Originally posted by Bardock42
No, Sir, I am saying that the US ios not free if it forces it's few pussies that don't want to pick up a gun to pick up a gun.
it isn't just a matter of a few pussies who dont wanna pick up a gun
ill be 18 in 2 years. If we were to have a war, and I were drafted, there is no way in hell I would be going.
Why:
a) As of now, I don't support our president or his way of managing he country and would refuse to fight under him.
b) I've worked way to hard in school to be one of the best. I'm not throwing that all away (bc i probably would go down if I were at war). If I had known that it would all have been a waste I would have been a stoner and not do anything significant.
c) There would deffinately be enough people volunteering wihtout questioning anything.
d) If the people responsible for this war aren't out there with me, I'm not going. As if Bush's children woud ever be drafted.
These aren't only specific to me, as I;m sure many people who would be drafted would feel the way I do because of the opinions I've shared. To say that someone is a pussy because they wouldn't want to go out and endanger their lives. Like someone said earlier(although i can't remember who) Take care of yourself, your family and your friends before anything else.
I never know how to end my thoughts, so I guess this is it.
Originally posted by Fishy
If the draft would be used here I just wouldn't show up. I'd rather go to jail then fight to invade another country that did no wrong. If this country were attacked however (really attacked) i'd join the military on my own.
We WERE attacked sir. People seem to have forgotten this nowadays.
As for the subject of a military draft, I highly, highly doubt there will be one. Unless we are outright attacked again by a foreign power, and our current military can not handle the threat with its current numbers, I see no reason for there to be one.
As it stands, our enemy is not a nation; it is a group of radicals who reside in many countries all over the world. Some countries support them more than others, of course, and those countries are genuine threats to the security of America (e.g. Iran and Iraq). However, there is no one country we could invade to stem the flow of terrorism. This is not a conventional war, those days were lost since 1945 and the end of World War II. A draft simply isn't necessary at this time, because we have no one enemy to concentrate on.
As for whether I would go if there was a draft? Absolutely. People here seem to have forgotten that we WERE attacked on our own soil, and three thousand Americans were killed in New York City and Washington DC, not to mention the hundreds of other U.S. citizens and servicemen that have died at the hands of terrorism prior to 9/11. I was only 11 when 9/11 took place, but I wished more than anything to be 18 so I could enlist and help fight the bastards who attacked us.
We WERE attacked sir. People seem to have forgotten this nowadays.
My ass, draft would be logical if Canada and Mexico in combination with Europe would launch a full out attack on America trying to conquer it's city, what happened was not draft worthy as there was no risk at all of America being completely destroyed and the country conquered.
Originally posted by J-Beowulf
We WERE attacked sir. People seem to have forgotten this nowadays.As for the subject of a military draft, I highly, highly doubt there will be one. Unless we are outright attacked again by a foreign power, and our current military can not handle the threat with its current numbers, I see no reason for there to be one.
As it stands, our enemy is not a nation; it is a group of radicals who reside in many countries all over the world. Some countries support them more than others, of course, and those countries are genuine threats to the security of America (e.g. Iran and Iraq). However, there is no one country we could invade to stem the flow of terrorism. This is not a conventional war, those days were lost since 1945 and the end of World War II. A draft simply isn't necessary at this time, because we have no one enemy to concentrate on.
As for whether I would go if there was a draft? Absolutely. People here seem to have forgotten that we WERE attacked on our own soil, and three thousand Americans were killed in New York City and Washington DC, not to mention the hundreds of other U.S. citizens and servicemen that have died at the hands of terrorism prior to 9/11. I was only 11 when 9/11 took place, but I wished more than anything to be 18 so I could enlist and help fight the bastards who attacked us.
By a group of terrorists. NOT a country.
Thank you.
By your logic, we should also invade Lebanon and Libya since they have terrorists group too. Hell, we should attack Saudi Arabia since that was where the terrorists who attack the Twin Towers were from.
You have no choice if there was a draft. That's the argument here; whether the government has the right to force another to die for its ideologies.
