Bringing back the draft

[Enuf3]

Fine, as long as he doesnt drag people in against their own will, then I dont care. If people want to to go into the desert and run around shootin eachother, let them. I know they are fighting for a cause and for the safety of our people.. but if Bush thinks for one second that he can force others into fighting this neverending war, he's wrong.

[Rew]

I'm against war period, so naturally I'm also against any form of draft or conscription.

I think that during a war, people should be drafted to take part in the military and protect their country.

Would you include those who by principle have convictions against taking up arms and/or killing? Would you allow room for conscientious objection? (That question is for everyone who's pro-draft here, not just Witless.)

[Sunrie]

I'm against war period, so naturally I'm also against any form of draft or conscription.

Yeah, because if you just talk to people, they understand.  No reason to ever get up in arms over anything, right?

   

                                                                     Originally Posted by Witless                                    
                 I think that during a war, people should be drafted to take part in the military and protect their country.

Would you include those who by principle have convictions against taking up arms and/or killing? Would you allow room for conscientious objection? (That question is for everyone who's pro-draft here, not just Witless.)

For those of you who don't know what "conscientious objection" means, he's referring to cowards [/Futurama]

Fine, as long as he doesnt drag people in against their own will, then I dont care. If people want to to go into the desert and run around shootin eachother, let them. I know they are fighting for a cause and for the safety of our people.. but if Bush thinks for one second that he can force others into fighting this neverending war, he's wrong.

It has NOTHING to do with Bush, but people like you don't understand these things.

[Rew]

Sunrie, if you want to have a mature conversation, please don't insult me simply for holding convictions different from your own. Thank you.

[Adam]

I'm against war period, so naturally I'm also against any form of draft or conscription.

I can understand being against some wars (notably, things like Vietnam or Iraq), but being against war in general is really kinda a hard position to back up.  Really, I think you'd be hard pressed to get the whole idea pushed downed to anything worse than a "necessary evil."  Not only has it been proven time and time again that some good can in fact come from it, there's also the little fact that it's effectively impossible to avoid.

For those of you who don't know what "conscientious objection" means, he's referring to cowards [/Futurama]

...I think you just kinda breezed over the meat of Rew's post with a joke reference.  While I do appreciate Futurama, it's really not much of an contribution to the topic at hand.  Really now, you're slipping to Nemo's level more and more every day.  

It has NOTHING to do with Bush, but people like you don't understand these things.

Agreed with the first clause (at least to the extent that Bush's role was small enough that he doesn't deserve a significant amount of the blame), the second clause is kinda...not cool.  You seem to have some sort of vendetta against the sort of far-lefters that don't really exist at ZHQ to the extent you think they do.  Besides, using the term "people like you" to label some guy who hasn't even collected 10 posts yet is really a hell of an assumption, and even if you think he's said enough in that post of his to warrant the label, it's still an asshole-ish thing to say.  Tsk.

Would you include those who by principle have convictions against taking up arms and/or killing? Would you allow room for conscientious objection? (That question is for everyone who's pro-draft here, not just Witless.)

I think you'd pretty much have to.  But then again, the real question is how much lee-way you give such people.  And there's also the small issue that I'm not really pro-draft, so the question wasn't really aimed at me.  So sue me.

[Haru to Ashura]

You don't create terrorists by fighting terrorists. You don't create bullies by doing something about bullies. We weren't fighting terrorists the way we are now in 1993 when the Trade Center was bombed. We weren't fighting terrorists the way we are now in 2001 when they murdered 600 more people than the amount killed in Pearl Harbor.

But we're not fighting terrorits, we're fighting countries!  Countries that terrorists just happened to exist in for a short period of time.  If the US were going specifically after terrorist factions, chasing them around the globe, (because if we think they're going to stay in once place, then wow, America just got a little stupider)  researching them, fighting them firsthand, then I would agree with this little war on terror.  But we're not, we're fighting countries.  We're in a war with Afghanistan, Iraq, and dear-god-I-hope-not Iran; not terrorist factions, just the countries they like to work in.  While I agree that Saddam needed to be taken out of power, that the people in that part of the world need more rights; what we're doing for them isn't stopping terrorism, isn't even coming close.  The military thinks that if we establish democracys in these countries, the terrorists there will dissolve?  Of course not!  They'll just pack there bags and adjurn elsewhere!  Our war on terror is like a hopelessly slow goosechase, and we're always 10 paces behind.

