Draft: Would you go?

[jasonnfree]

So if the country had a draft today to fight in the Middle East, would you go?

The young and/or stupid will go fight for big oil. It's about oil company profits, not terrorists. That oil goes on the world market folks. Even combat troops that lost an arm or a leg in the middle east don't get a discount at the gas pump from exxon.
To add insult to injury, there are people in this country and even on this forum who give a big cheer when oil companies get away with paying little or no taxes.

 

[MikeK]

No it's bullshit because terrorists most certainly did commit the 9/11 attack. We went to war against terrorists (9/11 was not the only terrorist attack made against us), Saddam was a terrorist and Iraq publicly supported terrorism.

(1) Please tell us exactly what a "terrorist" is.

(2) And excepting those who profit either directly or indirectly from the Military Industrial Complex, exactly how did I or any other ordinary American benefit from your service in the Middle East?

 

[9thIDdoc]

(1) Please tell us exactly what a "terrorist" is.

Definition of ‘Terrorism’ in International Law

"Consequently, despite the absence of a single universal definition of terrorism it is important to indicate that three main elements seem to be required for the crime of international terrorism; (a) the acts must constitute a criminal offence under most national legal systems, such as murder, kidnapping, hostage-taking, bombing; (b) they must be aimed at spreading terror by means of violent action directed to a State, the public, or particular groups of persons; (c) they must be politically, religiously, or ideologically motivated[14]."

2) And excepting those who profit either directly or indirectly from the Military Industrial Complex, exactly how did I or any other ordinary American benefit from your service in the Middle East?

I didn't serve in the ME (Read. Comprehend.)
Our boys who did serve engaged and killed terrorists who might otherwise have committed heinous crimes against ordinary Americans. Seems to me not getting kidnapped, raped, tortured, blown up, burned alive or having your head cut off with a dull knife is a considerable benefit.

 

[MikeK]

(1) Please tell us exactly what a "terrorist" is.

Definition of ‘Terrorism’ in International Law

"Consequently, despite the absence of a single universal definition of terrorism it is important to indicate that three main elements seem to be required for the crime of international terrorism; (a) the acts must constitute a criminal offence under most national legal systems, such as murder, kidnapping, hostage-taking, bombing; (b) they must be aimed at spreading terror by means of violent action directed to a State, the public, or particular groups of persons; (c) they must be politically, religiously, or ideologically motivated[14]."

2) And excepting those who profit either directly or indirectly from the Military Industrial Complex, exactly how did I or any other ordinary American benefit from your service in the Middle East?

I didn't serve in the ME (Read. Comprehend.)
Our boys who did serve engaged and killed terrorists who might otherwise have committed heinous crimes against ordinary Americans. Seems to me not getting kidnapped, raped, tortured, blown up, burned alive or having your head cut off with a dull knife is a considerable benefit.

And how do you suppose "our boys" managed to identify these "terrorists" in Iraq and Afghanistan? Can you describe the uniforms they wear?

And do you think it's possible "our boys," being grossly and criminally misused by a corrupt and incompetent government, have harmed a lot of people who never did a thing to deserve it and because of that have become committed enemies of the U.S. who have good cause to despise Americans and might very well become the "terrorists" of tomorrow?

Or do you have onanistic delusions of our Middle East adventures having some moral and situational resemblance to our motive and actions in WW-II?

Look that up in your dictionary.

 

[9thIDdoc]

And how do you suppose "our boys" managed to identify these "terrorists" in Iraq and Afghanistan? Can you describe the uniforms they wear?

If they shoot at you you kill them. It's not all that complicated.

"And do you think it's possible "our boys," being grossly and criminally misused by a corrupt and incompetent government, have harmed a lot of people who never did a thing to deserve it and because of that have become committed enemies of the U.S. who have good cause to despise Americans and might very well become the "terrorists" of tomorrow?"

No.

About the only difference between the ME and WWII is that we fought more honorable enemies in WWII.

