A Question to the 40 percent of DUers who support the draft.

[EdwardM]

According to this poll 40 percent of DUers support the draft which of course shocks me. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2760029


I am 20 years. If I was drafted, I would refuse to serve. How long should my prison sentence be?

[sniffa]

1. your prison sentence - none

that's what it shouLd be.

[LostinVA]

2. No one supports the draft in the way you mean it

I haven't seen one post saying that.

[Donnachaidh]

5. it would really help if you read further posts on Rangel's *point*

which is what I support.

That is the main problem here -- rather than LISTEN and think, the government has been teaching people to react with all this fearmongering. It's the same psychology used on animals. Show's how much respect our government has for the vox populi.

[LostinVA]

12. I have read all of Range;s info, and I agree with him

I think you probably want to debate with someone else, because we're on the same side, I think.

[EdwardM]

6. I've seen a ton.

And that post doesn't ask "do you want a debate on the draft." It asks "Should they reinstate the draft?" and 40 percent answered yes. It cant get anymore clear. I'm trying to point out that a draft forces people to fight in a war and if they refuse, they get sent to prison. I don't care what the reasoning is for a draft. The right wing reason of Nationalism, or the left wing reason to make the army composed equally of social and racial groups. Both reasons are wrong, and both reasons would lead to people like me in prison.

[Donnachaidh]

11. was that a yes or no poll?

posting a poll in such stark terms will get stark responses.

[EdwardM]

19. Well it really is a yes or no question.

Either you want me to get drafted into Iraq, or you don't. I don't see how there can be a grey area on this.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

87. I suspect...

...that the 40% of people who said "yes" did so because they believed reinstating the draft would bring an immediate halt to the war in Iraq and also any talk of a future war in Iran. I really don't think they want to get you fragged.

[HughBeaumont]

14. Both side's rationalizations are f'd up beyond belief.

[PhenyxReturns]

73. Well, Ed. I'm thinking 5 - 15 years.

I do support the draft in the way you are implying. I think you should have to go to jail just like the cowards in the College Republican Corps who love the war but would never put their own butts on the line for it. This is why Charles Rangle proposed the new draft. It is far to easy to stick to your principles when you have no skin in the game.

5 years if you stay and fight for your beliefs. 15 if you chicken out and run to Canada.

[personman]

79. Well the college republicans hawked for this unjust war...

Most of us have done everything we can to stop or end it.

If the government thinks people should be jailed for refusing to participate in an atrocity they want no part of, they are no government worth fighting to preserve.

[PhenyxReturns]

86. So you want exemptions included in any new Draft legislaion?

Isn't that one of our biggest arguments against the use of a draft? Exemptios for, oh, I don't know, rich Republicans?

Curious.

[EdwardM]

97. I'm not a college republican

I don't support the War in Iraq. Never did, Never Will. I believe we should pull out now. So why should I get 5-15 years again. I swear, this place is starting to seem worse than Free Republic.

[personman]

99. I don't support a draft at all.

It's the state's bullshit problem, not mine, not my younger friends who are opposed to it.

They bullshitted us in to the war, spent our money killing our kids in it, and now we have to go clean it up? Fuck... That...

The day we can trust the government to use war only when necessary, is the day I'll support the draft.

If the government wants another pissed-off radical enemy on it's hands, then they should try drafting me.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ComerPerro]

122. I don't care how old you are. Get you fucking cowardly ass over to Iraq right now

I don't care if you are 70, I don't care if you are a veteran, I don't care if you have an exemption of some sort, I don't even care if you already have served in Iraq in this war.

Get your lazy, cowardly ass over there right now.

[Der Blaue Engel]

128. And you're signing up when? n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

143. What complete bullshit!

5 years if you stay and fight for your beliefs. 15 if you chicken out and run to Canada.

What right do YOU have to tell anyone this? This bushit war isn't being fought to defend our freedoms, it's being fought for profit, power and control over ME oil. Not one American is obliged to fight in it, including those military members who volunteered to defend this Country against all enemies foreign and domestic, since this bushit war does neither.

And are you currently serving or are you of the coward status that you assign to others who choose for whatever reasons, not too join up?

[Telly Savalas]

157. I take it then that you are posting from Iraq?

[bryant69]

3. You should be required to obey the law

5 years or so seems reasonable to me, if the draft is reinstated (which it won't be).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[EdwardM]

7. Cool

I'm so glad that a liberal wants me to spend 5 years in prison because I would refuse to kill innocent people.

[bryant69]

13. I want you to obey the law

Do you think laws should be optional? That you should get to ignore them just because you want to?

Oh, and two other points - you could always apply for contientous objector status, and get out of it. And there won't actually be a draft.

Bryant

[EdwardM]

17. Yes, evil laws are optional.

I would absolutely refuse to take part in the occupation of Iraq. I would refuse to go.

[bryant69]

22. Than you should be proud to go to prison

Gandhi spent time in Prison if memory serves. So did Mandela. And Martin Luther King. Are you too good to follow in their footsteps for what you believe in?

No laws are optional. Once you allow that you allow everything.

If you think this law is a bad idea, fight against it before it becomes a law, don't wait till afterwords.

Bryant

[EdwardM]

23. Yeah be proud to go to prison.

Also get drafted, Fight in illegal wars. With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans?

[Virginia Dare]

30. The Democrats didn't start an illegal war...

but if a draft is instituted and you are drafted, and you refuse to serve, then you are looking at prison time unless you get out of dodge. That was the point of your OP wasn't it? How can you pass a law and have no consequence for those who disobey it? :shrug:

[EdwardM]

32. Does it matter if they started it?

If the 40 percent of DUers got their way (and thank God they won't) they would be ever bit as responsible for the war because they enabled it. The same way Nixon is responsible for thousands of deaths in Vietnam even though he didn't start that war.

[Virginia Dare]

41. How are 40 percent of DU'ers enabling the war?

Do you understand the whole point of Rangel bringing this up now? If we continue our occupation of Iraq any longer, we will HAVE to bring back the draft. We have no choice. None. It's certainly not because Rangel, Democrats, or 40% of DU'ers want you or any other Americans killed in Iraq. Your anger is misplaced here.

[bryant69]

34. So what other laws do you think should be optional for you?

EdwardM the special child who should not have to obey the law? What makes you so special?

Bryant

[EdwardM]

37. So I am a special child because I don't want to kill innocent people now?

Get a grip. If something is evil, and it is a law, it is your duty to disobey it. If it was a law to kill 20 children would you do it, or is that not evil enough for you?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EdwardM]

42. There is no difference.

And thank you for calling me a moron. If I was drafted into Iraq, they very well could ask me to bomb a "weapons factory" from 20,000 feet in the air, only to find out it was a shelter for children. Then I would have to live the rest of my life knowing I'm a murderer.

