Originally posted by OC_James:
Don't get me wrong, Canada's a nice country and all but I'd really start to miss all my family and friends.

Yeah...friends, family, Spanish as a second language instead of French.

OC made me think of a few questions:

• Would there be any circumstances where those who object to fighting would fight?  Say, for the sake of argument, that the Holocaust was happening in this day and age.  Would you still object to fighting?
• Is it the killing that's feared or the increased chance of being killed?  Don't get me wrong, killing is an antisocial action and there should really never come a time when anyone becomes accustomed to it.  The same goes for dying in Western society.  Most people in our society are in denial of death until it sets in upon them.
• If the government did decide to institute the draft, and you were given the options of fighting, taking a non-combative military position, or fleeing the country, which would you choose?

I'm not trying to imply anything.  I just want to better understand the opposing position (don't worry, you don't need to do the same).

In response to you questions DrT. I would fight for a just cause. It would have to be something that couldn't be resolved by any other means. The "war on terror" (in my opinion) could be avoided by the west being a little more understanding of the Arab's wants and needs.
However if, for example, the US started going a bit Adolf and gassing Muslims, invading its neigbours and bombing Europe, then I would fight for the freedoms and rights of those being persecuted if diplomatic channels had failed.

I would find killing easier than dying, I think. Fear of losing my own life for another's cause that I didn't believe in, would put a large dampener on my enthusiasm.

As for the draft choice, again it would depend on the reasons.
I would ideally take up a non-combatative role if I could offer a service that others couldn't. But I would lay my life on the line for the right reasons. If I disagreed with the reasoning (like the war on terror) I would just leave. I hold no special attachment to my country, the place is going to the H word in a handbasket, I would leave if the conditions were right (I would leave now if I could afford to get citizenship in Newzealand or Australia and live comfortably at the other end).

That is my stance.

T

 

Originally posted by David A:
 What if what the dog wants is to use you as a chew toy?

A bad analogy, but I get what you are saying.
Dogs chew things to keep their teeth and jaws healthy. I doubt the Arab world needs to bomb Western interests to remain healthy.

What the west needs to ask itself is "Why are the terrorists attacking us?". Movements like this don't start without reason. Once the movement has momentum, then it can carry on without reason as it starts to attract people looking for an excuse to hurt others.
But if you remove the reason for the movement, then the extremists will not have popular support.

Look at the Palestinian terrorist groups. In an area where the Palestinians are repressed and denied basic education and healthcare, people like Hizbolah (sp?) not only bomb Israeli busses but provide education and hospital facilities for the people. This gains them popular support and the movement will not die while the people back it.
See it from their point of view. Israel attacks and kills the leaders and supporters of the movement that provides their children's education and healthcare, in our world, that is the government and the voters.

I am not saying that all terrorist organisations are like this, but this is the way that some operate.

All terrorist organisations have supporters and these supporters lend their support for a reason. They feel that they are stiking back at their victims for some past grievance or wrongdoing. If these issues are addressed then the support will dry up and you will be left with a bunch of angry extremists without money to make bombs with.

I suspect that a fair chunk of the Arab world sees US support (nigh on unconditional support) of Israel's actions and military as funding a different kind of terrorism. What did Bush call it? State sponsored terrorism.
These people then fight back using any means they can against a threat to their way of life and existance.

The war on terror will not be won with acts of violence, for every time a family is bombed, another ten take up the flag. The actions of the US (and the blind support of the UK) only generate more terrorist sympathisers determined to make a stand against the percieved neo-imperialism of the West.

T

 

Originally posted by David A:
I wasn't making an analogy, Torque.  I was sharing a private joke with Dr. T.   

Ooops. Sorry.
I will shut up now.
 

 

Originally posted by DrThunder88:Would there be any circumstances where those who object to fighting would fight?  Say, for the sake of argument, that the Holocaust was happening in this day and age.  Would you still object to fighting?

I'd fight if my family or my freedom were directly threatened.  I'd fight if some Hitler-esque figure was threatening the world and committing serious war crimes.  But I don't believe the current situation in the Middle East comes under either of those headings.

 

Is it the killing that's feared or the increased chance of being killed?  Don't get me wrong, killing is an antisocial action and there should really never come a time when anyone becomes accustomed to it.  The same goes for dying in Western society.  Most people in our society are in denial of death until it sets in upon them.

It's not particularly the threat of dying that bothers me.  F1 is dangerous, but I'd jump at the chance to drive in an F1 car.  And while I don't particularly want to go round killing people, I would if I was under attack.

