Draft

[ddelange]

If the citizens of our nation had chose fighting within the courts over massive civil disobedience, we'd probably still have a fountains that are "For Colored Only".

In fact the people of our great nation took on both tactics: civil disobedience and fighting in the judicial and legislative arena. The combined effort of fighting from within and through civil disobedience resulted in the Civil Rights Law of 1964. Because the "massive" civil disobedience of the late 50's and 60's was backed by a large percentage of the nation's citizens, it resulted in legislative/executive change from within. . . a change to the Rule of Law.

Ronin,
I agree that selective civil disobedience has a place in the history and tradition of our nation. However, I don't support the idea that every individual can decide whether each law in existence is right or wrong and then decide whether to comply or disobey. If every American did so, we would be living in a state of anarchy. Perhaps this sums up my positioin better: if civil disobedience is used as a last resort after all attempts to change the Rule of Law from within are exhausted, then I would not call it anarchy. I still might not agree with it, but I would call it a choice of conscience made by a person who will have to live with the consequences of breaking the law.

[nighthawksh]

This is a long and heated topic to which I just could not avoid adding my 2 cents worth.

I don't care to get into the intense debate of "slavery" or "Rule of Law", etc. I just have a few comments.

One, as to the original question, I do not think we would need to draft for a war with Iraq. It will take some juggling, but I think our military is capable of doing what will need to be done.

Two, a comment was made: "I know I wouldn't want a conscript with me in a fighting hole." In my 20 years wearing the green, some of the best troops I ever served with were draftees. They were as brave and dedicated as any volunteer.

Three, IMHO, all citizens of this country OWE something. It can be military service, community service, whatever, but service to country is, or SHOULD be, an obligation gladly taken. If not voluntaraly, then by conscription. The idea of letting the "other guy" do the fighting and dieing is reprehensible. Does anyone think this country would still exist had it not been for the draft?

Fianlly, I believe it is a good means of teaching our youth responsibility and duty. We all know how the lack of "responsibility" has affected this nation.

[ronin308]

if civil disobedience is used as a last resort after all attempts to change the Rule of Law from within are exhausted, then I would not call it anarchy. I still might not agree with it, but I would call it a choice of conscience made by a person who will have to live with the consequences of breaking the law.

Its does a lot to clarify your position. But I still don't think that civil disobedience does a dishonor to anyone. In the beginning of the thread, you basically said that if I would have chosen disobedience in the Vietnam War, that I would have been dishonoring those who chose to go along with being drafted. I believe this is not so.

[ddelange]

In the beginning of the thread, you basically said that if I would have chosen disobedience in the Vietnam War, that I would have been [a] dishonor [to] those...who chose to go along with being drafted. I believe this is not so.

And with that we can agree to disagree.

[ddelange]

service to country is, or SHOULD be, an obligation gladly taken.

nighthawksh, well put.

"Ask not what your country can do for you . . . . "

[ronin308]

You are vocal that certain members here are dishonoring veterans, that group of certain members includes me. I don't take things like that lightly. Don't expect to be able to insult people and simply get off with a

we can agree to disagree.

[ddelange]

You are vocal that certain members here are dishonoring veterans, that group of certain members includes me.

And you've been just as vocal in posting your opposition to my opinion, in fact adding in such ad hominem statements as "I must be blind" and that my statements are "drivel." I let such personal attacks roll off my thick skin because I'm used to desperate arguments resorting to personal attacks . . . and yet you accuse me of being insulting:

Ronin:
"Don't expect to be able to insult people and simply get off with a we can agree to disagree."

Again, reread the posts and you'll find that I'm not the one who has been personally insulting. I can't understand why you are so bothered by my OPINION that someone who willfully dodges the draft dishonors all other soldiers who have served their country. It's only an opinion. . . . but in your world I suppose I can't "simply get off with" that. I'm not even going to guess at what you mean by that.

[ronin308]

Your "opinion" sir extends to include myself. I don't expect to be able to go onto the L&P forum and say, "All gunowners are redneck racist white people." and not expect to get some sort of response. You have chosen to paint every single person who disagrees with the draft as doing veterans dishonor. You have the right to your opinions obviously, but don't think that people's opinions of you won't be lowered as a result.

[ddelange]

You have chosen to paint every single person who disagrees with the draft as doing veterans dishonor.

Sorry to draw this out, but quit misquoting me. I said that people who DODGE the draft, if eligible, are dishonoring veterans, not people who sound off on this forum to debate the pros and cons of the draft in general. I am all for people expressing their opinion on whether a draft is still usefull policy, if it would make sense today, if it should remain abolished.