[bryant69]

43. So don't go - break the law and pay the consequences

The law that doesn't exist and won't be passed, incidentally.

Do you think you should be able to break the law without consequence?

Bryant

[EdwardM]

45. Yes, I do.

But then again, I believe in human rights.

[bryant69]

47. So you should be happy to see the law upholded

The law that doesn't exist and won't be passed.

Bryant

[EdwardM]

48. Do you think all those gay people who broke the Sodomy Law before Lawrence v Texas should be in jail

[Exiled in America]

77. I'd like an answer to that too.

[Zhade]

153. Me three.

Let's hear it, bryant.

[personman]

52. Obey the law, right or wrong = fascist authoritarian bullshit

Just like support the war right or wrong = fascist authoritarian bullshit

[crim son]

140. I'm wondering:

And if our special child was drafted, found himself in Iraq, and was ordered by his superior to waterboard a prisoner - which apparently is now legal - you'd take issue with his refusing to do the deed?

Of course there are laws that should be broken. There are bad laws. I don't agree you on this one, not at all.

[personman]

44. Yeah, the decent people should go to jail...

Quit being childish and suggesting they deserve freedom...

The idea that the law should be followed just because it's the law whether it's right is wrong, is illogical authoritarian bullshit.

[bryant69]

50. And the idea that you can ignore laws that are inconvenient to you

is childish anarchic bullshit.

But perhaps I should put my cards on the table. Obviously a draft law is a bad idea, and if it were seriously proposed I would oppose it. I am lukewarm about what Rangel is doing, because I think a discussion of why poor black and brown people have to go to Iraq and middle class white people don't is worth happening. But if it were seriously proposed, I think it's an awful idea for both the military and for the nation.

Bryant

[personman]

53. The idea you should obey the law right or wrong is fascist bullshit.

Just like "Support the war right or wrong" is.

Participating in atrocities is a bit more then "inconvenient" to me...

Hey, someone let arguably the world's most brilliant living public intellectual who happens to be in his 70s know his ideology is childish...I'm sure you know better then he does.

I think the impulse to control people is more immature then the impulse to liberate them.

[Exiled in America]

76. That was actually very well said. Especially this:

"Just like "Support the war right or wrong" is."

Yeah, its EXACTLY the same sentiment. It's the idea that if I believe my government is doing something morally wrong and/or fundamentally unjust, then its OK for me to speak and say that, its OK for me to try to convince my government not to do that, but once my government does it anyway, I must then O B E Y and be complicit in its immorality or injustice.

That is fundamentally, abhorrently wrong. I do not offer my obedience to illicit sources.

[EdwardM]

54. OK I got an idea.

Many northern states had laws where it was illegal to harbor runaway slaves in the mid 1800's. They broke the law, and the Supreme Court even agreed as they refereed to slaves as "property" in the Dread Scott case. So should all those kind people who helped out all those runaway slaves be incarcerated just because they "broke the law?" What about Paul Rusesabagina who saved over a thousand lives in Rwanda by breaking several laws?

[bryant69]

56. Do you see any difference between the moral thing to do

and the legal thing to do? Obviously sometimes it's moral to break the law. Does that mean that you shouldn't suffer the consequences?

Anyway, EdwardM, I think you should be thanking me. This is precisely the argument you wanted to have, and you are lucky enough to be having it.

Bryant

[EdwardM]

57. You didn't answer.

Paul Rusesabagina did the moral thing, yet he broke the law several times. So how long should he spend in prison? Thanking you? Man get over yourself. I didn't want to have this debate. I didn't want 40 percent of DUers to support the draft.

[bryant69]

63. Well knowing the situation at the time

I assume he would have been shot if he had been caught breaking that particular law. Possibly tortured as well.

I guess maybe I don't really understand what you are asking. I though you were asking "If a draft law passes, should I be required to obey it or suffer some consequences." But maybe you thought you were asking "Should we have a draft law at all?" If that is what you are asking I would say no we shouldn't have a draft law.

In a just world a draft law wouldn't exist and neither would the law that Rusesabangina broke. Why don't we fight to keep unjust laws from being passed, instead of arguing that if they pass we shouldn't have to obey them?

Bryant

[Zhade]

154. THANKING you? Now who thinks he's special?

You aren't granting him anything, you know - you don't control the fucking debate.

Such arrogance.

[dubykc]

69. By the title of your post I assume you consider the President ...

to be a "childish anarchist"!!

[NotGivingUp]

64. EdwardM...I totally respect your refusal to do something

that is morally wrong just because it is a law. I think most here at DU would agree.

[Exiled in America]

74. Well one would HOPE most DUers do and we're not just a bunch of blind stupid sheep.

But who knows...

[elias7]

31. wise words

should be reread...

[Exiled in America]

72. That's the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard.

You should read some more Howard Zinn, and study a little bit of the history of someone like daniel berrigan.

He is an example of a person who, acting on conscience, continually avoided law enforcement, and continued to turn up all over the country and speak out. He believed, and he is absolutely right about this, that a "moral" person is under no obligation whatsoever to follow an "immoral" law or be subject to the consequences of an "immoral" law.

You're "you must obey the law" pat answer is ludicrous. If there's a law saying that women must allow themselves to be raped. Not only should a woman not follow that law, but they should absolutely refuse to go to jail for not following that law and fight back. When unjust and unethical laws are imposed by a society, that society deserves NOT to be recognized as an appropriate authority by the people. I would not submit to the authority of any state power when it institutions unjust or immoral laws, and I wouldn't simply concede and walk into the jail of a tyrannical or illicit authority based on some overly-simplistic notional that "no laws are optional."

Are you insane?? ALL LAWS ARE OPTIONAL, AND SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL AND AGREEMENT OF THE PEOPLE TO WHOM THE LAWS APPLY. When the people do not agree, there is revolt and revolution, as well there should be.

[bryant69]

83. If EdwardM were talking about revolution I'd respect him a bit more

If he were talking about paying any kind of price for his desire to fight an unjust law (one that doesn't exist currently, and almost certainly won't be passed), I'd respect that. What he is saying, childishly, is that he should be allowed to ignore the law with no consequences.

Daniel Berrigan lived outside the law, of course, and that's the price he paid for doing what he thought was right - why should he have to pay that price, and EdwardM should get off scot free?

