PDA

View Full Version : How do you feel about the draft?



DeDolfan
04-28-2004, 12:42 PM
Just curious about everyones feelings on it. My present thinking is that it's probably not a bad idea.

iceblizzard69
04-28-2004, 04:10 PM
I think it is a terrible idea. The military should be 100% volunteer. If I don't want to join the military, I shouldn't have to. I don't want to fight in some war, I want to go to college.

t2thejz
04-28-2004, 05:26 PM
Do you mean should we start drafting men right now for the war...or how do I feel about it in general?

um_canes02
04-28-2004, 06:16 PM
I dont think the draft is a good idea

iceblizzard69
04-28-2004, 06:24 PM
Do you mean should we start drafting men right now for the war...or how do I feel about it in general?

I know I'm not DeDolfan but do you think the draft should be reinstated? He is pretty much asking what you're feelings are about the draft, and if you think the USA should bring back the draft.

Phinzone
04-29-2004, 04:17 AM
why the hell is it not a bad idea? A Draft is supposed to be a last resort thing. Drafting for WW2 was a must. We were attacked on American soil, with a real threat of being invaded. Had we not intervened, hitler would have taken europe, and eventually us. That was an exception.

Drafting FOR a war gets you into crap like Vietnam. WHY would that be a good idea? Either you have enough to get the job done, or you don't go in there.

And another thing. At present, we have MORE than enough soldiers to fight this war. We could send HALF of the troops in Iraq home, and never ask them to come back, and we could replace it with 2/3 of the current recruitment class, and be stock full of new bodies. Not to mention the millitary is exceeding it's retention goals, which means men are VOLUNTEERING to go back.

So i ask again, how would a draft be a good idea? It's a stupid idea. Your replacing willing soldiers, with guys who don't want ot be there. Guys with only 6 months of training, and who don't want to be there will be leading your millitary. Yeah, really bright idea....

Kamikaze
04-29-2004, 06:27 AM
Ask all the 18-26 year olds (I'm 20, and we're the first to go) in this country if they'd like to be drafted. You'll probably get a very strong "hell no" from most of them. Forcing a gun into a young person's hand against their will, giving them the most basic of combat training, and sending them off to fight in less than a year might as well be a death sentence.

A friend of mine recently joined up with the Marines, and he completed his basic back in March. He's still got a whole lot of training to go still, and when all is said and done I'm fairly sure he'll be a damn good soldier. If he were drafted though, I believe all he would get is maybe some more basic combat training and then off he goes to war, probably to return in a flag-draped coffin.

Should there be a draft, I sure as hell am not going to die for the government. I'd rather stew in a prison cell for a while than kill other young people who are really not all the different from me when you get down to it. A draft is akin to declaring war on young people in America, and is the most clear reason WHY we have the right to vote. Be it John Kerry or George Bush, anyone who forces us to fight a bull**** war does not deserve our vote.

PhinPhan1227
04-29-2004, 10:12 AM
A draft in the WWII or Vietnam sense? No, bad idea. The current military has evolved beyond the need for that kind of draft. Current recruitment quotas are being exceeded, so if the military wants more bodies all they have to do is up the budget. Now, a draft in which kids right out of high school had to spend a couple of years in some kind of civil service...whether it's Military, or Peace Corp, or Whatever...THAT might not be a bad idea. What's actually been proposed is a modified version of this in which kids earn college scholarships for doing a few years in Civil Service. But a traditional Draft? No way. Worse than useless in todays Military.

t2thejz
04-29-2004, 03:54 PM
why the hell is it not a bad idea? A Draft is supposed to be a last resort thing. Drafting for WW2 was a must. We were attacked on American soil, with a real threat of being invaded. Had we not intervened, hitler would have taken europe, and eventually us. That was an exception.

Drafting FOR a war gets you into crap like Vietnam. WHY would that be a good idea? Either you have enough to get the job done, or you don't go in there.

And another thing. At present, we have MORE than enough soldiers to fight this war. We could send HALF of the troops in Iraq home, and never ask them to come back, and we could replace it with 2/3 of the current recruitment class, and be stock full of new bodies. Not to mention the millitary is exceeding it's retention goals, which means men are VOLUNTEERING to go back.

So i ask again, how would a draft be a good idea? It's a stupid idea. Your replacing willing soldiers, with guys who don't want ot be there. Guys with only 6 months of training, and who don't want to be there will be leading your millitary. Yeah, really bright idea....Thats pretty much how I feel

iceblizzard69
04-29-2004, 04:04 PM
. Now, a draft in which kids right out of high school had to spend a couple of years in some kind of civil service...whether it's Military, or Peace Corp, or Whatever...THAT might not be a bad idea.


That's also a horrible idea. I don't want the government telling me what I have to do with my life. When I leave High School, I should have the right to decide if I want to join the Military, or go to College, or whatever. I plan on going to college after I graduate from HS next year and I don't want the government telling me if I can or not.

