For the citizens of the U.S.A.

[ch'ang]

Seyorni that was awesome i totally agree with you, patriotism is wrong it just causes conflict, and if there was a draft the next day you could see me marching on up to Canada for a few reasons 1. killing in any way is wrong i don't care what they did to you going into their country and doing the same thing to them is wrong 2. I hate the methods the military uses to train people, they make them into unfeeling drones which is good for war but changes you completely afterwards, i personally would like to keep my personality 3. I have never been to Canada I really don't fear dieing that much becasue it is inevitable but i really fear killing i don't think i could pull the trigger on anyone.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Assuming the same draft rules would be used, I am undraftable, since I am my fathers only son.
But if I was draftable, and I was drafted, the only to options would be go to war or run to Canada. Ive never run or backed down from anything, so I would go to war.

As far as I know that rule has never applied to uk troops. Though I know of cases where troops were brought home because fathers and brothers were killed and they were the only sopport for their Mother. they were still kept in the forces but doing home duties. That was in the WW1. I don't think there is any rule now But you can apply for a compasionate home posting.

Terry
__________________________________
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

 

[BUDDY]

Yes -- agreeing to abdicate moral responsibility for your actions is reprehensible -- albeit impossible in actual fact. And actually killing other people you've never even met, who may well be innocent of any crime, is certainly a sin, as is destroying their property without a proper legal warrant.

Why are people so quick to completely abandon ordinary neighborly civility and the principles preached from every pulpit in the land? Does fear and expedience justify killing and destruction? Do moral principles apply only when they're convenient?

In re: "serving my country" -- I have no country, I'm a North American. Where I live is an accident of birth. Do you think it's correct to "serve your country" no matter what it asks you to do? Can a bunch of ordinary human beings in Washington, DC override universal principles of justice or morality? By this reasoning you could have no objections to the actions of Hitler's Waffen SS -- they were serving their country, obeying lawful orders. And you could have no moral objections to the actions of whatever army your military was fighting in the field. If it's moral to "serve your country in whatever way it asks" then both armies are right and just. Both are "the good guys." Do you see no contradiction here?

If "my country" asks me to so something just and good, fine; but when it asks me to to do something evil and immoral I have no supportable moral choice but to take exception.

In re: my Freedom of speech -- that's God-given. Not unjustly forbidding it is not laudable, it's morally neutral.

In re: My country protecting me -- My country's own foreign policy is responsible for any danger I may be in. Citizens of other countries with insignificant militaries and no imperial ambitions sleep peacefully at night, untroubled by fears of invasion or terrorism.

My crap o meter blew up after reading this. Your beliefs are protected in this country because there are those willing to sacrifice their lives in defense of them. Pure and simply. No way around it, no matter what kind of slant or moral relativism you try to put on it. Your country is the territory in which such rights are protected by the government of the people, and by the volunteer military sworn to defend the land against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That means, if our nation (which is to say our citizens) are threatened, it is the job of a responsable governement to protect them and end the threat. If there is someone out there who means to harm us, it is our responsability to keep that harm from coming to fruision. It would be morally reprehensable to know of a threat or action against our country and do nothing about it. I'll tell you what though, when America is invaded (right about the time that people like you become a majority) you can stand on your front porch and tell them all about love, peace and understanding. We'll see how long that protects you from those who hate our nation, our people and our way of life.
As for the question, I would definitely keep the commitment that I have to my nation, its people and its form of government and go if I were drafted. Since I have already served, I would probably volunteer before it came to that. I would also encourage my children to not shirk there responsabilities as citizens of this nation, and not hide behind the coat tails of those brave enough to defend us. Of course, the decision would be their's to make.

 

[Fluffy]

Your beliefs are protected in this country because there are those willing to sacrifice their lives in defense of them. Pure and simply.

A persons beliefs are untouchable. Perhaps you are referring to Seyorni's right to exercise his beliefs which is indeed protected. However, I do not see any justification for why such a system is superior, moral or otherwise, to that of, say, Iraq under Suddam.