[Enuf3]

Wow... exactly what Haruto said. *clap*

So much for your war on terror.

[Myahon]

this is stupid. only 2 representatives have even brought forth the idea of a draft and BOTH were democrats trying to scare up votes.

it's not as desperate as it seems they wouldn't even take ME when i tried to sign up.

[Rew]

I can understand being against some wars (notably, things like Vietnam or Iraq), but being against war in general is really kinda a hard position to back up.  Really, I think you'd be hard pressed to get the whole idea pushed downed to anything worse than a "necessary evil."  Not only has it been proven time and time again that some good can in fact come from it, there's also the little fact that it's effectively impossible to avoid.

Ah yes, the just-war model. I as a pacifist have a great deal of respect for the just-war theory; the only problem is that those policymakers who use its rhetoric don't take seriously enough the criteria that are supposed to inform decisions to engage in a truly "just war." The closest we've come to a truly just war would be World War II, but even that was fought unjustly, IMO (and here I'm thinking primarily of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

I'm curious as to the "some good" that's been proven to come from war?

Anyway, I am a pacifist, but I do not expect everyone (or anyone, really) to agree with me. For me, it's part of my specifically Christian worldview, living in an overarching narrative where Jesus came to subdue the powers not of Rome but of human violence in general by refusing violence himself and dying on the cross to exhibit God's longsuffering love for the world. This why the apostles and saints of the early church followed the Lord straight to martyrdom in those early centuries--before Christianity became co-opted by the Empire in the fourth century and became the vehicle for power-hungry authoricrats that it's been even to this day, from Emperor Constantine to President Bush.

I do not believe pacifism is the way to solve the world's problems. I believe that it is a way for Christians--and for all people who renounce violence really (e.g. Gandhi)--to show the world another way, to live as a prophetic example that there is a better way than the path of violence and killing. In other words, I'm not a pacifist because I necessarily think it "works," but because it is the right thing to do, or at least the right way to do things.

Also thanks, Chibisuke, for confronting Sunrie for me as you did, and for having yourself a respectful tone in addressing my arguments.

[Adam]

I'm curious as to the "some good" that's been proven to come from war?

The first that comes to mind is the fact that WWII brought about a premature end to the Holocaust.  I don't don't think that it's too hard to justify that as a good outcome.  Also, the Civil War succeeded in keeping the US intact and whole, which is slightly more questionable in it's goodness, but still probably generally considered to be "good."  The Crusades, although horrible in just about every other aspect, served to bring about massive amounts of cultural diffusion between Europe and Asia, which is one of the sole causes for the end of the Dark Ages and the beginning of the Renaissance.  That enough for now?

I do not believe pacifism is the way to solve the world's problems. I believe that it is a way for Christians--and for all people who renounce violence really (e.g. Gandhi)--to show the world another way, to live as a prophetic example that there is a better way than the path of violence and killing.

While I can respect people's personal views on pacifism, the fact of the matter is that it's simply not a (good) option in global politics.  On the personal level, if you can shrug off whatever insults, beatings, crucifixions, etc. that come your way, all the more power to you.  But if any prominent country tries doing such, it's creates the potential for hundreds of thousands of needless deaths, and most people will agree that such is simply unacceptable.

...But I get the impression that I'm preaching to the choir with that point, so feel free to ignore that.

Ah yes, the just-war model. I as a pacifist have a great deal of respect for the just-war theory; the only problem is that those policymakers who use its rhetoric don't take seriously enough the criteria that are supposed to inform decisions to engage in a truly "just war." The closest we've come to a truly just war would be World War II, but even that was fought unjustly, IMO (and here I'm thinking primarily of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

I wasn't technically invoking the just-war theory, but I suppose it kinda works.  For certain wars anyways (WWII).  And, as you said, if people actually, ya know, used it.