BigFinFan
04-29-2004, 06:13 PM
iceblizzard99 and kamikaze are two reasons the draft is a horrible idea.

I do not wish to go to war with people who are not willing to give everything they have for the protection of America and everything that she stands for.

I have 18 - 22 year olds working for me and some of these guys and girls are the best sailors in the Navy. They are here because they want to be here - not because they had to be. I have gone into battle with them and I would do it again.

They know that Freedom is not Free and they understand the Latin phrase Non Sibi, Sid Patriae — not for self, but for country.

Sleep well tonight iceblizzard99 and kamikaze - we are protecting you!

iceblizzard69
04-29-2004, 08:59 PM
iceblizzard99 and kamikaze are two reasons the draft is a horrible idea.

I do not wish to go to war with people who are not willing to give everything they have for the protection of America and everything that she stands for.

I have 18 - 22 year olds working for me and some of these guys and girls are the best sailors in the Navy. They are here because they want to be here - not because they had to be. I have gone into battle with them and I would do it again.

They know that Freedom is not Free and they understand the Latin phrase Non Sibi, Sid Patriae — not for self, but for country.

Sleep well tonight iceblizzard99 and kamikaze - we are protecting you!

I love this country because we have freedom. We have the freedom to do what we want, and I agree with you that the draft is not a good idea. I have a distant relative who is in the army, and I think that those who serve in the Armed Forces are heroes. However, serving in the Armed Forces just doesn't interest me. The great thing about our military is that it is 100% volunteer, those who are in the Armed Forces are there because they choose to be, not because they are forced to be there.

PhinPhan1227
04-30-2004, 09:15 AM
That's also a horrible idea. I don't want the government telling me what I have to do with my life. When I leave High School, I should have the right to decide if I want to join the Military, or go to College, or whatever. I plan on going to college after I graduate from HS next year and I don't want the government telling me if I can or not.


As I said, it's not just the military, ANY public/civil service. And it's not "your life", it's two years of your life. And quite honestly, with very few exceptions, no 17-18 year old actually knows what they want to do with their lives anyway. "Go to college" covers a HECK of a lot of ground. After 2 years in the real world you'd probably spend less money changing majors 3 times in the 4-7 years it took you to graduate.. ;)

DeDolfan
05-01-2004, 12:53 PM
Actually, I guess it was time to 'fess up. My basic reason for starting this thread was to get the reactions from all the "rightist extremists" that seem to frequent this forum, til now, anyway. I wasn't surpised with any responses as I was about the responders. But the ones I refer to are the far out right folks that are sooo for this war and I'm quite sutprised that neither have responded, which makes draw the conclusion that they are for this war as long as THEY don't have to go. Let's face it, we/they can't have it both ways............. in any war, sooner or later we'll have to start replacing folks over there. Word is that there are enough volunteers at the moment to resupply with. Somethings gotta give. :(

Phinzone
05-02-2004, 01:52 PM
Actually, I guess it was time to 'fess up. My basic reason for starting this thread was to get the reactions from all the "rightist extremists" that seem to frequent this forum, til now, anyway. I wasn't surpised with any responses as I was about the responders. But the ones I refer to are the far out right folks that are sooo for this war and I'm quite sutprised that neither have responded, which makes draw the conclusion that they are for this war as long as THEY don't have to go. Let's face it, we/they can't have it both ways............. in any war, sooner or later we'll have to start replacing folks over there. Word is that there are enough volunteers at the moment to resupply with. Somethings gotta give. :\(


I'm assuming you meant to say there aren't enough people to replace our soldier with?

And that's a flat out lie. We could send HALF of the soldiers in Iraq home right now, and never bring them back, and it woul donly take 2/3 of our incoming recruits to replace them, cycle that per year, and you have a one year rotation per troop. Also, their EXCEEDING their retention goals. More people are signing up for extra tours than they originally hope for.

That's where the problem of this draft comes in. Their not talking about it as a necessity. We have the troops to fight the war. THeir talking about it to "spread" the weight of the war across all social classes. Which is complete bull **** as well. We all know their not going to sent THEIR kids to war, what will happen is their going to send college students that are working towards a degree to war, and call it good. Because their obviously rich upper class right?

This war is fought largely by career soldiers, and people trying to pay for college, not the poor people who got yanked into the service because they were too poor to go to college.

Currently, we have a volunteer army. I don't see how they can say it's fought by the lower class. After gradutation, either people go to work, or they go to college. Some go to work for hte millitar, others go to the millitary to pay for college. This isn't nam, where the people too poor to go to school HAD to go to war, this is on a volunteer basis, and no more "lower" class citizens are forced to fight this war than want to.

And I considered a lower class citizen, however I've worked VERY hard to get where I'm at. I spent 6 years getting my architecture degree, and am currently working on my masters.