But again, rather than arguing that people shouldn't have to obey unjust law, why don't we talk about not passing evil and unjust laws in the first place?

Bryant

[baby_mouse]

181. Ah, the Sacrifice.

So doing the right thing in the face of legal stupidity isn't atually right unless the legal stupidity somehow manages to extract its pound of flesh from you, thus transferring an aura of saintly suffering.

Why bother with it? Why not just do the right thing and walk free?

[personman]

33. Laws are spider webs for the rich and steel chains for the poor.

Our legal system is a complete joke, first of all, to not see it and acknowledge it you must have blinders on I've no chance of getting through.

It's the duty of those who believe in justice to disobey unjust laws.

The irrational attitudes of submission to authority I've seen displayed here over the last week are just disgusting.

"Do you think laws should be optional? That you should get to ignore them just because you want to?" Am I the only one who hears this in a German accent when I read it?

[NotGivingUp]

67. Well said!! Wholeheartedly agree.

[Occulus]

176. Fine, I'll obey the fucking law- IT SAYS I'M NOT ALLOWED TO SERVE.

Even if I want to, and even if I'm able.

YOU would put me in an environment in which I would- not could- be in danger FROM THE PEOPLE I WAS SERVING WITH.

If you don't believe me, ask Barry Winchell's mom. I hear she knows something about this.

And by the way, fuck the shit out of your attitude. Seriously.

I mean it.

[Bucky]

16. I'm not sure he implied he WANTED you to served time

Maybe you could get community service as your punishment. My yard is needing a lot of work right about now.

[endarkenment]

29. Fucking unbelievable.

As a child of the sixties who willfully violated the selective service act, I stand with you. You can stay in my house out of sight until the shitstorm blows over.

These people are out of their minds. Half of them are admiring Rangel's Clever Ploy, they other half actually think that a draft is a real good idea. Fucking unbelieveable.

[bryant69]

38. I haven't been asked whether or not I think a draft is a good idea

incidentally. I've been asked if someone should be forced to obey the law once it is passed. Anybody who's not a child should be able to understand that laws can't be optional.

Bryant

[wuushew]

46. People speed and jaywalk all the time and society doesn't fall apart

n/t

[Virginia Dare]

51. It's still against the law...

and you will face the consequences if you are caught. By the way, those are good laws, lots of people are killed because of speeding and jaywalking. Society doesn't fall apart, but peoples lives do.

[wuushew]

60. But in many cases laws are approximations of what best to do

a 35 mph speed limit for a gentle turn may appropriate for the vast majority of domestic vehicles. But what if I am driving a high performance car with low amount of aerodynamic lift and a high lateral skid rating?

The law I am forced to follow decreases my ability to travel quickly and hence decreases my personal utility. Also is a federal speed limit in North Dakota as useful as that on the East Coast? In both cases personal choice and local conditions may make for better decisions than blanket law does.

Certainly if all laws were open to relativistic interpretation we would descend into anarchy and every felon and murderer would justify his crime based on his or her own value system.

[ComerPerro]

126. well, to be technical here

a "speed limit" for a turn, usually a slightly different type of sign than actual speed limit signs, is not a legal limit but rather a warning and hint as to conditions of the curve.

so if you are in a high performance car that can take a 25mph curve at 45, go ahead and do it as long as 45 isn't over the speed limit.

[baby_mouse]

183. No, bryant,

Anyone who is not a child should be able to understand that obeying laws is usually necessary, but that common decency requires no law to support it and takes precedence over law. Common decency dictates that EdwardM does not deserve incarceration for refusing to be involved in a suicidally maniacal national face-saving ego-fest in Iraq.

[HughBeaumont]

40. I have a GIANT problem with the half that supports conscription for real.

Since when is forced servitude a progressive value?

[Xenotime]

96. You could clean the toilets and cook for those who do....

JUST KIDDING!!!

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. PJ O'Rourke is an asshole, however...

He said something interesting once:
"don't pass a law if it isn't worth shooting granny over."

The ultimate mechanism that society has for ensuring compliance is lethal force. The people who are proposing a return to the draft (they're not proposing to "debate" it, they're not proposing to "raise consciousness" about it, they're not proposing to paint Republicans into a corner - they DO want to conscript people into involuntary servitude.) don't seem to get this point. If government tells you to do something, you must comply. It ain't a game of chicken.

Those who argue that a draft is necessary on national security grounds, and want to discuss which deferrments are appropriate, can and should get an honest debate on the topic. Those who advocate conscription because that's a good way to extort peace pressure from the public don't. I find the latter viewpoint naive and ignorant in the extreme.

If the OP author violates the law, he has earned jail time. All the more reason to not pass such a stupid fucking law.

:grr:

[Zhade]

152. Obeying the law would be refusing to serve in this illegal war.

Soldiers have an obligation to refuse to carry out illegal orders, and this war is one big illegal order.

QED.

[atreides1]

4. Not sure

But I don't feel you deserve prison.

[Donnachaidh]

8. try reading THIS thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2764253

[EdwardM]

15. This isn't about Rangel.

I know Rangel isn't really wanting a draft. He is just trying to make a point, but going about it a completely wrong way. This is about the 40 percent who voted yes in a poll to reinstate the draft, here at DU which completely shocked me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. You may want to realize

that many of us who voted FOR IT, have had skin in the game, or still do

We also realize that the only way the youth in this country, not you mind you, the youth in general will wake up is if all of a sudden their skin is involved.

Now I will make a more general statement that you may or may not like. But the prevailing attitude in this country, left, right or center, is that somebody else should serve IN ANY CAPACITY. Not me, I have other priorities. We already have a draft, we call it a poverty draft. So I guess that one is ok in your view.

I was watching the special on Iran from Koppel on Discovery, and they were talking about the Iranian Youth, who don't care about politics, don't care where their next meal os coming and only care about having a good time. They are spoiled. I turned to my husband and said,"well at least we have something in common. Both our youths don't give a shit... at least we have a starting point."

Oh and before you throw the ever so popular, but they volunteered... the troops do not and did not volunteer for Iraq. they volunteered to protect and defend the Constitution of the US against enemies both foreign and domestic. They have been misused and whether we like this or not, it may be a military necessity, a very real one, to enact a draft, even if we get out of Iraq tomorrow. Why? The services have been misused to the point they are way, WAAYYY stretched out

The kind of military service I'd love to see you do in that case is more akin to what kids your age do south of the border. They learn a little about close order drill, but not much. What they do is clean streets, build schools, and repair infrastructure once a week. GIven some of our infrastructure is also falling apart, it would be good.