You have the right to your opinions obviously, but don't think that people's opinions of you won't be lowered as a result.

Quite to the contrary; of the personal responses I've received, personal opinions of me have not been lowered. . . in fact people seem to appreciate what I've been saying.

[Don Gwinn]

Don Gwinn, you say that slavery is being forced to work for no compensation...do we not pay our draftees?

Because we feel like it. If the military decided not to pay draftees, what exactly could they do about it?

Yes, I'm aware that many people think my point of view is hopelessly idealistic. That's fine. Lots of people think it's hopelessly idealistic to allow citizens to own firearms and the only "practical, common sense" way to go is to ban firearms, sacrificing the good of the individual for the good of the collective.

Needless to say, I don't buy it. You are certainly all entitled to your opinions on the draft and I wouldn't try to deny you, but I won't soft-pedal mine either. And by the way, I don't know who told someone here that the draft was abolished after Vietnam, but I'm registered with the Selective Service as are all law-abiding young men my age.

Let's try this: Can anyone here point out for me the difference between the draft and slavery? I'm trying to keep an open mind, because some people I respect are on the other side here, but I don't see it.

[Blackhawk]

Let's try this: Can anyone here point out for me the difference between the draft and slavery? I'm trying to keep an open mind, because some people I respect are on the other side here, but I don't see it.

How about this?

The draft is the finite process of selecting and inducting individuals into military service. Once the process is ended for that individual, the person is sent from the induction station to a military unit for training along with other individuals who volunteered for military service.

In my own case, the time it took to be drafted from the time I was given an all expenses paid 3 day trip to Los Angeles for a pre-induction physical to the time I was sworn in was about a month. Once sworn in, I was a member of the armed services just like anybody else who wasn't drafted but volunteered instead. The difference is merely that they chose to be there themselves and I was chosen to be there by my friends and neighbors on the local draft board.

"Slavery" implies that I was a chattel during the initial 2 year period of my active duty obligation. However, I was treated just the same as any other soldier.

Seems to me that the only difference is that it was not my choice to be there to be sworn in at the end of the induction process, which as I said was completed the instant I was sworn into the Army. Compare it to the process of getting married....

Maybe I don't understand fully what you think slavery is.

[ddelange]

And by the way, I don't know who told someone here that the draft was abolished after Vietnam, but I'm registered with the Selective Service as are all law-abiding young men my age.

I did. The draft was abolished. We currently do not draft men for service. The Selective Service is something entirely different, containing a list of names who would be eligible for a draft IF Congress decided in the future to reinstitute the draft.

[ronin308]

Sorry to draw this out, but quit misquoting me. I said that people who DODGE the draft, if eligible, are dishonoring veterans, not people who sound off on this forum to debate the pros and cons of the draft in general. I am all for people expressing their opinion on whether a draft is still usefull policy, if it would make sense today, if it should remain abolished.

You stated on page 3:

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.

I rest my case.

[LonWilson]

No way in hell.

It violates the 13th amendment.

On top of that, not only would it mean a total loss of my freedoms, it would also mean that I cannot, as a gay man, do ANYTHING sexual under any circumstances other than with myself, whereas heterosexuals and bisexuals get a free pass because their "activity" is allowed by law.

If things are actually that bad, I'd rather stay in my home, and fight. Our military forces could stop the Chinese (quite frankly, they are the ones who have the stones or the numbers to do it), but if they were actually invade, you know what the best kind of warfare would be?

Yep, guerilla warfare, house to house battles, sniping, and the like. They wouldn't have much of a problem taking over California, but once they start pushing into Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Texas, they're going to have major problems.

I'd rather fight to defend my home than be subject to some idiot general who got promoted due to brownosing the Joint Cheifs of Staff.

[ddelange]

I rest my case.

Okay, let me rest mine:
The "anti-draft blabber" refererence I used was directed specifically at those draft protesters who made statements in this thread such as yours:

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

and this one:

"I don't trust the judgement of our govenment today, therefore I don't want them to have the final word if I have to go to war. If there was a war going on that I deemed just, I would most likely sign up. There comes a time when you screw with the bull you're going to get the horn. But that is going to have to be my choice with the government as it is."

Throughout this entire thread I have been directing my negative view to those who would choose to dodge the draft (either during Vietnam, in any other war, or in the future) -- not to those merely wanting to express their opinions on the general topic of the thread one way or another: will it be needed in Iraq; should it be reinstated; is it constitutiional. . . ? I take issue with your position that you would only "sign up" if it was a war you "deemed just." And I repeat my original position that deciding for yourself whether you will be a draft dodger or not dishonors those soldiers who have served, fought, and died for this country and the freedoms that all Americans enjoy.

