Draft: Would you go to Iraq?

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 1:33 pm

Topic says it all. If the outside chance that a draft is instated, would you go? Please specify if you are draft age or not, and if someone could clarify what exactly draft ages are, that would help.

I would not go to Iraq. I would protest straight into jail.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 2:13 pm

If there was a legal way to avoid going to iraq I would take it.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 2:17 pm

I am of age and would go. I believe the age group use to be 18-26, male.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 2:20 pm

I'm not of age but I've been pondering lately on ways I could go help, either as a member of the military or a member of an NGO. If I were of age, I would enlist long before any farfetched *draft* would get to me.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 2:25 pm

It depends.

Realistically, I don't think recruits have much choice in what they get to do as officers. Supposing they did, though, if they would have me pounding the ground in Iraq and getting into firefights in Fallujah, then no. On the other hand, if they stashed me away in a base where I get to drive the drone plane or do mundane tech work, I don't think I'd object too loudly.

I'd want to be back there on the supporting end, not on the front lines. I'd make a lousy soldier anyway. I'm the guy you'd choose last to be on your basketball team.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 2:31 pm

Yeah, if I was presented with an option where I was more out of the front line action doing some sort of support role or whatever, I would go for it. It's not that I am not willing to die for my country, I'd just rather not if I could avoid it. But I am unwilling to die for Bush period.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 2:57 pm

Krom wrote:Yeah, if I was presented with an option where I was more out of the front line action doing some sort of support role or whatever, I would go for it. It's not that I am not willing to die for my country, I'd just rather not if I could avoid it. But I am unwilling to die for Bush period.

Well Kromy, let me fill you in on a little secret...no one wants to die in battle. As for this being Bush's war...wrong again. We were attacked due to the slovenly way the prior great draft dodger handled the affairs of state. Congress voted and approved for the war and now we are stuck with it.

Having said that I still think it would be better to draft us older guys. Leave you young guys home so you can live all that is before you. If you were drafted Krom, I'd go in your place if it was allowed.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 3:28 pm

Typical Woodchip taking a dig at Clinton again

I'm 17 and would probably be 18 by the time the draft would be instated...that being said, I would not go to Iraq to fight or assist in this war. I could make it, I would probably actually be a pretty good soldier; I'm athetlic and in pretty good shape, and when motivated I have good work ethic. But I am not willing to put my life on the line for this war.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 4:18 pm

Let me repeat for clarity that the only ones talking about a draft are DEMOCRATS (with the exception of one deranged Nebraskan Republican). Yep, the liberals are the ones who want a draft. But, truthfully, the Democrats don't want it either but they know it's a hot-button issue that will spook alot of folks (read: potential voters) if they sound a false alarm. In other words, if you take the idea of a draft seriously, you are being herded like frightened sheep. Wolf! Wolf! If you repeat the idea, you are what is politically termed a *useful idiot* for spreading disinformation and giving it a life of its own.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 4:50 pm

Okay, quite honestly it's just talk to scare people into voting for Kerry, because mean old Bush will send your kids to die!

If I were drafted, I would go. I don't think that the military would be all that happy for it though; I have a feeling that I would make the worst soldier ever. No work ethic, physically unfit, and pretty disrespectful of authority. I would probably wind up shooting myself during basic training.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 5:38 pm

As a pacifist, I qualify as a conscientious objector, which means I wouldn't go to this or any other war. This is legally recognized as giving me exemption from the draft, without having to face jail time (though I would if I had to.) For those saying you'd skip out on this war but not others... unfortunately, there is no legal recognition for "selective objectors" yet, so if you said "I won't fight in Iraq but I'd fight another war" you'd risk jail time.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:05 pm

I'd tell them to kiss my hiary ass, and be on my way to Canada. I will not help fight in a 'war' that I don't believe to be justified.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:16 pm

I am passed draft age. However if I wasn't and the choice were mine, I wouldn't go. If you are drafted however, I don't think the choice is yours.

Cuda68-2 · Post by **Cuda68-2** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:17 pm

Of course I would, nothing for me to even consider on this one.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:19 pm

I don't think someone should be allowed to be a conscientious objector if they voted for Bush, and plan to vote for him again. He has said, "I am a war president."

My conscience makes me object to that....

kurupt · Post by **kurupt** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:19 pm

yup, i might be going by choice soon anyway.

