Couldn't find the "draft" thread... so here

[LDB]

I am on the fence on this issue. I certainly do not think that people should be "forced" into service. Especially, when the cause of the draft is so controversial. I would be pretty upset if my son was killed in action fighting in Iraq...if he did not volunteer to serve. If people compare the war now to Vietnam, imagine what they will say if a draft is instituted. I can't imagine that the populace would stand for it. Personally, I think that this is just a tool that is being used to get people to shy away from voting Bush.

I also think that it would not hurt to have everyone serve their country for two years. Serving in the military changed me into the person that I am today. It gave me a better sense of responsibility, a deeper appreciation of how well we have it in the US, trained me, paid for my education, and made me more mature. Saying all of this, I still believe that unless all hell breaks loose and we have a viable target that is imminently threatening the US then the draft should be avoided. JMO though.

[SCI03]

Draft, There was one?

[mattos]

Originally posted by NJBRONCOSFAN
Mattos, thanks for bringing up the War Power's Act...i didn't wanna even try to explain because i remember when i learned about it in class i was confused

no problem. i'm always looking for a chance to make it look like i know something.

[rcsodak]

...and this is why they're looking into changing the tenure's in iraq/afghan. from 12 mos. to 7 mos.?
You libs......keep up with the rhetoric......

[NJBRONCOSFAN]

Originally posted by rcsodak
...and this is why they're looking into changing the tenure's in iraq/afghan. from 12 mos. to 7 mos.?
You libs......keep up with the rhetoric......

so, the bush administration can just 'change' the amount of time they need to be in a country?
They said they will be fighting in iraq for at least 12 more months?
what would leaving before that or even at that point do? Everything done up to that point would be for nothing...i just can't see a secure Iraq in 12 months, it'll take much longer than that.
and p.s.= what's rhetoric...did you read these posts? Nothing but FACTS. I used simple logic to defend my stance...since you really have nothing to refute this with, you basically turn to what is an insult, calling my views and opinions rhetoric, as if somehow someway you know the facts and i don't. I'm really sorry if my views don't agree with yours, but that doesn't make them wrong.
I know it's hard to comprehend, but perhaps you are wrong, but you'll never see that. Your statement is how political threads get erased. If you don't have something meaningful to add, why do you feel it necessary to turn to insults which in turns leads to more insults by others, which then turns to this thread being deleted

[StlBroncosFan]

I have a question about the draft for those that oppose it. If indeed Iran is building nukes and have plans to use them. Should the US reinstate the draft to protect our interests?

Again, my stance is that we should not reinstate the draft but if Iran were to build the weapons and after much UN diplomacy I think it would be necessary to correct the issue. If we do not have enough support from the world we have to once again protect ourselves (since we are the most hated) from the potential threat. If this means draft then I think we have to do it. Unfortunately.

[NJBRONCOSFAN]

I don't think if they were able to get nukes that they would be able to actually hit us with them...rather they have stated a desire to strike against Israel.
I have no desire to defend Israel, which is all but in name a terrorist state. I wouldn't want to put my life on the line for them just because there are many in Washington getting money from these people.

[StlBroncosFan]

I agree that we probably don't have to worry about a nuke coming across the ocean (especially if we continue with the missile defense program) but there is a possibility to protect American interests over seas. Military bases, Ebassys etc.. We also need to worry about smuggling these things into the country. If a country that is a terrorist country or supporter of terrorists were able to develop nukes and then smuggle or sell to someone that smuggles them into the States, we need to nip it in the bud.

[NJBRONCOSFAN]

Originally posted by StlBroncosFan
I agree that we probably don't have to worry about a nuke coming across the ocean (especially if we continue with the missile defense program) but there is a possibility to protect American interests over seas. Military bases, Ebassys etc.. We also need to worry about smuggling these things into the country. If a country that is a terrorist country or supporter of terrorists were able to develop nukes and then smuggle or sell to someone that smuggles them into the States, we need to nip it in the bud.

All true, but none of these things should eventually lead up to a draft. We had to do this all durign the cold war as well, and even after the fall of the U.S.S.R. Protecting our entities overseas can definitely be done without a draft.
If your saying that we might need to get to Iran before any of these attacks happen, then it goes back to the beginning. There probably might be a need for a draft. Would i want to fight? especially considering the reasons initially given for war in Iraq...No.

[NOLABroncofan]

Originally posted by StlBroncosFan
I have a question about the draft for those that oppose it. If indeed Iran is building nukes and have plans to use them. Should the US reinstate the draft to protect our interests?