The closest we've come to a truly just war would be World War II, but even that was fought unjustly, IMO (and here I'm thinking primarily of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

I'd say that it was the lesser of two evils, but the whole Hiroshima/Nagasaki issue is really deserving of its own topic.

[Fleamo]

Would you honestly consider what Bush is doing is protecting our country? If anything, he's endangering it by creating more enemies.

You don't create terrorists by fighting terrorists.  You don't create bullies by doing something about bullies.  We weren't fighting terrorists the way we are now in 1993 when the Trade Center was bombed.  We weren't fighting terrorists the way we are now in 2001 when they murdered 600 more people than the amount killed in Pearl Harbor.

You fail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ex=1316750400&en=da252be85d1b39fa&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Kinky, huh?

Sorta looks like you fail, huh?

Really now, you're slipping to Nemo's level more and more every day.

Yeah, I've been meaning to ask how the weather was up there on your golden pedestal.

[Sunrie]

Quoting the NYTimes as a source for unbiased and truthful news is like saying your opinion is to be taken as the only truth.  Sorry, not into facist media.

Kinky, huh?

Sorta looks like you fail, huh?

Nope.  Read the above statement I made.  So when a school principal suspends bullies, he's going to create more bullies.  Great way to "think it through".

-----

Pearl Harbor Attack Presents Parallels, Lessons for Terror  War

• Dec. 6, 2006

By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service  


WASHINGTON - Sixty-five years ago tomorrow, the United States  
endured an attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, that for the next 60
years --  until Sept. 11, 2001 -- stood as the most devastating
enemy attack on U.S.  soil.

Like the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, the Japanese raid on  
Pearl Harbor has been called a defining moment in U.S. history.
It  caught the country by surprise, rallied its people against
their attackers  and thrust the nation into a long, difficult war
against tyranny. On the  65th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor
attacks, they present more parallels,  and possibly lessons, for
today's global war on terror.

Within hours  of the surprise attack in the early-morning hours of
Dec. 7, 1941, more than  2,400 Americans were dead. Five of the
eight battleships at the U.S. Fleet's  Pearl Harbor base were sunk
or sinking, and the other battleships, as well  as ships and
Hawaii-based combat planes, were heavily damaged. By crippling  
the U.S. Pacific Fleet, Japan hoped to eliminate it as a threat
to the  Japanese Empire's expansion south.

The Sept. 11 attacks, in contrast,  were more symbolic than
tactical. The World Trade Center in New York --  which al Qaeda
had previously attacked in 1993 -- stood as a symbol of the  U.S.
free-market economy. The Pentagon represented the U.S. military's  
command center, but not its operational arm. The other intended
target  -- either the White House or the U.S. Capitol, many people
speculate, if the  passengers hadn't commandeered their hijacked
plane over Shanksville, Pa. --  represented the epicenter of the
democratic U.S. government.

When  the smoke cleared, the death toll from Sept. 11 topped even
the devastation  of Dec. 7, 1941, with almost 3,000 people, mostly
civilians, dead. Both the  Pearl Harbor and Sept. 11 attacks had
another similar consequence: pushing  the United States into war.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared  Dec. 7, 1941, "a day
which will live in infamy" and signed the Declaration  of War
against Japan the following day. Adm. Mike Mullen, chief of
naval  operations, described what the United States was up against
when it entered  World War II during a late October visit to
Oklahoma City.

"Things  were tough," Mullen said. "Our fleet had taken a
devastating blow. Japanese  troops occupied Korea, China and would
soon take over the Malaysian  peninsula, Singapore and the
Philippines." Nazi Germany, which already  controlled a vast
empire, declared war on the United States four days after  the
Pearl Harbor attack, Mullen noted.

Despite different challenges  in the Atlantic and Pacific
theaters, Mullen said, they ultimately boiled  down to a common
denominator. "There were clearly two competing visions of  the
world: one of freedom, the other of tyranny," he said. "And
tyranny  appeared to have the upper hand." Mullen urged his
Oklahoma City audience to  "fast forward to today" and the global
war on terror.

