Canadians to honor American draft dodgers

[Stiofán]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/09/08/draft_dogers040908.html

I saw some lady on one of the cable news programs today. I don't know fi she is a Canadian government official of some sort, but they were talking about this statue they are building to honor American draft dodgers from the Viet Nam era. Predictably, my research turned up more than a few web sites where American opinion is pretty negative.

Since I'm on dreadfully slow wireless hookup, I'll try to find who the lady was but I may not be successful. However she was saying things like America treats it's citizens like trash, and with all our fast food eating adn lack of socialized medicine, our citizens are unhealthy and short.
When teh show host called her on that she answered, "well I'm sure there are some tall rich people in your country".

:lol:

At this point I was wondering if Berkeley had transported itself across the border. Then when I saw the town this memorial was being erected in, Nelson, I understood perfectly. A bigger bastion of 1960s hippy land and flower children you could not hope to find anywhere else, as I've been there and they are pretty much in cronic time warp.

[Techie2000]

While I may disagree with many of the statements of the person, I will agree with honoring draft dodgers. When ones country violates its own principals and strips its citizens of their freedom against their will, then standing up for yourself, even if it means running to another country that provides safe harbor, is something to be proud of, much more so than submitting to a system that does such a thing.

[ShinyTop]

Very narrow viewpoint from the status of one war. Not near all the people who avoided the draft were honorable with honorable reasons. Many people in other wars were simply branded as cowards or traitors. The line is a thin one and to honor all or to make blanket statements only makes it more likely that the next time warriors are truly needed many will hear the clarion call of the barn yard fowl.

Vietnam draft dodgers came out smelling better than most deserved because of the unpopularity of the war. Do not even think to label all of them as virtuous, honorable, and sacrificing to make a point. It was not that way.

[Stiofán]

While I may disagree with many of the statements of the person, I will agree with honoring draft dodgers. When ones country violates its own principals and strips its citizens of their freedom against their will, then standing up for yourself, even if it means running to another country that provides safe harbor, is something to be proud of, much more so than submitting to a system that does such a thing.Is this what you've learned in school about the Viet Nam period?

So those who didn't "stand up for themselves" and ended up "submitting to such as system" and serving shouldn't be proud?

And you wonder why I don't agree our education system is so great.

I don't hold every draft dodger in contempt, but I also don't think they did anything honorable.

[Techie2000]

No this is an opinion I hold in and of myself. The school had no involvement. I understand many ran just out of fear or whatever, but I still hold those who dodged the draft in high esteem. The draft is and was one of the worst assaults against freedom ever constituted by our government in its entire history. Running from an entity as powerful as our government is something that does require some courage, even if it isn't as much as going into vietnam and dodging bullets and mortar shells.

[Plunge]

No this is an opinion I hold in and of myself. The school had no involvement. I understand many ran just out of fear or whatever, but I still hold those who dodged the draft in high esteem. The draft is and was one of the worst assaults against freedom ever constituted by our government in its entire history. Running from an entity as powerful as our government is something that does require some courage, even if it isn't as much as going into vietnam and dodging bullets and mortar shells.

Oh please. Many nations require service of its citizens. It isn't an 'assault against freedom', its part of the responsibility for living in that society. Running to Canada required little in the way of bravery or courage.

I would say, oh, maybe SLAVERY was a bit worse than the draft as an assault against freedom.

[Techie2000]

Oh please. Many nations require service of its citizens. It isn't an 'assault against freedom', its part of the responsibility for living in that society. Running to Canada required little in the way of bravery or courage.

I would say, oh, maybe SLAVERY was a bit worse than the draft as an assault against freedom.It is not a responsibility. Nowhere does it say you are required to serve in a society's military if you live in it. And besides, living in a society is not of much use to a man that had a bullet knocked into his head and died on a foreign battleground.

Responsibility to society is small things like paying taxes and jury duty. The draft, forcing people to fight in wars, is a whole other ballgame.

[Coot]

No this is an opinion I hold in and of myself. The school had no involvement. I understand many ran just out of fear or whatever, but I still hold those who dodged the draft in high esteem. The draft is and was one of the worst assaults against freedom ever constituted by our government in its entire history. Running from an entity as powerful as our government is something that does require some courage, even if it isn't as much as going into vietnam and dodging bullets and mortar shells.

