Support NeoGAF

[Andy787]

The are all 'We Support the Troops' and no one want to look like they are against 'freedom' but, they don't want to pay for 'freedom' with their own kids.

You shouldn't have to pay for freedom.

 

[FightyF]

You shouldn't have to pay for freedom.

Freedom isn't free.

 

[sans_pants]

Actually, no, it doesn't. But thanks for playing.

actually, if you knew anything i was pointing out his obvious generalization and showing that i can do the same

 

[xsarien]

actually, if you knew anything i was pointing out his obvious generalization and showing that i can do the same

And how is that? If there are people out there whose support of the war is so ardent, so passionate, so serious, then they have two options: Enlist, or stop calling anti-war protesters unpatriotic. Entertainers who from the beginning, have been against the war should...what, exactly? Having them join the military wouldn't do much in the way of validating their beliefs.

I'd also pay good money for every SUV in the country to be stripped of its waving, plastic American flag/war support ribbon/whatever. I refuse to believe that the owners can't see the subtle irony of it all.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

i say draft all the actors and musicians and the kids that listen to their political babble

it goes both ways pal

No, dice.

I can respect (not necessarily agree with) someone who says I don't support the war and I don't want myself or my family to be a part of it.

I can respect (not necessarily agree with) someone who says I do support the war and if need be I want myself or my family to be a part of it.

I can't respect (or agree with) someone who says they support Bush and the war but, I don't want myself or my family to be a part of it.

Unfortunately we have less of the first two and more of the thrid. Now-a-days everyone loves freedom as long as they don't have to give anythng up for it.

 

[Boogie]

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf
-George Orwell

War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself
-John Stuart Mill


Okay, maybe not quite applicable to the current argument, but I just like any excuse to post those two quotes

 

[ConfusingJazz]

No, dice.

I can respect (not necessarily agree with) someone who says I don't support the war and I don't want myself or my family to be a part of it.

I can respect (not necessarily agree with) someone who says I do support the war and if need be I want myself or my family to be a part of it.

I can't respect (or agree with) someone who says they support Bush and the war but, I don't want myself or my family to be a part of it.

Unfortunately we have less of the first two and more of the thrid. Now-a-days everyone loves freedom as long as they don't have to give anythng up for it.

I think Tommie should be dubbed "Official GAF Smackdown Artist of All Things Iraq"

 

[ShadowRed]

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf
-George Orwell

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf, when others threaten or become a threat to them. Not because rich people want to take the resources of other people.
-ShadowRed

 

[Boogie]

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf, when others threaten or become a threat to them. Not because rich people want to take the resources of other people.
-ShadowRed

Not denying that

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

I think Tommie should be dubbed "Official GAF Smackdown Artist of All Things Iraq"

I don't know about all that. I'm just a regular guy in an irregular circumstance. I don't know my thoughts and feelings have changed since I have been out here. Before I left I would paint myself squarely in the M. Moore variant of an American. On the top level I came here because I wanted to 'report' how fucked up things were. But, as I've been here and I've met Marines and Soliders as people as humans that have thoughts and views just as dirvergent as the American population my view has changed. While I still hold my core beliefs on the intent of the administration, I have much less ire for the people sent to do the work. As a matter of fact I have a lot of respect for them becasue these young guys have been tasked with a shitty job and they have lost friends to this war but at the same time they can still laugh and smile. It's amazing to see how people have made the best of things in the worst of situations. At the same time this war is like no other war. I mean every Solider has a TV and a PS2/Xbox/GCube, they can get online, they have ipods, the have torrents of everything that comes on TV I mean besides family every modern convience is afforded to them. They live better than anyother solider in the history of warfare. So it's a crazy place to be.

 

[Rorschach]

Ugh...the last thing California needs is someone from the 909 representing it.