[ronin308]

I said that people who DODGE the draft, if eligible, are dishonoring veterans, not people who sound off on this forum to debate the pros and cons of the draft in general.

This is quite possibly the most circular discussion I've ever had. I WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE DRAFT IN VIETNAM, I DID NOT DODGE THE DRAFT, HENCE MY VIEW IS SOLELY OPINION.

I am all for people expressing their opinion on whether a draft is still usefull policy, if it would make sense today, if it should remain abolished.

Then you stated:

And I repeat my original position that deciding for yourself whether you will be a draft dodger or not dishonors those soldiers who have served, fought, and died for this country and the freedoms that all Americans enjoy.

ONCE AGAIN: I HAVE NEVER DODGED THE DRAFT. So therefore is is solely OPINION. You have to be one or the other: either you are "all for" me expressing my opinion or you believe that my opinion dishonors veterans. My opinion of Vietnam was an example of how I wouldn't want to fight in a war that I did not approve of, therefore, I would like to see the draft go to the wayside. That example served to fuel my debate about "the pros and cons of the draft in general". My Vietnam opinion is a historical example of one of the things that I believe is a con of drafting: that you have to fight in a war just because the government says so. Contrary to what some people may think, citizenry are not the government's tool. The government is our tool.

[Boats]

It is quite reassuring to know that we have such a clique of national security experts here at TFL who know what wars are just and which ones they're going to fight both prospectively and retrospectively.

It's quite amusing really. We have Ronin308, among others, who is of the opinion that he is not a draft dodger because he didn't have the opportunity to duck Vietnam, but who has said he would have ducked Vietnam if given the chance. Curious, are wannabe draft dodgers somehow more respectable than actual ones?

We also have a gaggle of others standing on the 13th amendment even if no one else who matters would reopen that argument with them in the face of a new draft.

Let's see what we're actually talking about for a moment:

Amendment XIII (1865).

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Hmmm, an anti-slavery amendment passed by a Congress and ratified by states who had just finished a war that featured a draft? Do you think for a minute that the historical context of the amendment might exclude a draft as equaling slavery? I do. The SCOTUS does. Wow, Congress, under Section 2, can exempt the draft from the 13th Amendment? You don't say. . . .We live in a representative democracy. If the people you have elected to represent you say that you need to be in the Army, haven't you, by way of the structure of our government, sort of ordered yourself drafted through your representative? Well, not really--unless you actually respect the rule of law, particularly ones where the constitutionality has been decided so repeatedly.

Which, I guess brings us full circle to all of the self-annointed national security experts who, with the benefit of precious hindsight and uncanny prescience, have determined which past and future conflicts might or might've require(d) their personal involvement. Then they reserve the divine right of personal sovereignty to decide for themselves alone whether they should fight, as if they were suddenly transformed from American citizens with both rights and obligations, into kings and queens of some desert isle they bought and the law is what they say it is.

There is a segment of "Americans" alive today that thought that way. Of course, their own precious hides were worth far more than their citizenship. Most of them are called "Canadians."

Those that defy the notion that the draft is constitutional, and those that would dodge one were one implemented might think themselves patriotic, but they most assuredly are not. They're primadonnas and free-riders of the worst sort.

Veterans' Day is in a few hours. Were I some of you, I'd reflect on a dearly held position that is tantamount to metaphorically spitting on the draftees' service, graves, shattered health, and memory, by calling them slaves or implying they were too stupid or spineless to recognize what their own best interests were.

There is always Canada if a draft is reinstituted. Maybe more appropriate in this day and age would be for the prospective 21st century draft dodger to bring to his intake his urine stained sheets as a badge of cowardice and make the old bedwetter argument. Failing that, there is the old saw about the 13th Amendment. I'm sure everyone will have the utmost respect for your brand of "courage" as you're hauled off. You can always spend the rest of your life rationalizing how it wasn't really contempt in the eyes of everyone that you saw during your last stand.

Boats--USN 1985-89.

[orlando5]

Conscription is dead for the most part in the USA. The USA has a long history of people volunteering for military service. Personally I rather have 100 well trained volunteers then 10,000 conscription soldiers.

Love your country, distrust the government is as old as apple pie. The US Constitution is a testimony of that.