Conscription has always been mandated under rule of law. If we are to be a nation of laws, it's a piss poor precedent we set if we allow people to pick and choose which laws we follow. Likewise, it's a piss poor precedent when we allow government to pick and choose which laws it enforces.

I knew some of the folks that ran, and none of the ones I knew did so out of a matter of conscience, they did so out of fear. I can't really blame them. They were, after all, from the Dr. Spock baby upbringing generation. Thankfully, a significant number of parents of that era never followed that bullshit...still, the country is paying a price to this day for what you esteem as noble on the part of the runners.

[Techie2000]

Conscription has always been mandated under rule of law. If we are to be a nation of laws, it's a piss poor precedent we set if we allow people to pick and choose which laws we follow. Likewise, it's a piss poor precedent when we allow government to pick and choose which laws it enforces.

I knew some of the folks that ran, and none of the ones I knew did so out of a matter of conscience, they did so out of fear. I can't really blame them. They were, after all, from the Dr. Spock baby upbringing generation. Thankfully, a significant number of parents of that era never followed that bullshit...still, the country is paying a price to this day for what you esteem as noble on the part of the runners.I am not saying the government shouldn't enforce its laws, I'm saying the laws are wrong and that the people are right for going against the laws which are wrong. When a government goes against its own principals, then going against the government is something that should be honored.

[Biker]

I am not saying the government shouldn't enforce its laws, I'm saying the laws are wrong and that the people are right for going against the laws which are wrong. When a government goes against its own principals, then going against the government is something that should be honored.

What? That it's OK to evade service if you don't want to serve? Each individual who fled across the border deserved one thing, and I'll even spring for the rope.

[wapu]

Dang Techie, you're getting yourself into Bill Maher territory using the word courage like that.;)

This is a tough call. Breaking the law is wrong and people should be willing to face the consequences of their actions. That is a given. However, honoring law breakers has a precident in this country. Rosa Parks is a hero. The men at the Boston Tea Party are heros. John Brown and Harriet Tubbman are heros. But these are the exceptions.

Lawbreakers are not usually heros. I prefer changing laws not breaking them. It is more effective. Should the draft dodgers be honored. Sure. If you believe their cause outweighed the laws of the United States you should honor them. I don't believe it was. I won't honor them. But, I have 20/20 hindsite. In 1969 I may have been one of them. Can't say for sure.

[Advocat]

Just an update on the issue: Reality 1, Hippies 0...

B.C. city rejects draft-dodger monument (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/09/29/nonelsonstatue_040929.html)
<blockquote>Municipal politicians in Nelson, B.C., have decided that a controversial monument to American draft dodgers will not go up in their city.

At a special meeting on Wednesday, city council decided there would be no public money or public land for a monument unless it had broad public support in the community. A statement released by the city says the planned monument to war resisters doesn't meet that criteria. It also says such a monument would be a "misuse of public funds."

A private Nelson-based group called Our Way Home announced plans three weeks ago to build the monument somewhere in the city. The planned statue depicts a Canadian reaching out to help two U.S. draft dodgers. It was to be unveiled during a July 2006 two-day festival in honour of U.S. conscientious objectors.

But the proposal has drawn strong opposition from some local residents and many Americans, especially veterans' groups. A spokesperson for Our Way Home now says the monument will only be built in a community happy to have it, and that will not be Nelson. </blockquote>

[joseftu]

However, honoring law breakers has a precident in this country. Rosa Parks is a hero. The men at the Boston Tea Party are heros. John Brown and Harriet Tubbman are heros. But these are the exceptions.Breaking an unjust law, publicly, willfully, and accepting the consequences, is one of the most courageous and powerful acts of courage there can be. Civil disobedience has changed our society (and others) for the better. It has a long and noble tradition--beyond the examples Wapu names, I would add Jesus of Nazareth, Judah Maccabbee, etc., etc. (and of course we've all read Thoreau and King's Letter from Birmingham Jail) We live a society of laws, but the human conscience has to trump those laws--if one is willing to stand up for his act of conscience.

I don't think that leaving for Canada generally fits that description, though. Civil disobedience requires a public acceptance of the consequence, and a public stance that the law itself is the injustice.