 

[sambino510]

Personally, I wouldn't go, mainly just because I don't believe in violence as a means of solving a problem, at least not in the long term. No matter who the enemy is, us killing them is more likely to give them more reason to want to kill us back, not to make them stop. It might temporarily beat them down into submission, but if we ever want lasting peace in this world it isn't going to come at gunpoint.

I know people aren't big fans of moral relativism, but I think it is kind of hard to determine right from wrong in these situations. In my opinion, killing is killing, no matter what the motivation or supposed justification. They say they're right and we're wrong,and we say the opposite. We're all equal human beings more-or-less, so who can judge which side is correct?

In a way, I do wish there was still a draft though. At least that way it would anger people enough who dislike war so that these conflicts couldn't continue. Instead, the volunteer system allows these wars to be pushed to the back of peoples' minds due to minimal media coverage and little to no personal sacrifice by the average American. Wars simply don't hit home anymore, and I think they should if we are going to go out of our way to wage them.

 

[Dr Grump]

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me as to just what exactly Michelle Witmer [National Guard]and all the others died and were maimed for life for.

Truth, Justice and the American Way..

 

[JWBooth]

And how do you suppose "our boys" managed to identify these "terrorists" in Iraq and Afghanistan? Can you describe the uniforms they wear?

If they shoot at you you kill them. It's not all that complicated.

"And do you think it's possible "our boys," being grossly and criminally misused by a corrupt and incompetent government, have harmed a lot of people who never did a thing to deserve it and because of that have become committed enemies of the U.S. who have good cause to despise Americans and might very well become the "terrorists" of tomorrow?"

No.

About the only difference between the ME and WWII is that we fought more honorable enemies in WWII.

A bunch of people show up in your neighborhood wearing strange clothes, carrying weapons, and take over. You object when they enter homes uninvited, take prisoner your friends and neighbors, plant explosives in your fields, accost you as you go about your business.
Do you:
A. Eat this shit sandwich
B: Resist

Just curious.

 

[Geaux4it]

So if the country had a draft today to fight in the Middle East, would you go?

No,to old, but my son did without being drafted.

Now if a war was to come to our shores like Red Dawn or something well, I'm in old fart or not.

-Geaux

 

[Desperado]

I didn't serve in the ME (Read. Comprehend.)

Our boys who did serve engaged and killed terrorists who might otherwise have committed heinous crimes against ordinary Americans. Seems to me not getting kidnapped, raped, tortured, blown up, burned alive or having your head cut off with a dull knife is a considerable benefit.

You have one serious case of paranoia.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Personally, I wouldn't go, mainly just because I don't believe in violence as a means of solving a problem, at least not in the long term. No matter who the enemy is, us killing them is more likely to give them more reason to want to kill us back, not to make them stop. It might temporarily beat them down into submission, but if we ever want lasting peace in this world it isn't going to come at gunpoint.

I know people aren't big fans of moral relativism, but I think it is kind of hard to determine right from wrong in these situations. In my opinion, killing is killing, no matter what the motivation or supposed justification. They say they're right and we're wrong,and we say the opposite. We're all equal human beings more-or-less, so who can judge which side is correct?

In a way, I do wish there was still a draft though. At least that way it would anger people enough who dislike war so that these conflicts couldn't continue. Instead, the volunteer system allows these wars to be pushed to the back of peoples' minds due to minimal media coverage and little to no personal sacrifice by the average American. Wars simply don't hit home anymore, and I think they should if we are going to go out of our way to wage them.

You haven't a clue.

 

[SFC Ollie]

And how do you suppose "our boys" managed to identify these "terrorists" in Iraq and Afghanistan? Can you describe the uniforms they wear?

If they shoot at you you kill them. It's not all that complicated.

"And do you think it's possible "our boys," being grossly and criminally misused by a corrupt and incompetent government, have harmed a lot of people who never did a thing to deserve it and because of that have become committed enemies of the U.S. who have good cause to despise Americans and might very well become the "terrorists" of tomorrow?"

