Draft

[ronin308]

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.

The United States Military was directly attacked on U.S. territory by a foreign government, to me this constitutes invasion.

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.

Too bad the military won't let me sack up and do my bit.

That Vietnam is retrospectively viewed as a bad war doesn't, in and of itself, make the draft immoral or illegal.

The draft and "bad wars" have a direct corrolation. I don't think its right for people to be forced to fight in "bad wars". Hence my criticism of the draft.

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.

I agree. But there is something inherently unjust about an unjust 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.

Do you like guns Boats? Imagine that one day our legislature passed a law that confiscated all handguns above .22LR caliber. Would you "vote with your feet or do time in prison to validate your own views" on firearms? Blackhawk and I already had this discussion:

Me-

We have to endure whatever injustices are handed out to us. But this doesn't mean that we can't fight to change them. That is why I really don't buy into a love it or leave type of philosophy. If you can't endure, leave. If you can and you have the courage to take a stand, stay and fight.

Blackhawk-

It's best to pick your fights so they're at a time and place of your choosing to give you the best opportunity to prevail.

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.

Exactly. That is why my view is mere opinion, it is completely fueled by my historical knowledge of the Vietnam war. That is why is places no fault/blame/insult on anyone who ever fought in it. Had I actually been this age in 1968, I probably would have signed up voluntarily.

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.

I don't have blind faith in anything. I surely don't have blind faith when it comes to government. What if not one candidate that I voted for got into office, am I even represented in government then?

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.

Well that was snide. My personal history goes to show that I would have been serving my country if my country had wanted me. But they didn't, so I can't thump my chest and talk about how I was in the military during peacetime like you.

[Boats]

Well that was snide. My personal history goes to show that I would have been serving my country if my country had wanted me. But they didn't, so I can't thump my chest and talk about how I was in the military during peacetime like you.

It was meant to be snide. I'm not chest thumping so much as underscoring that I served and that fact informs why I would never even toe the line of casting aspersions on former draftees.

BTW, when I joined the Navy in "peactime" no one was assuring me I wouldn't be in World War 3 the very next day. Oddly enough, having served in the peacetime Navy of that era was quite dangerous enough thank you. I was in the Persian Gulf the first time around when the USS Stark was stricken by an Iraqi exocet missile. We also fought off Iranian high speed motorboat attacks and constantly on the alert for "Silkworm" missile attacks and mines. The second time I was there, the USS Vincennes had just shot down an Iranian airliner and put a wild hair up everyone's butt. Training ops, refueling at sea, fire, weather--all of those are still potentially lethal no matter when or where one is serving at sea.

I don't suppose you know that one of the most lethal and costly battles the US Navy fought in World War 2 was against a typhoon off of the Phillipines? Not a shot was fired and several ships were lost. Admiral Halsey was almost court-martialed.

So I suppose you can also tell me if a 12.7mm machine gun firing AP is any less dangerous because it is being fired at one's ship during peacetime? Is a magnetic mine any less dangerous because a war is being fought in international waters an the US is not a party to it? You can perhaps tell me that seventeen sailors aboard the USS Cole off of Yemen were not in harm's way?

Too bad you can't man the line somewhere. It'd give you some much needed perspective.

[ronin308]

Boats- I didn't say that there wasn't a danger. I simply said that it was "peacetime". My distinction is that peacetime=no declared conflict. Wartime=declared conflict. If we defined war as having threats/antagonists...then the U.S. has been constantly at war since our founding. My remark was meant to be snide because you try to make a clear distinction that you served, which is fine. But the context was an attempt to belittle those who did not serve.

[ahenry]

...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.

There is a massive difference between those two views. The fact that you lump them together exemplifies what others here have been trying to say. One is disagreeing with the war but doing your duty anyway, and another is disagreeing with the war and shirking your duty. Whitewashing the latter view doesn’t change the underlying arrogance and irresponsibility of such a view.

[ronin308]

ahenry- I stated earlier:

Had I actually been this age in 1968, I probably would have signed up voluntarily.

