War In Iraq And The Supporters

[tommyedison]

First of all no you can't force a mind, but I don't believe the government really cares about the mind so much as reflexes and shooting ability. How would an army fight with "the mind" anyway? Why wouldn't a draft army work well at all? Don't say because of Vietnam, that is only one situation and can be argued differently. And the governemtn can draft an army on the basis that they have a law that says they can. However moral it may seem it is still legal, unless it doesn't pass your court of Reason.

War is not only about numbers

Let us say you are in an air combat trying to blow down a plane. There following orders simply won't help. You need to have skill and strategy to defeat the enemy in the plane.

Similarly in ground combat, following orders blindly does not help. If you are caught in a difficult or dangerous situation, you need to rely on your mind, not only shooting skills, reflexes and brute force.

A Draft army is forced. It wouldn't work well and would lead to a high number of casualties. Who would fight properly when he/she doesn't want to fight? Even in normal life, voluntary dedication to a field yields the best results. You cannot force a person to join a field against his/her will and then expect him/her to be at his/her best.

But I thought these people had hopes, and dreams, and aspirations? Will they really give them up to stage a revolt that they certainly cannot win? Revolts against  a nation's own governemtn are hard enough, against an invading government are even harder, especially when they have defeated the army that the people wouldn't join.

I never implied that the people certainly cannot win the revolt if they choose to revolt. Fact is that whatever happens to the people later doesn't give us the right to make them sacrifices in the name of victory in war.

Let us say that there is a slave owner of the 17th century. He knows that letting his slaves go free would be dangerous for the slaves. They will be harassed and will most likely get captured again. Does it give him a right to keep the slaves? Does it excuse him?

So WHO would do this?

A volunteer army. If the country does not have sufficient volunteers, it should not think about war.

A draft army enables the government to make men live in the worst conditions and fight wars at the risk of their lives and the men cannot protest. A volunteer army will force the government to increase the pay and the incentives for the army if the government is not getting enough volunteers.

Further, any government can declare a national emergency which threatens the existence of the country out of any war and call for a draft army. The provision of a draft army enables the country to go to war for any reason without any concern for the rights of the men drafted. You say that draft should not be declared as long as the country is not directly threatened. But a country which can so base and evil as to enforce a draft won't have any qualms to declare in any time.

Draft is a violation of a man's right to his own life. A man's right are what make his life possible. Draft is slavery. It is evil even in the worst of the circumstances. There is no getting around that fact.

[Prae]

War is not only about numbers

Let us say you are in an air combat trying to blow down a plane. There following orders simply won't help. You need to have skill and strategy to defeat the enemy in the plane.

Similarly in ground combat, following orders blindly does not help. If you are caught in a difficult or dangerous situation, you need to rely on your mind, not only shooting skills, reflexes and brute force.

A Draft army is forced. It wouldn't work well and would lead to a high number of casualties. Who would fight properly when he/she doesn't want to fight? Even in normal life, voluntary dedication to a field yields the best results. You cannot force a person to join a field against his/her will and then expect him/her to be at his/her best.

I believe that the desire to preserve one's life would be incentive enough to follow orders and fight well. Sure they might not want to be there but they still want to go home and that requires following orders, and staying alive.

I never implied that the people certainly cannot win the revolt if they choose to revolt. Fact is that whatever happens to the people later doesn't give us the right to make them sacrifices in the name of victory in war.

Let us say that there is a slave owner of the 17th century. He knows that letting his slaves go free would be dangerous for the slaves. They will be harassed and will most likely get captured again. Does it give him a right to keep the slaves? Does it excuse him?

I still think the preservation of the country is more important, more lives would be saved (Alot more). And if the country was conquered they would have much less freedom. As for you example I don't believe it fits. The reason is because nobody has to be a part of this country, they can easily leave and not be required to serve in the military. Why should somebody be able to live in the country and get the benefit of others' military service and defense when they refuse to help (except of course through intellectual support).

A volunteer army. If the country does not have sufficient volunteers, it should not think about war.

I'm sure the other country will decide to be humane and also decide against war. But then again they might have sufficient volunteers (or drafted soldiers) and decide war is a good idea, and then goodbye U.S.A.

A draft army enables the government to make men live in the worst conditions and fight wars at the risk of their lives and the men cannot protest. A volunteer army will force the government to increase the pay and the incentives for the army if the government is not getting enough volunteers.

Somehow you brought military service around to capitalism. When the government needs soldiers most to defend the country we would have men bartering with the government about pay.

Further, any government can declare a national emergency which threatens the existence of the country out of any war and call for a draft army.

It hasn't happened yet.

You say that draft should not be declared as long as the country is not directly threatened. But a country which can so base and evil as to enforce a draft won't have any qualms to declare in any time.

Once again it hasn't happened yet.

I don't like to do this but obviously we are not going to come to any type of agreement in the near future. Frankly I don't care if we agree anyway. I think that our last few posts showed how different our opinions on this matter are and I really don't have much else to say.

[tommyedison]

I still think the preservation of the country is more important, more lives would be saved (Alot more). And if the country was conquered they would have much less freedom. As for you example I don't believe it fits. The reason is because nobody has to be a part of this country, they can easily leave and not be required to serve in the military.

You mean the majority is more important than the minority always no matter whether the minority is right or wrong, whether the rights of the minority are being violated or not, no matter what brutal tactics the majority is using?

Living in a country does not mean who have to be slaves to the state. A country has no right to set up conditions on a person who is living in the country. That is a violation of the fundamental right to life.

Why should somebody be able to live in the country and get the benefit of others' military service and defense when they refuse to help (except of course through intellectual support).

Assuming an ideal state:

The men in the military service are volunteers part of a volunteer army which works on public money given voluntarily. The military men are bound by contract. The benefit to the ones not contributing to the government is a by-product. Their benefit is not the primary goal. Just like a police force contains crime but the benefit also goes to those who do not contribute money to it.

Following your line of reasoning, everyone should also never refuse to take on the duties of a police officer as they shouldn't get the benefits of others' service to the police force when they do not want to be a policeman themselves.

Somehow you brought military service around to capitalism. When the government needs soldiers most to defend the country we would have men bartering with the government about pay.

There is no proof that men would barter with the government about pay. Just like workers don't keep bartering with the companies about pay.

It hasn't happened yet.

Once again it hasn't happened yet.

Doesn't mean it can't happen.

Further speaking, during times of danger, men will themselves recognize the necessity of defending the country to protect their own lives and freedom. A country fighting a war on the side of the right will never lack volunteers. Draft is based on the altruistic premise that man has a duty towards others, an irrational and evil premise.

I am out of this discussion as there is no point of arguing further.

[Yes]

The draft is slavery? so if we get invaded and there are not enough people to defend ourselves with our small military we should just put our hands up and surrender?

Nonsense.

If we get invaded, you will find more than enough Americans who will be willing to bear arms and defend it from its attackers.

The issue of the Draft?

Find Out for Yourself

[Betsy]

I would like to see a survey where one question at the beginning is "do you support the war in Iraq" followed near the end with a question "would you join to go fight"  I think we would see a sudden switch in opinion.

I am not for the war but I did it and am glad it is over, well until I probably get called up again but I do despise the hypocrisy that I see across America,

I support the Police Department 100%, yet I have never wanted to be a cop. Does that make me a hypocrite? I support the education of children, but I don't want to be a teacher. Does that make me a hypocrite?

Advanced economies require a division of labor where some people do the work they most want to do and other people pay them to do it instead of doing it themselves.

Since when does supporting the division of labor make someone a hypocrite?