That means, if our nation (which id to say our citizens) are threatened, it is the job of a responsible governement to protect them and end the threat.

Agreed. However, have you every tried hammering away at a puddle of water with a sledge hammer? It is difficult to destroy with brute force because it is without shape or form. Freeze the water and hit it again and it will shatter. You will have created a body which is harder and more resistant to attack yet it is these very qualities which allow it to be destroyed. A country is just such an object.

If you label an area of land "America" and state how it stands for x beliefs, then anyone who disagrees now has something tangible to attack. Build a bigger army and you just make them feel more threatened. Infact any increase in your defenses will only increase their likelihood of attack. The threat will never go away.

I'll tell you what though, when America is invaded (right about the time that people like you become a majority) you can stand on your front porch and tell them all about love, peace and understanding. We'll see how long that protects you from those who hate our nation, our people and our way of life.

Ah I see. Obviously other nations will seize on the chance to invade a country which refuses to fight. Tell me, if Britain got rid of its armed forces today, would you be jumping up and down along with the rest of America, eager to invade? If not then why do you assume that such an attitude is so prevalent in the rest of the world?

I would also encourage my children to not shirk there responsibilities as citizens of this nation, and not hide behind the coat tails of those brave enough to defend us.

I have asked nobody to defend me. If somebody wishes to then I am certainly not about to stop them, that is their choice, but I will not feel obligated to feel thankful to them or join in. I'm sorry if you feel like I need your coat tails to hide behind. Just because you feel the only way of defending yourself and others is to grab the nearest gun does not make me or anyone else, including Seyorni, who chooses to defend ourselves in other ways, a coward.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

Doesnt matter if I believed if the war was right or wrong, If my country asked for my help and service I would give it.

... Whether one agrees with the war or not (which I definitely don't) the fact of the matter is that as a U.S. citizen and to enjoy what you have, the service of the country is sometimes required even of those who might not like it...it is DUTY...

...That means, if our nation (which is to say our citizens) are threatened, it is the job of a responsable governement to protect them and end the threat. If there is someone out there who means to harm us, it is our responsability to keep that harm from coming to fruision. It would be morally reprehensable to know of a threat or action against our country and do nothing about it....

I'm getting misty eyed over here, guys! Frubals to you all!! I wish I had served when I was younger as I would have benefitted from the discipline. I don't want to go to war, and at 35, 36 in August, don't know if they'd want me, but if my country calls , I will be a bit scared, but I will willingly serve. For those of you who have served our country in any capacity, I salute you!

 

[IndigoChild]

If there was a draft now, would you go, or let your children go?
If not, how would you avoid it?

No. War is rarely necessary, and this war is a sick joke. I would do anything to avoid the draft, and if I had kids I would lock them in the closet if I had to, to keep them out of it.

Kat

 

[BUDDY]

A persons beliefs are untouchable. Perhaps you are referring to Seyorni's right to exercise his beliefs which is indeed protected. However, I do not see any justification for why such a system is superior, moral or otherwise, to that of, say, Iraq under Suddam.

Semantics are not my strong suit, so I will avoid this one.

greed. However, have you every tried hammering away at a puddle of water with a sledge hammer? It is difficult to destroy with brute force because it is without shape or form. Freeze the water and hit it again and it will shatter. You will have created a body which is harder and more resistant to attack yet it is these very qualities which allow it to be destroyed. A country is just such an object.

I could argue the change of water, at the molecular level, due to the rapid change in pressure and temperature by hitting it with a solid object, is greater than the change when frozen and under the same influences, but to do so would just continue this nonsensical jibberish.

n area of land "America" and state how it stands for x beliefs, then anyone who disagrees now has something tangible to attack. Build a bigger army and you just make them feel more threatened. Infact any increase in your defenses will only increase their likelihood of attack. The threat will never go away.