I'm lumping the views together because they are both post-war opinions. If the U.S. were to have a war with say, North Korea, today, and I were drafted, I probably wouldn't dodge it. But it is tough to have a duty to a government that doesn't even respect my property or my inherent rights. Vietnam is my historical example of how sometimes the government doesn't always use the best judgement in warfare. That is why I am critical of the draft. The two opinions are related because my father tells me that the war wasn't really worthwhile. This constructs my opinion of the draft because people could be sent to wars that are not worthwhile. I never said that the opinions were the same. One just serves to construct the other.

[Blackhawk]

An amusing (to me, anyway) idea keeps popping up in some of the posts here along the lines that "I wouldn't have gone to Vietnam because the U.S. had no interest fighting a war there," and "so and so went to Vietnam and says if he had it to do over again, he wouldn't have gone."

Those sentiments are based on the premises that:

1) The U.S. actually had no interests in prosecuting the war in Vietnam, or

2) A sizeable number of Vietnam Vets later concluded that it was an unjust war the U.S. had no business fighting, or

3) Some combination of those conclusions or sentiments.

The facts are:

a) The U.S. had a treaty obligating it to intervene on behalf of South Vietnam going back to the Eisenhower administration.

b) The U.S. had a healthy fear of Soviet communism destabilizing large parts of the world, one weak country at a time, dating back to the advent of Stalin. (BTW, George Patton was politically astute as was Douglas MacArthur about the intent of Soviet communism.)

c) Ho Chi Minh and his Viet Minh were Soviet surrogates and had been since Ho went through the Comintern in the USSR in the '30s.

d) The French were U.S. surrogates attempting to hold of the Viet Minh after WWII. (Ever wonder how unusual it was for France to be a grease spot on the world floor in 1945 and prosecuting a war in Vietnam a year later...?)

e) North Korea and many of the other Soviet client states lacked great resources that could further the Soviet cause for the most part, but South Vietnam with its fabulous Mekong Delta, harbors, and other natural resources was the breadbasket of Asia that could be quite a strategic and resource rich jewel in the Soviet orbit, and it was a mere 700 or so miles from the Philippines.

f) The Eisenhower administration determined that the west was dangerously close to the Domino Theory being triggered in favor of the USSR, and that a stand had to be made.

g) All of the nuclear powers, including the USSR, had concluded that direct military confrontation would inevitably esclate to use of nuclear weapons where survival itself was dubious and any status of "winner" was impossible.

h) The Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) agreement had a tenet that direct confrontation would not take place between the U.S. and the USSR.

i) Meanwhile, the Viet Minh were getting stronger, more successful, and more popular. Their support came from (or through actually) North Vietnam. One of the major reasons for their increasing success in winning the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese was the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem, which was very repressive. He had to go for the west to keep a lid on the situation. In 1963, after atrocious acts against its people by the South Vietnamese government, the U.S. indicated a change or regime would trigger increased "aid". Diem and his brother were assassinated, and the U.S. was committed to escalate its involvement in a war against the USSRs surrogates, North Vietnam, and the reorganized PLAF or Viet Cong.

j) It NEVER was JUST a Vietnamese civil war. It was Soviet equipment and war doctrine against U.S. equipment and war doctrine.

Ever wonder why we didn't go into Cambodia and Laos to cut the supply route popularly known as the Ho Chi Minh Trail? Ever wonder why the North Vietnamese didn't use helicopters and air to transport supplies to their across the border sanctuaries in Cambodia and Laos? Ever wonder why Johnson and Nixon were scared spitless about hot pursuit into those sanctuaries? Our agreement with the Soviets controlled our rules of engagement, and that should give you a clue.

There were occasional Soviet helicopter incursions into South Vietnam, but in the fall of 1969, they airlifted a radar controlled anti-aircraft gun into II Corps. One afternoon in December it shot down 4 U.S. aircraft including an F-4 Phantom. Confirmation of how the gun got there was required and obtained. Three months later, the U.S. launched the OTB campaign into Cambodia and Laos. The Soviets violated the border sanctuary agreement, and we were free to kick butt.