Now take this with the grain of salt you may want to take it, or feel insulted

As to how long should your sentence should be?

I am increasingly leaning the way of star ship troopers, you don't serve the country in any capacity for a determined length of time, no citizenship for you.

Why am I saying this? Civic responsibity and virtue are gone from the public sphere. It wasn't your generation that started it, but we need to start solving this problem someday.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

89. I absolutely agree with you

I think that too many people in this country take their citizenship lightly and for granted.

I think that some sort of compulsory national service would solve a lot of the problems in this country currently, and I have to say that I'm slightly bothered about the attitude of so many young people on this board who would apparently absolutely refuse to serve their country if asked to.

And I'll be upfront about this. I've never served. I'm 29. But if national service were reinstated, I would do what needed to be done, just like my father and both of my grandfathers did.

[demnan]

9. I didn't vote in this poll

and wouldn't know how to answer it. If a draft were to be ok by me, two things would have to exist that don't exist now: a sane President and a justified threat. However, I think a lot of people felt that after 9/11 a draft was going to be necessary, that we were in a war we didn't start but would have to fight to protect our country against terrorism. Now I'm not so sure.

To answer your question, if I were you, I'd move to Canada till this whole thing blows over. You'll have health care and a sane government there.

[HughBeaumont]

10. Yeah, I just voted a big fat HELLS NO in that poll.

Play with your own kids lives, because you ain't-a touchin' mine, you closet hawks.

I'd probably serve time right along with you and the millions of others they'd have to build prisons for, apparently. I'm not dying in a fucking desert for Kellogg Brown and Root's stock price.

[Goblinmonger]

85. Don't you think that is the point of bringing up the draft.

Making the people in the United States who support the war and also think their kids will never be involved stand up and say, "what a minute, this is shit." It's pretty easy for white, middle-class america to support the war when it is the poor and minorities that are fighting it. They will sing a different tune when faced with the possiblity (the draft WILL never and SHOULD never pass) that it won't just be a brown army. That's why the draft is being brought up.

[HughBeaumont]

101. The poll didn't ask that, though.

It was "Do you support the draft: yes or no?", not "should the issue be brought to the table".

I think it goes without saying the issue should be put front and center. This hawkish administration needs to come clean as to how they're going to increase already depleted troop levels for the future invasions they have planned.

And people here are slightly misguided that America in general is apathetic towards the war. No, the problem with that is we DID protest, but true to the Republican media protecting their masters, it received nothing but soundbite treatment on all major networks. And apathy towards the war would have resulted in Republicans remaining in control of both the House and the Senate, which they aren't (thank you VOTERS).

What I have an immense problem with is the people who SUPPORT a draft not for the purposes of "waking people up to a war", but for REAL . . . as in warhawkish, "stronger military", "national security", "It would do you soft apathetic young ones some GOOD to take greater interest in your country, puttin' your life on hold and stickin' ya in BOOT CAMP!" real. I mean, did I step in Republican Underground or something? What an absolutely STUPID concept. What's even worse is that we're being called "cowards" for not seeing the point of this slipshod, non-progressive weirdness.

[Virginia Dare]

18. It depends...

I do believe that members of pacifist religions should be given deferments, definitely.

Would you refuse to serve under any circumstance? Would you have refused to go to war against Hitler for example, or are you just talking about the current situation in Iraq that you would refuse to participate in?

[EdwardM]

21. I'm an atheist.

And I have no problem with the draft in WW2.

[Virginia Dare]

24. So you are a conscientious objector?...

or you're adamantly against a draft altogether, and if so, why?

[EdwardM]

25. I am not against all war.

I am very strongly against any war of choice though. So I would have to lie in order to get conscientious objector status, which most people don't even get anyways.

[Virginia Dare]

28. Well then I would say...

you gotta do what you gotta do. Many of them did during the Vietnam War.

The point is, if we as a country buy into the fact that we are in a long and protracted global war against terrorism, and 9/11 was our Pearl Harbor, then we really have no choice do we? We simply can't continue to abuse our military forces the way they are being abused right now.

I fully agree with you about wars of choice, and I'd probably do the same.

[Buck Rabbit]

146. Edward, when I was facing the draft for Viet Nam. I had choices.

1) Go to jail.

2) Leave the country (my parents were for this option and were willing to chip in.)

3) Let them draft me and have my foot shot off by my older brother, a Marine who had done his tour in Viet Nam and wasn't going to let any of his brothers follow in his footsteps (without a huge limp anyway).

As it turned out I got a high lottery number and went to college. But I feel for you.

I would only support a draft if it was mandatory service for all with conscientious objector status based on conscious not religion. Atheists have better reasons to be conscientious objectors than the religious folks do. We don't get a do over and we don't believe we are killing or are being killed for God.

[dorktv]

171. What about Afghanistan? Would you have been okay with being

drafted to fight there?

[maine_raptor]

20. Would you "refuse to serve" if

the choice was between going into the service or going into some sort of "national community service corps"?

And I favor a very strict, but very limited Draft.

Automatically draft the eligible immediate relatives of any holder of Federal Office (President, Senators, Representatives) and their staffs. Said inductees to be ordered to report to a front-line combat organization.

So unless you qualify under that criteria, you're safe.

[EdwardM]

27. That would be better.

I have a huge problem with mandatory national service because I am a social libertarian. But I wouldn't be killing and torturing innocent people, so I would do that. But I couldn't be in any sort of law enforcement though, only community betterment programs.

And why punish the family members of politicians? It isn't Ron Reagan Jr.'s fault Iran Contra happened.

[maine_raptor]

35. First, not "punishment"

Think hostages. If the politicians know that his nephew or niece will be sent into harm's way, then they will have to be quite sure that the need for military action is necessary.

And Iran-Contra is a bad example. Think more like LBJ's daughters having been in uniform at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

The point is to make leaders think twice before using "deadly force". Many think-tankers have advocated this idea or others like it during the Cold-War. There was even one (I forget his name) who thought that the codes a President would need to launch a nuclear strike should be surgically embedded in an aide's chest. Should the "balloon" ever go up, the President would simply be handed an axe.

If a Draft (ordinary kind) were re-instated, then something like a "Domestic Peace Corps" would have to be set-up also in order for me to support it.

I lived through Vietnam and it's draft, and only by the Face of God smiling on me did I escape it.

I know exactly what you are going through, friend.

[wuushew]

26. Vietnam levels of discontent will never return on forced servitude

In WWII 12% of the population served in the armed forces.

Two million men in total served in Vietnam the maximum number at any one time was 500,000. Mind you the population in LBJ's day was 200 million.

