Government Bashing

[Musashi]

I was just wondering what everyone feelings or opinions or feelings would be if we had another draft, seeing as how our President is digging our country a sh*thole to dwell in?

My stance is that I have served my country already, but would gladly do it again. I was in the Army when Sept 11 happened, but I got to stay stateside even with a combat MOS. If my president asked me to die for my country, I would gladly. To give my life for the safety of others is my ideal death.

Even though I don't care for our president, I won't bitch about how he does things. He is the big man. He does the orders.

[kat]

I'm incredibly against the draft. It would waste my life, and I don't have very long before I turn 30. Screw that. Screw the government for trying to force me to live my life a certain way.

Choosing to serve is one thing. It's respectable. With those who choose to serve, you expect them to do their jobs, and do it well because they want to be there.

And Bush is not a big man. He just has loads of money to compensate. I've learned from experience that you shouldn't respect people just because of their positions; it's far too easy these days to climb the ladder without earning your way up there.

[Edwardo_son_of_haqim]

Would I die for my country?

Yes.

Would I die for some bullshit Bush feed me?

Not a hope in hell.

I strongly belive the old line Dulce Et Decorum Est Pro patria mori. (There is nothing more honorable than to die for your country.)
Bush's war does'nt cut it for me. Sorry.

[kat]

Would I die for my country?

Yes. But the thing is that people don't die for thier country anymore. It has been more than 3 generation since people actually fought for our country. Now, our government uses the military for oil, for politics, for control of the world.

You'd die for the rich bastards in Washington, not for your country.

[Edwardo_son_of_haqim]

My point exactly. Thank you very much.

[Darth Cluich]

But the thing is that people don't die for thier country anymore. It has been more than 3 generation since people actually fought for our country. Now, our government uses the military for oil, for politics, for control of the world.

You'd die for the rich bastards in Washington, not for your country.

Um...Operation Enduring Freedom ring a bell?

[Wolf-Bone]

I once saw a quote carved into a bathroom stall:

"War is good for business
Invest your sons"

The draft was understandable during the two world wars. It always bothers me when people call the the average joe of modern western society a pussy for not jumping head-first, unquestioningly into the uniform without even needing to be drafted whenever there's a war. But the direction of the entire world was at stake back then. What the hell's been on the line in the past 30 years?

When you look at what Vietnam was about, and what it turned into, could you BLAME people for hauling ass to Canada? When government uses the lives of its citizens as currency to buy itself an expanded sphere of influence in a region, it's using the same frame of mind as the communists, Nazis, dictators, and other "evils" they're fighting. You don't protect the freedom of your country by squandering your resources to "liberate" people who, frankly, don't know what to do with freedom yet. You protect it by having secure borders, a good long-term economy (that means keeping jobs in your country), and a legal system that enforces individual rights instead of taking them away bit by bit.

The way I see it, the difference between those who accepted the draft in the world wars and those who dodged it in the cold war is that one knew what was at stake, and the other knew nothing was at stake.

Also, if the draft ever is reinstated for the next great American conquest, what do you think are the chances of us ever seeing Bush's daughters in uniform? And no, camoflage bikinis while they sip margaritas and get their hair braided in the Dominican Republic doesn't count.

[LycanSpectre]

If I were called, I would go.

I may not like it or approve of whichever war called me, but I would go nonetheless. Its the price you pay.

[Edwardo_son_of_haqim]

If I were called, I would go.

I may not like it or approve of whichever war called me, but I would go nonetheless. Its the price you pay.

Pay for what?

[kat]

Um...Operation Enduring Freedom ring a bell? Yes, I know. That's what I had in mind. :) I was also thinking in terms of war, rather than small operations that could be handled with special forces.

[LycanSpectre]

Pay for what?

You did not just ask me that.

How about: All the freedoms we enjoy. I realise you are not a US citizen, but that does not make your statement any less unpalatale.

You have to take the good with the bad. Nothing good in life is free. I know this war is unpopular, and I too disagre with the presidents reasons for going to war. However, just beacuse you dont agree with what your country is doing does not give you the right to back out of serving when you are called. No one wants to be drafted, and I do think that the draft would be wrong in a war such as this. However, part of being a citizen is answering that call.

[kat]

LS, that's what income tax is for. Your body shouldn't have to pay, too.

[Ash]

Okay, I know this is a debate about what you think of the draft, but I'd like to point out one little detail.

