I wonder if this is true?

[JimmyBlueEyes]

Aww I forgot about that, disregard my last, yo...

[TheDude]

Originally posted by header

Afghanistan needed to be done, and it's a crime that business was not finished there.

We left afghanistan???

There's obviously still troops stationed and even minor firefights, but then all of the sudden we all turned our attention to Iraq, meanwhile Bin Laden and his operatives are still out there.

[Topper Harley]

do we actually ever leave a country that we invade? Isn't there always some sort of occupation?

[Black Lazerus]

Originally posted by TheDude

Originally posted by Black Lazerus
So if they only had the draft for troops for Afghanistan would you be down, or are you going to give the taxes excuse again.

Note: I don't support the war in Iraq, we were tricked into believing that they were responsible for 9/11 then that they had WMD neither which were true. now we are caught in a catch 22. We are fucked if we do help them now and fucked if we don’t help them.

If it was a cause I believed in, yes I would go...

Afghanistan needed to be done, and it's a crime that business was not finished there. But, it's not like we need a draft to blow a bunch of towelheads out of their rock bunkers.

Afghanistan should have been our primary focus and only after it was reduced to a pile of rubble and Bin Laden was getting a m16 rifle shoved up his ass in the deep dark corner of a CIA interrogation room, should we have been looking elsewhere.

You just don't get my point do you, if you want to enjoy the freedoms that this country affords you , You can't pick and choose what battles you fight when the people have decided where to fight. You know why I say this because I am sure that many troops didn't care about my old cotton picking ancestors or your Money hoarding ones in Germany. But people who most likely still called them a nigger or a kike fought so that they could be free.

[TheDude]

As much as I hate to admit it, you have a point

[The Brain]

<marquee><font color=red size=+2><b>** WARNING** ... Incredibly long post to follow, complete with multiple quote vortices... read at your own risk!!11 ... **WARNING**</font></marquee>

OK, I'll try to respond to this... it's a lot to digest...

Originally posted by SO
Brain,

Your entire argument is based on the belief that government has the authority to determine the lives of individual citizens. In fact, when you say:

We simply put cannot have such individual subjectivity when it comes to preserving our freedom. It's why this is a democratic republic and not a democracy-- we entrust a small representation of the public to act on our behalf as a whole. So if that small group decides we need to go to war to protect our foreign or internal interests, then so be it, that is what we all will do.

you ignore a few facts. First: Yes we entrust representatives to act on our behalf, but that trust has been betrayed. Elected officials only have the ability to govern when they have the consent of the governed. What we're seeing right now is an abuse of that power; government basically has carte blanche to do whatever it wishes, because most people are either too scared or too stupid to call them on their bad decisions. This needs to change.

No, the government still does not have carte blanche; ultimately, they must answer to the constituency which put them there (unless they declare martial law; in which case, I give up). No matter how much "right" Bush believes he is doing, if the people don't have faith in his ability to represent <i>their collective</i> beliefs in what is "right" (and judging by the outcries, quite a few don't), he's gone come November. And thanks to term limits, even if he survived in the Oval Office another 4 years, there would be a definitive new administration somewhere down the line. Policies will change with time, same as they always do.

Having said that, you're right, there are inherent problems with a beaucratic government such as ours... especially one in which so many <i>unelected/appointed officials</i> wield a great deal of influence. I, for one, would certainly like to see that policy change.

Also, I have to ask, what \"foreign or internal interests\" were we protecting when we invaded Iraq? If our Congress - those men and women who were elected by the people to represent everyone - tells us we need to invade Canada for whatever reason, that means we all should sign up?

\"Your government says you must go and kill Canadians.\"

\"But no Canadian ever did me wrong.\"

\"Shut up and grab your gun, boy, and never question your leaders!\"

Nonsense; Canadians do us wrong every day they continue to breathe our oxygen. :tongue:

Seriously though, whether Bush and his buddies were wrong on WMDs or not, the U.N. had already long since established Saddam had possessed them, or at the very least was violating the post-Gulf War treaty by trying to get them. The arguments leading up to our invasion were based on what course of actions to take to ensure that he no longer had them, or if he still did, that he wouldn't use them.