"If the attack  on the destroyer Cole, the treachery of 9-11, if
events across the globe  from London to Lebanon, Baghdad to Bali,
from Pyongyang to Tehran, have  taught us anything," he said, "it
is that the struggle we currently face is  also about two
competing visions of the future and our vision of hope and  
prosperity and a secure future for our children (and) all children."  

In his National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day 2006 proclamation,
Bush  noted similar challenges facing the United States today. "In
the 21st  century, freedom is again under attack, and young
Americans have stepped  forward to serve in a global war on terror
that will secure our liberty and  determine the destiny of
millions around the world," he said. "Like  generations before, we
will answer history's call with confidence, confront  threats to
our way of life, and build a more peaceful world for our children  
and grandchildren."

Bush recalled the resolve Roosevelt demonstrated  as the United
States went to war. "We are going to win the war and we are  going
to win the peace that follows," Bush said, quoting Roosevelt.  
Speaking in October at the dedication of the USS George H.W. Bush
in  Newport News, Va., the president praised the dedication World
War II  veterans demonstrated to ensure that victory.

He called U.S. troops  fighting today's war on terror "a new
generation of Americans every bit as  brave and selfless as those
who have come before them" and said they, too,  will see the fight
through to victory.

"Freedom is again under  attack, and young Americans are
volunteering to answer the call," he said.  "Once again, with
perseverance, and courage, and confidence in the power of  
freedom, a new generation of Americans will leave a more hopeful
and  peaceful world for generations to come."[/LIST]

Sheiks continue discussions of security, stability for  Diyala

• Multi-National Division – North PAO

TIKRIT, Iraq – Approximately  40 sheiks throughout the Diyala
Province met Thursday at Forward Operating  Base Falock, an Iraqi
Army base, to continue discussing ways to maintain  peace and
stability throughout the province.

The sheiks, who were  hosted by the governor of Diyala, Ra’ad
Hameed Al-Mula Jowad Al-Tanimi, and  the 5th Iraqi Army Division
commander, Staff Maj. Gen. Shakur Hulail Husayn,  met to continue
their efforts toward a united cooperation between the Iraqi  
government and the local tribal communities.

Col. David W.  Sutherland, the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st
Cavalry Division commander and  senior U.S. Army officer in the
Diyala Province, also attended the meeting.  

“Today’s meeting is significant because it shows a continued
effort  by the tribal leaders of the province to improve the way
of life for their  citizens of Diyala,” said Sutherland. “This is
the second time the sheiks  have gathered in the past week, which
to me is a sign of commitment to their  tribes throughout the
province.”

“The sheiks are a valuable asset  within society,” Sutherland
said. “As I stressed this past Saturday, they  have the ability to
influence the peace and stability within the province;  which is
why it is vital that they continue working together to build  
relationships and focus on the
well-being of their people.”

“The  terrorists are continually trying to build a wedge between
the people and  the government,” Sutherland added. “In order to
prevent the terrorists from  driving that wedge, strong working
relationships between the government and  the tribes are necessary.”

During the meeting, Shakur and Ra’ad fielded  questions about ways
to improve services and security for the citizens of  Diyala.

Ra’ad said that Iraq is one nation, one people, stressing that  
the people of Diyala need to execute the solutions to issues
rather than  just discuss them, while Shakur stated the security
forces are conducting  investigations to target specific
individuals responsible for
violence  throughout the province. Ra’ad also asked what projects
and requirements the  tribal leaders have for their areas and
their people.

The Iraqi  Security Forces also addressed several key points which
will improve the  stability and security throughout the province,
focusing on evidence-based,  targeted operations.

The points addressed included tribes prohibiting  the support of
anti-Iraqi forces, preventing improvised explosive devices  and
vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices in their tribal areas;  
reverting to the tribal defense of homes rather than conducting  
offensive operations and acknowledging that Anti-Iraqi Forces
will be  defeated in their tribal areas.

Also, it was stressed that tribes should  support the
re-settlement of displaced persons in their tribal areas; the  ISF
will support the rule of law allowing citizens to possess
properly  registered firearms consisting of one rifle or pistol
with 30 rounds of  ammunition and they will not confiscate
personally owned automobiles unless  there is evidence of a
criminal case.

