DescentBB

That tax anaology is kind of weak IMO. How many people actually vote for higher taxes and then turn around and not expect to have to pay those taxes? It just sounds really stupid to me. I'm sure people do it, or have done it, but to me it just sounds extremely imbecilic.

Lothar as well has fleshed out his reply quite nicely. It isn't very hard to understand the concept that "I don't believe in voilence as an asnwer, but I understand the need to use it sometimes. I myself however, do not feel it is the best or the only answer." This actually is a very deep psychological dilemma for our entire species. Though some people have an easier time deciding if they'll participate in the violence used as a means to accomplish something.

Quite frankly, on simpler terms Birds, Lothar's arguement is really not very different from your own. It still exists on the same form of logic.

Birds - "I won't go and fight a war for this establishment." You won't go because you feel this is "Bush's War" and you won't have any part in fighting for a man that you absolutely despise.

Lothar - "I won't go and fight a war because I don't believe in it." On the same token, Lothar won't fight for Bush or any other president because he personally does not feel that violence is the answer and violence is something he despises as well.

So Birds, you hate bush and won't fight for him.

Lothar hates violence and won't fight period.

IMO not very different at all, but I'm sure I'll hear a lot of arguement

Sorry to interrupt one last time, but Birdseye, let me quote my initial post for you:

Top Gun wrote:To be perfectly honest, I can't really say whether or not I would be able to enter into combat. On the physical level, I'm in pretty poor shape and have very flat feet, but beyond that, I don't think I have the courage to actually go into active combat. I'll be the first to admit that I'm somewhat of a coward; I may not always like it, but I am relatively timid by nature. I am 17 right now, and if drafted, I'd like to think that I could overcome my past tendencies and become an effective soldier. Still, given any choice in the matter, I do not think a military career is for me. As someone stated earlier, I think that there are some people who are predisposed for careers involving high amounts of danger, and I don't think I'm one of them. Having said that, I have the ultimate respect and admiration for those who have volunteered to put themselves in harm's way. As long as this country continues to produce people with that level of courage, I don't think a draft will be necessary.

As you can see, I never said that I would not go to Iraq if drafted. I did confess my personal misgivings about my ability to be a soldier, but I didn't say that I would dodge a draft. As I said, if I was drafted, I hope that I would have the courage and fortitude to become a good effective soldier. I may not like the idea of combat, but I won't run away from my duty as a citizen. That's all I'll say on the matter; let's let everyone continue with their much more worthwhile discussion.

P.S. I wasn't changing my position, merely clarifying it. There's a big difference, as any politician can tell you .

...I think I'll stick to Battlefield Vietnam... Besides I'm 15 so I can't go. But I actually might if they did draft and I was age... They'd need to work me up REAL good though. My chest is shallow and my arms are weak.

when they drop the launch on the PT boat your chest will broaden up a bit...and so will your head

They dropped military service in Belgium about ten years ago... Before that, every man had to serve between 6 months and two years in the Belgian army once they became 18.

Everyone had to go, so I would have gone as well if it was required. This was military training though (or you could serve as military surgeon as my father did, or other civilian tasks in the army), not going to actual war.

I am not in the position to answer Bird's question, since I am not affected. I'm inclined to say I wouldn't go though, not so much because of a conviction, but because I wouldn't feel like doing it. I would gladly work in the research or technical support branch of the army, though. But since the Belgian military is a joke...

Tyranny wrote:That tax anaology is kind of weak IMO. How many people actually vote for higher taxes and then turn around and not expect to have to pay those taxes?

Over 20% if you lived in Oregon.

I actually shouldn't say that. After the huge tax increase that passed by a very slim margin last year, the county was missing over 20% of taxpayers, which was unusually high compared to previous years. Of those, it's impossible to tell how many did or didn't support the tax on the ballot. But, there was definitely a lot of "Gee, I had no idea it would increase that much!" going around.

See also: CEOs of large corporations, Senators

Top, I'll agree and just say it was probably a matter of confusion.