I would honor Muhammad Ali, or the Quakers or other conscientious objectors who refused to serve, but still took the consequence or carried out alternative service, as worthy of respect. They can certainly be said to be heros of the Vietnam era.

[ShinyTop]

Again, much too much of a generalization. Although I would agree that as a group they deserve more acclaim than those who gave up their country I do not accept that all had the convictions you seem to believe. I would not argue about Ali or those whose religious convictions, before being considered for the draft, were anti-war and they had registered as CO material.

Joe, I find this generalization and one in another thread where all mental health pros are dismissed if on a news show as much more absolute than I would expect in a professor teaching our young people. How do you pass on these kind of beliefs and teach them to be open minded at the same time?

[dliw]

I don't think that leaving for Canada generally fits that description, though. Civil disobedience requires a public acceptance of the consequence, and a public stance that the law itself is the injustice.

I would honor Muhammad Ali, or the Quakers or other conscientious objectors who refused to serve, but still took the consequence or carried out alternative service, as worthy of respect. They can certainly be said to be heros of the Vietnam era.Most certainly this is agreed with. However, it demands more then just public acceptance. It is more then just public acceptance. It begins with one individual or small group bringing the issue to the forefront of public awareness. It must begin with the individuals acceptance of the possible consequences of their disobedience. Those who stood their ground, expressing their opposition, and accepted the social and/or government censure should be lauded as heroes and not denigrated in any way. I morally support them.

IMHO, those who fled because of fear or lack of moral fiber are simply cowards and are deserving of nothing but permanent exile. Carter's "act of compassion and national reconciliation" was dastardly and misguided. They have dishonored themselves, their families and country, and most importantly, those who accepted to serve and those who choose to accept the consequences of their disobedience. Because of their level of disrespect and unbridled cowardice, they are deserving only of National shunning.

[Techie2000]

What? That it's OK to evade service if you don't want to serve? Each individual who fled across the border deserved one thing, and I'll even spring for the rope.When they wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." they did not mean "all men except those who are conscripted." They meant <b>all</b> men. Conscripting someone takes away their right to liberty, pursuit of happiness, and sometimes life too. You have no freedom when you are in a warzone halfway around the globe with bullets flying past your head. You are fighting for something you no longer have. Democracy, freedom, liberty, is for you, non-existant, and you may as well be in a country that lacks those things.

I understand that my view is not a popular one, however as a thinking person, I cannot reconcile calling our country free and then forcing its citizens to join the army. That is not freedom. And freedom is the reason we use for intervening with other governments around the world, forcing regime changes, and trying to spread democracy, then we go an take freedom away from our own citizens. Is that not called hypocrisy?

[dliw]

What must be understood within your view is that if citizens can not be called upon in times of need or in preparatory anticipation of need, then when confronted by an adversary opposing our foundational concepts of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" we shall lose them.

I am for our highly effective all-volunteer Armed Forces. However, I believe a conscription for non-combat roles should be initiated. Service to ones Nation should be compulsory, viewed as a duty and used as a positive tool for maturation and contribution.

[Techie2000]

What must be understood within your view is that if citizens can not be called upon in times of need or in preparatory anticipation of need, then when confronted by an adversary opposing our foundational concepts of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" we shall lose them.

I am for our highly effective all-volunteer Armed Forces. However, I believe a conscription for non-combat roles should be initiated. Service to ones Nation should be compulsory, viewed as a duty and used as a positive tool for maturation and contribution.Yes but by forcing people to serve they are already lost. Going to lose them and already lost is a huge difference.

[Cariad]

Responsibility to society is small things like paying taxes and jury duty. The draft, forcing people to fight in wars, is a whole other ballgame.

Oh my Lord. I am so glad we have others who look upon their responsibility to the society they live in a little more broadly. So you don't mind paying taxes to buy the guns for soldiers, as long as you don't have to shoot the gun to protect your way of life.

It is not a responsibility. Nowhere does it say you are required to serve in a society's military if you live in it.

But if it did, you'd serve?


I don't understand your way of thinking at all. I would never want to serve in combat, but if my country was thrown into a war on it's own soil, I'd do my damnedest to help protect it for future generations. There's no way I'd hide in the corner expect others to do all the work.