There isn't going to be one, okay? At least not for several years at the earliest, almost every branch is operating at 90% capacity, the exception being maybe the army, they're expanding the number of thier brigades and are always in need of man power. Whoever started the draft rumor should be smacked, its ridiculous. In fact in the AF we're undergoing a radical force reduction. Nearly 20,000 active duty personnel need to be removed by the end of the year. So there.

In addition look at the attrition we've suffered, we simply are not losing that many people. Every single one of those soldiers and civilians is a devastating loss but from a numerical point of view, the impact is negligible.

Therefore this debate is somewhat pointless.

BTW Kat? you wouldn't be drafted, assuming first off you're a dude, secondly if you're nearly thirty you're too old, the cut of is 26 or 27

[blueeyes]

Caps to Kat for the link : http://www.guilfordian.com/news/2004/04/02/World/New-Bill.May.Reinstate.T he.Draft.For.2005-653279.shtml

What's best about this? The fact that it's Democrats, and not GOP-leaning ones, behind this bill.

My beliefs on this subject are really pointless, but I'll say I am willing to fight for what I believe in, if need be. The only deference I have is that fighting should not be the first option.

[kat]

BTW Kat? you wouldn't be drafted, assuming first off you're a dude, secondly if you're nearly thirty you're too old, the cut of is 26 or 27 Ash, if you've read the suggestive bill, you'd see that they want to draft everyone, regardless of sex. And I'm not 26. I'm not 27, or any older.

[The Question]

Forced conscription is something that should only be practiced when the livelyhood of our country is at risk. It isn't a procedure that should be excercised for the sake of defending or acquiring fabulous wealth (Iraqi oil) for the powerful.

[kat]

That's exactly what I said.

[WhiteCrowUK]

I would have a huge problem being drafted into a war (a) I didnt agree with and (b) by a man whose family contacts allowed him to avoid the draft (okay he was technically in the home guard, but theres proof he never even attended - even so not Vietnam was it?).

[Musashi]

BTW Kat? you wouldn't be drafted, assuming first off you're a dude, secondly if you're nearly thirty you're too old, the cut of is 26 or 27


Actually, 30 is not too old. 36 is the cut off age. I had a friend we called "Squidy" (Ex-Navy) in Basic Training who was 34. Great thing was, he could whoop most of us young guys asses in PT.

[Musashi]

There isn't going to be one, okay? At least not for several years at the earliest, almost every branch is operating at 90% capacity, the exception being maybe the army, they're expanding the number of thier brigades and are always in need of man power.




Right. Out of 275 million Americans, only 4.5 million serve in the Armed forces. The military is not operating at 90% capacity. The fact is, there is no set capacity to which our military operates at. It fluctuates with the needs of the times.

As compared to the Chinese army, which is I think about 500 million strong. And those guys are badass. They endure over 6 months of combat training, and learn everything, from basic flying to tank driving skills, and of course infantry skills. The perfect soldier.

[Darth Cluich]

As compared to the Chinese army, which is I think about 500 million strong. And those guys are badass. They endure over 6 months of combat training, and learn everything, from basic flying to tank driving skills, and of course infantry skills. The perfect soldier.

Regardless of their manpower, the Chinese Army is technologically inept. They've got limited intelligence capabilities; they've got no air-to-air refueling capability to speak of; and they can't really project any power outside China's Exclusive Economic Zone. I've said this before in this forum. I really hope it won't be necessary to explain it again. *sigh*

And kat, the war in Afghanistan involved a lot more than just special forces. The US had a sizable (regular) Army contingent on the ground, large numbers of aircraft (including patrol planes out of places as far away as Djibouti and bombers that flew from as far away as Missouri to get into theater), plus Navy ships and submarines in the Indian Ocean that were lobbing missiles into Afghanistan, as well as carriers serving as floating airbases (due to our limited number of airbases on the ground in the region). Special forces do the "down and dirty" work, but that wasn't all that was involved in Enduring Freedom.

[Edwardo_son_of_haqim]

You did not just ask me that.

How about: All the freedoms we enjoy. I realise you are not a US citizen, but that does not make your statement any less unpalatale.

You have to take the good with the bad. Nothing good in life is free. I know this war is unpopular, and I too disagre with the presidents reasons for going to war. However, just beacuse you dont agree with what your country is doing does not give you the right to back out of serving when you are called. No one wants to be drafted, and I do think that the draft would be wrong in a war such as this. However, part of being a citizen is answering that call.

You have to realise that your not dieing for freedom but for oil and power or whatever else. Your refusal to understand the politics of the war that you'd die for is just ignorant. Going to war 'cos your told to is just stupid thats what there preying
on, blind patrioitisim(spellin g?).