"Russia, South America and the new Iraq supply enough cheap oil to not need Saudi Arabia anymore so they can be cut off if need be. "

From what I remember Iraq's oil production isn't substantially large in the grand scheme. Just what my dad, 30 years of crude oil trading at chevron said to me (more reasons blood for oil is silly).

"However, if we pack it up and leave Iraq to the U.N. like John Kerry would have us do then I see bin Laddin returning to Saudi Arabia as doomsday. "

From what I remember, Saudi Arabia has paid osama in the past to stay out of there. I'm not sure how he would gain control there. I don't necessarily think we should pack up and leave (and I didn't know that was Kerry's position) but I don't see how involving the UN isn't helpful.

"I really don't buy the WWIII talk anyways. We aren't dealing with highly mechanized and militarized nations here with brutal strength either on land, sea or air like Germany, Japan & Italy were. We're dealing with people who strap TNT or grenades to their chests and use the surrounding environment to further the damage when they finally detonate. "

Well, the allusions to WWIII are based on the concept of *modernizing* the middle east (i.e. taking over countries like Syria, Iran, etc.) might piss off the muslim world as a whole against us. I don't think it necessarily would happen, but I certainly would not want to risk such a thing.

"If we succeed who knows the possibilites that could open up for the development of that region in the future"

You know, that may just happen. I personally found it to be too risky of a proposition without much of an exit strategy. I truly hope Bush et al are right.

"... and putting your life on the line in the army is not much different from doing so as a police officer. "

Sure it is. Being a police officer is less dangerous than driving an automobile. Statistics for war are far worse.

"Birds - "I won't go and fight a war for this establishment." You won't go because you feel this is "Bush's War" and you won't have any part in fighting for a man that you absolutely despise. "

Whoa, whoa? PLEASE post where I said this. You COMPLETELY made up that quote, and that "position" of mine!

"So Birds, you hate bush and won't fight for him. "

Uhhh...I'm not really sure if you've ever read an entire post by me regarding the war in Iraq.

*modernizing* the middle east (i.e. taking over countries like Syria, Iran, etc.)

Uh, I don't think that's what most people mean when they say "modernizing"...

This mainly applies to Birdseye - but when you want to quote other people, could you at least offset it in some way? Like, with italics, or a quote box, or whatnot? It all sorta' blends together.

^^ What bash said ^^

How else can anyone mean modernize Lothar? Those people do not accept our way of life. They do not want our democracy, they do not want our flaunting of sexuality, immorality, and everything else that I like as an American. Taking the country over and not allowing them anything else but Macaulay Culkin and Average Joe on NBC is the only way to "modernize"

DC: nice try? check the bill that's being proposed. it states both men and women will be called.

Lothar,

I'm using the word Modernize from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) position paper on middle east policy. They (some are bush advisors) suggest that we invade several middle east countries and modernize them--meaning overthrow their governments, and spreading democracy and capitalism.

Zuruck,

by "these people do not want ...", what you mean is "these governments do not want ..." There is a difference.

Modernizing could take place through forcibly overthrowing such governments (as in Iraq) or by pressuring them or by encouraging their people or whatever. There's no reason to think modernizing requires us to actually conquer and take posession of such countries.

I didn't mean take possession--but conquer and overthrow would certainly be necessary, as in Iraq.

-Draft: Would you go to Iraq?-

#Ell NO!!

And you can count on every official in my state who supports the draft not getting my vote!!! Our state representive here in Ohio has already recieved a letter signed by nearly a thousand people(ya i know it aint much but its a start) basically telling him we'll see him out of office if he votes for this bill.

I never supported the draft and after last summer and my breif enlistment in the Army, i sure as he!! dont support our military!!! Luckly i'm now above the age where me or my wife could be drafted but i have lots of family who is of age who can be... and i can gaurentee who ever comes to draft them(if this ridicoulus bill gets passed) will see the buisness end of my hunting riffel. if i'm going to die for any cause, it sure aint gonna be oil..