 

[Deleted member 4784]

I find it funny how in one topic, everyone is laughing about how unfoundingly "alarmist" these federal ads are about the perceived terrorist threat; whereas in this topic, everyone is stopping short of pissing their pants over the extreme unlikelihood that the US enacts a draft. :lol

 

[NLB2]

I find it funny how in one topic, everyone is laughing about how unfoundingly "alarmist" these federal ads are about the perceived terrorist threat; whereas in this topic, everyone is stopping short of pissing their pants over the extreme unlikelihood that the US enacts a draft. :lol

Funny until you realize your boyfriend is tons more likely to get drafted and die in Iraq than to die in a terrorist attack.

 

[Andy787]

Freedom isn't free.

It should be.

War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself
-John Stuart Mill

It is not a question of what is worth war. You should not have to choose between war or a concequence. If killing and taking another man's life makes you a better man than me, I certainly do not want to be your idea of a better man.

And yes, I've read those quotes playing Call of Duty, too, but just because they sound wise and dignified does not make them right.

 

[Error Macro]

It should be.

Theoretically, yes. Realistically impossible.

If lives were not expended to gain freedom, we would be under the rule of [insert country of choice] right now.

 

[demon]

Yeah, but the danger in that is the government using "freedom isn't free!" as a free ticket to tell its citizens to pack up and go to war and die for whatever cause the government wishes. This war being a perfect example. If they want to tell me my freedom lies in the balance of the outcome of this war, they can get on their knees and blow me, those lying fuckers. And if they try and force me to fight for such a bullshit cause, then this country has become one not worth fighting for, and I'm outta here for good.

 

[Deleted member 4784]

Funny until you realize your boyfriend is tons more likely to get drafted and die in Iraq than to die in a terrorist attack.

I believe that the likelihood of each of those circumstances -- as well as your comparative conclusion -- are both highly debatable. IMO, another terrorist attack is far more likely of an event to take place than the occurrence of a draft.

Those of us who are in the US honestly don't know how easy we have it here. Most other countries require that their youth serve some term of military service once they become of age and there's no way around it in some cases other than death. On the other hand, we have "men" here who would cower at the prospect of a draft when our country may need us most, regardless of the circumstances or politics that may surround the issue; which I find rather pathetic.

Also, in response to your hypothetical situation, my sister served in the first Persian Gulf War. If they were going to draft anybody, then it would be those such as herself who had formerly served in Iraq and possessed military training/experience. Regardless, I still believe that a draft is outside the realm of possibility at this point in time.

 

[Error Macro]

Yeah, but the danger in that is the government using "freedom isn't free!" as a free ticket to tell its citizens to pack up and go to war and die for whatever cause the government wishes. This war being a perfect example. If they want to tell me my freedom lies in the balance of the outcome of this war, they can get on their knees and blow me, those lying fuckers. And if they try and force me to fight for such a bullshit cause, then this country has become one not worth fighting for, and I'm outta here for good.

Well, they can use whatever marketable means to package a draft, but at the core, the statement "freedom isn't free" is essentially true. That's all I'm saying.

Now, the validity of human sacrifice for any number of reasons is a different subject entirely. I honestly doubt that there will be a draft of any kind, short of entering WWIII. Politicians have been using the fear of a draft as a tool for ages.

 

[demon]

Well, they can use whatever marketable means to package a draft, but at the core, the statement "freedom isn't free" is essentially true. That's all I'm saying.

Yeah I agree. I'm just saying it doesn't necessarily apply to conscription.

 

[NLB2]

I believe that the likelihood of each of those circumstances -- as well as your comparative conclusion -- are both highly debatable. IMO, another terrorist attack is far more likely of an event to take place than the occurrence of a draft.

From the pictures you posted in that thread, I'm assuming you're somewhere between the ages of 17 and 23. Compare how many 17-23 year old American men have died in terrorist attacks to the number that have died in war.

And what makes you believe that another terorist attack is more likely to occur than a draft? I say a draft is more likely to occur since in the time between September 11, 2001, we've had zero terrorist attacks but two foreign wars that have shown the US that its current strength is not enough to occupy a hostile, foreign nation.