[Frodo Lives]

I don't understand your way of thinking at all. I would never want to serve in combat, but if my country was thrown into a war on it's own soil, I'd do my damnedest to help protect it for future generations. There's no way I'd hide in the corner expect others to do all the work.

Then you probably wouldn't make a very good Democrat... :lol: (joking)


I do agree, however. I don't think I would be happy to fight in a war I don't believe in, but I would be first in line to defend this country from attack.

This may not be popular to some, but if you are not willing to fight to defend this country from attack you don't deserve to live here (I am not talking about going off to fight a war, but if war came to our shores). It is of the up most cowardice to run and hide and let others fight and die for you. You would probably make a good French citizen however.

[dliw]

(I am not talking about going off to fight a war, but if war came to our shores).I do not understand the logic of this. Why wait until the enemy is upon American soil? Why give an adversary the opportunity to destroy infrastructural and cause civilian casualties? Not to mention giving others an opening to challenge our overseas National Interests during the distraction. It is fool-hardy to the extreme to allow a single foreign boot to leave a tread mark upon our land. As the cliché goes: "The best defense is a good offense." This is why I support the Doctrine of Preemptive. Always take the fight to an enemy, thus making them react to us rather than us to them.

[Frodo Lives]

I do not understand the logic of this. Why wait until the enemy is upon American soil? Why give an adversary the opportunity to destroy infrastructural and cause civilian casualties? Not to mention giving others an opening to challenge our overseas National Interests during the distraction. It is fool-hardy to the extreme to allow a single foreign boot to leave a tread mark upon our land. As the cliché goes: "The best defense is a good offense." This is why I support the Doctrine of Preemptive. Always take the fight to an enemy, thus making them react to us rather than us to them.

I am talking about citizens taking up arms to defend this country in the case we where ever invaded, say, by Canada or Mexico. I fully support the Doctrine of Preemptive, but that is a different topic.

[dliw]

My apology for misunderstanding the gist of your post. Being new here I have no history to refer to when reading a post. Hope to correct that. :)

[Frodo Lives]

My apology for misunderstanding the gist of your post. Being new here I have no history to refer to when reading a post. Hope to correct that. :)


Hey, no problem. I hope to didn't sound harsh. :)

[Techie2000]

Oh my Lord. I am so glad we have others who look upon their responsibility to the society they live in a little more broadly. So you don't mind paying taxes to buy the guns for soldiers, as long as you don't have to shoot the gun to protect your way of life.



But if it did, you'd serve?


I don't understand your way of thinking at all. I would never want to serve in combat, but if my country was thrown into a war on it's own soil, I'd do my damnedest to help protect it for future generations. There's no way I'd hide in the corner expect others to do all the work.What is so hard to comprehend? If the government forces you to fight in a war, then you have no freedom anymore. Thus making the point of fighting in the war for the draftee fairly pointless. Fighting voluntarily is different. Paying taxes to supply soldiers who volunteer to be in our army is something that everyone does, because it is important that our volunteer army have the equipment it needs to operate. However if we start forcing people to serve, we go against the principals upon which this country was founded. A government sending its citizens to die in a war they do not want to fight, goes against everything this country stands for. The power of our government comes from its citizens. If the citizens are not wanting to defend the country, then yes it will be gone but that is the choice of the citizens and the true meaning of freedom. It does not mean I do not believe in ever fighting to defend the country, it means I believe that it should never be involuntary.

America stands strong because her citizens believe in freedom, many fight for it. When we start forcing people to fight for freedom, then the freedom is gone, and there is none to fight for.

[ravital]

America stands strong because her citizens believe in freedom, many fight for it. When we start forcing people to fight for freedom, then the freedom is gone, and there is none to fight for. That freedom that you praise is provided and protected by soldiers. Your argument works both ways:

True, you force someone to fight for freedom, he's not free.

And when no one fights for freedom, no one is free to write frilly words like "we hold these truths to be self evident" etc.

They're not just frilly words in fact, they're the basis of what this country is about. Vietnam aside, if we were lucky like Lichtenstein, or Luxemburg, and had no enemies, we'd have no need for the military. But outside of Peter-Pan land, in this world, we have enemies, and the freedoms you cherish need to be protected. It makes no sense to value them, and fail to recognize the need to protect them in the same breath.