Its sad to say but i will never support such a crooked establishment. When they resort to out right lying to get recruits to sign up(and in me and my wife's case, we sold furniture and quit jobs that took years to get)Just to find out that every thing we were promised about our future jobs (and military life in general) was a lie...

No comment.

Fusion pimp wrote:While you use the very freedom afforded you by the blood of men who felt that freedom of speech is worth dying for.

It is worth dying for. And if we were in any sort of position to lose it, say, if Chineese soldiers landed on the californian coast, I would fight. I would fight proudly for that right.

Let me clarify something. I feel that the war in Afghanistan is justified. The Taliban and Al-Qadea were quite close to eachother, and since Al-Qadea took it to us on our own home soil, we had definite rights to strike back at THEM and their enemies.

The war in Iraq on the other hand, is something entirely different. No substantial link between Al-Qadea and the former Ba'athist regime has been exposed. No weapons of mass destruction have been found. This war is something that we should have finished somehow back in the early 90's when Bush Sr. was president. There have been, on the other hand, clear and at least partially credible hints dropped that Bush Jr has had his eye on Iraq ever since he won the supreme court decision that put him in office (Dont you ever try to tell me he was elected!). As such, this War in Iraq, while it *MIGHT* have some kind of long-term benifit, is becoming extremely costly in terms of both man power and dollars spent fighting it. Our people are dying over there for what? The Ba'athists are out. New warlords are popping up and taking control of small areas. The whole population hates us and everything our nation represents to them. I dont personally believe that there will be any kind of democratic govermnet sucsessfully set up there any time soon. As soon as we hand off control of Iraq to the Iraqi governing council (assuming we actually go through with that of course) Theres going to be all sorts of infighting. Of course we have that now with the curent situation. The situation in Fallulah or however that cess-pool is spelled. That radical muslim cleric. These are the people we were supposed to have been saving? Why should we save them? We should we ask more of our people to be stripped of whatever lives they have over here just so they can go to Iraq and get shot at by people who dont seem to want to be saved by us? The whole idea of instating a draft to expand the armed presence in Iraq is madness. We should be finding ways to decrease our presence there and hand over as much power we can to someone else so we can at least curb the cost of Bush's pet war.

I believe freedom is something that should be protected as well as spread as wide as possible. I do not believe it is wise to try to give freedom to a people who dont want it.

Hmm..

News story linkified by Lothar (please don't make links that make me scroll horizontally)

It looks like woman, and those up to the age of 34 may be eligable for a draft. This means that I would be eligable. My answer is the same, though.

Enlistment has been going up sharply in recent weeks in spite of an increase in casulties.
The military benifits greatly from being all voluntary, willing souls and all that.
So there is no need for a draft.

Also, the logistics, finances and politics of re-enstating a draft make it a bad idea for the military as well as any politician who actually trys to bring it back.
However, for someone to convince the voters things are so bad that it might come back does serve a political purpose.
Guess which party gains by using that tactic.

Any political party can gain from this, if they play their cards right.

The Dems hope to gain from it by convincing people "Bush's war is going to get your sons drafted and killed, unless you vote him out of office."

The Repubs hope to gain from it by convincing people that the Dems are so desperate they have to start inventing fake drafts.

Third parties hope to gain from it by convincing people the big 2 are power-hungry unprincipled conglomorates who don't care one bit about you or your kid who might get drafted.

Who benefits most depends very much on who is able to capitalize on it. I don't think the Dems will capitalize at all because most people who are against "Bush's war" are already voting for them and because the swing voters will see it as a scare tactic. Almost by default, that benefits Republicans, though perhaps not by much. But we'll see how it plays out.

In reference to the original question, I would not join. I can't say I've ever taken up the name of a "conscientious objector" but I tend towards pacifism more than anything else. I did not agree with Iraq nor Afghanistan, and I have a sweet spot for soft power and only partial use of hard power.

The reality is the terrorists don't share your views. Pacifism won't work on them. They do not understand this concept. Even if you were willing to change who you are completely just to make them feel superior it still wouldn't guarantee that they wouldn't kill you just because they didn't like you.