Phoenix Red · Post by **Phoenix Red** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:21 pm

DCrazy wrote:Okay, quite honestly it's just talk to scare people into voting for Kerry, because mean old Bush will send your kids to die!

If I were drafted, I would go. I don't think that the military would be all that happy for it though; I have a feeling that I would make the worst soldier ever. No work ethic, physically unfit, and pretty disrespectful of authority. I would probably wind up shooting myself during basic training.

Sorry mate but you would end up in the brig quickly, and after a few weeks of that you'd be a very good boy. The military isn't the free world, if you want to talk back you will work hard labour 20 hour days, broken by dress-uniform parades every 3 hours. No one I know wouldn't crack like a roast walnut after a couple weeks of that.

I would go if I were old enough.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 7:26 pm

Goob, one can be a pacifist and still vote for a president who's willing to go to war, or a president who's pledged to go to war, or even a president who's already gone to war. One can even be a pacifist but believe nations and governments have every right to wage war against each other.

I will never fight, and I don't support any war, but I have no qualms with electing a president who will go to war when he feels it's warranted. The president's job is to do what's best for the country -- which doesn't necessarily coincide with doing what's morally right, or what's best for humanity. Such is the nature of secular government. (I bet you never expected me to say that!)

Your conscience can object all it wants. Mine doesn't. It wouldn't be the first time our consciences disagreed, and it certainly won't be the last.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:04 pm

Phoenix Red wrote: Sorry mate but you would end up in the brig quickly, and after a few weeks of that you'd be a very good boy. The military isn't the free world, if you want to talk back you will work hard labour 20 hour days, broken by dress-uniform parades every 3 hours. No one I know wouldn't crack like a roast walnut after a couple weeks of that.

Believe me, I know. And it would probably do me a lot of good.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 9:34 pm

Lothar wrote:I will never fight, and I don't support any war, but I have no qualms with electing a president who will go to war when he feels it's warranted.

I have a hard time accepting that viewpoint of being a pacifist, yet voting for war, and yet not wanting to break a fingernail in combat.

You'd make a great politician.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:04 pm

Way to distort Lothar's response beyond all recognition.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:21 pm

conscientious objector.

my grandfather and unkle did time for being conscientious objectors.

(edit: i can't be in the armed services anyway coz i'm diabetic, insulin dependant)

Couver_ · Post by **Couver_** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:30 pm

I was going to try and stay out of this thread as it makes me sad.. I am in the military as most of ya'll know. My personal opinion is that we will not see the draft come back anytime soon. Even with battles going on in two different countries we still are getting budget cut backs. Its just another OMG lets scare the public in an election year...

I have two different opinions depending on who did not want to go.

If you are genuinely against war then yes by all means you should be exempt.

Those who don't want to fight in Mr Bush's war etc etc. I feel different if that is your only cause. No one wants to die but guess what its going to happen to all of us. It just makes me sad when the country who gave you everything calls on you to pay a little back and you refuse. ( I AM NOT THROWING STONES AT ANYONE HERE!!!) Part of what makes this country great is the freedom of choice.

With all that said... The two things we have going on we can handle easy. Those people have no idea the technology we can bring to them. To bad they are smart enough not to mass up and lets us bring out force to them. And the US trying to be the politically correct and not just going into whatever mosque, shrine, car wash or fast food restaurant that holds the bad guys and knocking everything flat to teach them a lesson.

Those who do get drafted get slotted in where they are needed based on what the military needs. So if you score high on the tests you will be fixing jets behind the lines or setting up computer networks or what ever. The odds of getting drafted then being put into the infantry then going to combat then catching your packet are very small.

Even if the draft happens at all

Going to edit this at the end.. Iraq will never cause us to go to a draft. I'm thinking big picture... (Snooch Drunk)

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:56 pm

off topic: Bash, you meant you're over the draft age correct?

On Topic: I'm 23, I'll be 24 this year so I qualify. However even if I were drafted I wouldn't make it very far due to my physical conditions and they'd probably send me back home. I'm a little out of shape, but otherwise in good health. My biggest problems however are...

1. My knees, which have suffered pretty sufficient cartilage damage and as a result the bones scrape together when I walk. If I try to do short sprints and need to stop suddenly one of my knees usually dislocates. I've had this problem all my life, this is the reason the cartilage is worn down due to tearing.