Really? So, the stronger a nation is, the more likely that they are to be attacked by another country? Yeah, I can see that. Especially when you consider the cold war and arms race.:sarcastic
Your statement is very fanciful at best and ignorant at worst. To say that to build a strong defense invites invasion (for which, BTW you offer no evidence either historically or idealogially) is ludicrous. Building a strong defense is in the best interest of every sovereign nation. Unless everyone in the world could keep from the consideration of violence, which will never happen, is incumbent upon the government to protect the rights of the people from outside influences, by investing in a defense that, we should all pray to God, may never have to be used.

Ah I see. Obviously other nations will seize on the chance to invade a country which refuses to fight. Tell me, if Britain got rid of its armed forces today, would you be jumping up and down along with the rest of America, eager to invade? If not then why do you assume that such an attitude is so prevalent in the rest of the world?

If we or Brittain, or any other nation laid down all of our arms today, soon we would be taken over. Maybe not the very next day, but it would happen.
Let your guard down for a minute, or show an ounce of weekness, and someone, somewhere will take advantage. Unfortunately, that was proved just recently in your country I believe.

I have asked nobody to defend me. If somebody wishes to then I am certainly not about to stop them, that is their choice, but I will not feel obligated to feel thankful to them or join in. I'm sorry if you feel like I need your coat tails to hide behind. Just because you feel the only way of defending yourself and others is to grab the nearest gun does not make me or anyone else, including Seyorni, who chooses to defend ourselves in other ways, a coward.

At what point would you then? Is there a point at which you would be willing to stop the aggression of others against you, your neighbors, your city or your country? If not, then I am sorry but I don't believe you have a right to live there. I would defend your right to believe and act as you will. As an allie, I would hope you would do the same for me, but if not, fine. What I don't understand is how someone can practice and participate in the very freedoms that your governemtn and your military provide, and then denegrate them and their profession. It seems hypocritical to me. You certainly have every right to stand by the wayside and watch as young men and women march by for defense of your rights, but don't expect them not to practice their right to consider you a coward for not being willing to even consider helping out.

 

[Fluffy]

I could argue the change of water, at the molecular level, due to the rapid change in pressure and temperature by hitting it with a solid object, is greater than the change when frozen and under the same influences, but to do so would just continue this nonsensical jibberish.

I apologise, I will try and refrain from attempting to use metaphorical allegories as a method of explaining my views.

Really? So, the stronger a nation is, the more likely that they are to be attacked by another country? Yeah, I can see that. Especially when you consider the cold war and arms race.:sarcastic

Partially yes. I fail to see why that emoticon was relevant after citing an excellent example of such an instance. Tensions rose massively (and with it hostilitiesand the threat of invasion) as the arms race continued. Or do you feel that now the Cold War is over, that Russia and America are even worse enemies given that this would be the supposed trend set forth by an opposing set of ideas to the ones I suggested?

Also please be careful with the term "invasion" because it does imply something which I certainly didn't want to which is why I never used it. I specifically said attack because I would deem hostilities such as those in London a few days ago part of this subject whilst I would not describe them as invasions.

Your statement is very fanciful at best and ignorant at worst. To say that to build a strong defense invites invasion (for which, BTW you offer no evidence either historically or idealogially) is ludicrous.

You need to reread my passages very carefully, even if semantics is not your area of expertise. The key differences were I did not identify a defence as a bad thing but an army as a bad thing and that an attack and an invasion are very different things. Sorry if this sound pedantic but I feel that such ideas are central to my argument so they must remain intact.

A defence is not an inherently bad thing. It is the nature of that defence which can make it bad. If I walk around with my fists raised and holding a gun, others are going to feel threatened. This is a very effective defence but the tension created in my prescence will identify me as a threat and someone will eliminate me eventually. Building an army which one may use to bully smaller nations into being unable to build one of comparable size is very similar to this.

It is the fact that a countries defence and offence are one and the same, that the difference is only in the minds of its leaders. This is what creates the threat and the justification for others to eliminate what they correctly identify as a threat.

we should all pray to God

Such a prayer is unlikely to be answered beyond "I told you specifically that those who live by the sword, die by the sword. I could bail you out now but then what is to say that you would not continue to refuse to turn the other cheek in the future?"

Unfortunately, that was proved just recently in your country I believe.