Pacifism is a fine ideal to have but it won't protect you from them. Whether you agree with war or not means very little in their eyes. Personally I feel the true nature of our country is that war is bad and we don't like it but it is necessary at times. I feel this is one of those times because terrorism doesn't just effect the United States. It's a global problem despite what a lot of people would like to believe.

I don't think a "war on terror" can be won, but I do think that the message can be sent that there are HUGE penalties to be paid for fostering terrorists and committing terrorist acts against other Nations or within your own. I would say the examples we are setting right now are a strong message that we will not tolerate such things anymore and that other countries should follow our lead.

Despite what the media would have you believe I do believe the world will be better for it.

No comments about making up quotes, Tyr?

(In response to Tyranny, and note, my response is just my perspective, and not anyone else's)
I'm not sure who you are responding to, but I think it is obvious that terrorists are not pacifists. Similarly, many less bellicose and extreme people do not share pacifist views either. If you are trying to convey a threatening atmosphere or highlight the vulnerability of a pacifist's perspective, I think you are using the wrong logic. The idea that pacifism rejects reciprocity is the underlying essence of standing by pacifism despite the unconditional threat of violence.

From what you are writing, you seem to assume that pacifists are marginalizing the threat of terrorism. I think that would misconstrue and tack on an assumption to a person's mindset. Pacifism is not necessarily the result of a cost-benefit analysis of the current environment. I would consider pacifism more of an ultra-moralistic stance than anything else. Resorting to violence can be considered practical, sensible, logical, efficient, understandable, etc.... But in the ideal world, with an infinite capacity for a person's self-actualization, violence would be unneccessary.

"But in the ideal world, with an infinite capacity for a person's self-actualization, violence would be unneccessary."

Ahh Utopia.

I'm not sure what you mean birds.

Garfield, I wasn't trying to belittle pacifism at all. These ideals would be great if we lived in an ideal world, but truth be told we don't, which does in a way make pacifism flawed in some respects.

Personally I feel if everyone in our country was a pacifist we'd be steamrolled by other countries or groups of people who would wish to do us harm.

Pacifists admit to the threat of terrorism and the realities of violence but would try to use peaceful alternatives against a group of people or violent nations who would respect no such thing. Like I said, there are times where people need to fight for something. If that leads to violence then it leads to violence lest that something be lost. This is what has made our world go round since the beginning of humanity.

The trick is being the stronger in both ideals and force so that you can defend those ideals when threatend. In the end it really comes down to "In the eye of the beholder" though. I'd like to think our ideals are far better then theirs (the terrorists) because our society has evolved much farther then theirs but *shrug*.

I'd like to believe Pacifism would be the way of the world someday but human nature dictates there will be violence no matter what you try to do. If you can't solve something peacefully, what then do you do? Give up? Succumb to the violence? As a nation these usually are not options.

Good vs Evil. There will never be pure good or pure evil as both are indeed eternally challenging eachother and balancing eachother out. It's kind of ironic that we strive for perfection because we are so flawed. oh well...

I'm really wondering if you actually read anyone else's posts at all. Miss my reply once, fine, fail to even scroll up is considered inconsiderate laziness Considering how badly you minced my position and made up quotes, heh. If you look up and read my post on this page, you'll see it. But if you have problems doing that, here it is verbatim:

---------
"Birds - "I won't go and fight a war for this establishment." You won't go because you feel this is "Bush's War" and you won't have any part in fighting for a man that you absolutely despise. "

Whoa, whoa? PLEASE post where I said this. You COMPLETELY made up that quote, and that "position" of mine!

"So Birds, you hate bush and won't fight for him. "

Uhhh...I'm not really sure if you've ever read an entire post by me regarding the war in Iraq.
----------

Tyranny,

what makes you think pacifists are using pacifism *against* enemy forces? Certainly there are some pacifists who see their pacifism as a way to resist or non-violently fight back, but not all do.

I'm not a pacifist because I think it's the best way for me to counter Al-Qaeda and protect my country (guns generally work better for that.) I'm a pacifist because I think it's the best way for me to be, even though the consequences might really suck.