I've served in the military of a country where conscription is law, and I much prefer the professionalism of our all-volunteer military. But the practice of conscription does not automatically make a country a dictatorship, as you seem to suggest.

[Techie2000]

That freedom that you praise is provided and protected by soldiers. Your argument works both ways:

True, you force someone to fight for freedom, he's not free.

And when no one fights for freedom, no one is free to write frilly words like "we hold these truths to be self evident" etc.The thing is, people cannot be free if they do not choose to be free. Sometimes choosing to be free means choosing to protect freedom and the society that you live in. If you choose not to protect freedom, then yes it can disappear. And that could very well be the last choice you make as a free man. However it was a choice you made because of freedom.

[ravital]

However it was a choice you made because of freedom.
A freedom that I would never have had, if others hadn't fought before me to guarantee me that freedom.

You can't have one without the other, Techie. I mean, You can, if and only if you're a small country that exists at the pleasure of larger and stronger neighbors who don't want to see you hurt, because that would mean they'd get hurt. When you're America, you are in grave danger long, long before an enemy sets foot on your soil.

No one is happy about helping themselves to your life, and drafting your life in the service of the country. No one wishes anything less than the very best for the younger generations, under a blanket of secure and un-threatened freedom. Don't imagine for one moment that the people who wrote "we hold these truths to be self evident" etc. didn't expect to fight. They were starting a revolution against the most powerful empire in all of human history until then, they knew they were going to fight, in fact, they were picking a fight. I sure hope you never have to, but the argument "when I'm drafted I'm not free" is only half the truth, because the other half is that when you don't fight for it you lose it.

[Frodo Lives]

Or as they say, "Those not willing to fight for freedom don't deserve it."

[Cariad]

What is so hard to comprehend?

The fact that you tout this freedom thing so freely, yet the thought of actually fighting to keep it is something you'd neglect to do if you were asked.

If the government forces you to fight in a war, then you have no freedom anymore.

And if you don't you could lose it anyway. Either way your freedom is down the toilet.


A government sending its citizens to die

Well they're not sending them to die, the point is to live and fight another day.

[ethics]

I seriously HOPE I am misunderstanding techie's stance in this.

[Copzilla]

I don't think you are, Leon. Techie has been pretty vocal in his concern for the draft.

[ethics]

I don't think you are, Leon. Techie has been pretty vocal in his concern for the draft.


To the extent that he wants freedom but doesn't want to fight for them if US is attacked and draft is mandated?

[Copzilla]

Yes, to that extent. Although in the long run, Techie would have to be the one to answer that for himself.

You know, I've been in the Army, and I've been in police work for years since then, and I've come to one conclusion about people too afraid to pick up arms. It is mostly a question of the person's fear, as opposed to the person's morals. It is much better to conquer your fear and overcome it, live with the possibility of dying than to live as a slave to your own cowardice.

There is a very real empowerment and freedom of mind in learning to attack the enemy and defeat him.

[cdw]

I don't think you are, Leon. Techie has been pretty vocal in his concern for the draft.

Yes, he has. I don't know if we have others on the board his age...I wonder if he is in the majority. I know when we were younger this kind of discussion was going on. It's a scary thing, going to war. I never was in that position, women weren't even considered for the draft back in 'the day', but all of my friends were.
Damn, it's deja vu, all over again.

[joseftu]

Joe, I find this generalization and one in another thread where all mental health pros are dismissed if on a news show as much more absolute than I would expect in a professor teaching our young people. How do you pass on these kind of beliefs and teach them to be open minded at the same time?First I should say that I don't think I've taken any positions in this thread that are particularly more absolute than those taken by anyone else. In the other thread, my comment about mental health advice on TV was a bit facetious--but I hardly think it's a major outrage to say that I don't find shows like "Primetime Live" or the people who appear on them to be very reliable or respectable.

I should also point out that this thread is about "draft-dodgers" and my response was about civil disobedience and conscientious objection. So I'm a bit puzzled about how my own professional ethics and personal integrity became a relevant topic to be brought up in this thread.