Lets say (hypothetically of coarse) that Bush decided he was invading France for not helping in the "war"?. And lets say he installs a draft is it then your civil duty to invade France?

ps. stop neg reping me for having a different opinion it's starting to get annoying.

[Darth Cluich]

Hell, I'd invade France for any ol' reason. :p

Frankly, the argument that the war in Iraq is over oil is tiresome. Even if true, as the leftwingers and conspiracy theorists like to whine, I have no problem with that whatsoever. Oil is a resource that this country needs. If we go to war to ensure access to it, that's perfectly fine. Would you have a problem is we invaded a country for food if the need arose? We need that, too.

[Edwardo_son_of_haqim]

Well in that case would you care if someone lets say covertly (as terrorists maybe) attacked your country because they needed it and you had it?

[LycanSpectre]

Your refusal to understand the politics of the war that you'd die for is just ignorant.

I understand the politics of this war very well, thank you. I have already stated that I do not agree with this war. I am merely stating that I see it as a duty that goes hand in hand with citizen ship to be willing to serve your country when it calls you, even if you do not agree with the reasons. That in no way entails a lack of understanding of politics. It just shows that I have a sense of duty. You may not agree that that duty is just or fair, I dont care. All I am saying is that I think that in order to call yourself a citizen, you must be willing to do your duty.

Lets say (hypothetically of coarse) that Bush decided he was invading France for not helping in the "war"?. And lets say he installs a draft is it then your civil duty to invade France?

I have already stated that if I were called, I would go. So, then that would make the answer to your question yes.

ps. stop neg reping me for having a different opinion it's starting to get annoying.

If you have problems with the reps I give you, take it to a PM. Or think before you post. Your choice.

[Edwardo_son_of_haqim]

Duty is duty I'm not disputing that, but blind obedience is another thing. Like I said before I'd fight for my country but I don't belive it's anyones duty to die for some cause that they don't agree with. Unless your country is in grave peril it shouldn't be up to civilians to protect it.

And I PM'd you last time and you ignored me so I learned from my mistake. Sue me!

[kat]

And kat, the war in Afghanistan involved a lot more than just special forces. The US had a sizable (regular) Army contingent on the ground, large numbers of aircraft (including patrol planes out of places as far away as Djibouti and bombers that flew from as far away as Missouri to get into theater), plus Navy ships and submarines in the Indian Ocean that were lobbing missiles into Afghanistan, as well as carriers serving as floating airbases (due to our limited number of airbases on the ground in the region). Special forces do the "down and dirty" work, but that wasn't all that was involved in Enduring Freedom. I'm fully aware of WHAT was used, Cluich. I'm not stupid. I can read the fucking newspapers. I even have friends who went over.

However, was the entire army necessary? Fucking, no. Invading an entire god damn country was stupid and largely unnecessary. This was a job for special forces to move in and take out key opponents based on intelligence. You should never enter a battle without reliable intelligence, but these fucks did it anyway, and have pretty much been doing it all along.

Hell, they even use 'lack of reliable intelligence' as an excuse for war. HOW ASS-BACKWARDS IS THAT?!

/anreurysm

And I wouldn't call "Enduring Freedom" a success story, so it's not a very good example, Cluich.

-----------

Edit: Okay, and holy crap, that 'Otep' video? The visuals are interesting, but the music? Fucking awful! /joins the others in fetal positions.

[Ash]

Right. Out of 275 million Americans, only 4.5 million serve in the Armed forces. The military is not operating at 90% capacity. The fact is, there is no set capacity to which our military operates at. It fluctuates with the needs of the times.

As compared to the Chinese army, which is I think about 500 million strong. And those guys are badass. They endure over 6 months of combat training, and learn everything, from basic flying to tank driving skills, and of course infantry skills. The perfect soldier.
I wasn't reffering to 90% of the population, I was reffering to 90% of the required personnel as dictated by the DOD.

And Kat I wasn't referring to your new source or bill, I was referring to selective service as it now stands.

[kat]

And Kat I wasn't referring to your new source or bill, I was referring to selective service as it now stands. Well, "as it stands" doesn't really matter since we don't currently have a draft.

