Draft

[ddelange]

No, there won't be a draft for any possible war with Iraq. However, if during the war on Iraq North Korea decides to invade the South, and overrun U.S. troops on the DMZ, we would be committed to fighting two major wars at the same time. The doctrine of our military is to be able to fight two wars at the same time, but with under 1 million soldiers now, and depleted military resources from the Clinton era, I don't know if we could do it. If we had to engage in a second war against North Korea, and if Congress authorizes/declares war againt North Korea, I would be proud to serve. . . even if it was after being drafted.

The anti-draft blabber on this thread dishonors the soldiers who have been drafted, fought, and died protecting the very right being expressed by the anti-draft posters on this forum. And before someone brings it up, I'll ask myself: do I think the Vietnam War was a just war? With hindsight, I answer no, it was a mistake. Would I have served if drafted? Yes, and I honor all of those who fought and died in that "rat hole."

[Oleg Volk]

if Congress authorizes/declares war againt North Korea

Or we could nuke North Korea and spare everyone Stateside the inconvenience of having to die for the benefit of South Korea. More likely than the reenactment of the first Korean War.

[Don Gwinn]

The anti-draft blabber on this thread dishonors the soldiers who have been drafted, fought, and died protecting the very right being expressed by the anti-draft posters on this forum.

Think about that for a moment. I can't reconcile the paradox. Were those men fighting for the right, or does exercising the right dishonor them? It can't be both, unless they chose to fight for their own dishonor.

[ddelange]

Think about that for a moment. I can't reconcile the paradox. Were those men fighting for the right, or does exercising the right dishonor them? It can't be both, unless they chose to fight for their own dishonor.

It's not that hard: Our soldiers have fought and died for, among many other rights, the freedom of speech. The anti-draft members participating in this thread have the constitutional right to express their opinion. However, in my opinion as stated above, their selfish statements in opposition to the draft dishonors the soldiers who have been drafted to serve their country.

[ronin308]

TFLers, look closely, there is hope for education: Don Gwinn!

Don- Good job on noticing that paradox...I skimmed over it.

[ronin308]

ddelange- You have completely missed Don's point...but I'll let him argue it with you.

What does criticizing a government policy have to do with those subject to that policy? That is like saying that if you criticize modern taxes that you are doing a dishonor to every single person who ever paid taxes.

[ddelange]

What does criticizing a government policy have to do with those subject to that policy? That is like saying that if you criticize modern taxes that you are doing a dishonor to every single person who ever paid taxes.

You did more than criticize the draft, you stated you would not have served if drafted in the Vietnam War. So you would have intentionally violated the law. There's also no problem with criticizing modern taxes, but if you don't pay them you're breaking the law.

You have the right to choose to intentionally violate the law and pick and choose which wars you would allow yourself to be a part of. I have the right to say that such conduct, while not only illegal, dishonors those soldiers who were drafted and did serve their country well, even through unpopular wars.

[Oleg Volk]

My (unpopular) opinion is that being cannon fodder in a bad cause is not honorable, merely going by the path of least resistance or misguided (due to propaganda). If one is forced to do something (no matter how beneficial to others), the issue is free will and the imposition on it by others. One might agree with the task and do it because it would coincide with his own feelings.

But if one disagrees with the task which is given and has not freely concented to do it, then doing it is not honorable. Tragic would be a better term...it applies to every Russian draftee who'd gone against Finnish pillboxes under the muzzles of NKVD submachine guns, and it applies to the French and German soldiers who performed horrific mutual slaughter in the trenches of WW1, and it would apply to Americans wasting their lives to take the media attention off yet another Bill Clinton scandal.

And don't tell me that our political leaders know best. They may or they may not, but few of them have our interests at heart. So treat their claims with scepticism.

[ronin308]

I don't really understand your fascination with the sanctity of the law. Just because I have an opinion (note that I actually did not dodge the draft therefore it is solely an opinion) on the government's policies (like the Vietnam War), it has no bearing on my opinion of the people that fought in it. So when my father says in 20/20 hindsight that Vietnam was BS, is he dishonoring himself?

Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may. ~Mark Twain

[ddelange]

I don't really understand your fascination with the sanctity of the law.

Because we live in a nation that is governed by the Rule of Law. When individuals decide to opt out of certain laws based on personal opinions, we start the decline in to anarchy.

Just because I have an opinion (note that I actually did not dodge the draft therefore it is solely an opinion) on the government's policies (like the Vietnam War), it has no bearing on my opinion of the people that fought in it.

I have no disagreement with this statement, though it seems to contradict your previous post:

Self-preservation is more like it. Would I have fought in Vietnam? Hell no.

Saying "Hell no" I wouldn't have fought in Vietnam implies you would have dodged the draft if picked, no? If you would have served if drafted, then I must have misunderstood your point.

[clem]

WyldOne:

"I have major issues with the military in general."

,
really?

What "major issues"?

[WyldOne]

clem,

Nothing I feel confident talking about. It's basically remnants from my ultra-lefty, gun-hating days.

[ronin308]

ddelange-

Because we live in a nation that is governed by the Rule of Law. When individuals decide to opt out of certain laws based on personal opinions, we start the decline in to anarchy.

