Conscription

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I don't see how that contradicts what I said.

It was a violation of the War Powers Act.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Congress usually approves because they don't want to look powerless not approving.

Hehe... perhaps you should read the Constitution again. Congress votes on actual wars. The President can unilaterially carry out peacekeeping missions, but in a war, Congress has to make its voice known.

blah blah blah

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
There is a simple reason why I support conscription. If the government and state is about to fall to an invader, I think that government and state should be able to force people into its defense. Why? Because it is better than the alternative. What happens when the government and state falls? First a period of anarchy and then rule by the invader. Needless to say if the invader is attacking a democratic republic, then it probably isn't one itself.

But what if the populace would rather throw flowers and cheer a liberating army than be conscripted?

What Saddam Hussein had a right to conscript to defend his regime?

Or are you saying that a democratic republic has the right to act like a tyrant in order to fight tyrants but it is a wrong for a tyrant to do the very things we do - but that we may do those things to stop the tyrant? What are you saying?

I noticed Vel is avoiding addressing my little argument that conscription is a regulation that artificially deflates the pay scale the market would set for soldiers. What's a matter Vel? I thought capitalism was about an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. What, the government doesn't have to provide an honest day's pay and may instead use conscription? What about your much vaunted free market?

Although, I guess conscription-based slavery is the sort of thing a Confederate Flag supporter wouldn't have a problem with ...

[Velociryx]

Now here's an interesting point.

You believe in equality, but THIS particular decision should be handled directly. What makes this particular decision so special? It's not the potential loss of life, because a variety of other governmental decisions cost jobs, lives, and livlihoods. So how is it better serving "equality" to make this particular decision unequal? (that is to say, to put it before the people as a whole, while leaving the rest to our representatives)?

Further, it is precisely IN these situations when we don't have time to d*ck around. If there's a crisis severe enough to even consider bringing back the draft, then we sure don't have time to put it to national referendum....we need troops NOW, and to dally around in order to appease your sense of equity will cost even MORE lives than the alternative.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Well Kid....tell you what: Your vision of how the government *should be* is far, far different than the way it currently IS. If you like, if it's that important to you, feel free to try and change the system to be more direct and less representative.

Currently, however, we DO have a representative democracy. That's the way the country works.

You are, of course, free to gripe about that all you want, but it won't change the reality. Only action changes reality, but then, that's ground we've covered before....

-=Vel=-

I'm not against representation. Unfortunately I have to pick between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. Usually they are both rich white guys who are incapable of trully representing me. Even if I'm capable of electing a person who can represent me he or she will be a minority and will not be able to protect my interests. That's why we need a classless society. That's the only true democracy.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Congress usually approves because they don't want to look powerless not approving.

Hehe... perhaps you should read the Constitution again. Congress votes on actual wars. The President can unilaterially carry out peacekeeping missions, but in a war, Congress has to make its voice known.

Q: What's the difference between a war and a police action to a dead soldier?

A: None.

Like a dead soldier is going to say "Oh! As long as congress has declared war, I guess that's OK." Wrong, a dead soldier doesn't say anything - he or she is dead!

[Velociryx]

Templar, Templar....if you're over-eager to fight, then sure....I'll play.

1) In matters of national survival (real or percieved--and let's face it, if the draft were ever brought back in this country, it would certainly not be to fight some two-bit dictator in the desert), then the market is, and must be, subservient to the state for the duration of the crisis. That is why we had rationing during WWII, for example. Hardly something that the free market appreciates, but nonetheless, given the climate of crisis, something which was done. Same thing with the draft. Yes, it's a "violation" of market principles in the short run to ensure long run survival. That's hardly a new point on this thread.

2) There are ways around the draft. CO's are not hounded, tortured, or thrown in jail for not going. The US doesn't drag people who flee to Canada to dodge the draft back to the states and beat them into submission, nor jail them in a modern Gulag. To say then, that conscription (at least, as it has been done in the USA) is in any way a form of slavery is just this side of absurd.

3) You're a supporter of the hammer and sickle flag.....flown at the head of one of the most brutal, bloody regiemes the world has ever known, and you REALLY want to get on my case about the Confederate flag? That's rich!