I love how folks are jumping up and down using 20-20 hindsight and saying, "See? Saddam didn't have any WMDs", as if we've combed every square inch of a desert nation roughly the size of California, or as if he was supposed to have some giant labratory with the words "Nuclear Arsenal Factory" flashing in neon right outside, so we could find it easily.

I'm sorry, but if the President of our country gets intel (trumped up or not), that says a foreign leader that the U.N. states has/had nuclear capabilities, and is/was itching to use them, that President <i>has</i> to take some course of action. Sitting around, scratching his ass, and waiting for another disaster to happen on our soil is not an option.

Second, you fail to mention that a military draft should be the <i>absolute last resort</i> when a country is faced with a war that must be won. Clearly, we have not exhausted our options. We can still increase funding for our volunteer military which would boost recruitment, and/or hand over the occupation of Iraq to the UN. Unfortunately, both of those options would require our president to admit he was DEAD WRONG, and he'd rather force people at gunpoint to go and die than admit he was wrong.

Well, I do agree that drafting <i>should</i> be a final option, and I apologize for not making that clear before. But I thought the argument going on in the thread was whether or not the draft should be an option <i>at all</i>, as opposed to just how soon an option it should be.

OK, this is where things will probably get sketchy:

\"The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.\"
--John F. Kennedy

He is not arguing that the \"rights of Man\" come from God... he acknowledges that the times of that belief have changed, and that mankind (the \"generosity of the state\") now holds sway over the rights of Man, even as he makes his oath before God and country. I know, the wording in that part of the speech is awkward, but it is as it is: the \"revolutionary belief\" in God-granted rights gave way to rights granted by the generosity of the state in more modern times.

Here is where you're completely, inarguably wrong. Consider the context of Kennedy's words - this was 1961, when Communism was the greatest (and only) threat to America, and here you are in 2004 basically espousing communist ideals!

When Kennedy says, "And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God," he is clearly saying that the rights of man come from the hand of God (or, as John Locke said, rights are natural), and that that the belief that "the rights of man come from the generosity of the state" is the basic principle of communism that we as Americans must oppose. "The same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe" does NOT say that those beliefs are a thing of a past, it says that there exists a threat to those beliefs that needs to be addressed. To twist Kennedy's words completely around and say that "the 'revolutionary belief' in God-granted rights gave way to rights granted by the generosity of the state in more modern times" is disgusting and you should know better.

I have rolled that phrase around in my head since yesterday, and the placement of the two words I'm bolding: <i>"And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come <b>not</b> from the generosity of the state <b>but</b> from the hand of God,"</i> keep throwing me off. You very well could be right in your interpretation, but I associate the "revolutionary beliefs" with the "belief" mentioned later on that the rights of man come from the hand of God (and by extension <i>not</i> from the generosity of the state).

Taken in that context, the "revolutionary beliefs"/"belief" mentioned are the ones from a time that no longer exists; therefore, when he says, "The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life.", it is an acknowledgment that the rights of man <i>are</i> now more under the influence of the generosity of the state (that is to say, ourselves) than that of God. Reading into it, though (and given that Kennedy was a devout Catholic), you would be likely right on the point that he would want a return to the older belief ("revolutionary belief") in the rights of man coming solely from God. But I keep reading that line over and over, and keep seeing it that way.

\"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 & the pursuit of Happiness.\"

These are not just words, they're the foundation of this country. What you're saying is that this is an antiquated idea, and <b>that now we only have these rights so long as the state <i>allows</i> us to have these rights</b>. You're wrong. If you sacrifice your rights to the state, you may as well live in a totalitarian dictatorship, because you do not value freedom.