[LonWilson]

I'm sure everyone will have the utmost respect for your brand of "courage" as you're hauled off. You can always spend the rest of your life rationalizing how it wasn't really contempt in the eyes of everyone that you saw during your last stand.

One of the most pathetic insults I've ever seen in my life.

[Ed Brunner]

Some Americans would participate in a war only if they agreed with all aspects of it?

Sounds like they have given it a lot of thought and wish others to respect their personal reasoned decision.
They are not alone. Others share their feelings. One such person rose to become the President of the United States of America.
Most Americans regard him with the utmost contempt.

So many peoples feelings about the draft are tied to its use in our Vietnam experience where our participation allowed South Vietnam to delay becoming part of North Vietnam until our troops were pulled out. Hopefully we have learned as a nation not to participate in armed conflict where we have no national interests.

Back to the draft. Is it involuntary servitude? Yes it is, or no not really. You decide. You can go to Sweden or Canada or Russia and another Jimmy Carter might forgive you, but a lot of people never will.

It is a matter of choice.

[wingman]

It is good ww2 vets for the most part
do not see this thread, it is a shame
and in many ways reflects why this
country will face great problems in the future. Just some thoughts from a old vet.

[ronin308]

It is quite reassuring to know that we have such a clique of national security experts here at TFL who know what wars are just and which ones they're going to fight both prospectively and retrospectively.

Boats, you're right, I should never criticize anything the government does. Since I am simply a mere peasant, I shouldn't try to decide. After all, the higher ups always act in our best interests.

Then they reserve the divine right of personal sovereignty to decide for themselves alone whether they should fight, as if they were suddenly transformed from American citizens with both rights and obligations, into kings and queens of some desert isle they bought and the law is what they say it is.

I don't owe the government a thing, but I owe this country everything. I would gladly fight in a war to defend America. But I'm not going to fight in a war that is based on government interests that has nothing to do with defending America.

I'd reflect on a dearly held position that is tantamount to metaphorically spitting on the draftees' service, graves, shattered health, and memory, by calling them slaves or implying they were too stupid or spineless to recognize what their own best interests were.

I never called anyone a slave, I never implied that anyone was stupid or spineless. What I stated was my opinion, knowing what I know now, I would not have gone to Vietnam. Even my own father, a Vietnam veteran, said that knowing what he knows now, he wishes that America never went to Vietnam. Does he do himself and all of his brothers that fought with him dishonor then? Is he "spitting on the draftees' service, graves, shattered health, and memory"?

I think a the large gap in this debate lies in the fact that certain people have full trust in the current government's judgement, and some don't. Obviously, I don't trust the current government's judgement.

Also, here's a little personal history lesson for the naysayers: I had a good chance at the U.S. Naval Academy. I was well along my way in the application process and things were looking very promising...then I was disqualified for having childhood asthma. I even talked to the Army and Marines about getting a waiver, they couldn't get me one. So don't give me that "Boats USN 1985-89". I would be serving in the military right now if I would have passed the medicals.

[Boats]

One of the most pathetic insults I've ever seen in my life.

Actually, I was trying to expose the bathetic nature of the position the draft dodgers hold. What noble triteness for future generations to behold!

"Grandpa, what did you do during the war?"

"I ran screaming to the airport and became an Australian, Timmy."

Perhaps the best anthem of the coward ever written:

Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot.
He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Robin.
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin!

He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp,
Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken,
To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin!

His head smashed in and his heart cut out
And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off
And his pen--

Brave Sir Robin ran away,
Bravely ran away, away.
When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly, he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin.

He is packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering up
And chickening out and pissing off home,
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge.

And to think that some of the erstwhile draft dodgers here are fond of "Molon Labe?" Newsflash: The Spartans were conscripts.

Yes, Let's picture the scene:

Leonidas: Evidently, all of our world is under threat from the Persians. We do not have time to mobilize all of the citizens of Hellena to meet the threat. The Athenians and some others to the north intend to head off the Persians at Thermopylae to give time to ready the Athenian battle fleet. I am taking 300 of you there to fight the horde and buy time for the rest of Hellena to get an effective defense going. We face almost certain death. Any questions?

TFL Spartan 1: Yeah, I have a question. Since we hoploi have a say in the affairs of Sparta, where do you get off ordering us to face death? I don't remember signing nothing or volunteering. Why do you treat us like armed slaves?

Leonidas: Well, first of all, I am one of the kings of Sparta and I say we're going. Two, this society has paid in full to assist raising you to this point and maintained your status in the world through the expenditure of the blood and treasure of your ancestors. It is your turn to give something back for the future, even if it means laying down your life for the continued existence of our way of life. Fate requires that it be our generation that faces this threat.