Birds:
I don't want to get into a huge fight with you over semantics. Your quasi-response to what I had said in regards to your arguement with Lothar was a bit belated, so forgive me for not recognizing what you were trying to convey at first.

I make it a point to read EVERYBODY's posts even if the thread is already 3-4 pages long before I reply on something, even if that something was meant to address an issue on page one of the thread. There was no need to insult or correct what you perceive as my thread reading habits since you do not know them.

Anyways, I'm not exactly sure I understand what the confusion is on what I had said, was I too vague? You seem angry that you were misquoted even though what I did quote was not meant to be you, but rather what I had understood your stance on the war was. I merely quoted them to emphasize that point, not to quote you directly. If I had wanted to quote you directly I would have used the quote tags this board provides.

So yes, I did make up that quote, I was quoting myself on what it seemed to me, in summary, you were saying. My intentions were to break down your statements from earlier so you could see how similar your position was with Lothar. Sounded to me that his reasons for not going to war after being drafted didn't seem as justifiable as your own. Though your arguement really wasn't any better.

Apparently you didn't read it this way. Guess that is my fault. However, even you can't deny your own words tend to lean on the anti-bush bandwagon side. I see you argue against both sides, but at the same time I get the distinct feeling you're anti-bush, anti-government etc. Perhaps like many others, including myself, you're just as fed up with things as the rest of us, Bush or no Bush and it just comes off the wrong way *shrug*.

Lothar said something interesting in another thread about you, that lately you seem to be missing the important points in a lot of people's posts. I think you missed the overall point of mine. We all do it though, so whatever. I'm getting tired of this Iraq crap anyways.

Lothar:
I guess what I'm basically getting at, and it reverts back to what you were saying before, was that pacifism isn't always the best course of action and sometime wars are necessary.

what is a quasi response?

"There was no need to insult or correct what you perceive as my thread reading habits since you do not know them."

Well, they are pretty clear for me after seeing how innaccurately I am portrayed. Try not to take this too personally I argue a lot, but I keep a smile on my face the whole time. I'm sorry if it comes off as hostile, I enjoy posting on the DBB. Realize that if you felt someone made up quotes and positions that were not your own, you'd at least feel you deserve a response when you inquired about them.

"Sounded to me that his reasons for not going to war after being drafted didn't seem as justifiable as your own. "

That is actually maybe a point to argue about, but unfortunately you don't seem to understand my position, remotely.

Also, I think if I typed Tyranny - "XXXX" and then wrote a response to the quote, most people on the board would assume I was writing a direct quote, not some general made up oversimplification and innaccurate version of my political beliefs.

"However, even you can't deny your own words tend to lean on the anti-bush bandwagon side. I see you argue against both sides, but at the same time I get the distinct feeling you're anti-bush, anti-government "

Actually, I certainly can. Stating that I am on an a bandwagon implies that I have no well thought out intellectual arguments or reasons for my discontent with the administration's policies, and that I am just 'joining in with the crowd' which is not the case.

I am not an anarchist. I am in favor of government. Just because I disagree with some of the government's policies in no way makes me generally anti government. Bush has done a couple of things in office I agree with, such as ending steel tarriffs.

I think you oversimplify my viewpoint. Have a good one though bud, I respect you and enjoy your prescense here.

Birdseye

Tyranny,

To drive home a particular point: I'd say pacifism isn't always the best course of action for the nation, even if it is for some of the citizens. That's why I have no problem with voting for a guy who'll lead this nation to war -- I don't have a problem with having violence done to me, so pacifism (meaning, among other things, willingness to take a beating without hitting back) actually works for me. But I think the nation minds having violence done to it, so pacifism doesn't work for the nation. I wouldn't vote for a president who was a pacifist, because the president's job is (among other things) to protect the nation and to protect the nation's interests. I also won't vote for a president who thinks this nation's military is a bunch of war criminals and is unwilling to do anything without UN support -- that would be irresponsible of me as a citizen of this nation. I'm supposed to vote for a president who can actually fulfill the duties of the president as spelled out in our constitution, even if I personally won't fight in the military.