Those of us who are in the US honestly don't know how easy we have it here. Most other countries require that their youth serve some term of military service once they become of age and there's no way around it in some cases other than death. On the other hand, we have "men" here who would cower at the prospect of a draft when our country may need us most, regardless of the circumstances or politics that may surround the issue; which I find rather pathetic.

Oh, but I'm sure you know how easy we have it compared to other nations. Most other countries have mandatory military service? Where'd you get that fact from? The only countries I know of that have mandatory military service are Israel, Turkey, and Slovakia. Many nations have a draft but don't use them at all times.

 

[Kabuki Waq]

wtf how does it work both ways? one side DOESNT BELIEVE IN THIS WAR the Other beilieves in it. I want to see how many ppl who believe in this war are willing to risk the lives of their own.

 

[demon]

NLB is right...

Those of us who are in the US honestly don't know how easy we have it here. Most other countries require that their youth serve some term of military service once they become of age and there's no way around it in some cases other than death. On the other hand, we have "men" here who would cower at the prospect of a draft when our country may need us most, regardless of the circumstances or politics that may surround the issue; which I find rather pathetic.

This is bullshit. Not only is it entirely untrue that most countries have mandatory military service, but even if it were so, how would that make it right? You're not a "man" if you're not willing to give up your way of life and risk your life for a bullshit war built on lies and deception that has no real bearing on our "freedom"? Just shut up. Not to mention the ridiculous fallacy that the US has freedoms unsurpassed by any other country anyway; and the countries I'm referring to, to my knowledge, do not have mandatory military service by the way.

Until this country's freedom and way of life are actually in danger, let alone to the point of necessitating forcing its citizens to go to war, you have no place saying how the "men" (what about women?) of this country would respond to a justifiable, warrented draft.

 

[Deleted member 4784]

The numbers of those who have died in wars in contrast to those who have died in terrorist attacks are irrelevant in bearing upon the probability and likelihood of a draft being enacted.

The last terrorist act to take place on American soil was 9/11, but following that event we've seen terrorist acts all over the world from school children being held hostage in Russia to buses being blown up in Spain. This makes the likelihood of a future terrorist threat conceivable; especially since attempts have already been made and foiled in the past upon the Brooklyn Bridge. On the other hand, I don't believe that I need to list the insurmountable differences between the circumstances we have been dealt in Iraq now to what we faced decades ago in Vietnam when the draft was last enacted. All of these considerations make the statistics further with us than against us in the likelihood of a draft being mandated.

You're also leaving out South Korea, Switzerland, Germany, Hungary and Taiwan among a number of other countries in your list. The above are simply those that I can list off the top of my head since I have friends in those countries going into the military; I'm sure there are quite a few others. Regardless, my point is that there are still a number of modernized countries in this world that require military service.

 

[Azih]

The article that started this thread has a point of info that *is* new and makes a draft more likely. And that is the armed forces failure to get the recruits they need. At that's in an era where the U.S millitary has gone on a complete advertising biltz. Man I can't go to gamefaqs anymore without having some sort of eagle all up in my face*.

As for Canada. hrm. It's complicated. On one hand Prime Minister Martin doesn't want to antagonize America any further after the whole Missile Defence thing. So any deserters or such like will get shipped back (the poor guys currently fighting extradition don't have a chance IMO. Unless their judge decides to get all cute. :lol That'd be a fun time for sure). But the severe negative reaction from the implementation of a draft will swing Canadian public opinion almost completely in favour of the draft dodgers and Martin can't take a stand against that.

Plus y'know a whole buncha young, mostly well educated, English speakers willing to work or at least spend up here ain't exactly the worst thing in the world. Hell from a tourism/immigration prespective it's a godsend.