After the meeting, the sheiks  gathered for a feast to continue
building strong working relationships and  determine solutions for
stronger peace, stability and security.[/LIST]

Looks like things are going great, actually.

Sunnis and Shiites Discuss Peace

• Dec. 13, 2006

2nd IBCT, 2nd Inf. Div. PAO

FORWARD OPERATING BASE  LOYALTY, Iraq – In an historic meeting in
the Tuwaitha Village area of  eastern Baghdad, members of the Jisr
Diyala Nahia (council), Iraqi security  force officials, and local
Shia and Sunni leaders reached an initial  agreement to work to
end the sectarian violence in their neighborhoods.  

The meeting, first discussed after a recent spike in sectarian  
violence in the area, is a starting point for a future peace
accord for  the entire region.

The summit ended with the Shia and Sunni sheiks  shaking hands
with one
another, planning another meeting to sign a  formal peace
agreement at a later date.[/LIST]

REALLY great


----
Straight from the ground pounders and people there first hand

[Fleamo]

Quoting the NYTimes as a source for unbiased and truthful news is like saying your opinion is to be taken as the only truth.  Sorry, not into facist media.

Then don't watch Nazi News.  But I might also recommend not dismissing entire news sources and their facts without facts to the contrary?

Whatever, dismiss NYTimes.  Can you dismiss MSNBC?

In the bleak report, declassified and released Tuesday on Bush’s orders, the nation’s most veteran analysts conclude that despite serious damage to the leadership of al-Qaida, the threat from Islamic extremists has spread both in numbers and in geographic reach.

Bush released it, too.  That help you believe it more?

Nope.  Read the above statement I made.  So when a school principal suspends bullies, he's going to create more bullies.  Great way to "think it through".

Nope?  Nope?!  You can't just dismiss the facts and say "nope," then repeat what you said.  Yes.  Yes, the war is creating more terrorists.  When a school principal suspends bullies he's not going to create more bullies(probably), that's true.  But that doesn't refute ****.  If it's not true in your metaphor, your metaphor is a bad one.  Your bully example doesn't mean terrorists and extremists aren't being drawn into and trained in Iraq.  

Looks like things are going great, actually.

Didn't say they weren't.  Did you mention the economy in Iraq is doing well too?  'Cause it is.  But there are more terrorists being created by this war.  The "threat from Islamic extremists has spread both in numbers and in geographic reach."  There are many young Americans being killed because of this war.  And there will be more.

[Sunrie]

Then don't watch Nazi News.  But I might also recommend not dismissing entire news sources and their facts without facts to the contrary?

Whatever, dismiss NYTimes.  Can you dismiss MSNBC?

Yes, they are just as bad.  Tried watching it and all they did was make fun of other news channels, try to bash on Fox News, and showed the exact same new coverage, with the same narration and hosts, all day long.

Bush released it, too.  That help you believe it more?

Bush demanded that part of the report that was leaked by the NYTIMES in order to show how idiotic they were for doing it in the first place.  Why don't you post the rest of that report to show where it says that the fighting isn't the cause for the terrorists.

Nope?  Nope?!  You can't just dismiss the facts and say "nope," then repeat what you said.  Yes.  Yes, the war is creating more terrorists.  When a school principal suspends bullies he's not going to create more bullies(probably), that's true.  But that doesn't refute ****.  If it's not true in your metaphor, your metaphor is a bad one.  Your bully example doesn't mean terrorists and extremists aren't being drawn into and trained in Iraq.  

No, the war is not creating more terrorists.  Islam fundamentalism is creating more terrorists, NOT the war.

It is true in my metaphor, so it is a good metaphor.

Most of the violence in Iraq is being caused by Iraqis, not al-Queda or similar terrorists organizations.  We gave them the chance to change their lives, but they decided to live this way.  I'm not saying ALL of the violence is being caused by Iraqis, just most of it.

Didn't say they weren't.  Did you mention the economy in Iraq is doing well too?  'Cause it is.  But there are more terrorists being created by this war.  The "threat from Islamic extremists has spread both in numbers and in geographic reach."

