| Author | Message | ||
     P_squared |
...when their number finally gets called, they need to step up and serve, or take the first flight out and never come back.  | ||
| Xl1200r |
And I think one of those responsibilities is to not blindy follow our government's lead. Take the Vietnam War for example. We got involved to try and stop the spread of communism and to keep North Vietnam from taking over South Vietnam. We left before anyting was settled, and the North ended up taking over the south anyways, and are socialist to this day. Was getting involved a noble cause? Yes. Did it require the involuntary efforts of men to fight for it? Was it worth over 60,000 American lives? I have a real hard justifying that. I think it comes from my belief that my government should have as little input into how I live my life as reasonably posible. I think our government should have similar involvement in people's lives around the world. We needlessly have troops stationed all over the world because we have become the planet's babysitter. I don't know if I like our military being used in such a fashion. Call me a coward, a bad citizen or whatever else you'd like. | ||
| P_squared |
Until such time as a Draft is implemented, you're free to feel, say & do as you like. Once you become a member of the U.S. military, the rules change. For the military to be effective, you have to subjugate your free will to the needs of the unit/branch/country. With the exception of unlawful orders, your responsibility IS to "blindly follow our government's lead." There are reasons the draft hasn't been used since Vietnam, one of them is because drafted/conscripted troops are a lot less motivated than an all volunteer force. However, the basic underlying need for having the draft available is valid. We all treasure the freedoms & liberties we're allowed in this nation. Sometimes, those freedoms & liberties have a cost. Sometimes, that cost is a draft. | ||
| Spatten1 |
Draft dodging does suck, but it was a different time, and some of the vets I know came back on Heroin, the were all telling me to go to college, etc. Ted ain't a poser on gun rights, that SOB spends much time hunting, including bow hunting. He is a dedicated gun dude regardless of the draft dodging thing. On Bush, I'm not much of a fan, but he did get screwed on that draft dodging story, royally. | ||
| Poppinsexz |
Yes, he can talk the talk. but anyone can do that. however that still leaves the most important part of the statement with him batting a 0. IMHO | ||
| Blake |
He didn't dodge the draft, which means running to Canada or hiding out to avoid service. He received a one year exemption for college. Read the Wikipedia report on it. It seems fair. I oppose a draft. It's slavery under guise of patriotism. The volunteer military works best! | ||
| Xl1200r |
Sometimes, those freedoms & liberties have a cost. Sometimes, that cost is a draft. Again, if there was a draft to PROTECT these freedoms in order to fend off an INVADING force, I'd have much less of a problem and would, in all seriousness, likely enlist. However, a draft to support a war in we VOLUNTARILY entered, I have a BIG problem with. WWII - hell yes. Vietnam, Korea, et. al., take a hike. If our military and government decided it's efforts are best spent on voluntary wars across the globe, then the troops that are enlisted and sent there have my fullest support. But I refuse to support a government who treats human life like a near bottomless tax base. "Hey, we need more money to bail out the banks - RAISE TAXES!" "Hey, we need more troops to fight a war we don't absolutely need to fight - REINSTATE THE DRAFT!" | ||
| Blasteey |
(Message edited by blasteey on August 27, 2009) | ||
| Nevrenuf |
i read it was a two year exemption and also when he went for his physical he spent a month eating unhealthy and a week before he went in he would crap and piss in his own pants not to mention not taking a shower. but at least he didn't run to canada. there were a lot of people who got out of the war by going to college although he was on tour supposedly during that time. and at least he apologized for his actions back then. | ||
| Poppinsexz |
Again, if there was a draft to PROTECT these freedoms in order to fend off an INVADING force, I'd have much less of a problem and would, in all seriousness, likely enlist. However, a draft to support a war in we VOLUNTARILY entered, I have a BIG problem with. WWII - hell yes. Vietnam, Korea, et. al., take a hike I don't recall the Germans doing anything to us at the start of WW2 Seems to me that it was the Japaneese. Maybe we should have stayed out of Europe too? Look at S Korea today it seems to be doing quite well, but I guess they weren't worth it either. I wonder what would have happened had the alphabet soups been around on June 6 at Normandy. More died in that one day than in all of Iraq. | ||
| Xl1200r |
I don't recall the Germans doing anything to us at the start of WW2 Seems to me that it was the Japaneese. Maybe we should have stayed out of Europe too? You are familiar with the concept of a World War, and the Axis powers? I don't need to say any more. Look at S Korea today it seems to be doing quite well, but I guess they weren't worth it either. United States 36,516 dead (2,830 non-combat) 92,134 wounded 8,176 MIA 7,245 POW You can decide if it was worth it. I have my own opinion. | ||
| P_squared |
There's a real simple solution (notice I didn't say "easy). If you don't like the possibility of a draft being implemented during a time of war, lobby your elected representatives to change the law. Personal opinions aside of if a war is "good" or "bad", there have been protesters, including folks who dodged, every single time. My above posts may seem "harsh" but it's the law of the land. In that context, there is no room for personal preference once war has been declared and a draft has been authorized. | ||
| Wolfridgerider |