*Exaggeration**
**Slight exaggeration

 

[AntoneM]

here is a list of nations with mandatory military service, I don't know for how long the service is nor do I know how intense it is. There are 87 countries with mandatory service (there are 193 countries in the world if you include Taiwan)

Albania
Algeria
Angola
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Benin
Bermuda
Bhutan
Bolivia
Brazil
Bulgaria
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chile
China(selective)
Colombia
Democratic Republic of Congo
Cote d’Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Finland
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Guinea
Guinea Bissau
Hungary
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Italy
Kazakhstan
North Korea
South Korea
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Libya
Lithuania
Macedonia
Madagascar
Mali
Mexico
Moldova
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Norway
Paraguay
Peru
Phillipines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Senegal
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Sudan
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
Venezuela
Viet Nam
Yemen
Yugoslavia

 

[Dilbert]

Oh, but I'm sure you know how easy we have it compared to other nations. Most other countries have mandatory military service? Where'd you get that fact from? The only countries I know of that have mandatory military service are Israel, Turkey, and Slovakia. Many nations have a draft but don't use them at all times.

There are plenty of others, and it's not hard to find that data -- for instance, in this list from Wikipedia. The CIA World Factbook also would have provided you that info quite readily.

And what makes you believe that another terorist attack is more likely to occur than a draft? I say a draft is more likely to occur since in the time between September 11, 2001, we've had zero terrorist attacks but two foreign wars that have shown the US that its current strength is not enough to occupy a hostile, foreign nation.

Well, if you're going to play THAT game, I might point out that in the same time span, we've had zero terrorist incidents and zero drafts. (Which, by the way, is an equally useless observation.) Until either one of you produces some quality analysis about which factors you're using, and how you've quantitatively measured them, I'll just assume you're both talking out of your ass with "likelihoods."

Those of us who are in the US honestly don't know how easy we have it here. Most other countries require that their youth serve some term of military service once they become of age and there's no way around it in some cases other than death.

This is true. However, it is somewhat of an unfair comparison, since there are very few nations with similarly-scaled requirements for national defense. Many nations have a military which is closer to a militia than a standing force, and in those contexts, the type of mandatory service for youth makes a lot more sense.

On the other hand, we have "men" here who would cower at the prospect of a draft when our country may need us most, regardless of the circumstances or politics that may surround the issue; which I find rather pathetic.

Don't ever confuse courage with willingness. I have no doubt that many men could accept a draft and distinguish themselves in service, regardless of their prior background. However, the circumstances and politics are EXACTLY the issue. The last time I checked, people had an obligation to refuse immoral commands.

 

[Crag Dweller]

The last time I checked, people had an obligation to refuse immoral commands.

But, would being required to enter a draft be an immoral command? The burden of proof for that defense would require more than saying "the gov't lied about WMD".

 

[NLB2]

There are plenty of others, and it's not hard to find that data -- for instance, in this list from Wikipedia. The CIA World Factbook also would have provided you that info quite readily.

I'm in awe of your ability to locate information. Its very impressive.

Well, if you're going to play THAT game, I might point out that in the same time span, we've had zero terrorist incidents and zero drafts. (Which, by the way, is an equally useless observation.) Until either one of you produces some quality analysis about which factors you're using, and how you've quantitatively measured them, I'll just assume you're both talking out of your ass with "likelihoods."

Ok, let's look at situations that the United States has been in that are similar to Iraq (that is occupying a hostile nation).

Vietnam (area: 329,560 sq km, population 82,689,518 currently, I could not find a population estimate for the war years) War - A draft was in place from the beggining of the war unti 1973. The number of deployed troops at the height of the war was 750,000.

Korean War (Korea's area is roughly 219,020) - A draft was in place for the duration of the war. Can't find any numbers for the number of American troops that were in Korea. Help please, -jinx-.

Iraq War (Iraq's area is 437,072 sq km. Population is estimated at 25,374,691)
There's been no draft, but the troop level is being held at 120,000.