No.

About the only difference between the ME and WWII is that we fought more honorable enemies in WWII.

A bunch of people show up in your neighborhood wearing strange clothes, carrying weapons, and take over. You object when they enter homes uninvited, take prisoner your friends and neighbors, plant explosives in your fields, accost you as you go about your business.
Do you:
A. Eat this shit sandwich
B: Resist

Just curious.

Have the rape squads stopped and the torture rooms closed?

 

[Pogo]

Personally, I wouldn't go, mainly just because I don't believe in violence as a means of solving a problem, at least not in the long term. No matter who the enemy is, us killing them is more likely to give them more reason to want to kill us back, not to make them stop. It might temporarily beat them down into submission, but if we ever want lasting peace in this world it isn't going to come at gunpoint.

I know people aren't big fans of moral relativism, but I think it is kind of hard to determine right from wrong in these situations. In my opinion, killing is killing, no matter what the motivation or supposed justification. They say they're right and we're wrong,and we say the opposite. We're all equal human beings more-or-less, so who can judge which side is correct?

In a way, I do wish there was still a draft though. At least that way it would anger people enough who dislike war so that these conflicts couldn't continue. Instead, the volunteer system allows these wars to be pushed to the back of peoples' minds due to minimal media coverage and little to no personal sacrifice by the average American. Wars simply don't hit home anymore, and I think they should if we are going to go out of our way to wage them.

A bunch of people show up in your neighborhood wearing strange clothes, carrying weapons, and take over. You object when they enter homes uninvited, take prisoner your friends and neighbors, plant explosives in your fields, accost you as you go about your business.
Do you:
A. Eat this shit sandwich
B: Resist

Just curious.

Number 2 obviously and without hesitation. But I like the attitude in the top post too. Resistance doesn't have to involve physical violence -- in fact that's the least creative way to do it.

 

[JWBooth]

And how do you suppose "our boys" managed to identify these "terrorists" in Iraq and Afghanistan? Can you describe the uniforms they wear?

If they shoot at you you kill them. It's not all that complicated.

"And do you think it's possible "our boys," being grossly and criminally misused by a corrupt and incompetent government, have harmed a lot of people who never did a thing to deserve it and because of that have become committed enemies of the U.S. who have good cause to despise Americans and might very well become the "terrorists" of tomorrow?"

No.

About the only difference between the ME and WWII is that we fought more honorable enemies in WWII.

A bunch of people show up in your neighborhood wearing strange clothes, carrying weapons, and take over. You object when they enter homes uninvited, take prisoner your friends and neighbors, plant explosives in your fields, accost you as you go about your business.
Do you:
A. Eat this shit sandwich
B: Resist

Just curious.

Have the rape squads stopped and the torture rooms closed?

Good point, I left off our treatment of civilian females and secret rendition interrogation/torture sites around the globe. Our government pissed away any moral high ground.
For the average Joe the questions remain the same, do you tolerate the invader or do you resist?

 

[Pogo]

I see what you're doing.

 

[regent]

And how do you suppose "our boys" managed to identify these "terrorists" in Iraq and Afghanistan? Can you describe the uniforms they wear?

If they shoot at you you kill them. It's not all that complicated.

"And do you think it's possible "our boys," being grossly and criminally misused by a corrupt and incompetent government, have harmed a lot of people who never did a thing to deserve it and because of that have become committed enemies of the U.S. who have good cause to despise Americans and might very well become the "terrorists" of tomorrow?"

No.

About the only difference between the ME and WWII is that we fought more honorable enemies in WWII.

A bunch of people show up in your neighborhood wearing strange clothes, carrying weapons, and take over. You object when they enter homes uninvited, take prisoner your friends and neighbors, plant explosives in your fields, accost you as you go about your business.
Do you:
A. Eat this shit sandwich
B: Resist

Just curious.