(For those who say that means I won't serve my country... recall that I serve my country by paying my taxes, and by teaching our citizens.)

Birdseye,

Perhaps you could restate what your position is, in order to clear up the misunderstanding.

sigh...

To be perfectly honest birds, I've had a lot of distractions the last 6 days since I posted that post you were replying to. Between the Battlefield Vietnam interruption and Teddy's attempt to return the thread back to it's original intended topic I guess I must have lost track of where everybody stood on who said what when I tried jumping back in after over a week.

In all actuality, I wouldn't have even kept up with this thread had it not been for the fact I read Garfield's post.For some reason I felt like responding to that. I hadn't even realized you posted what you had until you just pointed it out. So yeah, I dropped the ball in this instance, I can admit that.

Sometimes though, life needs to be over simplified to cut through all the bullshit and see the real point. A point I thought you were missing in your arguement with Lothar. I'm not trying to pretend I know what your political views are, I merely was indicating how your posts leading up to the one that apparently started all this sounded to me.

I never said you were an anarchist or believed in anarchy. This wasn't the intended message, I was talking about not liking the current government and how they run things. Everyone wishes things could be done a different way.

Anyways, I was going to say more to address other valid points but whats the point really? typing on the DBB misconstrues what you really want to say half the time it's almost pointless. I'm running on steam regarding Iraq anyways. The war is over and has been over for months now. We aren't fighting a country anymore, it's leaders have been disposed of and we're fighting terrorist insurgents and continuing the war on terror and all this talk of every little tiny aspect of all of it has me worn out.

I'm not about to get into huge fights with people I consider my friends over it, it isn't worth it.

Heh, well I don't consider these types of things to be huge fights sorry if I got your feathers ruffled. I enjoy discussions and arguing, so perhaps I tend to wear on people

Like I said, I pretty much always have a smile on my face posting here. It's fun because we all have such diverse viewpoints but still hear each other out (or try to).

All fights are heated arguements or intense debate anyways. Personally I respect you too much as a person as well to let it continue in a manner where some stupid things might be said on either side and all hell breaks loose.

That and I saw that I had indeed ignored a post. Ironically just after I said that I make it a point to read everyone's posts, Which, for the most part, I do. So you can imagine I'm a bit embarrassed and somewhat humbled over this. You didn't ruffle my feathers at all, it just felt like the discussion was becoming a little too heated over something trivial to the main topic I guess. That and I forked up, but hey!

No big deal

I think you can have intense debates though without harboring ill will.

As an aside, I do this a lot in person with my friends, one of whom is a marxist studying sociology. Somehow he has it through his head that all profit is derived from exploitation of labor.
Even if I present him with an example of say, someone teaching themselves how to whistle, then teaching whistling lessons (mutually beneficial transaction) he comes up with convoluted responses, such as: "Yeah but the reason you can whistle is that you had time to pursue your craft because your father worked for a corporation that exploited the labor, and I bet that's how the other guy paid for his lessons".
My response: OK, it's 100,000 years ago, nobody owns any companies, and one man teaches himself to whistle, another man teaches himself to make drums from natural sources. A third person collects fruit. They use money as a medium of exchange between the three of them. Who is exploited?

Convoluted response follows. Unrelated but I thought it was funny, and though we debate intensely, it's never with negativity.

I don't have a strong stance one way or the other. I personally would rather not go. But I guess if I was drafted I wouldn't have much choice... off I'd go.

After all, if you do get drafted you only really have two options right? Go to war or go to jail?

I'd rather just go to war than suffer the indignity of everyone knowing I was such a pussy I went to jail to be some thug's ★■◆●. Dying in a war I don't strongly believe in doesn't sound like much fun to me, but just because you're drafted doesn't mean you're going to die on the battlefield, so to speak...

After what I heard happen yesterday, I would go.

one guy's head gets cut off and you go to war? Sheesh. Thousands have already been killed.

After what I heard happen yesterday, I would go.

Canadian patrol on horseback.