[Ash]

Well, "as it stands" doesn't really matter since we don't currently have a draft.
EXACTLY :D I couldn't have put it better myself

[kat]

Pentagon wants to draft women. And while they're at it, they're upping the age limit to 34. (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagena me=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendl y&c=Article&cid=1083535813785&call_pageid=96833218 8854)

[Klark]

For any woman who has something negative to say about women signing up it must be said that it is unfortunate for the women's rights activists who didn't fully realize that you have to take the good with the bad. Women wanted men's jobs and their pay, they wanted total equality under the law, which does include the draft. Now don't go getting me wrong, I'm all for equality of everyone, I believe that little Timmy from South Park needs to sign up for Selective Service when he reaches 18, but I believe that no man or woman has the right to say anything against women signing up just like men. The draft has always been a fear of young men across the country, especially during times like the Vietnam War, and there have been men who've run away from it when they were called, i.e. draft dodgers. I feel for everyone, including now women, who have to sign up for Selective Service. It was a fear of mine until I actually attempted to enter the Army. While my tests scores made them want me bad enough to overlook my bad knee, in the end, my heart murmur made them stop wanting me. Stop bad enough to revoke my Selective Service card and give me one with a 4-F or something saying that I couldn't be drafted. I can only say that I hope upon hope that the draft will never be reinstated, for the sake of all.

[Darth Cluich]

I'm fully aware of WHAT was used, Cluich. I'm not stupid. I can read the fucking newspapers. I even have friends who went over.

However, was the entire army necessary? Fucking, no. Invading an entire god damn country was stupid and largely unnecessary. This was a job for special forces to move in and take out key opponents based on intelligence. You should never enter a battle without reliable intelligence, but these fucks did it anyway, and have pretty much been doing it all along.

Hell, they even use 'lack of reliable intelligence' as an excuse for war. HOW ASS-BACKWARDS IS THAT?!

/anreurysm

And I wouldn't call "Enduring Freedom" a success story, so it's not a very good example, Cluich.

Oooookay....hope you got some sleep after going off the deep end here, kat. ;)

First of all, I never said nor meant to imply in any way that you're stupid. However, there's a difference between reading newspaper accounts of what is being employed in a war and having an understanding of why the employment of those assets is necessary.

We didn't use the entire Army, but we did send in a sizable force, because invading the country and toppling a regime that was clearly supporting terrorists was necessary. Special forces alone -- especially the limitied numbers we have of them -- were not capable of such a task.

As for the intelligence issue, you go into battle with as much intel as you can get. In the case of a closed society like Afghanistan, that's just not going to be much. The lack of reliable intelligence is not used as an excuse for war; it's used as an explanation as to why Operation Enduring Freedom was (or is) so difficult and required more than just surgical attacks by special forces.

Gauging the success of Operation Enduring Freedom? That depends on your metric. Is Al Qaeda operating freely there? No. Is the Taliban that supported them still in power? No. Going by those limited objectives (c'mon, giving women more freedom is hardly a military objective, despite how often silly excuses like that are mentioned in the press), then yes, it's been successful. Is the work there done? No, that shithole's got a long way to go, obviously.

But the critical question, in terms of the subject of this thread, is was it initiated to defend America? Of course, it was. That was the base of the lunatics who flew planes into buildings on 9/11, bombed the WTC in 1996, and attacked the USS Cole. There's no way one can say it was about oil, or "feeding the fatcats in Washington," or any other ridiculous notion.

[Xzengrim]

We're never going to win this war.

First of all, fighting a war on terrorism is like trying to stop urban violence, or drug use, or fat people. Humans are terroristic by their nature and will NEVER stop committing acts of terrorism against one another.

Secondly, the military (just like in Vietnam) has its hands tied behind its back. Our enemy will shoot anyone white, and blow up anything that doesn't belong to them. Our forces, on the other hand, cannot go into mosques or shoot up holy buildings. They can't shoot civilians, or foreign forces, or women, or children (who the enemy uses as weapons nonetheless) or anything, pretty much. They aren't allowed to shoot first. They are NOT ALLOWED TO LOAD THEIR WEAPONS IN COUNTRY WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THEIR CO!! So basically, we have to wait until someone gets shot, then ask permission to load our guns, then wait until the fire order is given. Are we CRAZY?!?! We can't pursue enemy forces across the border or anything. Just like Vietnam/Cambodia the first time around.

Thirdly, we will never win in public opinion because there is a HUGE double standard regarding the war. First of all, we're the richest country in the world and everyone assumes that if we attack anything, we're doing it for money. We're the most oil-dependant, so if we attack the largest oil producers in the world for any reason, it's always going to be about oil. Like the prisoners in Cuba... everyone's upset because they were tortured. Hey, they should thank their god that we didn't just kill them. And what about the last time a carbomb went off in Iraq and killed two GIs? The Iraqi citizens looted the bodies, mutilated the corpses, set them on fire, and then stomped on the skulls and destroyed the remains of the cars. AND WE"RE SUPPOSED TO BE BARBARIC?!