But since you asked (and with apologies for continuing the OT), I'll answer that while I'm a teacher, and proud of it, it's not the be-all and end-all of my identity. I'm also a human being. Those are two roles which overlap, but which require a certain separation. I think for teachers, like people in many other positions, part of the job is keeping our personal opinions personal, and maintaining a professional detachment and fairness.

When I post here, I'm posting with my "human being hat" on. I'm not your professor, you're not my student (I'm sure you're glad of this!). I would like to feel that I can express my opinions here freely--as they occur to me--without having anyone assume that what I say here is what I teach students.

When I'm in school, when I'm working with my "teacher hat" on, I know what my job is. It's to help the students learn to develop, express, consider, criticize, support and argue for their own opinions--and to understand and criticize those of others <small>(oh, and to write grammatically, to analyze, appreciate and understand literature, to research topics that interest them and those that don't, to cite the sources of their research, too)</small>.

In the classroom, my own opinions and positions on the issues are not really relevant, and I keep them out of it. In other words, I do my job. I'm not sure why you would assume that, because I actually do have strong opinions and express them here, I'm somehow incapable of doing that job. But I hope I've disabused you of that mistaken assumption.

[Techie2000]

The fact that you tout this freedom thing so freely, yet the thought of actually fighting to keep it is something you'd neglect to do if you were asked.You speak as if the draft and going to war is a choice, like whether or not I want to buy Pepsi or Coke. Don't you realize that the draft is not your country asking you to do something, but telling you that you must?To the extent that he wants freedom but doesn't want to fight for them if US is attacked and draft is mandated?If the draft is ever mandated and I am told I must fight and not given a choice, there is no way I ever will. If the US homeland is attacked, and my town were at risk, then we have a whole new ballgame. The decision to fight or flee is one that would not be taken lightly. If it happened today, I would be heading out of town very quickly as at the age of 17 I do not own firearms and would not be much of a combatant. If it were many years from now, and I was part of an organized group that could make a difference in eliminating a threat on the homeland, whether I end up joining the national guard or some other part of the military to defend freedom, or some sort of impromptu militia, then all things considered defending the homeland would be something I would probably be willing to do. Again, this is only speculation and I could never say for certain how I would feel nor what my actions would be depending on a multitude of circumstances. However if my government forced me to fight, then I'm out. Death would be preferable to my own government taking away my freedom. If another country tries to take my freedom, they can be fought. If my own country of which I hold in the highest esteem takes my freedom, in the name of fighting for freedom, then freedom has already been lost and the only thing left to fight for is survival.

[ethics]

If the draft is ever mandated and I am told I must fight and not given a choice, there is no way I ever will. If the US homeland is attacked, and my town were at risk, then we have a whole new ballgame.

So you would only risk your life if your life was the only thing that was affected, not your fellow Americans living, say in New York, or California?

[Techie2000]

So you would only risk your life if your life was the only thing that was affected, not your fellow Americans living, say in New York, or California?That is speculation Leon. I cannot say what I would do in the future under various circumstances you might want to lay out to try and pigeonhole my values. However if I'm risking my life it's going to be on <b>my</b> terms and no one elses. It's my life to spend. Not my government's. If I want to go to California and fight off an invading army that's my perogative. If I want to stay and hide and be a coward, it may not be noble, but it is also my perogative. That is freedom.

[cdw]

If it happened today, I would be heading out of town very quickly as at the age of 17 I do not own firearms and would not be much of a combatant

Oh, you would not. You love your parents, friends, country and yourself way too much to run. That's absurd. That much I know of you from reading your posts these past couple of years. You would not run if your country was being attacked. Come on Techie. rofl
*shakin' my head*

[ethics]

That is speculation Leon.

How is that speculation? I asked you a straight question about whether or not you would risk your life in defending New Yorkers or Californians, Floridians, and other Americans not living in your town, if they were attacked on US soil.

If I want to go to California and fight off an invading army that's my perogative. If I want to stay and hide and be a coward, it may not be noble, but it is also my perogative. That is freedom.


I thought more of you, man, guess I am slow in trying to get to people's real character.

I have 2 kids, a wife, and everything to live for. I am not 18 but I am still relatively young. And yet, I would not think twice about putting my life on the line if US was attacked, even if it was Hawaii or Alaska.

I was hoping I shared this country with people like me, but the more I live here the more I realize that people really tend to care more about themselves and fuck other Americans.