If your number got pulled and you did everything you could to get out of serving.... you just screwed someone else.... I understand not wanting to go... but bending someone else over a log and riding them like Ned Beatty just aint right. | ||
| Xl1200r |
Here's my thing - and keep in mind I wasn't alive for any of this - but, in 1942, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. We then declared war, and the nation, as a whole, backed the war effort. In Vietnam and Korea, we were never attacked, and never threatened to be attacked, yet we decided to enter the war between (or within) foreign nations anyways. Support was comparitively low across the baord. I think it's pretty clear why. The Selective Service System describes its mission as "...to serve the emergency manpower needs of the Military by conscripting untrained manpower, or personnel with professional health care skills, if directed by Congress and the President in a national crisis." Vietnam and Korea were not national crises. Drafting to fight a war between two other nations is a flat out abuse of the resources of this nation. | ||
| Slaughter |
Minor point - Germany declared war on the USA after we declared war on Japan. | ||
| P_squared |
We then declared war, and the nation, as a whole, backed the war effort. I hate to contradict you, but there were folks who didn't back the effort. There were folks who protested the war effort. There were folks who dodged the draft. It has happened in every war this nation has been engaged in. On the subject of Korea, I personally think we almost did the right thing. We shouldn't have stopped when we crossed the 38th. Imagine if Kim were in charge of that whole peninsula today? On the subject of Vietnam, again I personally think we almost did the right thing. We had Uncle Ho on the ropes, but threw in the towel because "The War is lost." As a result, a LOT of folks ceased to exist after we left. I can understand folks being against the draft, and I agree that there are very good reasons for not implementing it unless of dire emergency. However, if a person wants to "pick & choose" what war(s) they'll be drafted for, then what's the point of having the mechanism there to begin with? On the subject of fighting a war "over there" or fighting a war "over here," I'd rather we do the bomb dropping over there. We do have national interests & international obligations. Sometimes we get it right & sometimes we don't. The underlying issue though is that when your country calls, will you answer or will you hesitate by trying to decide if that call meets your own personal view of "good" vs. "bad?" | ||
| 86129squids |
WANGOOOOO TANGOOOOOO!!!!! STRANGLEHOLD BAYYYBAYYYY!!!!! | ||
| Xl1200r |
I hate to contradict you, but there were folks who didn't back the effort. There were folks who protested the war effort. There were folks who dodged the draft. It has happened in every war this nation has been engaged in. Agreed. My point was simply that there seemed to be (at least in the history books) less support for Vietnam than there was in WWII. On the subject of Korea, I personally think we almost did the right thing. We shouldn't have stopped when we crossed the 38th. Imagine if Kim were in charge of that whole peninsula today? Again, I agree. My point is only that it was a voluntary war on our part and should have only been faught with volunatry soilders. On the subject of Vietnam, again I personally think we almost did the right thing. We had Uncle Ho on the ropes, but threw in the towel because "The War is lost." As a result, a LOT of folks ceased to exist after we left. Sentiment for that war seemed to be rather negative both in the U.S. and internationally, so I'm not surprised that after 16 years of fighting we decided to get out. I can only assume that by "ceased to exist" you are talking about POW/MIA soilders, and that truely is a shame. I can understand folks being against the draft, and I agree that there are very good reasons for not implementing it unless of dire emergency. However, if a person wants to "pick & choose" what war(s) they'll be drafted for, then what's the point of having the mechanism there to begin with? I don't think folks should be allowed to pick and choose - my point is more that Congress should be very careful about what wars THEY pick and choose. On the subject of fighting a war "over there" or fighting a war "over here," I'd rather we do the bomb dropping over there. Agreed. But that doesn't justify sending conscripted men to fight in wars that are, frankly, none of our business. We do have national interests & international obligations. Again, agreed. But those interests and obligations should only faught for and protected by our volunteer forces, until such a time comes that a force invades or attacks American soil (be it the U.S., any of it territories or Embassys). The underlying issue though is that when your country calls, will you answer or will you hesitate by trying to decide if that call meets your own personal view of "good" vs. "bad?" Not sure if hesitate is the right word, but you can bet your ass I'll take a second to think about the current conflict and if it's worth MY life, tens of thousands (or more) of my fellow citizen's lives and the devestation that loss of life would cause to American families. If China or North Korea launched a missle at California and they told me I was needed for the fight, they can sign me right up. But if Turkmenistan invades Uzbekistan, I can tell you with near certainty that while the fight may well be noble and good, it is FAR from being worth my life - and Congress had better understand that. Maybe what does this for me is the fact that the number of U.S. forces killed in Korea is apporixmately the same number of people that live in my home town. That doesn't include POW or MIA in Korea, but does include men, women, children and seniors in my hometown. EVERYBODY in that town dead to fight that war? Not worth it in my eyes, sorry. Double it for Vietnam. | ||
| Fast1075 |
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYOV8uu17t0 Here's one for yah Squids! (Message edited by fast1075 on August 28, 2009) | ||