The attrition rate of Soviet resources was onerous, and there was no liklihood of the stalemate resolving in its favor. Over 20,000 NVA troops inflitrated the south western region of II Corps in 1969, and they were decimated and repelled by B-52 strikes due to the U.S. ability to know exactly where they were. Ban Me Thout was their objective, and in frustration at being routed by air power for the most part, they brought in that gun.

All the while from the formation of the Viet Minh, the North Vietnamese just wanted their country re-unified after centuries of foreign domination. They gladly accepted the help of the USSR, China, or wherever else they could get war materiel. The U.S. didn't care about a piddly civil war except that it wasn't JUST a civil war due to the inevitible outcome of Vietnam, including the treasure chest of the south, becoming a Soviet client state able to pay tribute to further its plan of world domination.

The U.S. and USSR agreed to disengage, and we went home. Then something that should have everybody in the U.S. scratching their heads took place. The USSR got into a hopeless, but parallel situation in Afghanistan. It was taking its turn in the barrel, but again it couldn't prevail with its equipment and war doctrine. The Muhajadeen were the surrogates of the U.S., and needed very little support. The Stinger was the main gadget, and it was easily operable by relatively unsophisticated soldiers. After another period of devastating attrition of Soviet resources, they went home.

The world was full of surrogates, and suddenly the former U.S. surrogate against Iran became a Soviet surrogate against the west in the person of Saddam. With the money and will to buy the best Soviet equipment, Iraq put it and the Soviet war doctrine up against the U.S. You know the score on that one, but it was the end for the USSR. Its credibility was gone. Its resources were exhausted, and the regime wasn't viable among its own people. Not with the awesome bang of fusion bombs exploding, but with a barely audible murmer, it imploded.

The first of the surrogate wars pitting the U.S. against the USSR was Korea with China being the main surrogate and North Korea the front man. Then Vietnam came center stage from 1954 to 1975 followed by Afghanistan followed by Iraq.

Did the U.S. have a pressing national interest in fighting in Vietnam. You bet it did!

I didn't know all that stuff when I was drafted. In fact the pieces of the puzzle didn't come together for another 25 years. But if I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have been drafted. I would have already been there with bells on.

As for those who served in Vietnam and later wished they hadn't, they didn't know what was going on either and probably still don't....

[ahenry]

But it is tough to have a duty to a government that doesn't even respect my property or my inherent rights. Vietnam is my historical example of how sometimes the government doesn't always use the best judgement in warfare. That is why I am critical of the draft.

I know that’s what you are saying. My point is that that view, is what others here have been saying is a dishonor to those that have fought and died for you. I know you don’t think you are dishonoring them, and I am confident that you would never deliberately choose to. And I know that you consciously respect and value their sacrifice, as we all do. I don’t believe that anybody is questioning that. The difference is that, while those drafted (or those that decided to volunteer in order to get something better than the draft would have given them) might all question the need for some war, they did their duty regardless. Our gov’t is integral to our country, and its decisions are our decisions; if you do not believe that it is, then it is time for you to pick up a weapon and change it or leave for something better.

Edited to add:
BTW, before you decide to toss out laws and such as you did before, ones disagreement with a law and a view that it is unconstitutional is vastly different than a persons decision to not support thier country when she calls for it during a war simply because one thinks that the war is not worthwhile.

[ronin308]

Blackhawk- You seem to know more about the big picture than I do concerning Vietnam. I appreciate you outlining it for me. Don't forget, I went to publik skool Our section in my high school history class about Vietnam was about 2 days long. The only independent study I have done is talking with vets and reading the Time Life series of books. So I have a question: Why didn't the U.S. ever directly push towards North Vietnam itself? Wouldn't the war have been over much quicker and with less casualties that way?

ahenry-

I know you don’t think you are dishonoring them, and I am confident that you would never deliberately choose to. And I know that you consciously respect and value their sacrifice, as we all do. I don’t believe that anybody is questioning that.