:thumbsup: Matt!

[Copzilla]

I was hoping I shared this country with people like me, but the more I live here the more I realize that people really tend to care more about themselves and fuck other Americans.
Not all people, Leon. I would also go, in a heartbeat. But what I learn from it all is that in spite of an equal vote given to all people, it's unnecessary to offer equal respect.

[araina]

That is speculation Leon. I cannot say what I would do in the future under various circumstances you might want to lay out to try and pigeonhole my values. However if I'm risking my life it's going to be on <b>my</b> terms and no one elses. It's my life to spend. Not my government's. If I want to go to California and fight off an invading army that's my perogative. If I want to stay and hide and be a coward, it may not be noble, but it is also my perogative. That is freedom.

There is collective responsibility.

If something like an invasion of America happens while Bush is the President, I won't be fighting for Bush but for my next door neighbor or my family. Trust me, it won't be a hard choice to make.

But if the government is asking you to go and fight in a war that you believe is not being presented in a correct manner, I think it is your right to refuse to serve. Of course, you'll go to jail but if the truth ever comes out in your favor, you'll be the hero for having conviction in your beliefs that others didn't have.

[ethics]

Ariana, my question was straight up, US Soil, not a war on Iran or Syria, but attack on our soil, foreign troops (China for example) overwhelming our country.

No excuse in my book.

[araina]

Ariana, my question was straight up, US Soil, not a war on Iran or Syria, but attack on our soil, foreign troops (China for example) overwhelming our country.

No excuse in my book.

i'm sorry..i didn't read your question. i was just addressing Techie that he won't find it a hard decision to fight for his family or friends..maybe not for the "government" (which is a faceless entity in DC and epitomized by corrupt politicians) but definitely he'd fight for his people.

[Copzilla]

There are many people, Araina, who will look for a reason to find fault in the way any war is being prosecuted. I think we saw that from the protestors prior to the Afghanistan conflict, after 9-11. They will not go under any circumstance, and many even when the Chinese boot was being stuck up their asses and forced to work in rice paddies. There are those who are just too entirely afraid of dying to fight for any cause no matter how just. There's nothing noble about those people. Regardless of the whether the conflict they protest has questionable aspects.

[LissaKay]

If it makes you feel any better, Leon ... my son and two of his buddies were talking about 9/11, the war on terrorism, Iraq, etc. and they were pretty much agreed ... they can hardly wait to be old enough to sign up for the military and go kick some butt on those would do ill to the USA. They weren't just going on with typical male-teen swagger and bravado ... they were talking with reason, logic and sensibility, but with the passion and determination that kids that age have. They take 9/11 as a personal as well as national offense, and have deep pride in what we are doing for the Iraqis.

I'll try to find out what they think about the draft ...

[araina]

There are many people, Araina, who will look for a reason to find fault in the way any war is being prosecuted. I think we saw that from the protestors prior to the Afghanistan conflict, after 9-11. They will not go under any circumstance, and many even when the Chinese boot was being stuck up their asses and forced to work in rice paddies. There are those who are just too entirely afraid of dying to fight for any cause no matter how just. There's nothing noble about those people. Regardless of the whether the conflict they protest has questionable aspects.

Yes, there can be people like that, I suppose.

[joseftu]

It's a tough question, I think, and it's easy to get lost in hypotheticals.

I can certainly envision scenarios when I would volunteer to fight, and others when I would accept the call to fight, gladly and proudly--even if I hadn't volunteered, even if I were not being personally or directly threatened. I feel this country (and yes, that includes its best interests, too) is worth defending, and I don't have any problem saying that, or standing up for that physically.

I can even envision scenarios when I would volunteer to fight in another battle entirely, not for this country but to defend right and justice abroad.

But I can also envision scenarios when I would resist. If the country's call were unjust, patently, if I were being asked to fight for a cause that was not legitimate, then I can see Techie's point that my conscience would not allow me to accept the call to take part in that fight. But I would hope that I would have the courage of my convictions to stand up and say what I felt, and to accept whatever consequence came my way, not to run and hide.

But every person has to act on his own conscience, ultimately. There's a level of personal choice, and personal responsibility, that can never be abdicated.