TFL Spartan 2: Yeah well who says? As an autonomous individual, I reserve the right to determine if our cause is just, and whether it is worth possibly sacrificing my life for. I mean, who needs to help out a bunch of wuss Athenians? What have they ever done for--gack--

(TFL Spartan 2 has been stabbed to death by Leonidas)

Leonidas: Any more questions from the "big picture" experts we seem to have here? No? Thought so. Gear up!

Of course we have civilized a little and now merely lock up those too afraid to do their duty when the call comes. What a sad little toll for chickening out on the defense of the greatest country that has ever existed.

[ronin308]

Boats- The Spartans were fighting off a direct invasion, which is quite different from imperialist or interventionist conflict. Its not like they were taking a ship over to the 'states to get involved in the Sioux vs. Pawnee conflict.

[Boats]

Sparta had not been invaded.

The US had not been invaded in WW2, unless one counts two of the islands of the Alaskan archipelago, which was only a territory at the time, same as Hawaii.

I can only imagine that your "Sioux vs. Pawnee" conflict refers to Vietnam. Ignoring for the moment that the real battle was a global one against the spread of communism, of which Vietnam was one of the two hottest spots of the "Cold War," I'd only point out that our guys got onto boats and fought Germans in Africa and Europe after we'd only been directly attacked by the Japanese. We also seemed to get an empire of sorts in the bargain.

Boats, you're right, I should never criticize anything the government does. Since I am simply a mere peasant, I shouldn't try to decide. After all, the higher ups always act in our best interests.

I am not saying that. What I am saying is there is a time when the debate about the desireability of armed conflict is pretty much over and it is time to sack up and do your bit. The draft for Vietnam was ended when there was a consensus in our democracy that it had outlived its usefulness for that conflict. That Vietnam is retrospectively viewed as a bad war doesn't, in and of itself, make the draft immoral or illegal.

I don't owe the government a thing, but I owe this country everything. I would gladly fight in a war to defend America. But I'm not going to fight in a war that is based on government interests that has nothing to do with defending America.

Well that has been the point of my criticism. Try as you might, you cannot divorce the "government" from "America." The Constitution is a governing document. It forms a government. By remaining here, and not voting with your feet, you positively submit to the outcome of American governmental policy choices. The "government interests" are "American interests" until the government is changed to reflect a different or dissenting viewpoint. This is perhaps why democracies should not enter into armed conflict lightly, but there is nothing inherently unjust about a war being fought at the say so of the government. You can always still vote with your feet or do time in prison to validate your own views. I just don't think anyone would have to respect that decision.

I never called anyone a slave, I never implied that anyone was stupid or spineless. What I stated was my opinion, knowing what I know now, I would not have gone to Vietnam. Even my own father, a Vietnam veteran, said that knowing what he knows now, he wishes that America never went to Vietnam. Does he do himself and all of his brothers that fought with him dishonor then? Is he "spitting on the draftees' service, graves, shattered health, and memory"?

Intended or not, that is the vibe I am pulling from much of this thread. The implication is there, whether you see it is another matter. The trouble with your statements about Vietnam, is that when historical events are happening, no one knows "what they know now." It is specious, to say the least, to state that one would not do what others did do because one knows how it came out. Sorry, but I am sure if people could see into the future, they'd do a lot of things differently. We have to deal with issues as they come. Vietnam was contentious when it was happening, it has only been declared "wrong" in the full view of hindsight.

As for your father, I think it is one thing to regret that the war was fought, but if what you are saying is that were he given a second chance he'd have ducked it, that is another matter. If the former is the case, he is not dishonoring anyone. If the latter is the case, he certainly is.

I think a the large gap in this debate lies in the fact that certain people have full trust in the current government's judgement, and some don't. Obviously, I don't trust the current government's judgement.

I think the true difference is that some people here actually believe in the American ideal of representative democracy, and others, push come to shove, don't, reserving judgement as to whether to be patriotic.

Also, here's a little personal history lesson for the naysayers: I had a good chance at the U.S. Naval Academy. I was well along my way in the application process and things were looking very promising...then I was disqualified for having childhood asthma. I even talked to the Army and Marines about getting a waiver, they couldn't get me one. So don't give me that "Boats USN 1985-89". I would be serving in the military right now if I would have passed the medicals.

I almost won the lottery once. I even bought a ticket, I got some of the numbers, but I didn't win. If I had, I'd be a multi-millionaire by now.