The post WWII size of the military has been steadily shrinking and becoming more specialized. As we grow in population and the amount of killing we do per solider increases the likelihood that any random member of the population will be blown up in Iraq declines. If women are drafted then any given man's chance of death or injury halves.

[Hamlette]

36. I'm shocked it's only 40%

I hate this president and I hate the GOP controlled Congress. I hate the theocons and neocons. I hated this war, like most here, LONG before it was popular. I threw up the day we invaded Iraq I was so freaked out.

But I love my family and I'd die for them.

Both my parents served in WWII and my husband served during (not in) Vietnam.

Maybe we need to expand CO status and provide for alternative service.

I'd give you 2 years of workig with the poor instead of jail.

We should have compulsory service for every male 18-32 all the time, not just in war. Make it just like the Swiss system.

[Exiled in America]

81. You wouldn't be dieing for "them."

You'd be dieing for nothing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

92. "Dieing for nothing"???

Perhaps you should be Exiled From America rather than in America if you care about it so little.

[Exiled in America]

100. Hey gee where have I heard that before..... oh yeah! I remember!

Free Republic. :eyes:

Sorry, what makes America America is the fact that you can disagree with someone else's point of view without having to leave the country.

And if you have a problem with that particular trait of America, then its probably YOU who are in the wrong place, not me.

Saying that you would be dieing for nothing has nothing to do with caring about America. But for the record I don't care about a "nation-state" - I care about Ameri(CANS). This war has nothing to do with care for America, or Americans, or your family.

It has to do with the money and power interests of a select few, no more no less. So you would be dieing for that, not your parents.

[Hamlette]

141. gee, when did I say that?

I didn't say I would die for nothing, I said I would die for my family.

Think about what you are saying in the abstract. Are you against the draft NOW or are you against the draft always? And is that because you yourself don't want to fight?

My point is that it is alarming to me that the younger generation doesn't vote and will not serve their country.

You really should think about what that means. 60+% of my generation voted this year. 24% of youth voted. My parents' generation defeated Hitler. At some point, you need to get involved.

Of course I'd rather be in Darfur than Iraq.

[Hippo_Tron]

147. So why shouldn't women 18-32 serve

And come to think of it, why shouldn't men and women 32+ who haven't yet served, unless they are physically unable to, also do so as well. I'm fine with national service as long as everyone has to participate. Otherwise it's just more people making laws that don't effec thtem considering there are very few if any members of congress who are between the ages of 25 and 32.

[Zhade]

160. How would dying in Iraq be dying for them?

The soldiers in Iraq are not defending us - there was no threat to defend against.

[skipos]

49. I'm curious, would you have gone to Vietnam if drafted? nt

[EdwardM]

58. Hell no

[DemoDemoCratCrat]

68. So easy to say

I knew a lot of boys who said the same thing in the early seventies. When they realized what it would really cost, they all caved.

Things have changed (for the worse) since those days. Consider what "Hell no" today would mean:
- Several years in jail
- Loss of all your assets
- Underemployment for many more years
- Loss of college opportunity
- No credit

The authorities don't make it easy to say "no."

[EdwardM]

71. Trust me I am different.

Me and war just don't mix, I don't care what the punishment is.

[DemoDemoCratCrat]

75. I'm sure you're sincere, but they are experts at causing pain.

I'm seeing "Hell no" a lot in these discussions, and I know that nearly all wouldn't be able to take the consequences.

[endarkenment]

117. "in the early seventies"?

1970 162,746
1971 94,092
1972 49,514
1973 646
http://www.landscaper.net/draft70-72.htm#Induction%20Statistics

Must have been between 70 - 72.

These were the bad years:

1966 382,010
1967 228,263
1968 296,406
1969 283,586

I was '69. That year sucked remarkably as evasion and resistence was huge, so getting those 280,000 meant they had to go on a search mission to pull them off the streets. Everyone I knew who wasn't in college or resisting was shit out of luck.

[DemoDemoCratCrat]

119. You're absolutely correct.

I turned 18 in '70, so my personal experience was the early seventies. That's when my friends had to come to terms with it.

[sinkingfeeling]

55. I voted 'yes' and you are a perfect example of why I did so.....

My only great uncle died in WWI. My two uncles were both drafted and fought in WWII. One came back and the other is buried in France. My own father was exempted because he was a farmer. 60% of my male high school class was drafted for Viet Nam..the others were well enough off that they got college deferments. A few of my friends, believing as I did, that Viet Nam was morally wrong, fled to Canada. My son is of draft age right now.

Why should your generation be exempted from making a decision? If you are opposed to fighting in Iraq or Iran or Syria or for the American NeoCon Empire, that's great. You have two choices if drafted: flee or whatever it takes to avoid being inducted or if you feel strongly about it, go to jail.

If all Americans between the ages of 18 and 42 were to face the same decisions, maybe the ex-Yuppies and their kids would begin to realize the cost of endless war.

Since the day we invaded Iraq, I have kept comparing how shocked and angry Americans were over 9-11 and how they are incapable of translating that to having to live through the same anguish day after day, for 4 years, as the Iraqi people have been. Americans shit their pants on 9-11, but seem to think that creating the same terror on others is A-OK. Americans need to understand the heart-stopping terror of placing their loved ones in chaos and the hell of war. We don't get. We've never lived through bombs falling from the skies on our homes. We've never been roused from our sleep by men with AK47's and dark masks knocking down our doors and putting sand bags over our heads. We've never heard the cries of our kids being scared to death or seen their limbs blown off.

For America's younger people to be able to go on playing their video games of death and never having to make the decision if they want to flee or fight, is wrong: is a cop-out. For their consumer driven parents to just go about their daily lives while 650,000 Iraqis die and another 1.2 million are forced to flee their country, is immoral.

Yes, there should be a draft, free of deferments for college and fathers, and regardless of sex, in this country. Only then will people cease to want and support the American Empire sought and loved so by our corporate masters.

Now I'm signing out of DU for awhile.

[Virginia Dare]

80. If I could nominate this post, I would...

thank you for those words, sinkingfeeling...:patriot:

[Homer Wells]

179. I would be K&R Number 2

hear hear!!

:toast:

[sniffa]

82. bingo!

:applause:

spot on. :patriot:

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. Agree completely

[EdwardM]

93. So you want to force me to flee the country so you can prove some kinda point of how good I have it?

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

[sniffa]

94. much more sense than you're making here

but do go on, i'm enjoying the show.