Of course weaponry advancements have made troops more effective at fighting now than they were 30 to 50 years ago, there are still a relatively small number of troops in Iraq. Will there be a draft? I don't know, I personally doubt it, however, by looking at these statistics one can tell that, had this war been in a time when a draft was less of place where policians dared not travel, there may very well have been one.

 

[Dilbert]

You're still missing the essential point. The decision to initiate a draft is not automatically triggered by some US soldier-per-square-mile-and-or-native-population metric. The decision to initiate a draft is predicated on primarily POLITICAL reasons. Politicians would need to trade off the military necessity versus the consequences to their careers.

The other thing to consider is that Vietnam has had lasting consequences on American political thought. Given how much anger exists even today over how many were killed or wounded fighting a proxy war in a country whose citizens generally didn't want us there, I don't see how a modern day political leader can even HINT at a draft without somehow making the connection to American goals more concrete. Given the way the polls have been running about the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, I don't see that happening.

To put it another way: If faced with the choice to either a) start a draft so that we can invade Country #3 or b) not invade and find another way to deal with the situation, what makes you so sure that the second one isn't possible, or even more likely? There are other major limiting factors to our ability to prosecute another war, and people probably isn't the major one. Have you noticed how much we're spending in Iraq and Afghanistan? And have you noticed that we CAN'T pay for it?

 

[NLB2]

You're still missing the essential point. The decision to initiate a draft is not automatically triggered by some US soldier-per-square-mile-and-or-native-population metric. The decision to initiate a draft is predicated on primarily POLITICAL reasons. Politicians would need to trade off the military necessity versus the consequences to their careers.

The other thing to consider is that Vietnam has had lasting consequences on American political thought. Given how much anger exists even today over how many were killed or wounded fighting a proxy war in a country whose citizens generally didn't want us there, I don't see how a modern day political leader can even HINT at a draft without somehow making the connection to American goals more concrete. Given the way the polls have been running about the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, I don't see that happening.

To put it another way: If faced with the choice to either a) start a draft so that we can invade Country #3 or b) not invade and find another way to deal with the situation, what makes you so sure that the second one isn't possible, or even more likely? There are other major limiting factors to our ability to prosecute another war, and people probably isn't the major one. Have you noticed how much we're spending in Iraq and Afghanistan? And have you noticed that we CAN'T pay for it?

I would think that option b is more likely. However, my original statement was that it is probably more likely for American men around the ages of 18 to 25 to be drafted and die in a foreign war than it is for them to die in a terrorist attack. Why do I think this? Because al Qaeda has shown absolutely no ability to attack the United States since September 11th and there is no reason to think they will launch another succesful attack (due in part, no doubt, to the actions of American soldiers in Afghanistan) and because al Qaeda's previous terrorist attacks have been on an age demographic older than the one that would be called upon in time of a draft. Although there is not much reason to suspect a draft to be implemented, it is something that I personally fear far more than a terrorist attack.

Oh, and I agree that it would be nearly political suicide to start a draft.

 

[Dilbert]

Because al Qaeda has shown absolutely no ability to attack the United States since September 11th and there is no reason to think they will launch another succesful attack (due in part, no doubt, to the actions of American soldiers in Afghanistan) and because al Qaeda's previous terrorist attacks have been on an age demographic older than the one that would be called upon in time of a draft.

Just because they -- or another group -- hasn't attacked recently, what makes you so sure that they can't, or that their ability to do so has been diminished? And exactly how have the actions of the U.S. military in Afghanistan made our country safer from terrorism?

 

[NLB2]

Just because they -- or another group -- hasn't attacked recently, what makes you so sure that they can't, or that their ability to do so has been diminished? And exactly how have the actions of the U.S. military in Afghanistan made our country safer from terrorism?

If al Qaeda or any other terrorist group could attack us, why haven't they? Certainly it takes time to prepare and execute an attack, but for a group that is supposedly at war with the United States, al Qaeda sure is taking their time.