Have the rape squads stopped and the torture rooms closed?

What have most people done in that situation throughout history?
On these boards I would fight to the death, killing anyone that got in my way.
In reality?

 

[MikeK]

Personally, I wouldn't go, mainly just because I don't believe in violence as a means of solving a problem, at least not in the long term. No matter who the enemy is, us killing them is more likely to give them more reason to want to kill us back, not to make them stop. It might temporarily beat them down into submission, but if we ever want lasting peace in this world it isn't going to come at gunpoint.

I know people aren't big fans of moral relativism, but I think it is kind of hard to determine right from wrong in these situations. In my opinion, killing is killing, no matter what the motivation or supposed justification. They say they're right and we're wrong,and we say the opposite. We're all equal human beings more-or-less, so who can judge which side is correct?

In a way, I do wish there was still a draft though. At least that way it would anger people enough who dislike war so that these conflicts couldn't continue. Instead, the volunteer system allows these wars to be pushed to the back of peoples' minds due to minimal media coverage and little to no personal sacrifice by the average American. Wars simply don't hit home anymore, and I think they should if we are going to go out of our way to wage them.

You've got it right. If it were not for the draft we probably would have stayed in Vietnam long enough to lose another 58,000 American lives -- for absolutely no good reason.

I was an active Vietnam protester and I can tell you that anger against the draft, which supplied that unnecessary debacle with lives to waste, was the engine that drove the resistance and forced Nixon to end it. The reason Washington was so willing to suspend the draft was awareness that after Vietnam the draft would serve to impede further military adventures -- like the Iraq invasion. Bush could never have invaded Iraq if the draft were still active.

 

[MikeK]

So if the country had a draft today to fight in the Middle East, would you go?

No,to old, but my son did without being drafted.

Now if a war was to come to our shores like Red Dawn or something well, I'm in old fart or not.

-Geaux

And if your son is killed in Afghanistan, what will you say he died for?

 

[MikeK]

Personally, I wouldn't go, mainly just because I don't believe in violence as a means of solving a problem, at least not in the long term. No matter who the enemy is, us killing them is more likely to give them more reason to want to kill us back, not to make them stop. It might temporarily beat them down into submission, but if we ever want lasting peace in this world it isn't going to come at gunpoint.

I know people aren't big fans of moral relativism, but I think it is kind of hard to determine right from wrong in these situations. In my opinion, killing is killing, no matter what the motivation or supposed justification. They say they're right and we're wrong,and we say the opposite. We're all equal human beings more-or-less, so who can judge which side is correct?

In a way, I do wish there was still a draft though. At least that way it would anger people enough who dislike war so that these conflicts couldn't continue. Instead, the volunteer system allows these wars to be pushed to the back of peoples' minds due to minimal media coverage and little to no personal sacrifice by the average American. Wars simply don't hit home anymore, and I think they should if we are going to go out of our way to wage them.

You haven't a clue.

A clue as to what?

 

[9thIDdoc]

And how do you suppose "our boys" managed to identify these "terrorists" in Iraq and Afghanistan? Can you describe the uniforms they wear?

If they shoot at you you kill them. It's not all that complicated.

"And do you think it's possible "our boys," being grossly and criminally misused by a corrupt and incompetent government, have harmed a lot of people who never did a thing to deserve it and because of that have become committed enemies of the U.S. who have good cause to despise Americans and might very well become the "terrorists" of tomorrow?"

No.

About the only difference between the ME and WWII is that we fought more honorable enemies in WWII.

A bunch of people show up in your neighborhood wearing strange clothes, carrying weapons, and take over. You object when they enter homes uninvited, take prisoner your friends and neighbors, plant explosives in your fields, accost you as you go about your business.
Do you:
A. Eat this shit sandwich
B: Resist

Just curious.

I would realize that slaughtering these peoples' women and children might have been a mistake.