:popcorn:

[sinkingfeeling]

95. Nope, to see if you will stand by your convictions as millions of others have done before you.

[EdwardM]

98. So my life is now a game for your sick pleasure?

[sniffa]

103. meLodramatic much?

[EdwardM]

105. That's what your post implies.

You want to make some sort of draft law just to see if I would stick by my principals and ruin my life and flee the country. That's exactly what it sounds like.

[sniffa]

106. yup, it's aLL about you

no one eLse on this board or country wiLL face the same predicament.

so yeah, it's kinda funny to watch you hoLd yourseLf higher than others and make the notion of a draft aLL about you.

but as i said before, pLease do go on. :popcorn:

[EdwardM]

108. It is all about me.

A draft would ruin my life.

[sniffa]

109. i can't heLp you with your seLf centeredness

but you're young, and hopefuLLy you'LL grow out of it someday.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EdwardM]

110. Why the hell should I be punished for this war?

Why should I be punished just because I am a 20 year old male. I have been against this war sense the beginning. I have marched in protests against it. I made speeches at my college on why this war is bad.SO WHY THE HELL MUST I FLEE THIS COUNTRY?

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EdwardM]

112. I think you should have to flee this country, what about that?

[sniffa]

113. nooooo!!! not me!!!!!

why does everything bad aLways happen to me?
oh woah is me! my Life is ruined. waaah!!!
if i move to canada, i might as weLL just Lay down and die. :cry:

[bicentennial_baby]

114. Er....is this your version of...

I'm rubber, you're glue, etc, etc...?

[sniffa]

115. ...

[sinkingfeeling]

116. Nobody's told you to flee this country. Why were 16 of my classmates 'punished' with

death in Viet Nam? Why were 58,000 young Americans? Do you think lives weren't 'ruined' for all those before you who were drafted? They lost their lives, limbs, minds, as well as promised VA benefits, educations, businesses and careers. Why is it better for that 36-yr old who signed up for the National Guard to pick up a few hundred bucks extra to be in the 'war'? What about his life, his family, his career?

Yes, you might be affected if a draft was put in place, as would my own son. But each person must make their own decision about what to do. That is why the draft equalizes and in turn, wakes up those who haven't given our brilliant foreign policy decisions a second glance.

[endarkenment]

120. I give up why were 58,000 young americans killed in vietnam?

And why on earth should we permit the government to ever do that to anyone again who has not volunteered? Scratch that, even if they have volunteered, why should we allow our government to waste their lives on this sort of idiocy?


"That is why the draft equalizes"? The draft has never equalized anything.

[Virginia Dare]

118. Freedom isn't free bucko!...n/t

[Zhade]

163. Nice - get that one off a freeper's bumper sticker?

See, freedom actually IS free. The military doesn't grant us our rights, the Constitution does.

[Hippo_Tron]

148. Do you think that Americans gave a shit about the German and the Japanese civilians in WWII?

Bringing back the draft isn't going to make us sympathize with the Iraqis. For better or for worse, in order to stomach any war you have to be willing to think of the other side's civilians as merely "collateral damage".

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EdwardM]

62. Thank you I feel so happy

Can I also have the privilege of being gang raped? :wtf: The last time I checked, occupying a country had nothing to do with "paying any price for citizenship.

[Virginia Dare]

65. A suggestion then..

edit your OP to clarify that you are talking about serving in Iraq.

[Telly Savalas]

158. That's right! All our young people should be sent to Iraq!

Support the president!

[LanternWaste]

66. I wouldn't presume to say.

I wouldn't presume to say. That's what the legal apparatus is for...

[JVS]

70. Nice question

:thumbsup:

[Zodiak]

88. I am against a draft....period

Whether it is for the profits of Kellogg, Brown, and Root or for this country's self-preservation.

I am also against a poverty draft, as we have now.

I am not a pacifist, but I am a very strong proponent of liberty.

By the way, if we were invaded, bad heart and all, I would be on the front lines to get blown up to defend myself. But I will be damned if someone is going to force me to do it. Societies that have to force people to defend themselves are built on nothing but coersion.

So the youth do not care about our culture. Big deal. It isn't their fault because we raised them that way. We leave our homes to pursue two incomes and leave our kids to be raised by television and propaganda. I personally think that we can go a long way to induce more civic virtue through education than we can through coersion. But that takes hard work and a lot of infrastructure reorganization.

I will to fight for Americans to wake up, but I am not going to advocate forcing them to at the point of a gun.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

90. I wouldn't support jail time for you

But I do think that you should be exiled from this country if you don't really want to be a part of it.

[Zhade]

164. So people who don't want to be forced to kill innocent people in this illegal war...

...deserve to be exiled?

[shanti]

91. you mean,

the 40% who actually voted in the poll. many, many more of us do NOT want a draft PERIOD! i have 4 draft age sons, and i'll fight tooth and nail before that happens!

[trogdor]

102. I'd say until the end of your IRR obligation.

That's eight years.

Seriously, I floated this idea at a couple of blogs yesterday:

1. Get the fuck out of Iraq in the way that sucks the least.

2. In 2009, if (and only if) our involvement in any war started by George W. Bush has been concluded, pass a draft bill (call it the Military Service Reform Act) that would take effect on January 21st, 2012, with the following features:

*The number of draftees would be initially set at 100,000 per year (subject to periodic review).
*The bill would only affect the current high school senior class (in peacetime) in any given year. If you don't get selected when you're eighteen, you're golden unless there's a declared war.
*To facilitate selection of high school seniors, signups for selective service would be moved back one year, to one's seventeenth birthday, and would include both sexes.
*The term of active service would be two years, after which selectees would be eligible to volunteer for career status.
*Deferments will be considered on medical or conscientious objection (CO) grounds only. Since you're not yet in college, there is no longer a need for college deferments.

This approach would have the following advantages, apart from the obvious one where EVERYBODY gets a chance to play:

a. The impending draft would not necessarily be an issue in either the 2008 Presidential election, since it wouldn't even be proposed until then, or in the 2010 midterms. In the future, however, the issue of who one trusts with our own sons and daughters would probably become more acute.

b. 2009's high school freshmen, their guidance counselors, and the college recruiters who will be talking to them in a few years, will have plenty of time to react to the new rules.

c. Recruiting Command's budget can be sliced to the bone, and the money spent elsewhere, like training conscripts. The manpower now devoted to recruiting can also be sharply reduced.

d. Retention would become more selective, due to the inevitability of a certain percentage of selectees deciding upon military careers, thus ensuring a high-quality noncommisioned office corps.

That's how I would draw up a draft bill. I suspect it's closer to what goes on in most EU nations.

