Originally posted by Bardock42
That may be, but I don't remember reading "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. ...and they have the obligation not to be a coward".Man, that declaration of Independence was ****ing sweet....what happened to that great country...sad...really sad.
What the hell are you talking about?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The same people who wrote that declaration also made it clear that citizens had a duty to fight for the country if need be, so that's not a wise tack to take.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, again, I don't agree with you there.First of all, I don't think it is contentious ion a modern day setting to include all the Western European powers as the victors in World War II., something my old German teacher was very clear on.
Secondly, no, I think you are wrong there; you are confusing what a representative democracy is. So long as the Government is elected fairly and does not interfere with the process of election, then it is under no obligation to give anyone a choice about anything; it is up to them to set the laws, once elected, and if you don''t like what they do, vote for someone else. That's as far as it goes.
You starting to raise a point about subjective morals is an extreme diversion when using the example of World War II because you cross a line into being totally unreasonable if you do not see it as a postive outcome that the Nazis lost in World War II.
To enact laws that require citizens to do things if such things are definitely necessary to protect a democratic nation is perfectly democratic, should Parliament, or whatever representative body so exists, passes such legislation. Parliament represents the people and so by passing such laws they are directly engaging in the essence of the democratic process. It would only be undemocratic if the legislative body was bypassed.
And to refuse your responsibilities in such cases to society is selfish and wrong. It would be to willfully endanger the rest of society by failing in your duty ro protect it. In the case of World War II, we are talking several million Jews being exterminated for a start, and I can only have contempt for those who think that the Allies did not have the right to bring in the draft to defend their own countries and liberate those that had been conquered in order to stop such a global menace.
Your views are simply not rational or appropriate, Bardock, and strike me as very selfish. There are times when there is a greater need than just your own. Iraq is not such a time, Vietnam was not such a time, but World War II was.
Well, at least we both know we don't agree with each other, that's a good start...could be really confusing if we didn't.
Yeah, acceptable. I agree.
Okay, true also, so it is not undemocratic, but unfree. A democracy as such does not mean it is just though. There have to be other parts for it to be moral (by my standards).
I think we should not discuss if morals are subjective or objective generally, I jsut include the "imo" or "by my moral views", so that in any later debate about that topic I won't be confronted with people telling me that I actually do believe in objective morals. If you wish we can also talk about whether the Nazis losing World War 2 was absolutely good or not, but we both know the views of each other on the subject and it would be off-topic.
Democratic maybe. Fair and free, not so much.
It is selfish, but it is most certainly not wrong. You ahve the right to protect your life by whatever means necessary, if your government does work against it it becomes your enemy.An individual is first and foremost responsible for itself, if it chooses to hold familiy or society or anything else higher that is the individuals decision. Such a decision should not be forced on the individual though. In a society we all agree to accept certain responsibilities to secure our lives. When that is not given and when you live worse in a society than without it is the time when such a social contract has to be broken....and a draft does in my opinion (and that of many othes) cross the line.
My views are very rational actually. Humans are selfish to a certain extent, that can not be denied. And no, your own need is always the ultimate reason for decisions. For every decision. It is for you just as it is for me, although you choose to beleive that some sort of "greater need" is what you need. Well, fair enough, but don't tell me to fight and risk my life for something I don't want to risk my life for. Fight yourself. Fight with the people that want to fight.
Well bardock, the defence of the country is far more important though and of course not everybody has to fight, but those that don't want to because they hate the government in situations like that are ussually members who like the enemy, and who would thus betray their own country. In which case they should be arrested for treason which is of course easier to do if you have a reason (draft dodging).
In a World War, you have to be black and white sometimes and think like this. Every person that favors the country your in above the country that's attacking you would go to war if necessary.
Except for of course the people that do not want to fight for whatever reason, well sorry. If you don't want to fight in a world war, leave the country and move somewhere neutral. The rest shouldn't be forced to die for you if you refuse to do so yourself.
Originally posted by Fishy
Well bardock, the defence of the country is far more important though and of course not everybody has to fight, but those that don't want to because they hate the government in situations like that are ussually members who like the enemy, and who would thus betray their own country. In which case they should be arrested for treason which is of course easier to do if you have a reason (draft dodging).In a World War, you have to be black and white sometimes and think like this. Every person that favors the country your in above the country that's attacking you would go to war if necessary.
Except for of course the people that do not want to fight for whatever reason, well sorry. If you don't want to fight in a world war, leave the country and move somewhere neutral. The rest shouldn't be forced to die for you if you refuse to do so yourself.
