything. Because if someone is opposed to the democratic system, how can you possibly demand from them that they participate in it?

 

[geekpocket]

Ratty, that's a good point. I can definately see how that would apply given your situation. I think the reason I feel the way I do is because I'm not against my government, so I don't feel a need to separate the government from the country. Although when you say government, I can think of a few differents meanings.

Government could be the actual people running the country. In that case it would be easy to differentiate between the government and the country. Once the people have changed, you have a new government.

The other meaning is the system of government, and this is tied closer to the idea of the country than the first idea of government. It can still be changed, say from a dictatorship to a democracy but the country can remain while the government changes.

So, sorry if i got a little heated.

But this brings up a new point. We've established what you all think you owe your government. What do you now owe your country?

 

[Paladin Solo]

Aye, too much, too much. I can't reply to all, so I won't but Ozrat, I never implied we rule the world, although in a sense, we do. And no we don't have the biggest military in the world, and we aren't starting another world war. The terrorist started this war.

 

[geekpocket]

Even though it strokes my American ego, I don't know how you can say we rule the world. In what sense are you talking about?

If we ruled militarily then there wouldn't be opposition of the type we encounter whenever we send troops abroad. Granted, we usually have the upper hand, but I when I use the term, "we rule them", I don't expect any significant resistance.


Also, why do you think the terrorists started the war? We supported the whole give-palestine-to-the-jews-instead-of-the-palestinians, and proceeded to arm israel to the teeth so they could "protect their borders" (invade the rest of palestine). i'm not saying that is any one groups motivation, but merely pointing out the fact that we've had our hands in the Middle East. You shouldn't expect everyone to be receptive when you tell them what to do. You can't please everyone and when you mix religion with politics you are bound to piss someone off.

Secondly, these terrorits have not recently "started" this war, as your post implies. There have been terrorist attacks on U.S. targets for decades now.

The 1982 kidnapping of Americans in Lebanon
Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, 1983
Bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, 1983
Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait City, 1983
Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, 1984
World Trade Center bombing in 1993
Bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000

I'm not saying the same terrorist organization is responsible for each of those attacks. There are many more, about a half-dozen involving hijacking planes. The thing is, you didn't specifiy which terrorist group started this war, so I decided to generalize.

One other thing. I'm not saying I condone the terrorists actions, or that I'm against the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. If they let me pull the trigger I'd take care of Bin Laden myself.


FYI, there are 1,66,589 active duty personel in the U.S. military as of June 2003. http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/military/miltop.htm

 

[welsh]

SInce this relates to Iraq and speaks to the middle east more generally, might as well post it here.

What do you all think?

Striking accord

Dec 4th 2003
From The Economist Global Agenda


Israeli and Palestinian moderates have signed an alternative peace plan that deals with supposedly intractable issues, such as shared sovereignty and refugees’ right of return. But their governments remain to be convinced

AP


Beilin and Rabbo bridge the divide



TEN years after the Oslo peace process was launched with similar fanfare in Washington, on Monday December 1st Palestinian and Israeli negotiators met in Switzerland to seal a comprehensive peace agreement between their warring nations, known as the Geneva accord. Under it, Israel would withdraw from most of the Palestinian territories it occupied in the 1967 war. The Palestinians would accept shared sovereignty in occupied East Jerusalem and effectively give up their refugees’ right of return to their homes in what was once Palestine but is now Israel. Dignitaries and politicians from America, Europe and the Arab world applauded the historic compromise in a star-studded ceremony. The accord’s two main authors—Yossi Beilin, a former Israeli justice minister, and Yasser Abed Rabbo, a former Palestinian information minister—are expected to meet Colin Powell on Friday. The American secretary of state has welcomed the “peace”.

It isn’t a real peace, of course, and not simply because the hope raised by Oslo has long been washed away by the despair of the Palestinians’ armed struggle, or intifada. Neither the dozens of Palestinians nor the 200 Israelis at Geneva were there as representatives of their governments. Yasser Arafat, the president of the Palestinian Authority (PA), has blessed the enterprise without endorsing the outcome. Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, denounced the accord before once again nailing his colours to the “road map”—a peace plan sponsored by the so-called Quartet (America, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations)—which collapsed in the summer. On Tuesday Mr Sharon's deputy, Ehud Olmert, went so far as to say that it would be a mistake for Mr Powell to meet the Geneva negotiators. Mr Powell rejected the advice, asking: “Why should we not listen to others who have ideas?”

The Geneva peace agreement has a long way to go before it replaces the road map or topples the Palestinian or Israeli governments. But it has shaken all three. Four of the Palestinian signatories nearly bailed out from the Geneva ceremony, alarmed by the rising tide of protest the concessions on Jerusalem and refugees have caused among the Palestinian factions, including Mr Arafat’s Fatah movement. The fall-out among Israelis has been similarly pronounced. Since the Geneva Accord was first drawn up, they have been swamped with a plethora of other “peace plans”: the settlers have proposed Jewish and Arab cantons in “Judea, Samaria and Gaza” (as they call the occupied territories); the opposition Labour Party has promoted an agreement that mirrors Geneva in outline while differing with it on detail; and Mr Sharon has been forced to face down all of these proposals with an ill-defined “initiative” of his own, which he has said he would pursue if the road map goes nowhere.

First, says Mr Sharon, he will seek to revive the road map by talking to the PA’s new prime minister, Ahmed Qurei. To increase the chances of such talks bearing fruit, the Israeli leader has quietly dropped his precondition that the PA’s security forces engage in “a real war” against militant groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Mr Sharon has also hinted that he may evacuate a few Jewish settlements. However, if these efforts fail, he will replace a negotiated solution with an imposed one. The Palestinians assume this means the establishment of new borders that would leave a future Palestinian state with less than half the West Bank and perhaps not all of Gaza.

This is unlikely to happen anytime soon, if only because of a revived American interest in the road map. For the first time in months, America’s envoy to the peace process, William Burns, has been in the region. In meetings over the weekend he told Mr Qurei there could be no substitute for rooting out the “terrorist infrastructure” of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. He also told Mr Sharon that Israel would have to dismantle settlement outposts and freeze settlement construction in the occupied territories, as it is bound to do under the road map. Mr Sharon has said he is prepared to remove some—but not all—of the 60 outposts established during his tenure as prime minister. He has said and done nothing about a construction freeze.

As for Mr Qurei, he is awaiting the outcome of talks between the various Palestinian factions meeting in Cairo this week. He wants them to agree a ceasefire so that he has something in his hand when he finally sits down with Mr Sharon. In return for a truce he will demand that Israel stop military incursions like the one that ended with three Palestinians dead and 30 arrested in Ramallah on Monday. He will also insist Israel end construction of the barrier in and around the West Bank. Mr Sharon says the barrier is vital for Israel’s security. The Palestinians say it is charting the borders of their future “provisional” and utterly unviable state.

Mr Qurei is unlikely to get very far. His Israeli counterpart has made it clear he regards the Palestinian terms for a return to the road map as every bit as pie-in-the-sky as the accord signed in Geneva. “No [Palestinian] conditions will be accepted, whether they concern ceasing construction of the separation fence or dismantling it or any other demands,” Mr Sharon told his cabinet on Sunday.