Eh... not quite. True, those words you wrote down are the foundation of <i>our society</i>. Therefore, those unalienable rights afforded to the citizens of our society only exist as long as the society itself, which believes in those basic human tenets, exist. The individual's freedom and the freedom of that society are intertwined. An <a href=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=expatriate target=new>expatriate</a> (kids, read some Hemingway if you don't know what that word means) living in a different society will find him/herself living under their tenets, which may not necessarily reflect the tenets our society holds so dear. In other words, not every society believes that humans have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"-- in order to have those rights, a human has to <i>be part of a society that believes in those rights</i>.

So it is not an instance of the "state" allowing the individual to do what he/she wants, because the individual <i>is</i> the "State". Sounds Socialist, no? Actually, it's closer to the democratic republic ideology we have: that the republic (based of "the people") as a society is only as strong as the people it represents, and the people are only as strong as the society they comprise. An object only being as good as the sum of its individual parts ideal, basically. The democratic element reinforces this by placing the ultimate authority on who is elected to govern in the hands of the people (although I disagree on the use of electoral colleges-- they are an unnecessary and confusing "interpretation" of decisions made by the populace).

Like it or not, from the first Revolutionary army being made up of farmers and merchants called into service, to today's students and up-and-coming businessmen having to put their personal lives on hold for service to this country, the draft has existed, and will continue to exist, in one form or another. Kennedy acknowledged as much, becuase it is necessary for us to be willing to make that sacrifice of individual freedom to maintain national freedom, because the two freedoms are inherently intertwined-- one simply cannot exist without the other.

You cite the American Revolution, as if that in any way compares to the wars we're fighting today. <b>Look, the Revolution had a clear goal, one that could be understood by everyone: to gain independence from Britain. The Civil War, WWI, WWII, all had clearly defined goals. Vietnam? No clear goal, no objective and - surprise! - we lost. The Iraq War? What are the goals?</b> I thought it was to disarm Saddam, but now I guess it's to bring 'democracy' to a bunch of people who don't want democracy and don't want us there. How the fuck are we supposed to win, and how can you rationalize sending unwilling men and women to die when there are no goals established and the fate of our country is not at stake?

<b>Revolutionary War</b>-- <i>economic motivation</i>: colonists revolt due to Britain's heavy taxation practices.

<b>War of 1812</b>-- <i>economic motivation</i>: <a href=http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0861857.html target=new>Britain captures roughly 1,000 American merchant ships in a series of blockades against Napoleonic Europe</a>; force American sailors of British origin to fight on Britain's behalf.

<b>Mexican-American War</b>-- <i>economic/political motivation</i>: Texas, a Mexican colony, declares independence... and then is almost immediately annexed by America. Mexico doesn't exactly just want to give up its territory; war begins.

<b>Civil War</b>-- <i>ideological motivation</i> (North): slavery in a nation that support absolute freedoms is an affront to belief that "all men are created equal".
<i>economic/political motivation</i> (South): slavery is the backbone in still largely agricultural Southern plantation system; politically, expansion west was voted in Congress to only consist of "free" states, so that the pro-slavery South would ultimately be in the minority and have little future political influence.

<b>Spanish-American War</b>-- <i>political motivation</i>: America has been increasingly supportive of <a href=http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0861237.html target=new>Spanish colony Cuba gaining independence</a>. The U.S.S. Maine, on a peaceful mission to support Americans in Havana, <a href=http://www.multied.com/spanish/maine.html target=new>gets blown up in the harbor on February 15, 1898</a>. Spain is accused of attacking the ship; war is eventually declared.

<b>World War I</b>-- <i>political/ideological motivation</i>: On May 7, 1915, German submarines sink the luxury ship Lusitania, causing 128 American casualties... but the U.S. did not declare war on Germany until 1917, following the interception of <a href=http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/zimmermann.htm target=new>the Zimmerman telegram</a>, in which Germany promised Mexico the return of all its colonies and territories annexed by America, in return for Mexican support should the U.S. enter the war on Britain's side.

<b>World War II</b>-- <i>ideological motivation</i>: On December 7, 1941, Japan issues a surprise attack on a U.S. base in Pearl Harbor. It is a <u>pre-emptive strike</u> based on U.S.-imposed sanctions on Japan brought on by Japan's conquering of Indo-China.