Again, my stance is that we should not reinstate the draft but if Iran were to build the weapons and after much UN diplomacy I think it would be necessary to correct the issue. If we do not have enough support from the world we have to once again protect ourselves (since we are the most hated) from the potential threat. If this means draft then I think we have to do it. Unfortunately.

I don't oppose a draft persay ( I still don't believe we will have need of one unless under the most dire circumstances ). Personally I think all able bodied youth coming out of High School should do a two year hitch in one of the branches of service, but that's another discussion.

I do not believe that a draft should or would be enacted to protect our interests in the nuke capability theatre. If that was the case, we would have started one long ago when nuke technology was first developed.

Again.... the only reason I see a draft becoming necessary is IF we end up in another WW; and again... I don't see this happening.

Nuff said...

[Jared]

Originally posted by rcsodak
...and this is why they're looking into changing the tenure's in iraq/afghan. from 12 mos. to 7 mos.?
You libs......keep up with the rhetoric......

Did you not read my post on how I determine to delete threads dealing with politics?

We don't have to allow them you know. And I think that so far this is a reasonable discussion. Although this was very mild, that is how it starts.

Please don't make me have to delete it.

[mattos]

Originally posted by StlBroncosFan
I have a question about the draft for those that oppose it. If indeed Iran is building nukes and have plans to use them. Should the US reinstate the draft to protect our interests?

i would say no, we shouldn't draft even to protect our nuclear interests.
(1) the draft is slavery and therefore, on principle, i can never support it. furthermore, i must also oppose all drafts as one who believes that the government should protect the liberty of its citizens first and foremost. the people are free to decide whether or not they wish to support military action themselves: if they do then they will join. if they do not, then the consequences of not joining will fall on them. i would prefer that to allowing our government to enslave its citizens.
(2) iran is a soveriegn nation and as such has a right to develop weapons just as we do. i believe mutual assured destruction is enough to prevent their use. another method is to extend economic relations as much as possible. not only do economic relations prevent nuclear warfare (who's going to nuke the guy they are making $$$ off of?), but they do so w/o risking any lives and make us $ at the same time. look at switzerland, they've remained politically and economically neutral and no one seems to want to nuke them or fly planes into their buildings, or "hate their freedoms." we could learn a thing or 2 from the swiss i think.
(3) every time we attack a country before it gets nukes, we send a message to all other countries that if they don't want to get attacked by us, they'd better get the nukes as soon as possible. i suspect iran's interest in nukes was only increased by the different treatment that iraq and n. korea have recieved - i know if i was a dictator i'd be trying to nukes as soon as i could; entirely for self preservation issues.

[StlBroncosFan]

Mattos,

You make some pretty good points. I can see your side completely. I too agree that the Swiss have a lock on staying nuetral and benefitting from it.

I don't think protecting your country and the people in it is slavery though. I guess if they hadn't drafted people back in the day...we would all be under British rule right now. Or worse, maybe if they hadn't drafted during OUR civil war people would still be enslaved. The draft has it's purpose when warranted.

[mattos]

Originally posted by StlBroncosFan
I don't think protecting your country and the people in it is slavery though. I guess if they hadn't drafted people back in the day...we would all be under British rule right now. Or worse, maybe if they hadn't drafted during OUR civil war people would still be enslaved. The draft has it's purpose when warranted.

was there a draft during the revolutionary war? (i won't comment on the civil war as i am sure my arguments would cause the thread to burst into flames. i'll let my avatar speak for itself )

i see your point as to the larger picture; world war 2 being the strongest example i can see.

i can't support the ultimate violation of liberty though (forcing someone to go die) as an appropriate means of securing liberty. if our society is one where the preservation of the state is the ultimate good, then a draft makes sense. and in modern american, that may be the case. i, however, see liberty as the ultimate good, even at the expense of the state (thus i would rather to see the US split into smaller parts where the people rule themselves than see the central government force everyone to live in a manner they dislike). a draft is, by definition, only necessary when a large portion of the people do not support the military activity. that, i believe, is their choice. if that means the british take over than so be it. it is better for the people to choose their fate than to have it forced upon them.

since liberty is, IMO, the greatest good for the state, i simply cannot support forcing others to go and die against their will. one person doesn't have the right to do that to someone else and, IMO, neither does a group of people (whether they wield the power of the government or not).

[NJBRONCOSFAN]

The draft as we know it was first implemented in 1863 (obviously for the civil war).