I suppose Mr. Twain's quote was lost on you. If it were a law that the mayor of Lafayette could sleep with my wife on the first night of our marriage, would me (and my wife) disobeying the law descend all of society into anarchy? This might come as a revelation, but some laws are simply made to be broken. If a law is unjust, it is unjust, regardless of who penned it or who enforces it.

Saying "Hell no" I wouldn't have fought in Vietnam implies you would have dodged the draft if picked, no? If you would have served if drafted, then I must have misunderstood your point.

I honestly have no idea what your point is. In my opinion (I don't have a time machine so I really can't make it be my action instead of my opinion), had I been around for the Vietnam draft (and knowing what I know today), I would not have complied.

So you're essentially saying that if I have an opinion (disagreeing with the draft), that is okay. But you're also saying that I have an opinion (that I would not have gone to fight in Vietnam), that is not okay and I am trampling on graves and memories? I fail to see any point to your arguement.

[clem]

WyldOne,

Oh, okay.

[ddelange]

I fail to see any point to your arguement.

Then don't bother if you don't understand it. Plenty of other people have told me that they do understand my point. Maybe it's just you who can't connect the dots?

[ddelange]

If it were a law that the mayor of Lafayette could sleep with my wife on the first night of our marriage, would me (and my wife) disobeying the law descend all of society into anarchy?

I disagree with your premise that such a law would be passed in our Republic, or even if it was, it would be struck down as unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments, not to mention the restriction against laws that are arbitrary and capricious. The difference, I think, is that you want to decide what laws are "arbitrary and capricious" while I still trust our courts for that protection. Nice hypothetical citing to old English law allowing nobleman to take a peasant's wife on the wedding night, a tradition made popular in the movie Braveheart. . . . did you see it?

[Fred Hansen]

No

I know I wouldn't want a conscript with me in a fighting hole.

What Destructo6 said.

As far as the draft goes, I don't think we should ever have one again. I think R. A. Heinlein got it right in "Starship Troopers" (the book, not the damn movie) when it comes to the relationship between military service and citizenship.

[glock glockler]

ddelange,

Are you familiar with the 13th Amendment? I think it has something to do with involuntary servitude, so what do you think the draft is?

I'll le the cat out of the bag: none of us can be forced in to the Armed forces, no matter what. What will happen is that they can take us down to the place where we'd do basic and line us up and say "Everyone who volunteers to serve in this man's Army, take a step forward"n and if you do that they've got you. That is your de facto agreement to joining up, and once you do it, you're theirs.

The trick is to not step forward, as you don't give your legal consent which makes them unable to force you via the 13th Amendment. They'll yell at you a bit and maybe put you in solitary for a night, but they'll very soon let you go.

[Fred Hansen]

[RikWriter]

I have no moral, ethical or philosophical problems with a draft...in fact, I think it would be a VERY good thing for the youth of this country if two years of military service were mandatory.
However, there is no need for a draft in the upcoming hostilities with Iraq or any other low-to-medium instensity conflict pending.
As someone already said, we are moving more towards the hiring of corporate mercenaries to fill support roles traditionally filled with draftees and reservists.
However, if the current low-intensity war ever flames into something larger-scale...say, if one of the rogue states in the Middle East acquires and uses a nuke, there might be a need for a draft.

[Ed Brunner]

One of the things I learned from Vietnam:
If we ever have another war, someone wiser than I will have to decide who is exempt from service. Then EVERYONE else goes until it is finished.
No more six or twelve month tours - everybody goes for the duration. It should take about six weeks.

[ddelange]

Ed,
Well put. Based on your experience, how long did it take a draftee to become a well trained soldier during the Vietnam War?

[glock glockler]

RikWriter,

That's very thoughtful of you . It's great to know that our country is filled with freedom loving folks like yourself that are willing to force people at gunpoint to do what you think is in their best interest

[ddelange]

The argument that the 13th Amendment prevents the government from utilizing the draft in time of war or conflict was rejected by the Supreme Court in 1918 in the Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918).

"The Court's analysis, in full, of the Thirteenth Amendment issue raised by a compulsory military draft was the following: ``As we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.'' Id. at 390. While the Supreme Court has never squarely held that conscription need not be premised on a declaration of war, indications are that the power is not constrained by the need for a formal declaration of war by ``the great representative body of the people.'' During the Vietnam War (an undeclared war) the Court, upholding a conviction for burning a draft card, declared that the power to classify and conscript manpower for military service was ``beyond question.'' United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968). See also United States v. Holmes, 387 F.2d 781, 784 (7th Cir. 1968) (``the power of Congress to raise armies and to take effective measures to preserve their efficiency, is not limited by either the Thirteenth Amendment or the absence of a military emergency''), cert. denied 391 U.S. 956."

[RikWriter]

glock glockler pontificated:
That's very thoughtful of you . It's great to know that our country is filled with freedom loving folks like yourself that are willing to force people at gunpoint to do what you think is in their best interest


Government is, at its very core, forcing people to do things, with the unstated fact that it is ultimately at gunpoint.
Only the very naive think it is any other way.