That is reassuring, I'm not out to offend or dishonor anyone, especially people who have given what they have.

The difference is that, while those drafted (or those that decided to volunteer in order to get something better than the draft would have given them) might all question the need for some war, they did their duty regardless.

And that is fine and honorable. But there are certain times, when the troops are questioning the need for a good reason.

Our gov’t is integral to our country, and its decisions are our decisions; if you do not believe that it is, then it is time for you to pick up a weapon and change it or leave for something better.

I don't agree with much of the current government's policies. But now really isn't the time to do either of your choices. I am attempting to change our government, but its not with a rifle or with a plane ticket.

[ronin308]

Allow me to make a distinction:

Just War: The draft is great for getting people to fight that are too cowardly or lazy. Of course, this does not mean that every person drafted is cowardly or lazy, but it does mean that it can serve to get those type of people involved. Example of a just war: WWII U.S. involvement.

Unjust War: The draft is wrong because it forces good men into service for something that is unjust. See Oleg's examples.

The government in its current state has not exhibited to me that it can make anything near the right decisions. Therefore, I believe that currently we are susceptible to the government starting an unjust war. So that is why I am opposed to the draft. Now if the government truly demonstrated that they were acting in our best interests, then I wouldn't oppose the draft.

[ehenz]

I don't think there will be a need for the draft based on developments in modern warfare.

Blackhawk,

Very nice writing. Happy Veterans Day from one to another.

ronin308,

Not to start any further problems, but for the record "too cowardly and lazy" and WWII era draftees do not fit well together. Statements like are very insulting to any WWII or Korea vets.

It was a question of "when can I go" as opposed to "when are they making me go". Big difference. Let us not forget it took years to get enough troops trained, geared up, and in theater to get an offensive attack (D-day) together. We just could not have some 14,000,000 men show up on December 8th ready to fight. Thus, the draft.

Edited to change 800,000 men to 14 million men.

[ronin308]

ehenz- Good point. I edited my post for clarification. Sorry to anyone who read it before editing and misunderstood.

[Blackhawk]

The only independent study I have done is talking with vets and reading the Time Life series of books. So I have a question: Why didn't the U.S. ever directly push towards North Vietnam itself? Wouldn't the war have been over much quicker and with less casualties that way?

The Time-Life books are compilations of and from media coverage. They're not a good source for obtaining an historical perspective because their sources are the media. For an interesting historical perspective of the media in Vietnam and the tragic aftermath, read "Stolen Valor" by B.G. Burkette.

The U.S. was not at war with North Vietnam. It was just the USSR's surrogate. The contest was between U.S. equipment and war doctrine against that of the USSR. One of the Rules of Engagement was that we would not destroy infrastructure or the ability of NV to prosecute the war. If 1% of the B-52 strikes were laid in on Haiphong's harbor facilities, NV would not have been able to be resupplied from the sea. The same reasoning is behind our failure to blocade the harbor or quarantine it. Soviet ships were not interdicted or otherwise interfered with.

Just using conventional means and ROTC tactics, the U.S. could have squashed NV in a matter of weeks, but at what cost? The U.S. would not have proven to the USSR that it could NEVER prevail against U.S. equipment and doctrine, and world opinion would have come down very hard on the U.S. as a rouge superpower. After all, the world thought the Vietnam War was just a local civil war.

The apogee of U.S. personnel on the ground was 1969, during Nixon's first year. By the end of that year, the U.S. was already winding down by offering "early outs" to soldiers who extended their tours by 6 months, cutting back on training stateside, and RIFfing personnel who had completed Vietnam tours and wanted to stay in the military. By 1971, many large Army units had already been disbanded and dissolved in Vietnam or sent to Europe or otherwise absorbed into what was left of the Army in the U.S., all under the political cover of "Vietnamization" of the war.