 

If the government did decide to institute the draft, and you were given the options of fighting, taking a non-combative military position, or fleeing the country, which would you choose?

If the cause was really worth fighting for, I'd like to think I'd enlist without requiring a draft, although my health problems would probably limit me to at best a non-combative position.

As for skipping the country, is France really the best place to be during a war?

1. I think Fred got it right when he said "I'd fight if my family or my freedom were directly threatened." But that's the only time I would fight.

2. Being killed wouldn't be a problem for me. If it's my time, it's my time. I just couldn't have murder on my conscience, even if I didn't know/couldn't tell if I actually killed someone.

3. I'm not radical enough to skip the country, so non-combative position it is. I know I'd have to deal with certain people yelling at me for being "too good to fight," but I guess that's the price I'd pay to not have to kill.

 

Originally posted by TheMadCapper:
2 - for an eleven year old you use some nasty language. You'll present a better argument if you bother to use less crass language.

That's not possible for an 11-year old, TMC. They have to use crass language at all times or be denounced by their peers as "childish".

you socalists...jeezus...until this ends up on michael moore's website or some major news website, I don't believe your communist agendas! O-Þ

EDIT: besides, I've had 7 major surgeries, so I'd be exempt! HA!

Course, I'd care if my friends got drafted...
------------------

Please edit your sig to 120 pixel height max.
[This message has been edited by Administrator [-mArc-]

I wouldn't be exempted from a draft. I'd just be drafted, and immediately shot for general uselessness.

Probably an act of heroism.

 

Originally posted by Nurdbot:
Geeze, hopefully your fellow countrymen won't be stupid enough to vote for Bush now.

*Fun Fact* Bush Junior's Grandpappy supported the Nazis. Isn't that just great?

i dont care as long as long as we get bush out.   

 

Originally posted by totalnerduk:
 That's not possible for an 11-year old, TMC. They have to use crass language at all times or be denounced by their peers as "childish".

This sarcasm brought to you by the man who prides himself on saying the dirtyest things on a public message board.

Irony.

"Oh, she's just swearing to be cool. *turns around* Hey, everyone! Look at me! I can swear and say dirty stuff! I'm cool! Give me a custom rank!"

But I digress...

   

Originally posted by El Zilcho:
Irony.

"Oh, she's just swearing to be cool. *turns around* Hey, everyone! Look at me! I can swear and say dirty stuff! I'm cool! Give me a custom rank!"

But I digress...

Shithead, it was never about swearing. It was about innuendo.

And I got the PEELie for most CREATIVE use of profanity, you horsebuggered mingewhipping knackersack.

Besides which, I've always had a filthy foul fucking mouth, for which I make no apologies. But that doesn't mean that I can't be shocked at the endless capacity of children for using such words in their myriad thosuands.

Now go bite your mother's dick.

Or you could dress up in drag.  That works, right?

Actually, dressing up in drag could get you out of the military. They fired Arabic translators because they were gay, so they'll definately fire your transvestite ass.

Actually, I know that in the U.S. they used to kick you out even if you had something as minor as a slight eye problem. I'm not sure if they would keep you out for something that little and easily correctable anymore though.

Go astygmatisms!  Can't see more than two feet without these bad boys!  ::Waves glasses around, breaks them::  Aww.  Now I can'towdgo tyupoer.,

 

Originally posted by Y_L_B:
  Thank you.    *realizes that he was being sacastic* Oh...

1. I know what's going on....up to page 3. I'd forget what I wanted to post if I read the whole thing, because I'm lazy and forgetful.   

2. I'm not trying to convince people with bad language. If you didn't realize, I was mad. I think we all swear when we're mad. I hate the draft, and I thought it was outlawed for good, so why the Hell heck are they bringing it back?

1 - It was mentioned earlier that the whole thing was a Democratic motion, just one they wanted to stir up anti-war sentiment with. Nothing that any party tried to push through into law.

2 - Nothing is TRULY unchangeable, set in stone, permanent in the US's government. The closest thing we have to that is the constitution. And even the constitution is subject to amendment, if enough members of the govt. can be convinced doing so is a good idea. Example - prohibition.
So the draft can't be outlawed for all time.

3 - Just saying, spitting out whatever damn hell shit bitch fuck language you want doesn't impress anyone, just makes people think you're unrefined. And of course, being a crude individual carries a stigma, regarding people's estimation of the value of your input.
Bluntly: Cursing just makes people look dumb, most of the time.

Take me where?