Its not so much fighting in general thats the problem, Im sure plenty of people would join up if their country was under threat, but its more being forced to fight.
Originally posted by Alliance
But a lot of these soldiers have seen three tours already and their tours are 9-12 months, much longer than they should be.
The army dosen't give a rats ass. I served in Afghanistan, came back for 5mths, went straight to Iraq. They'd send me right back after 5-6mths.
I didn't mind if you're on active duty, you might as well be deployed.
Originally posted by Fishy
Well bardock, the defence of the country is far more important though and of course not everybody has to fight, but those that don't want to because they hate the government in situations like that are ussually members who like the enemy, and who would thus betray their own country. In which case they should be arrested for treason which is of course easier to do if you have a reason (draft dodging).In a World War, you have to be black and white sometimes and think like this. Every person that favors the country your in above the country that's attacking you would go to war if necessary.
Except for of course the people that do not want to fight for whatever reason, well sorry. If you don't want to fight in a world war, leave the country and move somewhere neutral. The rest shouldn't be forced to die for you if you refuse to do so yourself.
You assume that all that dodge a draft would support the enemy?
Well, if you would actually think like that...why do you even need a draft? I mean they would all sign up, wouldn't they? No, they wouldn't, because they have the right to decided if their lives should be endangered. That is what societies are about. To secure the people. A society doesn't have to be protected in a way that is against the very purpose of a society.
They die for something they think is important. Good if they think that then great. But you don't have to force anyone to think the way they do. Society is a social contract. And people houild not have to subscribe to the contract being more important than their very own (only) lives.
Originally posted by Mišt
Its not so much fighting in general thats the problem, Im sure plenty of people would join up if their country was under threat, but its more being forced to fight.
Which sucks for them, but lets be honest here. If your country was under attack and was almost going down you could not fight for several reasons.
1. You simply don't want to
Well that's nice, but why should others die and fight for you? If your country is attacked you either fight for it or you simply leave the country and go to some neutral country. I'm not going to sacrifise my life or pay taxes for somebody that did nothing in the country's greatest need.
2. You like the enemy more
In which case you should be put in prison or flee to their side and fight for them, but not stay in the country you are in. And the country you are in has no reason to keep you.
3. You are unable to do so for practical/religious/physical/mental problems
In which case an exception should be made for you. Otherwise life would just be unfair.
In a world war, such black and white views should be allowed and not only that should be practiced by the government, otherwise keeping the country safe is going to be even harder.
You assume that all that dodge a draft would support the enemy?
No they can have several reasons, see above. But yes I do think you should see those reasons in black and white and simplify them otherwise you are making things way to hard in those times.
Well, if you would actually think like that...why do you even need a draft? I mean they would all sign up, wouldn't they? No, they wouldn't, because they have the right to decided if their lives should be endangered. That is what societies are about. To secure the people. A society doesn't have to be protected in a way that is against the very purpose of a society.
Because there always people that wouldn't fight, which is fine they really don't need too. But we don't need to support them then either. If you don't want to go to the frontlines volunteer in some other way, but refusing to help does not mean you deserve the things that the country gives you, like healthcare police protection and all that shit.
They die for something they think is important. Good if they think that then great. But you don't have to force anyone to think the way they do. Society is a social contract. And people houild not have to subscribe to the contract being more important than their very own (only) lives.
Of course not, but in a World War how many different oppinions can there be? During WWII you were either fighting with the nazi's or you were not. Simple as that, at least in Germany. And those that didn't and refused were labelled as traitors and if that would not have happened then Germany's army would not have been the size it was, and the same goes for the allies. In wars like that country's have to realize that they have no obligiation to anybody but those that want to make sure the country survives, unless of course the mayority is supporting the enemy in which case the government wouldn't last long anyway and most people wouldn't fight in the first place. Anyways in order to ensure that a country survives and with that the choice of the majority you have to do things that will not be liked by a very small minority, but they can leave and go to a neutral country or to the enemy if they want.
Still this is only in a World War scale war and only when defending their own country, so it's very unlikely that it's going to happen.
Originally posted by Fishy
Which sucks for them, but lets be honest here. If your country was under attack and was almost going down you could not fight for several reasons.1. You simply don't want to
Well that's nice, but why should others die and fight for you? If your country is attacked you either fight for it or you simply leave the country and go to some neutral country. I'm not going to sacrifise my life or pay taxes for somebody that did nothing in the country's greatest need.