[cdw]

Who said anything about Bush? rofl WTF?
What has the president got to do with anything?

[ethics]

But every person has to act on his own conscience, ultimately. There's a level of personal choice, and personal responsibility, that can never be abdicated.


Oh hell yah, Joe. I am sure that I or Copz or anyone who would fight to defend our land would question some of the less apparent wars. I mean, who would want to go fight in Vietnam or similar type of military operations?

[joseftu]

Actually, I wasn't thinking about Vietnam. I don't know what I would have done if I had been old enough to be drafted at that time. I was (as I said) getting lost in hypotheticals.

I don't think it's settled yet (still after all this time) whether that was a war that was just and necessary or not. I don't really feel like I'm knowledgable enough to have an accurate opinion on that.

[araina]

Who said anything about Bush? rofl WTF?
What has the president got to do with anything?

Being the "Bush hater" that I am, I had to make sure Techie understood the depth of my willingness to fight, regardless of who could be at the helm in Washington. If such a hypothetical invasion were to happen. :)

[Techie2000]

How is that speculation? I asked you a straight question about whether or not you would risk your life in defending New Yorkers or Californians, Floridians, and other Americans not living in your town, if they were attacked on US soil.Because there are so many factors. When would they attack? Why are they attacking? Did we start throwing people in concentration camps and now foreign governments are intervening to try and help the citizens? Is it today when I am only 17 and fairly useless as a combatant? Is it 10 years from now? Is it when I am 87 years old and frail? A black and white question like that is not as black and white as you might think. By removing the depth of the issue, the issue itself is minimized to some sort of chest beating hooah freedom your with us or against us mentality.

25, healthy, and my homeland attacked, I sure as hell would do whatever I could even if I wasn't qualified for the army. Homeland attacked today, I'm running for the hills. Homeland attacked when I am 87 and frail, I am also running for the hills. If my government forces me to do something, and not give me my choice, they can go to hell. The problem is that freedom itself, is not intrinsically good nor bad. It is neutral, the idea is that it lets people make choices. Altruism is not something that should be forced, because it undermines itself in that way. Freedom might not produce the result that you want Leon, but when I pledge my alleigance every weekday morning, it is for a nation with liberty and justice for all. Not just those whose draft numbers haven't been picked yet. If I am to believe that humans are truely altruistic, then we should never have to worry about a draft because there will always be those willing to fight for freedom when given the choice. And if I am to believe that no one will fight for freedom willingly, then what they deserve they will get when another nation takes it from them, and we should not force them.

[Stiofán]

Question Techie...

Upon your 18th birthday, do you plan on registering for the draft as required by law?

I was three years too young to be drafted when it was ended in 1975, but when Carter instituted the registration process in 1978, I signed up within a week of my 18th birthday. I didn't like Carter, and I had just lived through one of the most devisive wars in our history, but I still signed up.

Were you planning on skipping it next year? Just curious.

[Techie2000]

Question Techie...

Upon your 18th birthday, do you plan on registering for the draft as required by law?

I was three years too young to be drafted when it was ended in 1975, but when Carter instituted the registration process in 1978, I signed up within a week of my 18th birthday. I didn't like Carter, and I had just lived through one of the most devisive wars in our history, but I still signed up.

Were you planning on skipping it next year? Just curious.I will register with selective service as required by US law.

[Stiofán]

Good for you. It's been 26 years since I registered, and I'm still waiting...:)

Despite Rangel and Hollings election year lark, there's no stomach for a draft anytime soon. You may want to voice your concern here (http://www.endselectiveservice.org/), which is a legal and understandable thing for someone your age to do.

[araina]

Why do we hate the word "Draft".

Of course, in the context of a war like Iraq or Vietnam, where some people might say there was no good reason for war, I could understand why.

But there *could* be something like Homeland Defense like what the Brits did in 1941.

Now, we are generally more diverse and opinionated (correct my sp please, i know it's wrong) than the British. But would we hate "draft" in a 1941-esque kind of a situation too?

I don't think I would.

edit: HELL! How come i replied to the last post instead of the 1st post??

[Stiofán]

Because when a certain ex-administrator set up the site, the bottom Post reply button didn't let you post to the first thread as is logical. Some lame excuse about it not being in the software or something. We canned his ass and ran him out of power.....