Needless to say I'm in pain when I need to do a lot of stuff that might require me to walk up inclines, run, etc. I can jog alright, walking is no problem. Running is out of the question.

2. My spine is slightly misshapen. Have no clue how this happend, and you wouldn't notice it until you saw me bend down to pick something up without a shirt on or saw an X-ray. I'm not sure if constant practices of bad posture over more then a decade contributed to this problem, but it causes a lot of back problems that have taken its toll over the last 5 years atleast.

I know, it sounds like I'm an old man and pretty severe for only 23, but it really isn't as bad as it sounds. I get around ok, and most of the time it isn't that big of a deal but, and it may sound pathetic, strenuous physical activities, especially including those required by the armed forces, are out of the question for me.

Basically I wouldn't get by the physical. After a few routines with me I'd be sent home with a big fat "Rejected" sticker on my ass

They need athletic specimens or people they can mold into fighting soldiers. Positions being lost that would require more numbers to fill the void HAS to be "mostly" on the front lines. They got all the desk jockies and computer technicians you can shake a stick at for the most part.

It's funny too, because I don't go out of my way to let myself completely go. Walks, sit-ups, crunches, pushups, these types of things I usually do on a semi-regular basis without that much trouble. I'd end up getting killed just on their obstacle courses

Hypothetically, if I were physically capable of doing what they required I'd probably go and serve my country.

In all honesty though this whole conflict in the middle east doesn't even begin to touch the iceberg when it comes to warranting the reinstatement of the draft. This is exactly what has been said here already, a scare tactic by the dems used to sway voters to vote for Kerry.

Very good though, but blatantly obvious. Lobby to show all the brutal pictures of death caused by war in the middle east to scare the public, then bring up the idea of reinstating the draft....man, didn't we do this type of stuff in kindergarten? Just not on such a HUGE stage? Using "sad" to define such tactics doesn't even begin to explain how childish this is.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:16 pm

Yeah, I'd go, and of age.

I just realized I might be brainwashed-- but it just seems like the right thing to do.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:45 pm

yeah Sol, what bash said... don't go ignoring 80% of my post just so you can distort my position. And even if you pay attention to all of my post, don't distort my position, please. This is the Ethics and Commentary Forum, not Ethics and Straw Man 'Til We Bore 'Em. *GROAN* I apologize profusely for that.

I'm not a pacifist because I fear death or violence, or because I "don't want to break a fingernail". I'm a pacifist because I won't kill, even if it means I'll have violence done to me instead (including, perhaps, a broken fingernail or two.

) You distort my position into one of cowardice, but it's a position of strength: I will stand up for what I believe in and I will not fight, regardless of the consequences that will come to me for it (be it violence and broken fingernails, jail time, or harassment and insults on the DBB.) Much like Birdseye, who would resist to the point of being thrown in jail to avoid fighting in a war he didn't believe in... I'd resist to the point of death to avoid fighting in any war, because it is wrong for me to kill.

However, if one of you were to say "I think it's right for me to go to war" I wouldn't oppose you (though I probably wouldn't actively support you either.) I don't know for sure whether or not war is wrong for you or for governments in general. I hate war (like most people) but I don't have any firm conviction that says war is objectively wrong, and I certainly don't have reason to place strong emphasis on someone else's pacifism or lack thereof when evaluating moral character (after all, my wife isn't a pacifist, but I think she's of quite strong moral character.) Even if I did consider pacifism to have bearing on a person's moral character, "perfect moral character" is not a job qualification for the president of the US -- but "being willing to send the military to war in certain circumstances" is (since he is Commander in Chief, and since Article IV section 4 of our constitution guarantees the government will protect each state of the union from invasion.) The government, therefore, has both a legal and a moral obligation to protect the people of the United States.