Although I certainly don't know the effect that the war in Iraq has had on al Qaeda, I can't imagine it has helped them all too much.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

CORRECT!

We would've also accepted "People don't want to fight in a war they don't believe in" or "People don't trust this administration".

The reason quoted was bunk, (it's the Army! That's what it does; fight! Duh.), but the other two have alot more weight behind them.

You're still missing the essential point. The decision to initiate a draft is not automatically triggered by some US soldier-per-square-mile-and-or-native-population metric. The decision to initiate a draft is predicated on primarily POLITICAL reasons. Politicians would need to trade off the military necessity versus the consequences to their careers.

The other thing to consider is that Vietnam has had lasting consequences on American political thought. Given how much anger exists even today over how many were killed or wounded fighting a proxy war in a country whose citizens generally didn't want us there, I don't see how a modern day political leader can even HINT at a draft without somehow making the connection to American goals more concrete. Given the way the polls have been running about the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, I don't see that happening.

To put it another way: If faced with the choice to either a) start a draft so that we can invade Country #3 or b) not invade and find another way to deal with the situation, what makes you so sure that the second one isn't possible, or even more likely? There are other major limiting factors to our ability to prosecute another war, and people probably isn't the major one. Have you noticed how much we're spending in Iraq and Afghanistan? And have you noticed that we CAN'T pay for it?

A) Bush has "a mandate". However, he also has no troops to pull it off, and not a prayer in hell of shoving a draft bill thru Congress in 3 1/2 years to end that.

B) The UN won't, nor can't; especially now with a stepped up presence in many hotspots in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kosovo, etc. I'm hoping he'll give verbal support to the burgeoning youth of some of the potential targets' disgust for the regimes instead.

I'm guessing bases thruout Germany and in quiet corners of the globe would be curtailed before any draft plan even being announced; talk has been of trimming the Cold War installations since the Clinton administration.

 

[Dilbert]

If al Qaeda or any other terrorist group could attack us, why haven't they? Certainly it takes time to prepare and execute an attack, but for a group that is supposedly at war with the United States, al Qaeda sure is taking their time.

So you're arguing that because al Qaeda (or another group) HASN'T attacked, that they CAN'T attack? Especially a group which is known for picking particular dates of significance? Sorry, but I'm not convinced at all.

As for the war in Iraq, that wasn't a base of operations for al Qaeda. Iraq had NOTHING TO DO with 9/11. There are terrorist cells all over the world. Attacking one place (Afghanistan) doesn't keep any of the other cells from striking.

 

[NLB2]

So you're arguing that because al Qaeda (or another group) HASN'T attacked, that they CAN'T attack? Especially a group which is known for picking particular dates of significance? Sorry, but I'm not convinced at all.

As for the war in Iraq, that wasn't a base of operations for al Qaeda. Iraq had NOTHING TO DO with 9/11. There are terrorist cells all over the world. Attacking one place (Afghanistan) doesn't keep any of the other cells from striking.

Oh yeah, Iraq has nothing to do with al Qaeda, no doubt.
But al Qaeda's had 3 and half years to find another significant date but still no attack. I personally don't think one is coming. (But at this point, we're both arguing from assumptions and not really from any tangible information, so I'm gonna stop)

 

[Dilbert]

Oh yeah, Iraq has nothing to do with al Qaeda, no doubt.
But al Qaeda's had 3 and half years to find another significant date but still no attack. I personally don't think one is coming. (But at this point, we're both arguing from assumptions and not really from any tangible information, so I'm gonna stop)

Well, the initial attack on the World Trade Center was 1993, so it took them eight years to strike it again. As for overseas attacks, Khobar Towers was 1996, attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were 1998, and the bombing of the USS Cole was 2000.

Given that the level of difficulty involved in pulling off an attack on U.S. soil went up considerably after 9/11, three-and-a-half years isn't an unreasonable gap.