2. You like the enemy more
In which case you should be put in prison or flee to their side and fight for them, but not stay in the country you are in. And the country you are in has no reason to keep you.
3. You are unable to do so for practical/religious/physical/mental problems
In which case an exception should be made for you. Otherwise life would just be unfair.
In a world war, such black and white views should be allowed and not only that should be practiced by the government, otherwise keeping the country safe is going to be even harder.
1. They apparently want to fight. So let them. You are not obligated to risk your life because others do.
2. Okay. Small percentage probably.
3. Why? Either all or no one. That's the only fair way. Why only boys and young man? That's not fair. That's not what a socieety should be about.
They don't need to keep the country safe anymore, they already made it unsafe for their citizens by throwing them in situations were they will most likely die. They are the enemy.
Originally posted by Fishy
Which sucks for them, but lets be honest here. If your country was under attack and was almost going down you could not fight for several reasons.1. You simply don't want to
Well that's nice, but why should others die and fight for you? If your country is attacked you either fight for it or you simply leave the country and go to some neutral country. I'm not going to sacrifise my life or pay taxes for somebody that did nothing in the country's greatest need.
2. You like the enemy more
In which case you should be put in prison or flee to their side and fight for them, but not stay in the country you are in. And the country you are in has no reason to keep you.
3. You are unable to do so for practical/religious/physical/mental problems
In which case an exception should be made for you. Otherwise life would just be unfair.
In a world war, such black and white views should be allowed and not only that should be practiced by the government, otherwise keeping the country safe is going to be even harder.
No they can have several reasons, see above. But yes I do think you should see those reasons in black and white and simplify them otherwise you are making things way to hard in those times.
Because there always people that wouldn't fight, which is fine they really don't need too. But we don't need to support them then either. If you don't want to go to the frontlines volunteer in some other way, but refusing to help does not mean you deserve the things that the country gives you, like healthcare police protection and all that shit.
Of course not, but in a World War how many different oppinions can there be? During WWII you were either fighting with the nazi's or you were not. Simple as that, at least in Germany. And those that didn't and refused were labelled as traitors and if that would not have happened then Germany's army would not have been the size it was, and the same goes for the allies. In wars like that country's have to realize that they have no obligiation to anybody but those that want to make sure the country survives, unless of course the mayority is supporting the enemy in which case the government wouldn't last long anyway and most people wouldn't fight in the first place. Anyways in order to ensure that a country survives and with that the choice of the majority you have to do things that will not be liked by a very small minority, but they can leave and go to a neutral country or to the enemy if they want.
Still this is only in a World War scale war and only when defending their own country, so it's very unlikely that it's going to happen.
Only for an extreme case.
1. Because they chose to fight. They had as much choice in the matter as I do. That '..somebody that did nothing..' also pays taxes, its not like you are higher up in the chain because you took a more active role. Thats entirely your choice to fight, as it is my choice not to fight.
2. You cant possibly prove, or accuse this 😬 Good god, talk about paranoid, 'if you're not with us, you're against us'....does the word 'neutral' mean anything nowadays? One of the reasons I like the country Im living in is because it is a more peaceful country, more of a support role, theres no 'for/against' argument regardless of any decision. They do have a right to keep me, I am a legal citizen by birthright, they can't just disown me.
3. Ok, what if you dont view the whole thing as reasonable to fight? If your government declared your family an enemy and ordered you to kill each and every one of them for the sake of national security, would you do it? Theres no way I would, I dont care what the government deems a necessary threat, if they have a problem they can sort it but Im not going to support their stance.
Edited my previous post btw...
1. And we should pay for those that don't want too? If Germany was attacked right now and your entire neighbourhood would go out to destroy the enemy and die and get wounded and whatever they should be seen as more important then you.
2. Dangerous procentage though....
3. I never said only boys and young man should be forced to fight, i'm a great fan of woman in the military so really they should fight too. And everybody until a certain age should, simple as that. No exceptions. I don't want only young people to fight they have their entire life ahead of them, hell if anything older people should go first but they are needed to rebuild the country so both groups should be used simple as that.
They don't need to keep the country safe anymore, they already made it unsafe for their citizens by throwing them in situations were they will most likely die. They are the enemy.
Guess that's where our oppinions differ, I don't think you could call an occupied country safe unless a majority would desire it and if that's the case then the government would be overthrown anyway and none would fight, situation fixes itself... If they do want their own country to continue existing they should work for it. Simple as that. I don't like people that get a lot of benefits but do nothing, they suck.