By June, 1970, there was nothing left for the U.S. to prove and nothing left for the USSR to learn. One thing that must have scared the crap out of the Soviets was that the U.S. could prosecute the war, accelerate and prevail in the space race, absorb nominal battlefield losses (46,000 over the entire course of the war is piddling by Soviet thinking) in the face of massive unrest stateside, and keep right on trucking while the Soviets were straining to keep air in the tires. The U.S. economy had been formidable for the entirety of the USSR's existence, and everybody knows that in war, the most powerful economy will ultimately prevail even with medicore generals.

The U.S. didn't in any wise "lose the war." It just went home, and left the Vietnamese to finish their civil war. The outcome was never in doubt. The Vietnamese had been under one conqueror or another for centuries, and they had NO cultural history of living under anything that could be remotely termed representative government. They just want to be able to live in relative peace and be left with the ability to farm and do whatever the despots with the arms require of them. They're "go along to get along" people rather than fierce warriors or entrepreneural on a large scale. Republics or democracies are right up there with cold fusion as subjects to study, and there was no way to supplant centuries of their culture with a yearning for self rule.

So we're again down to why would we want to defeat North Vietnam? What would we gain versus what would we lose? The national objective of the U.S. was to keep a lid on things until the Cold War ended with the exhaustion and implosion of the Soviet Union, which was inevitible simply because of the strength and adaptability of our economy.

Many or most of the academics in the U.S. think the USSR was based on Communism. It wasn't. Soviet communism was just another name for the fungible oligarchy it practiced. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels would be up to about 500 RPM in their graves had they know what was being touted as Communism by the Soviets. Lenin himself would have been doing quite a show in his glass coffin, and Trotsky would have been at about 950 RPM.

The best name for the Soviet system was Stalinism, and it worked like a pyramid scheme. As long as "the revolution" kept spreading, the oppressed within were placated into sacrificing further under the education they received. The point is that the scheme always required new victories because it was totally unsustainable on its own even without competition from capitalist economies. The capitalist competition just made things more precarious for Stalinism.

The U.S. wanted to bleed the USSR to death. The genius of Ronald Reagan was to rebuild the military, launch the SDI, and openly announce that "you're an evil empire and we're going to spend you to destruction." Gorbachev knew the score, and he brillliantly tried to make it a soft landing for the USSR, but it was too late.

Defeating North Vietnam was against U.S. interests, and our objective was winning the Cold War.

[Blackhawk]

ehenz, same to you!

This one is the best ever for me. I'm still grinning from last Tuesday....

[glock glockler]

I'm sorry I have ignored you, gentlemen. I have been away recently but I do assure you that I shall now give you my full attention

Blackhawk,

But maybe you missed an important facet of this discussion. We're not talking about conscription in Nazi Germany. We're talking about conscription in the United States now.

Just thought you'd like to know....

Oh, I do know, but I'd like you to tell me why the "The law is the law" attitude is acceptable here and now but it was not acceptable when we were hanging Nazis at Nuremburg. Something does not become morally right because it has the blessing of the govt.

Rikwriter

No, you've started from a false premise and come to an incorrect conclusion.

Oh, really?

Government has been around much longer than the United States of America, and while we all want to think ours is the best ever, it is most certainly not the FIRST ever and it does not redefine what government IS.

The difference is that the US was the first govt that was created to serve the people as opposed to the people existing to serve the govt. Govt has been around for a while, but because they existed without the 'concent of the governed', they were really nothing more than a bunch of thugs with muscle. Should we recognize some despot as legitimate because he is able to keep the population enslaved through brute force?

[b]Your definition of an illegitimate government would describe about 95% of all governments that ever existed.[b]

I'd say more like 98%, but I'll take your word on it.

Just because you dislike them doesn't mean they don't exist.

I never claimed otherwise.

Hence the evidence of your naivite.

Seeing how it's imaginary evidence, I'm awaiting something more substantial.

[Blackhawk]

The government in its current state has not exhibited to me that it can make anything near the right decisions.