[TahitiNut]

121. Your "question" reads more like another whine. Here's my view ...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/347

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2775032

I've seen nothing (yet?) in your various posts characterizing the "40%-er" responses received that indicates any thoughtful consideration whatsoever of the position you so adamantly oppose.

:shrug:

[EdwardM]

123. I am not going into Iraq.

I don't care what kind of strange ass logic you come up with. You called it a tantrum? Yeah, ok, just asking a very pointed question. So why not answer it. Whats my prison sentence, because I am not going and fighting in that disastrous war. Am I self centered? Maybe, if self centered means not wanting to kill innocent people.

[TahitiNut]

144. Any American paying taxes is "killing innocent people."

I don't see very many (if any) refusing and taking prison as the alternative. When the draft was in effect, I thought four years in prison was a fair sentence for refusal. Some opted to vote with their feet and emigrated to Canada. I supported that choice. More power to people willing to walk the walk instead of merely talking the talk. Yet again, however, I see no demoonstration of either reading or comprehension of the position I've articulated in my post by reference. So, go ahead and hold your breath and turn blue.

:shrug:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

124. no one wants you personally to get drafted

on the other hand: no one wants more poor kids to go die for a useless war

the draft atleast gets upper middle class americans with kids to pay attention to this fucking piece of shit war

[EdwardM]

125. Im not upper middle class.

Infact I am barely above poverty.

[elias7]

132. your desire to save your own ass

is precisely what Rangel is counting on. Self-interest is what resulted in the the mass protests in Vietnam, cloaked in language of idealism and principal.

[EdwardM]

138. The only protest he would get me to do is protest him

[elias7]

139. NO! You're here, others are listening.

A leader, though, would see this from beyond the personal perspective, and see what this type of dialogue can actually accomplish

[Boojatta]

149. Would you say that a suicide bomber is a genuine idealist (of a twisted sort)?

[elias7]

156. yes, especially the ones who aren't acting out of self-interest

[Boojatta]

178. Well, if there's a conflict between two groups of people and

a suicide bomber intends to help the group that is more closely related to the suicide bomber, then one could argue that the suicide bomber is acting out of self-interest.

Many species of animals instinctively protect their offspring. Protection of one's offspring is ordinarily considered to be in one's self-interest. However, close relatives who are not one's own offspring nevertheless carry some genes identical to one's own genes. One could practice self-interest by helping close relatives.

A wider notion of self-interest would encompass helping any and all human beings. One could say that someone who wants to reduce the number or intensity of zero-sum violent conflicts around the world is acting out of a wider sense of self-interest.

If, however, self-interest is inherently wrong, then one could do the opposite. One could, at one's own cost, fuel the fire of conflicts around the world. If one did that, would one be a true idealist?

[elias7]

180. Leaving the vernacular and entering the metaphysical...

Self-interest is difficult to define, as you show, and who knows, perhaps we only think we are acting out of self-interest on a personal, social, global, or cosmic level when in fact our biological wiring for species preservation is acting on us unconsciously. Similarly, those who believe they are acting out of other-interest or altruistic means may in fact be rationalizing their own self-interest on a conscious or subconscious level. Opinions aside, who knows really why we believe or do as we do? I could never say self-interest is inherently wrong, merely biological.

I do not see self-interest and idealism as a dichotomy. Strangely, the philosophic definition of idealism asserts that we can only have direct knowledge of the contents of our mind, never directly knowing or experience an external object itself. I argue above that we cannot know even the contents of our own mind with certainty. But using the conventional notion of idealism-- perceiving things in an ideal form-- a suicide bomber may be acting out of self-interest as you suggest if his/her intention is to help his group. It would also serve his/her interest if the act will create self-martyrdom or offer introduction to 42 virgins, or however many are promised. But the act could also be an idealistic one as well, if it is the belief that the system espoused in the ideal one. Then the act may be justified in an idealistic sense as well.

Meanwhile, not to be to long-winded, it may be that destruction of the world order as we know it is truly the only way to save us from ourselves, so fueling conflicts thorugh self-sacrifice is idealistic in some form; on the other hand, that same person could arrive at the same point of action from many points along the intention continuum.

[Telly Savalas]

159. Exactly. Which is why I propose that if we reinstitute a draft

there shouldn't be any bullshit about age requirements.

If some 55 year old wants to send kids off to war, then he or she should go themselves.

Vietnam dragged on forever because we only sent kids. If you get older voters to put their skin in the game, that will end the war even faster.

[elias7]

175. my first impulse was to disagree, but

I think that your point is well taken. The only problem is what happens if we have need to get involved in a real war. What do you do with a bunch on non-lean, non-mean, non-fighting machines who don't have medical or other relevant technical expertise?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

136. thats not entirely my point...my point is this is not about you personally

though i sure know why you think this is personal

supporting a draft is just supporting awareness of this crappy war...and asking people to wake up

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sniffa]

129. i agree with them

and i'm in the draftabLe age bracket.

[ComerPerro]

130. you know his draft talk is killing our party

[sniffa]

131. teLL me about it dude

it's totaLLy kiLLing my buzz.

[ComerPerro]

135. lol, not what I meant by "party", but it is doing that too

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

133. His draft talk is challenging our party and the American people.

Essentially he's saying "If you want a war, be prepared to pay for it."

[ComerPerro]

134. its killing us. More like,

"The Democrats win the election, and before they even officially take control the first thing they are trying to do is bring back the draft"

[nadinbrzezinski]

182. Rangel has been trying since 2002

you know why it goes nowhere? The people you hate don't really want to see Jenna Bush on the front lines wthi an M-16.... I do

[TahitiNut]

137. Yep. And I agreed when I was drafted, too. Because it's right.

Some of us have actually lived this ... and had far more intelligent and informed discussion that it appears some even imagine. To say I've heard this all before would be an understatement.

I have to wonder how it is that anyone could contemplate the service of Gore, Rangel, Kerry, Cleland, and others and not get the slightest hint that they were on the wrong side of the argument. The myopia is astounding.

[ComerPerro]

145. so that's what this is. "I got screwed, so you guys should too." Now I understand.

Sorta like, "sure, the rich made things hell on me when I was poor, and my family barely scraped by. But I caught a lucky break and got rich. So fuck the poor, what's mine is mine."

Real commendable

[TahitiNut]

151. So, you stand with other cowards like George Bush, huh?

Despite the FACT that I've made my position CLEAR and held this same position AT THE TIME I WAS DRAFTED, you cannot desist from making such personal character slurs? You may not be a coward and a detestible low-life, but you're sure posting like one.