Originally posted by Mišt
Only for an extreme case.
And i'm talking about extreme cases, anything less doesn't even come close to justifying draft.
1. Because they chose to fight. They had as much choice in the matter as I do. That '..somebody that did nothing..' also pays taxes, its not like you are higher up in the chain because you took a more active role. Thats entirely your choice to fight, as it is my choice not to fight.
Yes actually... When your country is close to being destroyed and you help to save it then you are more important for the country then some that didn't. simple...
2. You cant possibly prove, or accuse this 😬 Good god, talk about paranoid, 'if you're not with us, you're against us'....does the word 'neutral' mean anything nowadays? One of the reasons I like the country Im living in is because it is a more peaceful country, more of a support role, theres no 'for/against' argument regardless of any decision. They do have a right to keep me, I am a legal citizen by birthright, they can't just disown me.
If you don't want to fight and don't support the enemy and have no good physical mental or whatever reason for it then you should just go away or something. Or perhaps not fighting isn't the only real thing, not making yourself useful is probably something I should have said. Not everybody should be forced to join the military, but at least to do work that somehow helps the country survive. Refusing to do so is fine, move to another country. But don't expect help from the country because other's simply deserve it more
3. Ok, what if you dont view the whole thing as reasonable to fight? If your government declared your family an enemy and ordered you to kill each and every one of them for the sake of national security, would you do it? Theres no way I would, I dont care what the government deems a necessary threat, if they have a problem they can sort it but Im not going to support their stance.
If my country is being destroyed and I wouldn't deem it reasonable to fight, I would probably either have a damned good reason, which would allow me to stay home, hate my government which makes me the enemy and I should probably be put in jail or something or be completely neutral in which case this country isn't a place for me anyway and I should probably just get the hell out.
And again my opinion only counts for when your country is under heavy attack and about to be destroyed or something, otherwise the draft is stupid.
Originally posted by Fishy
Edited my previous post btw...1. And we should pay for those that don't want too? If Germany was attacked right now and your entire neighbourhood would go out to destroy the enemy and die and get wounded and whatever they should be seen as more important then you.
2. Dangerous procentage though....
3. I never said only boys and young man should be forced to fight, i'm a great fan of woman in the military so really they should fight too. And everybody until a certain age should, simple as that. No exceptions. I don't want only young people to fight they have their entire life ahead of them, hell if anything older people should go first but they are needed to rebuild the country so both groups should be used simple as that.
Guess that's where our oppinions differ, I don't think you could call an occupied country safe unless a majority would desire it and if that's the case then the government would be overthrown anyway and none would fight, situation fixes itself... If they do want their own country to continue existing they should work for it. Simple as that. I don't like people that get a lot of benefits but do nothing, they suck.
1. No, their choice. We had the same contract. If they want to fight to keep it fair enough. If they won't then also fair enough. I am an individual and just agreed to live in a society because it had benefits for me. If it doesn't have those the contract is done with. That doesn't make those who fight moral superior, they just had a different opinion good (or, well, bad for them). It's not like I don't consider the possibilities, if I am afraid to lose what I have I might fight, if I can deal with the situation either way I'd rather stay alive than sacrifice for something that is not important to me. If my neighbours judge the situation differently then that is their good right....it is not their good right to force me to fight for them though.
2. Yeah, and you can deal with them in appropriate ways, using atomic bombs to kill ants is not reasonable. You don't force your entire country to fight, because some might prefer the enemy. Actually, even if they do, don't they have the right to that opinion as well?
3. What about infants, old people, retarded people...if all citizens have to fight it would be fair..if not it is is bullshit. But even if they all have to fight it is still authoritarian.
Why a majority?They can fight if they don't like to be occupied. Everyone can decide what to do, if I can live in an occupied country and see it as better than getting killed for the chance of changing that I won't fight. I just have one life. I am not about to throw it away for something I don't care for.
Originally posted by Fishy
And i'm talking about extreme cases, anything less doesn't even come close to justifying draft.
Good, so am I.
Originally posted by Fishy
Yes actually... When your country is close to being destroyed and you help to save it then you are more important for the country then some that didn't. simple...
What about say, doctors or surgeons? They work constantly, saving peoples lives, are they any less of a contribution to society because they wouldnt fight? They've spent their life working to save others. Can't just dismiss a lifetime of beneficial work. Besides, no country in the world in close to being destroyed, and in the circumstances, I said earlier, Im sure most people would take up arms rather than sit back and watch tv while they are being invaded.