That, and it's a well known fact that the way to take care of this whole thing is to nuke the holy land. ...No, I'm not kidding, that really would help a lot.

[kat]

Sorry, Cluich, I didn't notice that you replied until just now, but I won't be able to put much thought into my response until much later today. But, I will get to it. :)

AND WE"RE SUPPOSED TO BE BARBARIC?! Heh, didn't you just finish saying something about double standards? We are incredibly (http://www.livejournal.com/users/throwingstardna/513278.html) barbaric. This is war, and both sides do disgusting things. Don't be such a nationalistic bastard, Xzen.

http://guav.com/lj/04.04/Torture/iraqiman.jpg


http://guav.com/lj/04.04/Torture/iraqimenseven.jpg

[Xzengrim]

No no no! That's my POINT, Kat! We're just as barbaric as anyone else. It's war, and we're all pretty capable of the same things. But we are held to a MUCH higher standard than the rest of the world. Look at the things the Iraqis, Afganis, Somolians, and other enemy forces have done... and nobody cares!! I didn't see any Iraqi or Muslim leadership coming on the TV to apologize to America (the way Bush has done to the Middle East) when they kidnapped, tortured, or posthumously desecrated any of OUR guys!! This illogically higher standard of behavior is going to get us killed. We need to go in there and commit abject slaughter until the whole world fears us... that's the only way fanatics are going to listen! Public opinion and democratic tomfoolery is keeping our soldiers from working efficiently, accomplishing their goals, and acheiving victory.

[kat]

Oh! Oops. Sorry.


... My brain is fried from exams. I'll return to normal by sometime Friday. :)

[Ash]

For any woman who has something negative to say about women signing up it must be said that it is unfortunate for the women's rights activists who didn't fully realize that you have to take the good with the bad. Women wanted men's jobs and their pay, they wanted total equality under the law, which does include the draft. Now don't go getting me wrong, I'm all for equality of everyone, I believe that little Timmy from South Park needs to sign up for Selective Service when he reaches 18, but I believe that no man or woman has the right to say anything against women signing up just like men. Speaking as a woman in the military, I completely agree. The draft is a terrible thing, an army of drafted or conscripted soldiers will never be as effective as an army of volunteers. My brother's signed up for the selective service at the same time that I joined up, my twin brother joined the marines and is currently stationed in Iraq, I'm in northern Japan eyeballing the koreans, war is nasty horrible unpleasant and brutal. I don't agree with all the reasons why we started this but I swore an oath and I will serve. That said I want the man or woman next to me to be there because he/she swore that same oath voluntarily and WANTS to be there, understands why she's there and wasn't forced to be there.

[Firesong]

Anytime there's a war, there's always rumors of the draft starting up again...there always will be. Last time this happened, my dad looked at me and said "if the draft does start up again, as far as I'm concerned, you got hit by a truck and died two weeks ago, cause you aint going anywhere" There's no way he'd let either of his sons be sent off to some sandy shit-pit to die for an ilegal war..or any war!


damn i have a cool dad! :buttrock: :beerchug:

[Sorrowsong]

If you're called into a draft, break your legs and starve yourself if you want to avoid it.


No blood for oil.

[WhiteCrowUK]

If you're called into a draft, break your legs and starve yourself if you want to avoid it.

No blood for oil.

Isnt homosexuality still banned? If I was drafted I'd start waiting pink vests and fluffy slippers ... and perhaps start wearing womens clothing ... actually that sounds quite fun! ;)

[Darth Cluich]

May be fun, but it never got Klinger sent home from Korea. ;)

[Sorrowsong]

Isnt homosexuality still banned? If I was drafted I'd start waiting pink vests and fluffy slippers ... and perhaps start wearing womens clothing ... actually that sounds quite fun! ;)

Hmmm... If that's true, I'll mention to them that I have 8 girlfriends and that I'm sexually active with all of them. I'll tell them I've had syphilis three times and would be happy to room with a bunch of other girls while training for the army.

[/joke]

[kat]

Picking this up, posting a new article. I'm starting to get a little paranoid.

Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005 (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=5834001&content_dir=ua_congr essorg)

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html (http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html ) to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.

The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era.

College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

Even those voters who currently support US actions abroad may still object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a
shelter and includes women in the draft.

The public has a right to air their opinions about such an important decision.

Please send this on to all the friends, parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents, and cousins that you know. Let your children know too -- it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change!

Please also contact your representatives to ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills -- and contact newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story.