[ComerPerro]

155. tell me, please, in what way am I a coward? cause I don't want to be murdered?

[TahitiNut]

161. Well, that's what Bush or Cheney or Limbaugh would've said, too.

:shrug: After all, EVERYONE knows that EVERYONE who was ever drafted got "murdered." It's just that you're willing to let others get "murdered" instead. But it's so easy to claim the virtual talisman of "I'm against the war" as some alleged abdication of responsibility There are lots of ways to escape responsibility ... but don't stop paying taxes to support the war or supporting politicians who voted for the IWR because that would be too hard. It's easy to claim that people are 'volunteers' and ignore the stop-loss and the economic coercioon and the falsehoods used for recruiting ... all to let the burdens of our failures as citizens to maintain control over our own governance on those least benefited as citizens.

(sheesh!)

If people think the way to fight privilege and entitlements of the wealthy and powerful is to "try to get a piece of that action" then we're in dire straits indeed.

[Zhade]

167. Are you still paying taxes?

Do you admit YOUR OWN failure as a citizen?

[TahitiNut]

172. I do NOT absolve myself. No way. No how. I'm as guilty as all of us.

Insofar as 'taxes' - I wish I still had an income in the top 5% ... but that's in the past, now, and I'm currently on a fixed income. My family situation permits nothing else, unfortunately. Even though I do much of what I can without risking the welfare of my mother, I'm not at all happy I'm not doing more. And even though I did what I regarded as the 'honorable thing' and, as a draftee, did my Tour of Duty in Viet Nam, I feel I'm just as responsible as anyone.

Again, however, that's irrelevant and, from a logical (and civil) point of view, addressing the messenger and not the message. Why does it matter to you?? Could it be that it's because your own thinking is 99% a result of your own individual interests?

I find it extraordinarily telling that, despite my plaintive cry that we adopt Rawls' original position and put on the "veil of ignorance" as a thought-tool, the discussion is so messenger-focused. It's all "what about ME??" and "YOU don't care." People, blindered by their/our own self-interest can only see it in others! Even when it's not there. Not once, not a single time in all the threads I've read, has the "Me-Firstism" not pervaded the discussion. Not once.


Congratulations, fascists! You've succeeded in dividing and conquering. People proclaiming themselves 'liberals' on what might be regarded as the archetype forum for liberals, have completely and totally devoted themselves to "me-firstism" when it comes to national service and cannot adhere to the tenets of their own (alleged) political philosophy. We no longer feel obliged to share the fruits of our popular sovereignty (or shirking it) equitably. Let "them' eat the sour fruit.

[Zhade]

173. Some of us don't believe forced conscription is liberal at all.

Sounds more authoritarian to me.

[TahitiNut]

174. Despite the fact that assertion has been thoroughly refuted, ...

... both historically and by the example of other liberal countries, and despite the reference to the political philosophy of liberalism, you try to go around that mulberry Bush again.

Lincoln (a liberal) authored the Emancipation Proclamation and initiated the first draft.
FDR (a liberal) activated the draft BEFORE WW2,
Truman (a liberal) reactivated the draft.
On and on and on.

Rangel, McDermott and other members of the Progressive Caucus have repeatedly called for a draft as an intrinsic part of projecting military force abroad.

Yet you deny it's liberal.

Nonsense.

[Zhade]

177. Canada doesn't conscript, and they're WAY more liberal than this country.

Your assertion that the assertion has been refuted does not equal actual refutation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

185. Canada had a draft both during WW I and WWII

in fact, many a US perosn served under the canadian flag before we got involved

What is more, Canada has OTHER forms of equally respected national service, and far more of a national identity

[Zhade]

166. Yep. My thought too.

NT!

[Sparkly]

170. "uppity, self-righteous, don't give a fuck" --?!?

There's obviously a need for some dialogue here.

This is the first generation in decades to have NOT lived with a draft. When you know what it means to live with it, you can righteously judge those who DID live with it.

Until then, sit down, listen, and engage in debate.

There's a lot to learn.

[onenote]

142. the same amount of time you'd have to serve if you didn't resist?

Just a thought. I was prepared to resist the draft in 1973 (my number in the draft for 1973, drawn in 1972, was 46) -- to go to Canada if need be. I was called for my physical, but through a maneuver that was available at the time (changing domicile), I was able to get it postponed. Ultimately, I was able to get my conscientious objector status. And, as it turns out, I wouldn't have been required to serve in any event -- the last year anyone received draft orders was 1972.

However, if the CO status or Canada options hadn't been available, I would've still refused to serve and would've gone to jail if that's what it took. At the time, the penalty for refusing to serve was 5 years in prison/$10,000 fine. I believed (and still believe) that the punishment should've been equal to the amount of time I would've been required to serve in the military).

[bluedogyellowdog]

150. I didn't vote in that poll

And a few thoughts:

1. You own yourself. You have the absolute right to decide for yourself what career paths you will take, or will not take.
2. Slavery is slavery. Slavery is illegal according to the Constitution. Hence, the draft is illegal, or should be.
3. I don't see any exceptions written into the 13th Amendment allowing for involuntary servitude other than for punishment for a crime. An exception for military service is never mentioned. Any judge who wouldn't find the draft unconstitutional on that basis needs to be impeached as unfit for office based on their obvious illiteracy - what part of "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist in this country" don't they understand?
4. Those who would argue that the Iraq war would end or would never have happened if only there were a draft have forgotten Vietnam. Vietnam happened WITH a draft. The draft was ended, in large part, because people saw it as enabling the continuation of a controversial war. Now we have people who think that an all volunteer army enables the continuation of a controversial war. Is it possible that whether or not there is a draft has no bearing whatsoever on whether the government involves us in unnecessary wars? And with this argument of the pro-draft crowd demolished, this brings us back to the real issue with the draft: The draft is slavery, and slavery is illegal and immoral, period.

I would say refusing to be inducted should carry no penalty whatsoever.

[k_jerome]

162. 2 years community service. nt.

[k_jerome]

165. If, in this hypothetical, you refuse to serve, whom would you choose...

to serve, and perhaps die, in your place?

[Zhade]

168. Why does anyone have to serve and die in this illegal war?

I thought the point of getting Dems into power was to END the war, not escalate it.

Even if the draft-to-wake-up-Americans idea works - and that's setting aside the fact that a majority of Americans now OPPOSE the war - the draft will ensure more troops, more conflict, and thus more dead innocent Iraqis.

[k_jerome]

169. the hypothetical was put forward. nt

[baby_mouse]

184. "Should"?

NONE.