Ronin, the post of yours this is from is outrageous!

Let me just say that we are a republic, not a democracy, and you are not entitled to be privy to why the government makes the decisions it does. Those elected representatives and officers in our government are, and we elected them. If we don't like what they decide, we have the continuous ability to dissent and the bi-annual and quadi-annual ability to toss them out. We do not ever have the ability to disobey the laws enacted with our constructive assent.

Our government kept us out of Europe's periodic self destructive wars until 1917, and then the 77 year long 20th Century War got serious with the spectre of a viable scheme of enslavement by the Soviets. All in all, the U.S. has been very smart in keeping its citizens safe during an extremely tenuous century. Was it all due to one or a few people? No way. There's an almost mystical continuity to the skill of the U.S. in keeping its citizens safe. We lost 53,000 of 8,000,000 battlefield deaths in WWI, and our total in WWII was 292,000/13,000,000 followed by about 36,000 in Korea, 46,000 in Vietnam, and about 150 in the Gulf War. Of way over 22 million battlefield deaths during those wars, the U.S. suffered about 427,000 of them.

I say kudos to our government in keeping our skinny butts safe and able to throw rocks and whine about our "untrustworthy" government.

Don't get me wrong, I love carping about the government, but WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME SIDE! It's "government of the People, by the People, and for the People," remember? The government is US, WE are the U.S. Government, not some psycho megalomaniac or cadre of them.

</RANT> and I know you meant no offense, but the flags are fluttering proudly today, and I love it!

[glock glockler]

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

So you're not interested in the inherent morallity or immorality of something, just it's utility?

nighthawksh, well put.

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

So I guess Nazis were all fine men by your standards?

It seems that no one wants to respond to the comments that I have made, so I guess I'll post them again for one and all.

Glockler quote

Do you, or do you not think that involuntary servitude is a bad thing?

Is forcing (against their will) someone to serve (at gunpoint) in the military not involuntary servitude?

Is this type of thing acceptable in a society that claims to support freedom?

I challenge anyone to answer those questions, as no one seems to want to address it.

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

I tend to think of it as another party using force to make you do something against your will, does that seem familiar?

Suppose I'm just minding my own business and a bunch of thugs with guns from the govt say "You will come with us and fight in a war or we're going to throw you in jail", how is this situation any different from the draft and why is it not morally reprehensible?

[ddelange]

Blackhawk,
Thanks for your brief take on the real picture behind the Vietnam War. And God bless you and all other veterans (whether drafted or enlisted) who have ever served in the military to make this the greatest nation on Earth.

P.S. the 25th Infantry Division, as well as many special forces units, did operate inside Cambodia and Laos, though that revelation did not come out until long after the war.

I agree that the War COULD have been over in a matter of months if the political situation had allowed for an offensive invasion of the North, Cambodia and Laos; bombing and mining of the North's harbors; and full scale bombing of all military targets in Hanoi, on the Ho Chi Minh trail in Cambodia and Laos; and all other military targets in the North. Game over. I've always felt that the fight in Vietnam was a good cause for Americans; but I also feel that we ignored Von Clausewitz's excellent principles laid out in his classic book "On War" and instead decided to "fight" the war bound by Geo-Political rules.

[Marko Kloos]

"I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!" (Robert A. Heinlein)

If my country asks for my services, I will heed the call if I perceive the need as righteous and just. If my country is in dire straits, I will volunteer myself without being asked. I have done so before, and I will do so again if I ever feel that my country needs me.

That said, I do not believe that anyone, for any reason, has any right to come to my neighbor's door and haul their son off to join the military against his will. It's no more just or moral than coming to my door and confiscate half my paycheck at gunpoint "for the common good". How you can firmly support the draft and still call yourself a supporter of freedom is completely incomprehensible to me.

(Speaking as a soldier and NCO, I'd much rather have a volunteer on my side in a war than an unwilling draftee. They're better motivated, they're around long enough for meaningful training and experience, and at least I won't have to check the latrine for explosive love gifts before I use it.)