The terrorists are NOT being caused by this war.  If you lived so poor and so restricted, would you not want to join up with the belief your afterlife would be filled with food and sex orgies?  Islam promises a person who dies in battle that all bad deeds are forgiven and they will be given 500 married women, 4,000 virgins, and 5,000 cocumbines.  Sounds like a good deal when you are living in a facist environment like they have been...which they created for themselves.

There are many young Americans being killed because of this war.  And there will be more.

I know a few older Americans who are being killed because of this war.  Just because people are going to die doesn't mean we should stop.  Doing so would prove the Islamic facists correct that America has no stomach, no will, and no resolve.  They will then bring the fight back to us on our own soil.

They aren't interested primarily in getting rid of Israel nor ignoring us if we drop ties with them.  We are one of their prime targets to destroy in order to spread their facist views and hateful government.

[Adam]

Yes, they are just as bad. Tried watching it and all they did was make fun of other news channels, try to bash on Fox News, and showed the exact same new coverage, with the same narration and hosts, all day long.

The basics of "statistical logic disagrees with your "I watched it once, it was bad, therefore it is all bad" argument.  Oh, and the fact that it's an argument based entirely opinion/personal preference/bias/what-have-you, as there aren't really any facts behind it.

Also, you still haven't made a serious response to the whole "conscientious objector" thing.  Unless you really meant that "all conscientious objectors are cowards" Futurama thing.  Which I doubt.

No, the war is not creating more terrorists. Islam fundamentalism is creating more terrorists, NOT the war.

Basic "thinking it through" leads me to the following conclusion: continued war in Iraq = continued conflict with whatever terrorists/Iraqis/Fundamentalist Muslims we're fighting = they're gonna have to recruit more members eventually.  Which would mean that, even if indirectly, the war is causing the "enemy" to grow.  I suppose the real question is whether or not that rate of growth is less than or greater than the rate at which they're dying off/being shot/blowing themselves up.

Why don't you post the rest of that report to show where it says that the fighting isn't the cause for the terrorists.

I don't think that the article really concluded with any such thing.  What I got out of is "federal intelligence analysts say this, Bush disagrees."

Bottom line is, I agree with the last dude.  "I think it’s difficult to count the number of true jihadists that are willing to commit murder or kill themselves in the process."

They will then bring the fight back to us on our own soil.

Just like the communists did when we backed out of Vietnam."  Feel free to comment on the validity of the parallel.

Yeah, I've been meaning to ask how the weather was up there on your golden pedestal.

It's not snowing, and that makes me sad.

[Sunrie]

The difference is the communists weren't/aren't trying to kill us for being captilists.

[Adam]

The difference is the communists weren't/aren't trying to kill us for being captilists.

So what, pray tell, was their rationale?

[Haru to Ashura]

Islam fundamentalism is creating more terrorists

So...now you're against an entire religion, not just a terrorist group?

Sunrie, your idealistic rightist views sort of frighten me. XD

But dare I even say this...if you're so supportive of the war, or what we're doing around the world, of the draft, then why aren't you over there helping?  Because thinking of all the post-Iraq men that I've met and know, you definently support the government's actions more than all of them combined.  And they made it happen! :D

[The Tao Of Bill]

So...now you're against an entire religion, not just a terrorist group?

Sunrie, your idealistic rightist views sort of frighten me. XD

But dare I even say this...if you're so supportive of the war, or what we're doing around the world, of the draft, then why aren't you over there helping?  Because thinking of all the post-Iraq men that I've met and know, you definently support the government's actions more than all of them combined.  And they made it happen! :D

Sunrie is a soldier. Or at least a vet. Not sure if he still fights.

[Adam]

So...now you're against an entire religion, not just a terrorist group?

In all fairness, he's against a minority (I think?) religious sect, not an entire religion.

But dare I even say this...if you're so supportive of the war, or what we're doing around the world, of the draft, then why aren't you over there helping?

Unless I'm mistaken, Sunrie is in fact a military person of some sort or another.  He probably knows the details better than I do.

Edit: Yeah, what Bill said.