Originally posted by Fishy
My ass, draft would be logical if Canada and Mexico in combination with Europe would launch a full out attack on America trying to conquer it's city, what happened was not draft worthy as there was no risk at all of America being completely destroyed and the country conquered.
Your ass what? I said the situation doesn't warrant a draft. Did you read any of my post past the first line?
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
By a group of terrorists. NOT a country.Thank you.
By your logic, we should also invade Lebanon and Libya since they have terrorists group too. Hell, we should attack Saudi Arabia since that was where the terrorists who attack the Twin Towers were from.
You have no choice if there was a draft. That's the argument here; whether the government has the right to force another to die for its ideologies.
Yes, I said that.
Same thing.
I did not say that. I specifically said that invading other countries would be of no use to stop terrorism. I said I believe that these countries are threats, but invading them would do no good.
Actually, people do have a choice if there is a draft. They have a choice to save themselves and flee to Canada or Mexico, and come back after the fighting is over. The choice, however, isn't legal.
Originally posted by J-Beowulf
Yes, I said that.Same thing.
I did not say that. I specifically said that invading other countries would be of no use to stop terrorism. I said I believe that these countries are threats, but invading them would do no good.
Actually, people do have a choice if there is a draft. They have a choice to save themselves and flee to Canada or Mexico, and come back after the fighting is over. The choice, however, isn't legal.
Frist two things are old.
Yah, ya did. You said:
"Some countries support them more than others, of course, and those countries are genuine threats to the security of America (e.g. Iran and Iraq)."
How are they more of a threat? Saudi Arabia is the place where the terrorists lived. Why don't we go bomb the hell out of them?
Not anymore. Canada has made an agreement to essentially shut down its borders if draft dodgers become a nuisance.
Originally posted by J-Beowulf
Your ass what? I said the situation doesn't warrant a draft. Did you read any of my post past the first line?
No you said you didn't think there would be a draft, and I in my post said that unless a country was really attacked and was in danger of being destroyed, which the US never was, there might be a draft. seeing as you quoted one of my posts I just assumed you were saying that the terrorist attack was equal to something like that or at least something really serious...
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Frist two things are old.Yah, ya did. You said:
"Some countries support them more than others, of course, and those countries are genuine threats to the security of America (e.g. Iran and Iraq)."
How are they more of a threat? Saudi Arabia is the place where the terrorists lived. Why don't we go bomb the hell out of them?
Not anymore. Canada has made an agreement to essentially shut down its borders if draft dodgers become a nuisance.
Yes, I said they're threats. I did not say we should invade them. However, I do believe that there will be a time where a military takeover of Iran will be our best option. Their entire government is built on Anti-American principles, and they will be a SERIOUS threat to America if they ever get Nuclear Capability, although I hope and pray that that day will never come.
Yes, some of the terrorists lived in Saudi Arabia. The difference, however, is that the Saudi government did not harbor them and does not support terrorism. Some of the terrorists lived in the United States too, the point is moot. A terrorist does not advertise himself as one, and can become a citizen in any country unless he's well-known. This is the problem we face with this new enemy; there is no one location to fight terrorism, it is truly a global conflict.
With Iraq, however, not only did we bring down a government which harbored terrorists, but we also brought down a government and a leader who brutalized their own people with nerve gas. We also created a somewhat centralized area where the war on terrorism could be fought. Would you rather fight the war on American soil?
And as for the Canada thing: Good, I did not know that, but there is no way to completely close the massive border they share with us. There will always be draft dodgers.
Originally posted by J-Beowulf
Yes, I said they're threats. I did not say we should invade them. However, I do believe that there will be a time where a military takeover of Iran will be our best option. Their entire government is built on Anti-American principles, and they will be a SERIOUS threat to America if they ever get Nuclear Capability, although I hope and pray that that day will never come.Yes, some of the terrorists lived in Saudi Arabia. The difference, however, is that the Saudi government did not harbor them and does not support terrorism. Some of the terrorists lived in the United States too, the point is moot. A terrorist does not advertise himself as one, and can become a citizen in any country unless he's well-known. This is the problem we face with this new enemy; there is no one location to fight terrorism, it is truly a global conflict.