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Kid, then....run for office yourself? Or, convince someone who DOES share your views to run for office?

If you find that your candidate cannot get elected, then perhaps it's because your views do not represent the majority for your area.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid, then....run for office yourself? Or, convince someone who DOES share your views to run for office?

If you find that your candidate cannot get elected, then perhaps it's because your views do not represent the majority for your area.

-=Vel=-

Why would I want to run for office? To have an insignificant role in a govt that was created by the rich FOR the rich? No, I'm a communist. I reject your govt. It was created by those who did not represent the interests of the People for their own interests. They set the govt up to stay that way. I will have no part of it. Hell, your govt was never even approved by the People. The least you could have done is let us approve the govt that you created, but no you met behind closed doors and created an illegal govt that the People had no part in what so ever.

That has nothing to do with the fact that the govt is undemocratic and therefore should not make the decision to send our children to war. The fact that it is undemocratic and unrepresentative of the people means that it should have no right to make such decision.

The People have always had an uneasy satisfaction that allowing the rich to run the govt has been better than spilling blood to overthrow that govt, but one day that will change.

It's because of people like you that the govt remains authoritarian. You want to keep power from the People and you want to keep the power in the hands of rich white males. You spread lies through the media and the school system. You use your dollars to get elected over people who do represent the people more than you. You lie to the voters by making them promises and pretending to represent their interests then you break all your promises and follow through on policies that you were not elected for. You do the same ****ing thing every election, and since rich white rich men created the system to keep out third parties the People who vote have no choice but to keep electing you and other wealthy people.

[Imran Siddiqui]

are you saying that a democratic republic has the right to act like a tyrant in order to fight tyrants

No, I'm saying that a democratic republic has the right to act like a 'tyrant' in order to prevent it from being physically destroyed by tyrants.

Like a dead soldier is going to say "Oh! As long as congress has declared war, I guess that's OK." Wrong, a dead soldier doesn't say anything - he or she is dead!

What's your point? Congress has decided it is enough in the social interest for conscription to take place. If they go against the public interest and vote for conscription they know they'd be thrown on their ass. So they will only vote on it if the majority agree that it is required.

There has never been conscription in a police action, btw.

Hell, your govt was never even approved by the People.

Was it not ratified by every state?

That's your approval by the people, Mr. I reject my government but chose to live in it and benefit from some of its social programs anyway .

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Hell, your govt was never even approved by the People.

Was it not ratified by every state?

I'm talking about a popular vote, and I don't just mean white male property owners.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's your approval by the people, Mr. I reject my government but chose to live in it and benefit from some of its social programs anyway .

Only a sucker would be satisfied with benefits when they are distributed unfairly. Only a loser would accept a lower socioeconomic status. Not me pal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm talking about a popular vote, and I don't just mean white male property owners.

So what you are saying is you want to apply your morality to past generations, yah? It was approved in the best way it could be done in that era. I don't care if that ain't good enough for me, it's good enough for a Hell of a lot of us .

Only a sucker would be satisfied with benefits when they are distributed unfairly. Only a loser would accept a lower socioeconomic status. Not me pal.

So why don't you move to somewhere were the benefits are distributed more fairly?

Of course you'd rather force your views on the rest of us who are happy with the system .

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So why don't you move to somewhere were the benefits are distributed more fairly?

No, I'll stay here and fight for true freedom and equality.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course you'd rather force your views on the rest of us who are happy with the system .

You can put me on ignore if it's that hard for you to hear the truth

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, I'll stay here and fight for true freedom and equality.

Ah, doomed to never be politically satisfied .

You can put me on ignore if it's that hard for you to hear the truth

You must be using a new defintion of truth, which really means lie. Perhaps you are taking classes from the Clinton school?

Or perhaps you think 'truth' means 'what I think should happen, therefore it is truth'.

Either way, once again you manage to redefine a word .

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You must be using a new defintion of truth, which really means lie. Perhaps you are taking classes from the Clinton school?

How about this? You say that the majority was satisfied with the Constitution, but the propertied class didn't even believe what you believe. Otherwise, it's obivous that they would have put it up to popular vote for every American.