| P_squared |
Xl1200r, you make my point for me. I don't think folks should be allowed to pick and choose - my point is more that Congress should be very careful about what wars THEY pick and choose. If we're going to have the mechanism of the draft, and we're going to leave the power to enact it in the hands of our elected representatives, then you have to also accept that you don't get a choice once it's enacted. If you don't like that, and believe there should be very specific criteria for when it can be enacted, e.g. an attack on our soil (You may want to also be specific as to what does/doesn't constitute U.S. soil, e.g. 9/11, Khobar Towers, U.S.S. Cole, etc.) then I'd suggest you lobby your representatives to enact that change. Like I said earlier, I don't mean to be "harsh," but the rules are the rules. If you don't like the rules, then change them. | ||
| Xl1200r |
If we're going to have the mechanism of the draft, and we're going to leave the power to enact it in the hands of our elected representatives, then you have to also accept that you don't get a choice once it's enacted. I do. If you don't like that, and believe there should be very specific criteria for when it can be enacted... There is: The Selective Service System describes its mission as "...to serve the emergency manpower needs of the Military by conscripting untrained manpower, or personnel with professional health care skills, if directed by Congress and the President in a national crisis." North Vietnam invading South Vietnam was not a U.S. national crises. North Korea invading South Korea was not a U.S. national crises. | ||
| P_squared |
North Vietnam invading South Vietnam was not a U.S. national crises. North Korea invading South Korea was not a U.S. national crises. In your opinion. Our elected representatives at the time decided there was a national crisis which justified their use of the draft. They had the power to enact it. They did. If you don't like how they use the power, then change the rules. | ||
| Spatten1 |
Our elected representatives at the time decided there was a national crisis which justified their use of the draft Yes, we had to save the world from the communist threat. Seems very ridiculous now, I don't know why it made sense back then, but I guess it did. | ||
| P_squared |
Like I said earlier, sometimes we get it right, sometimes we don't. We can look at past decisions with the benefit of 20/20 hingsight and judge if the draft was "right" or "wrong" for each conflict it was implemented for. Doesn't change how that decision may be made in the future though. | ||
| Xl1200r |
Our elected representatives at the time decided there was a national crisis which justified their use of the draft. Kennedy got the U.S. got involved in the Vietnam war for the purpose of flexing our military muscles and to attempt to restore out credibility on the international stage. However, he did insist that the fighting be done by those directly affected by the war. Johnson stated he wasn't going to send American boys to fight a war he felt Asain boys should be fighting, but still managed to FAKE an attack on a Navy vessel to attempt to increase domestic support of the effort. One thing led to another. I don't see a crisis or emergency. I see lies and deception. | ||
| Xl1200r |
Doesn't change how that decision may be made in the future though. I'm in the "learn from the past" school of thought, but that's just me. | ||
| Spatten1 |
I'm in the "learn from the past" school of thought, but that's just me. You would be in the minority. | ||
| P_squared |
You're also displaying the advantage of having 20/20 hindsight, and I applaud you for using history to help inform your views. I don't trust congresscritters to learn those lessons though. You're pointing out the political maneuverings used to justify the draft for Vietnam. They used the power we gave them. To think it can never happen again is wishful thinking IMO. So, unless the rules are changed, it's a safe bet IMO that it can happen again. They have the power to enact a draft, regardless if you agree with their reason(s) for it or not. When/if they do, and I sincerely hope they don't have to, I would wish they did it for the right reason(s). However, the track record of our pols isn't the best, so I tend to think that if it's done again, it will be for the "wrong" reasons when looked upon in history with 20/20 hindsight, as we're doing now. If that should come to pass, each person drafted needs to make a decision: Follow the rules, or dodge. | ||
| Xl1200r |
P_ - you're right - I am looking at this with 20/20. And as was eluded to before, I don't know why it made sense back then, but I guess it did. I wasn't there. Not even close. In terms of myself, this is all just theory and rhetoric anyways as I'm now 26, have a chronic back injury and a bum ankle - I don't think they'd even want me. Draft issues can be tough to change. For most men, you register at 18 and never think about it again, unless they choose to enact it. When they do, it's too late to change the rules. For women, you only think about it when your son or brother registers, unless it's enacted. When it's not enacted, there are surely "more important things" to worry about than the rules around the draft which show no signs of being used. Maybe I need to become a congressman. | ||
| Oldog |
A thought on the I'm in the "learn from the past" school of thought, but that's just me. You would be in the minority. Those who fail to learn historys' lessons are doomed to repeat them.} LIKE socialisim in Cuba - FAIL Russia - FAIL East Germany - FAIL Obamas American plan - FAIL Ted has some good points I like the way he thinks about some things. the segment when he talks about his kids and bling, or detroit in that vein I like the way he thinks, Teddy in washington would be "entertaining" If he were to run I would vote for him. "If the house got in the way I'd burn it down" would take on a WHOLE new meaning.. Teddy on the hill yes Real entertainment! |
