Is it time for the US to reinstate the draft?

[Pekka]

az well it doesn't work even after your help! THANKS A LOT!

[Az]

Did you really do anything from the stuff we told you to check?

[Pekka]

I checked out the spark plugs, they were OK.. what else.. OH eYEAH! Check out the injection.. Now how the hell am I supposed to do that?!? Come fix my car!

[Az]

Sure thing, I've got the tickets already.

Don't you have a towing service included in your insurance? use it to tow the car to a mechanic.

[Pekka]

Yes, because that is so cheap.

I can't afford it. YES I KNOW INSURANCE. I can't afford to pay for their little bonus system prices. So what good is it if I can't even pay for the minimum. Because it's the law, I have to have one.

[OzzyKP]

Hell no! We won't go!




Maybe if you wanted to go that route we could just draft the retards who thought the war was a good idea in the first place and all the folks who voted for Bush last year. We should have plenty of troops then. May not be the smartest bunch, but they should be able to work a gun alright.

And definitely send all the spineless Senators who voted for the war - of both parties. Send them to the hotspots.

[Sava]

did someone delete my post?

[Sava]

well since my post seems to have vanished...

as long as I don't have to move to canada to avoid going into the military, I don't care how the US gets its troops

however, I am morally opposed to a draft

[Patroklos]

You have to first have morals to be morally opposed to something.

[Whaleboy]

BK and Drake.... I personally would consider a draft to be the most logical course of action, assuming the US is to stay in Iraq. Those that were opposed to the war in 2003, myself included, can be divided now into those who consider the damage to be done and the best course of action being to rebuild the country constructively, and those who, on their own political agenda, just want to pull out and leave them to their own devices. The latter are stupid and should be asked politely to walk off a cliff, because that is exactly what they are suggesting for the people of Iraq.

If we are to avoid another Saddam Hussein and untold human suffering, the US and UK simply have to stay in Iraq. If that means the draft then as long as I'm not involved, it's all good!

[Mr. Harley]

Whaleboy - I enjoy your posts. I've made a serious point, and unlike the pro-Bush auto-response, I am curious as to what you think about my point.

Whether we stay in Iraq or not, Sistani (or al-Sadr) or someone of that ilk will essentially end up running the country. It is going to be Theocratic, the freedom within that theocracy is to me the only issue up for debate.

The Shia are already engaging in their own irregular death squad activity, can you say Paras (as in the paramilitaries organized by the Protestants in Northern Ireland during the troubles). Even with Sistani asking them not to, retaliatory killings have been going on for months. The Shia will NOT let the Sunni win via atrocity, if the Sunni try that you will end up with genocide lite (better known as ethnic cleansing).

So whether we stay there, or not, we end up with a Shia-dominated Arab state that is to a large degree based on Islam, if not totally. So what's the point of us staying? The only one I can see is that having Sistani as the background ruler will mean their is more freedom in Iraq, as he appears to truly be a man of Allah. Which means woman and non-Muslims, as well as Sunni, will be second class citizens, and he only vets the most important candidates - as well as all the judges.

If there is a Civil War/bloodbath, someone lik al-Sadr, who is also power hungry as well as fanatical almost may well come to power. This guarantees an Iran-esque theocracy. Do you honestly believe that is worth the sacrifice of more American boys - and now girls - over there? I personally don't, but I am interested in your different, and I am quite sure, reasoned perspective .

[Sava]

Originally posted by Patroklos
You have to first have morals to be morally opposed to something.

0/10

a lack of morality would mean I would be a robot or something...

evil people still have morals, just different ones...

it helps to have above a second grade education if you want to insult people

try again next time

[Whaleboy]

So whether we stay there, or not, we end up with a Shia-dominated Arab state that is to a large degree based on Islam, if not totally. So what's the point of us staying?

It's a very good point. I suppose it's all a question of degree... a theocratic, fundamentalist Muslim state, as opposed to Western-style democracy (a system, let's not forget, that has numerous problems of its own), is perhaps inevitable. Could it be a system like that in, say, Lebanon, which we don't hear about on the news too often so it can't be inhumane... or something a whole lot more despotic?

Premise 1 is that the presence of US/UK troops can help prevent the latter. As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out there for numerous reasons but I digress.

Premise 2 is that US/UK extended presence will require more troops, hence the present discussion on the draft. WRT your earlier point, I think it's a good one. The draft can't be cheap of course but there's no way to avoid higher taxes unless the US treasury deficit becomes more insane. I know nothing about the military but I presume that a highly trained, professional soldier is a better bet in Iraq than a civilian with a carbine. I would imagine the draft would only be effective militarily speaking when what is required are large numbers of people on the ground. This returns to premise one, whereby we should discuss whether that would helpful here.

Assuming the US/UK can help, we can expect more of our boys lives to be lost... that's a given. You asked whether any benefit in Iraq would be worth the cost? From the point of view of the soldiers and their families, most certainly not... after all some abstract c0ck-up several time-zones away doesn't matter so much to a mother who's just lost her son.

Historically speaking on the other hand, and with the benefit of not personally knowing anyone out in Iraq, it would be perfect if we could pull out and everything would be fine and dandy but that's not going to happen. I'm a firm believer in nations and governments cleaning up their own mess... be it social breakdown at home, environmental damage, or silly wars. It may sound brutal but history would probably not be so harsh on the US and UK if they cleared up their own mess in Iraq... after all, it would be silly to deny that it was their own doing.

[:) Smiley]

From a recent Poly "Here is something to think about"

If at first you don't succeed, try again

If again you don't succeed, redefine success.

The situation has gotten to the point that many people don't expect Iraq to turn into anything other than a mess, so the political cost of getting out is less than that of drafting troops.

As for the economic costs, it goes without saying that getting out makes sense.

[Mr. Harley]

Thanks Whaleboy. I think I see your point, and the critical disagreement I have with it. I do not consider myself or family members responsible for what Bush and the misguided, or greedy (he'll cut my taxes whining), or stupid voters (Changing horses analogy types) who put him in have achieved.

It's bad enough that I will end up paying a hefty surcharge on way or another to pay for his little adventure. I consider it part and parcel of living in a mostly democratic Republic. But to then be forced to serve, or to have those I love compelled to serve for something they are opposed to, and have opposed from the start - that would be intolerable.

I think Dis posted either here or in another thread - I am staying up way to late to post here - about riots and 'Nam. Now I understand why Vthe US had them during the Vietnam conflict, and here we don't. Those in opposition are not being forced to serve.

I think the protests would be violent if Bush was using his Secret Service screen and local law enforcment to marginalize protestors as he has consistantly done, and they had been burying coerced family members. The money gets people irritated, the dead family member gets them enraged - and bitter, which can even be more dangerous. Those are the people who can walk up out of a crowd with no warning and assassinate a politician.

BTW, I used to have a similar opinion to yours, but once I realized no matter what we did, we end up with another religious Muslim pseudo-theocarcy - in the best case! - that's when my opinion changed. Thanks for the reply.