When I'm voting for president, I have to vote for someone who will uphold the constitution (even if they actively work to change it at the same time) -- and if I can't vote for someone who'll uphold the constitution, I shouldn't and won't vote. I would not use my constitutionally-guaranteed vote to undermine the constitution. The government of this nation is not bound to my personal moral decisions -- the government of this nation is bound to the constitution, which says the government will protect the people. Consequently, when I vote for president, I have no qualms with voting for someone who has fought in a war, authorized a war, or said they would go to war if elected (provided such a war is, at some level, beneficial to this nation) -- but I do have qualms with voting for a president who refuses to send the troops to war in defense of the country. (I also have a problem with voting for someone who would pull our troops out of Iraq after this nation has promised the Iraqi people that we'll protect them until they've formed a government, army, and police force and can protect themselves -- at this point, the nation has a moral obligation to finish the job.)

I should make it clear: my primary reason for voting for who I do for president is not the Iraq war, or any other war -- my main decision in voting is who will best uphold "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", particularly for groups that are currently oppressed, such as the unborn. If Kerry was pro-Iraq-war and Bush wanted to pull the troops out, I'd probably still vote for Bush. (If Kerry was pro-life and Bush was pro-choice, I'd have a harder time deciding, because I still have no clue where Kerry stands on most other issues.)

Does that make more sense now? Please, guys, no more straw-men or BS one-liners -- I hurt my thumb pretty bad a couple days ago, and it's kinda painful to type.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:26 am

I do have qualms with voting for a president who refuses to send the troops to war in defense of the country.

pacÂ·iÂ·fism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ps-fzm)
n.
The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
n 1: the doctrine that all violence is unjustifiable [syn: passivism] 2: the belief that all international disputes can be settled by arbitration

As a pacifist you do believe that the president should not send troops to war. As a pacifist you believe that all disputes can be settled by nonviolent means and that all violence is unjustifiable. So basically as a pacifist, you would have qualms with a president who is also a pacifist.

I think the bottom line is you disagree with the president when it comes to this war, (you have to if you want your CO status), but vote for him because of his other beliefs. I can live with that.

If I had the magical democratic wand, I would change our stance on abortion. I doubt I feel as strongly against it as you do, but I still am against it. However, what has bush done in the past four years to stop abortion? Not much at all. What has he done to further war? Quite a bit.

at this point, the nation has a moral obligation to finish the job

This is why I would go. I did not support the war's creation; I strongly support seeing it through to the end. I also don't think the draft will happen, but if it does and you succeed at getting off the hook, then someone will have to take your place Lothar. That is a pretty large sacrifice to ask of someone else considering it was your man that put you two in this precarious situation. I agree pacifism is a way of strength; it is also a way of life. In fact I believe it is more a way of life then a political opinion! But I don't believe that supporting a â??war presidentâ?

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:37 am

Goob, you may wish to Google for Partial Birth Abortion and Stem Cell Research if you really don't know what steps Bush has taken in regard to abortion.

SSX-Thunderbird · Post by **SSX-Thunderbird** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:37 am

I don't know if I would go or not. However, I think my medical state would disqualify me from the draft (hydrocephalus, and I probably misspelled that

). I probably wouldn't pass the physical either.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:50 am

I was just comparing the two bash, I didn't say he hasn't done anything. Most conservatives I know believe he should have done a lot more in the past four years regarding abortion. Few conservatives think he should of done more war.

Bush said he was a "war president." Not just a "war time president."

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:53 am

Goob, I can't believe you just gave a dictionary definition to explain my position and then argued against me based on what the dictionary definition says I believe. I already described what *I* mean by pacifism and what *I* believe in my last post. If my name was Webster you'd have just pwned me using my own definition -- but I'm not him and that's not my definition. As long as you're dealing with me, please stick to MY definitions and MY descriptions of what my beliefs are. Thanks.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:59 am

As a pacifist, I qualify...

Agreed, but in the future I get to make up my own definitions in a debate too ok. And you know I am going to capitalize on this

I hope bash will stick to it though....

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:22 am

The legal definition of a conscientious objector is a person who objects to participation in all forms of war, and whose belief is based on a religious, moral or ethical belief system.

That's taken directly from the page you'd get if you clicked "conscientious objector" in the post you just quoted. So yes, as a person who holds the beliefs I call "pacifism", I do qualify. Perhaps I should've defined what I meant sooner, but I did at least define it once it became an issue. So uh... let's ignore Webster, shall we?