[ronin308]

Blackhawk- Thanks for such a comprehensive post. I think that I've learned quite a good bit about the larger picture of Vietnam. I suppose, knowing what I know now, I probably would have signed up, thereby negating my earlier example. There are still historical examples of wars that should never have been fought though.

Regarding your second post: I agree that the U.S. has done an excellent job in warfare. There is no doubt. I speak of the government as a separate entity because nearly 0 of the candidates I voted for are in office. I hope to change this through campaigning though. I simply don't feel as though my views are being represented, therefore it leads me to feel that government and I are divorced.

[Blackhawk]

but I'd like you to tell me why the "The law is the law" attitude is acceptable here and now but it was not acceptable when we were hanging Nazis at Nuremburg. Something does not become morally right because it has the blessing of the govt.

That was an Allied operation, and the U.S. was but one of the Allies. Hanging Nazis gave closure to the war and sent a pretty strong message about the rule of law. I would have probably preferred to use their own methods on them with a wall and firing squad. They weren't U.S. citizens entitled to protection of the U.S. Constitution either, but you knew that too, I'm sure.

[RikWriter]

glock glockler said:
The difference is that the US was the first govt that was created to serve the people as opposed to the people existing to serve the govt. Govt has been around for a while, but because they existed without the 'concent of the governed', they were really nothing more than a bunch of thugs with muscle. Should we recognize some despot as legitimate because he is able to keep the population enslaved through brute force?


So, by your own twisted idea of the definition of "government," the United States wasn't actually a government until about a century ago, right? Since the US government ruled without the consent of blacks and women up till that point...
You need to learn a lot about history.

[Blackhawk]

but I also feel that we ignored Von Clausewitz's excellent principles laid out in his classic book "On War" and instead decided to "fight" the war bound by Geo-Political rules.

We did, and we did that deliberately. That's because our enemy was not North Vietnam and our war was not confined to a tiny geographical area involving only arms and blood.

Our war was global in scope and our battlefields were the minds of those in power. We had bigger fish to fry than North Vietnam, and we needed the fear of the U.S. or good will toward us by those in power, whatever was appropriate.

[Blackhawk]

I speak of the government as a separate entity because nearly 0 of the candidates I voted for are in office. I hope to change this through campaigning though. I simply don't feel as though my views are being represented, therefore it leads me to feel that government and I are divorced.

Ronin, that's funny, and I'm still laughing!

What's that old saying about when the whole world's against you, it's time to reconsider...?

Your views are being considered. The messages of all the candidates who lost are being sifted for the gems they may contain. It's the same way with the Libertarians and the Greens. Their hot button issues are absorbed into the next round. The "save the whales" crowd never made it into office, but how ARE the whales doing, anyway?

Nothing is ignored in politics.

[Blackhawk]

Suppose I'm just minding my own business and a bunch of thugs with guns from the govt say "You will come with us and fight in a war or we're going to throw you in jail", how is this situation any different from the draft and why is it not morally reprehensible?

Read my post to Don Gwinn from which you got your quote of me.

The Draft is merely the process of inducting someone into the military. It's Constitutionally fine under the same theory that involves militias and specifically empowers Congress to raise armies, a navy, etc. What if Congress declared a war and nobody came? Congress has the power to staff the armies it believes necessary whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, throw them out during the election cycles.

[Marko Kloos]

It's Constitutionally fine under the same theory that involves militias and specifically empowers Congress to raise armies, a navy, etc.

They didn't even resort to a draft in the Revolutionary War, or the Civil War. When the very existence of this nation was at stake during its birth, they did not drag men off to fight against their will.

"Raising an army" in those days meant appealing to people's patriotism and offering them acceptable terms for their enlistment. I don't give a rat's patootie what six folks in black robes have said about the draft. The Constitution expressly and unequivocally prohibits involuntary servitude. Just because the Supremes declared it hunky-dory to own people of a darker hue a scant 150 years ago didn't make slavery constitutional.