With Iraq, however, not only did we bring down a government which harbored terrorists, but we also brought down a government and a leader who brutalized their own people with nerve gas. We also created a somewhat centralized area where the war on terrorism could be fought. Would you rather fight the war on American soil?
And as for the Canada thing: Good, I did not know that, but there is no way to completely close the massive border they share with us. There will always be draft dodgers.
I don't believe in military action. If they do get nuclear weapons, going to war with them will be the worst option. nd going to war with them before makes us seem even more like "Team America: World Police".
Neither did Saddam. He didn't support them. He didn't diplomatically harbour them. Much like Saudi, terrorists lived there in safety because the government could care less.
If it's our job to bring down oppressive governments, (Which it shouldn't be) why don't we go into Africa and make that a "bastion of freedom"?
Originally posted by J-Beowulf
Yes, I said they're threats. I did not say we should invade them. However, I do believe that there will be a time where a military takeover of Iran will be our best option. Their entire government is built on Anti-American principles, and they will be a SERIOUS threat to America if they ever get Nuclear Capability, although I hope and pray that that day will never come.Yes, some of the terrorists lived in Saudi Arabia. The difference, however, is that the Saudi government did not harbor them and does not support terrorism. Some of the terrorists lived in the United States too, the point is moot. A terrorist does not advertise himself as one, and can become a citizen in any country unless he's well-known. This is the problem we face with this new enemy; there is no one location to fight terrorism, it is truly a global conflict.
With Iraq, however, not only did we bring down a government which harbored terrorists, but we also brought down a government and a leader who brutalized their own people with nerve gas. We also created a somewhat centralized area where the war on terrorism could be fought. Would you rather fight the war on American soil?
And as for the Canada thing: Good, I did not know that, but there is no way to completely close the massive border they share with us. There will always be draft dodgers.
how many terrorists attacked the US before the war in Iraq again? Seriously the war on terrorism isn't being won or even decided in Iraq, the war will continue and the US will fail becaues you can't destroy idea without 50x the troops they have now, and several million times the money they have... To destroy terrorism is to destroy an ideal that takes time education money and sometimes military force. The US doesn't have enough of anything to carry out a decisive blow to terrorism let alone stand finish it off...
The war had no use, it should have stayed in Afghanistan where it belonged.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I don't believe in military action. If they do get nuclear weapons, going to war with them will be the worst option. nd going to war with them before makes us seem even more like "Team America: World Police".Neither did Saddam. He didn't support them. He didn't diplomatically harbour them. Much like Saudi, terrorists lived there in safety because the government could care less.
If it's our job to bring down oppressive governments, (Which it shouldn't be) why don't we go into Africa and make that a "bastion of freedom"?
So you would rather wait until they put one of their nuclear arms to use before shutting them down? I would much rather not see a nuclear attack, whether is be on U.S. soil on on troops overseas, and invade them prior to creating such a weapon.
I'm actually going to agree with you here. It should not be our job at all to take down oppressive governments... but taking down an oppressive government and a major hub for global terrorism in one strike is a pretty good deal to me. Take the current situation at Darfour. The United Nations of course opposes the situation... but they want the United States to lead the world in stopping it. Why should we, when we have so many other things to worry about? Sure, it's horrible whats going on there, but are we the only nation in the UN with a functional military? And if my memory serves, I remember another time we went to Africa for humanitarian purposes. I believe it was in a country called Somalia, in 1992-1993 and that whole thing didn't work out too well for us.
But anyway, this is gettig quite off topic. The thread was meant to discuss a possible draft, not global politics. So I will not be posting about anything other than the draft from now on. 🙂 Let my current opinions stand, post whatever you want about them, but I will not be replying unless it is relevant to the original topic.