Londond was attacked recently yes. I found the defencive measures that were put in place, the emergency response plan, to be very effective indeed, actually. As one author so eloquently put it "London shook off yesterday's terror with a defiant shrug". This is the most powerful defence of all. Dont show a bully any reaction and he will leave you alone.

If we or Brittain, or any other nation laid down all of our arms today, soon we would be taken over. Maybe not the very next day, but it would happen.
Let your guard down for a minute, or show an ounce of weekness, and someone, somewhere will take advantage.

Thats fine. Do you think it will be America that invades Britain if we let our defences down? Or do you think that such tendancies for invasion are restricted to certain parts of the world?

At what point would you then? Is there a point at which you would be willing to stop the aggression of others against you, your neighbors, your city or your country?

This is a tricky one. A few weeks ago I was mugged. I had 2 options of defence. I could have fought back, a very tempting option. However, I refused to resort to such an extreme, even when threatened with it. I was with 6 friends, if I had started violence they would inevitably have got hurt and I would be responsible.

So I chose my second option. I gave them what they wanted. Such a defence was rather effective in my opinion. Nobody got hurt (beyond a head wound on my part) and we only suffered minor property loss. The police were notified and we are going to identify those responsible next week so that they cannot repeat such an act on a more violent party.

Now there is a point at which I would be willing to protect those near me. That point is the point at which they are threatened. However, I refuse to do so agressively. Violence simply begets violence and just puts them in danger. You may do the same for me but I will abhor any violent act which you undertake especially if it is for my sake. Infact I beg you not to fight for me.

I want to ask you a question now. Why is it that you believe that the only effective method of defence is through violence? Why is it that if I choose to defend myself and others through non-violent methods, it means that I "stand by the wayside" in your eyes?

 

[BUDDY]

Is it the resonsability of one nation to stop another from committing atrocities, if in order to stop them it must involve a violent action? MAtbe I will save this for another thread, but I must ask. I think to sit back and watch as people are victimized is cowardly. I am sorry if that offends all of the pacifists on this site, but it is just my gut reaction. Maybe you guys can explain it to me a little better.

 

[BUDDY]

I apologise, I will try and refrain from attempting to use metaphorical allegories as a method of explaining my views.

Thank you, but that is not what I meant. If you use some metaphors that make sense (to me anyway) that would be fine. OF course, I guess this comes to a trial and error process. In which case, fire away with them and I will answer if I comprehend your meaning.

Partially yes. I fail to see why that emoticon was relevant after citing an excellent example of such an instance. Tensions rose massively (and with it hostilitiesand the threat of invasion) as the arms race continued. Or do you feel that now the Cold War is over, that Russia and America are even worse enemies given that this would be the supposed trend set forth by an opposing set of ideas to the ones I suggested?

Detterence. The whole point of having a strong defense is to deter agression. The eastern block nations were dettered from violent action, because NATO stood firm and continually built up and strengthened their military. The building of the military, combined with communication and negotiation ended the war and prevented the outbreak of violence between the two sides. If your theory were true, the the US and Russia would have been attacked by someone during the cols war, as that is when both nations were at their strongest. That did not happen, so I don't think your theory holds true.

Also please be careful with the term "invasion" because it does imply something which I certainly didn't want to which is why I never used it. I specifically said attack because I would deem hostilities such as those in London a few days ago part of this subject whilst I would not describe them as invasions.

Okay. If we are to use the word attack, then that does not necessarily mean invasion. I can agree with that. If your nation were attacked tot he point were a violent defense is needed, would not my original statement still hold true? If you know who is attacking you, but you do nothing about it, it seems kind of dumb to me.

You need to reread my passages very carefully, even if semantics is not your area of expertise. The key differences were I did not identify a defence as a bad thing but an army as a bad thing and that an attack and an invasion are very different things. Sorry if this sound pedantic but I feel that such ideas are central to my argument so they must remain intact.

So what defense do you propose without an army? How do you have one without another? If someone attacks you, do you simply stand there and take it? If you know that someone is going to attack you, do you not do something to prevent it? You still haven't answered my previous questions, will you please answer these?