*** On a side note, WWII itself begain on primarily <i>economic motivations</i>, specifically economic sanctions imposed on post-WWI Germany by the League of Nations (which the U.S. had opted not to join), which kept Germany in poor financial state, until a young upstart named Hitler decide things needed to be changed... ***

<b>Korean War</b>-- <i>political motivation</i>: following WWII, <a href=http://www.multied.com/korea/causes.html target=new>control of Japanese colony Korea was passed over to both the Soviet Union (North) and U.S. (South)</a>. The U.S. desired elections to create an independent Korea; the Soviets did not. Having given independence to (their half of) Korea, the U.S. began military withdrawal. The Soviet Union and fellow communist China saw the opportunity to re-unite Korea under their influence, and invaded.

<b>Vietnam War</b>-- <i>political motivation</i>: the Communist-led Vietminh army defeats the colonial French (no surprise there :tongue: ) in Dienbienphu; France concedes to the existence of a communist Vietnam north of the 17th Parallel, with the southern part of Vietnam remaining non-Communist. <a href=http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/causes.htm target=new>President Eisenhower decides to assist ally France by setting up a puppet government in south Vietnam, training the south Vietnameses army, and using the CIA to play mind games with north Vietnam. Kennedy later takes it a step further by sending specialized forces to teach the south Vietnamese army counter-guerilla warfare. Following Kennedy's assassination, Johnson called for full-out military action in Vietnam</a>.

<b>Desert Storm</b>-- <i>political motivation</i>: After years of saying he was going to invade Kuwait someday, Saddam Hussein surprises everybody <a href=http://www.multied.com/desert_storm/iraqinvades.html target=new>by actually invading</a>. The U.S. was initially unsure as to whether or not to intervene (perhaps willing to concede Kuwait?), until <a href=http://www.multied.com/desert_storm/amerresponse.html target=new>Iraqi forces began offensively moving toward Saudi Arabia's borders as well</a>. The U.S. decides to intervene; war (a short one, anyway) ensues.

<b>War on Terror</b>-- <i>ideological motivation</i>: we all know why we entered this one. The question now is in which direction we should be going.

I'm sorry, but aside from our involvement in wars cause by an enemy striking us pre-emptively (WWII and post-9/11), America's reasons for entering wars are truthfully not as clear-cut noble as you would like us to believe (your words: "sending unwilling men and women to die when there are no goals established and the fate of our country is not at stake"). The fact is, wars throughout history are most often fought over the following: land/territory, power/wealth (often tied directly to land/territory), or religion/ideology (usually for the purpose of imposing one society's religion/ideology over another's). Even now, the events leading up to (1993 WTC bombing, 2000 attack on the Cole, etc.) and following 9/11 can be attributed to extremist Islamic groups who feel their <i>religion</i> is being suppressed by outside (Western) ideals and influences.

Now, somehow relating this all back to the draft (the whole point of this thread): there is going to be cases where one's personal ideologies conflict with the larger ideologies of the nation-- the ideologies as expressed by our elected officials. This country routinely has to deal with the delicate balance of maintaining individual freedoms, while also trying to negotiate all those individuals in some type of uniform direction for the purpose of bettering the country on the whole. In instances of conflict--and by this I mean between the freedoms of the individual and the society-- it's my opinion that the individual should be more willing to sacrifice or set aside his/her personal freedoms for the purpose of maintaining the society as a whole, than vice versa, if for no other reason than because his/her own freedoms may very well cease should the society cease.

You may agree; or you may find me a complete Socialist nutcase (I don't know, do the rest of you think my musings lean that way?).

Either way, I'm taking another break from this Board... my fingers are tired of typing. We've got to stop having these damn political debates. :tongue:

[JimmyBlueEyes]

You will be missed...but it was a nice gesture..

[The Brain]

Originally posted by JimmyBlueEyes
You will be missed...but it was a nice gesture..

I don't want everyone getting all maudlin over my absense... so you've convinced me to stay.

(Now everyone will attack you for doing that). aint2:

[JimmyBlueEyes]

BRING IT ON!!!!