By the way, it's accepted practice in debate that people write and explain their own definitions (within reason, of course -- definitions are meant to be enlightening, not misleading or confusing.) It's the only way to be sure everyone's arguing about the same thing. I once read a debate about abortion where one guy specifically defined what he was arguing against as "elective abortion" (like, at a clinic), and the other side insisted on arguing about "spontaneous abortion" (miscarriages). Needless to say, nobody got anywhere, because they were arguing about entirely different things. So yes, if you're in a debate, define your terms.

So anyway... uh... let's talk about the draft.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 4:36 am

Lothar, you can be a pacifist and still join the military. Some of the medics in Vietnam were pacifists and I don't think you will find any past or present veteran here on the board that doubts their bravery or dedication to duty. There are also rear area jobs you could do that would have nothing to do with combat. So please do not use consientious objector status prevent you from serving your country.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:20 am

Lothar wrote:I'm a pacifist because I won't kill, even if it means I'll have violence done to me instead

And if you and Drak had children and the violence, with intent to kill, was towards them. Would you feel the same way?

(question, not critisizm)

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:42 am

I don't care if I'm "warping" your self-made definitions and rhetoric or not. That is the sense I got from your original post.

It just seems to me that it's shirking all responsibility to say "Oh, it's okay if we go to war. I hate war, but it's okay as long as I'm not the one fighting it." It seems to me that if you support a war, be it directly or pseudo-directly, you ought to be prepared to fight in it. Otherwise, it's easy to fall prey to the trap of "It's alright - it's someone else's kid will do it."

Or, another metaphor. The government is supposed to protect us. In order to do so, it needs money and it naturally follows that it gets money from taxes. Doesn't it seem immoral to say "I support raising taxes, no I won't pay them"?

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 11:15 am

I'm past the draft. I wouldn't go anyway, I don't fight for corporate gain.

Wonder why the draft is so low in the age group? You'd think it would be better to draft the 26-35 age group, not the 18yo's who don't know...much of anything. And looking at the that age group nowadays..too fat, lazy, and "GIMMIE NOW!!"'ish to be of much use. (Credit companies will love them tho')

I heard 'draft' a few days ago, and couldn't imagine why. Aren't there plenty of grunts as it is? It's not like we're bringing back 100 bodies a day/week.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:00 pm

See, that is why most people assume that the Draft sends you to the front lines because to be totally honest, thats what it WAS for. We live in a time now where there is a greater diversity when it comes to employment in the armed forces. Years ago when a war broke out, the body counts were racking up and when the government needed more soldiers they would just draft them into service to be the next wave.

Effective armies were those that could outlast the other. To do that effectively you needed greater numbers (For the most part, there have been many exceptions). This was the way of war, but we've shown that war can also be won by efficiency. Having the better technology and the people skilled enough to use that technology with great precision. Hence, less casualties and no need for the draft.

Still seems to be a hot topic for debate of course.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:20 pm

If I were of draft age(which I am not), I would probably go. I have no great desire to die in the desert in support of a policy I disagree with. Nor do I have the desire to fight in a war unless absolutely necessary (IE, troops on my street, or troops in the process of coming to my street). But that being said, I think the lemming in me would object to avoiding a draft that was taking my fellow citizens. I would probably feel like a fink. Some other guy, just like me, would have to take my place. I don't know how I would live with myself knowing that. That isn't a slight on people who would avoid such a draft, as there are numerous reasons I can imagine to justify it. They just wouldn't be my reasons.

That's just a guess of course, much like guessing what you would do in any extreme situation. You just don't know until it happens.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:31 pm

woodchip wrote:Lothar, you can be a pacifist and still join the military. Some of the medics in Vietnam were pacifists and I don't think you will find any past or present veteran here on the board that doubts their bravery or dedication to duty. There are also rear area jobs you could do that would have nothing to do with combat. So please do not use consientious objector status prevent you from serving your country.

and furthermore...

you can still be a conscientious objector and be drafted and sent to the combat zone. being a conscientious objector doesn't exempt anyone from being drafted. it only exempts you from having to kill someone. sorry!

But i have no problem with Lothar's statement otherwise.

However...

Bash, don't post that you are going to volunteer unless you're going to volunteer. I am over the draft age and would only go if i were drafted. if i were drafted i would serve as best i could.

but it it's pretty funny to come in here and see you trying to impress everyone by being gung-ho when you are totally insincere.

and btw, the only way ill believe otherwise is when you start posting photos of yourself actually in Iraq volunteering.