It is the fact that a countries defence and offence are one and the same, that the difference is only in the minds of its leaders. This is what creates the threat and the justification for others to eliminate what they correctly identify as a threat.

I think you need to go back to War College. To attack a soveign nation, state or government without provocation is to have an offensive military posture. To, through military action, prevent a clear and present danger or end violent or the threat of violent actions against ones own nation, state or government, or that of one's allies, is a defensive pre-emptive action. The two are seperate. A defensive and offensive military action are not one in the same.

Such a prayer is unlikely to be answered beyond "I told you specifically that those who live by the sword, die by the sword. I could bail you out now but then what is to say that you would not continue to refuse to turn the other cheek in the future?"

I'll save this for another thread under religious debates. That should be fun. I'll explain how someone can defend their nation (i.e. be a soldier) and still be a christian. I'll put it up in a couple of days.

Londond was attacked recently yes. I found the defencive measures that were put in place, the emergency response plan, to be very effective indeed, actually. As one author so eloquently put it "London shook off yesterday's terror with a defiant shrug". This is the most powerful defence of all. Dont show a bully any reaction and he will leave you alone.

I disagree based solely on thehistory of warfare. Name me one attacker who stopped attacking because of the inaction of the victim (unarguable), and I will give you 500 coins.

Do you think it will be America that invades Britain if we let our defences down? Or do you think that such tendancies for invasion are restricted to certain parts of the world?

Question 1 - No. Question 2 - No, I wouldn't say to certain parts of the world, but I would say it is reserved to a certain mind set of leadership.

Violence simply begets violence and just puts them in danger.

I think standing there and taking a beating, lets the person who is beating you know that the can get away with it and do it again. Violence begets violence, yes. But is all violence bad? Is not violence against injustice, hatred and nurder justified? Is it not our duty to try and save the innocent from the violence of those that would hurt them? Or do you believe that the right thing to do is sit back and watch and another Sudan, Somalia, Haiti ot Ruwanda happens over and over again. What if it happened in your country?

I want to ask you a question now. Why is it that you believe that the only effective method of defence is through violence? Why is it that if I choose to defend myself and others through non-violent methods, it means that I "stand by the wayside" in your eyes?

I believe that a strong defense lessens the threat of violence of one nation against another. I am talking about national defense here. If you can tell me how your non-violent defense would have happened your country during World War II, then I might know what you mean. When a bomb goes off in London do you simply protest oil and not go to a petrol station for a week. Is it kind of like the idiots who renamed french fries, freedom fries because they were mad at France? I need you to clarify it for me. How does one have a non-violent method of national defense? "Don't bomb me, or I will not drink Bass Ale ever again."

 

[ch'ang]

EEWRED I think you would benifit greatly from reading the Tao Te Ching you can read all of it here http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/rel/tao/TaoTeChing.html

 

[brandie]

If I was called in because of a draft yeah sure I would go! I got calls a few years ago to go in to the Army and Marines but they asked if I was married or had kids and I told them..both so they said to forget it I would have gone then but now I dont think I could get in for 1... I'm too old now and for 2... I have back probs, I'm pretty sure I'm over the weight limit too. If it werent for those things I would go in a heartbeat! My kids are to young yet so they are out of the question!!! I dont think they would accept 9&11 year olds in anyway!

 

[Neo-Logic]

I'm 17, but if I had a child, I would not let him or her be drafted into any branches of the military. For one thing, wars are fought often to satisfy the ego of some at the expense of many. Yes, we're in a Democractic society, but the final decision in the end is given to few (when compared to the rest of the population) and the people can do little but protest (which may or maynot effect the decision to go to war).

I love America, I love my rights, I love my freedoms, and I am willing to fight for them, but not for the ego of a few. Only if our nation was under absolute attack and not the other way around will I myself consider joining the military, let alone even considering my hypothetical children to join the military. Call me selfish, but if I fight, I will mainly be fighting for my hypothetical children and their future, their rights, and their freedoms as well as mine. What good is it for me to fight for these things if my hypothetical children end up dead?