Originally posted by Fishy
If you don't want to fight and don't support the enemy and have no good physical mental or whatever reason for it then you should just go away or something. Or perhaps not fighting isn't the only real thing, not making yourself useful is probably something I should have said. Not everybody should be forced to join the military, but at least to do work that somehow helps the country survive. Refusing to do so is fine, move to another country. But don't expect help from the country because other's simply deserve it more
Why should I just go away? The government chose to make an enemy and to take a fight, I didnt get a choice in the matter even though I have a right to freedom of speech and all that. Apparently my rights amount to nothing in the end if they choose to override my opinion anyway.
Not fighting and not making yourself useful are two different things, and the argument would be different so I wont go there for the sake of this argument.
Originally posted by Fishy
If my country is being destroyed and I wouldn't deem it reasonable to fight, I would probably either have a damned good reason, which would allow me to stay home, hate my government which makes me the enemy and I should probably be put in jail or something or be completely neutral in which case this country isn't a place for me anyway and I should probably just get the hell out.
This is talk of an invasion or total destruction, however the thread isnt about that at all, its about sending people overseas to fight. There isnt going to be anything of that scale where any of us need to take us arms in order to save our countries just yet, so we can say anything about that. But my points are about deploying people to fight in the current state of the world.
I can hate my government and not be an enemy. I can hate the rules I live by, yet still live by them, not making me a threat or enemy.
Originally posted by Fishy
And again my opinion only counts for when your country is under heavy attack and about to be destroyed or something, otherwise the draft is stupid.
So is mine.
Ah crap too late to edit, just wanted to add this to the post:
What about all of your arguments, in regards to Iraq at the moment? They have been invaded and attacked, plenty of civilians have died, plenty of structures have been demolished....half of them arent fighting for their country. Does that make them an enemy to their own country? They choose not to fight, to let the invasion take over, in order for a more stable and safer government to take place, what if you were an Iraqian at the moment? Would you fight against those who invade, or stand down and be regarded as an enemy for not fighting?
Originally posted by Mišt
Ah crap too late to edit, just wanted to add this to the post:What about all of your arguments, in regards to Iraq at the moment? They have been invaded and attacked, plenty of civilians have died, plenty of structures have been demolished....half of them arent fighting for their country. Does that make them an enemy to their own country? They choose not to fight, to let the invasion take over, in order for a more stable and safer government to take place, what if you were an Iraqian at the moment? Would you fight against those who invade, or stand down and be regarded as an enemy for not fighting?
I'd fight against the invaders and I can't blame anybody for doing so. But Iraq is a bit different, I only think the way I do if for instance, Germany, Belgium, England whatever would come and attack Holland trying to destroy it in which case we would be in deep shit, at least with two of the three mentioned before. Going overseas is bullshit, attacking the country that attacked you is bullshit once they are over the border it becomes personal choice if you want to help your country or not.
Now if I were oppressed in this country I wouldn't feel the same way, the discussion kinda went off topic from the original question but that's because Bardock was against draft in all situations and I was against it in all but one as was Ush... Anyway people in Iraq have every right to fight, but Iraq is a divided country and the people were being oppressed and destroyed by their own leader so of course those have the right not to fight and a lot of people were neutral in the conflict and some joined the Americans, and the neutrals avoided the war zone and those that supported the US would have been killed if the US would have lost... Just like those that fought for Saddam were killed. And now the people for an independent free Iraq fight and die against all other sides of which there are many and all of them are right, and all that don't wish to fight are right. But Iraq does not have a simple enemy it's a country that needs to be build on a different foundation and can not be compared to a country like the one I am in.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Good news Pittman....Soleran,...Saddam and I decided to settle our disputes by letting you play a little game of Russian Roulette....why you? Well, why not, you are citizens, do that for you country...don't be selfish...."I want to live, I want to live"...BULLSHIT...you are Americans and as such you have to risk your lives (the only ones you have) to attack other countries so we can get oil...we like oil.Countries should not be able to decide for you if you are going to risk your live for some more or less important issue. That is a decision everyone is allowed to make for themselves and the majority can **** itself up the butt....if 50% want to fight a war, they are the ones that are going to fight it. It is a personal decision that should have nothing, nothing to do with being a citizen...
I'm glad I don't live in your black and white world.