Phinphan, I wasn't 30 until I became an architect. I spent 6 years in school, and 3 years required to do an internship, and then had to pass a 2 week test. How can you say "it's not your life"? Think about your chosen career, how badly would 2 years set you back? You get your family started 2 years later, you don't get your job until 2 years later, and thus, benefits start later, your not making as much today as you would be, because your 2 years behind on raises, etc. etc. etc. Architecture students have NINE years before their architects generally, and adding another 2 years makes that 11. Doctors, even worse, and not that I care about lawyers, but they have a hell of a lot of schooling to do too. I don't see how anyone can consider 2 years as not being a big deal for anyone. I'm sorry, but I would have been 32 by the time i STARTED my career as an architect. That is what I would consider bull ****. I can do a whole lot more good by going into my chosen profession, than taking stock in a warehouse for 2 years (without pay btw, that';s what their talking about, they can't afford to pay everyone, so it would be without pay). Maybe you were indecisive in choosing your profession, and I admit I as as well, kind of bummbled into it, however that doesn't make 2 years of your life a short time. Life is too short as it is, having to spend 2 years doing busy work for a govenment would be an attrocity.

iceblizzard69
05-02-2004, 02:38 PM
As I said, it's not just the military, ANY public/civil service. And it's not "your life", it's two years of your life. And quite honestly, with very few exceptions, no 17-18 year old actually knows what they want to do with their lives anyway. "Go to college" covers a HECK of a lot of ground. After 2 years in the real world you'd probably spend less money changing majors 3 times in the 4-7 years it took you to graduate.. ;)

It may not be my whole life, but I have the right to choose if I want to do civil service or not. Two years isn't exactly nothing. As I said before, I don't want the government telling me what to do with my time, I want myself telling me what to do with my time.

baccarat
05-02-2004, 07:43 PM
Actually, I guess it was time to 'fess up. My basic reason for starting this thread was to get the reactions from all the "rightist extremists" that seem to frequent this forum, til now, anyway. I wasn't surpised with any responses as I was about the responders. But the ones I refer to are the far out right folks that are sooo for this war and I'm quite sutprised that neither have responded, which makes draw the conclusion that they are for this war as long as THEY don't have to go. Let's face it, we/they can't have it both ways............. in any war, sooner or later we'll have to start replacing folks over there. Word is that there are enough volunteers at the moment to resupply with. Somethings gotta give. :(

Why do you quote yourself? Who are right-wing extremists who seem to frequent this forum?

baccarat
05-02-2004, 07:51 PM
It may not be my whole life, but I have the right to choose if I want to do civil service or not. Two years isn't exactly nothing. As I said before, I don't want the government telling me what to do with my time, I want myself telling me what to do with my time.


The govt. has anti-child labour laws that forces youngsters who can't afford or attend private institutions to attend their bureaucratic, PC ridden, sh*t covered public schools until the age of about 16. What's the difference between that and a few months of civil service.


People ask what makes the Greatest generation so great. Well, I believe part of it lies in the fact that most felt obligated(although not everybody did so) to help and serve their country especially in a time of need. I think it's not such a bad idea to have one serve some time(Be it military, Peace Corps, UNICEF, whatever) in their youth. It helps others and builds one a sense of pride for their country and duty.

iceblizzard69
05-02-2004, 11:22 PM
The govt. has anti-child labour laws that forces youngsters who can't afford or attend private institutions to attend their bureaucratic, PC ridden, sh*t covered public schools until the age of about 16. What's the difference between that and a few months of civil service.


People ask what makes the Greatest generation so great. Well, I believe part of it lies in the fact that most felt obligated(although not everybody did so) to help and serve their country especially in a time of need. I think it's not such a bad idea to have one serve some time(Be it military, Peace Corps, UNICEF, whatever) in their youth. It helps others and builds one a sense of pride for their country and duty.

Children need to be educated. There is a big difference between making a 12 year old go to school and making a 18 year old do civil service.

We are talking about a few years here, not a few months (I would be against that too). You may be doing something good, but that isn't the point. The point is that the government shouldn't be telling people who just graduated HS what to do with their time. I think people who graduate HS should decide if they want to go to college, get a job, join the military, etc. The government shouldn't be the one telling you what to do, you should be the one telling you what to do.

DeDolfan
05-03-2004, 02:27 PM
Children need to be educated. There is a big difference between making a 12 year old go to school and making a 18 year old do civil service.

We are talking about a few years here, not a few months (I would be against that too). You may be doing something good, but that isn't the point. The point is that the government shouldn't be telling people who just graduated HS what to do with their time. I think people who graduate HS should decide if they want to go to college, get a job, join the military, etc. The government shouldn't be the one telling you what to do, you should be the one telling you what to do.

Just suppose enlistments in the military were only about 25% of what it actually is. What then?? :rolleyes:

iceblizzard69
05-03-2004, 06:18 PM
Just suppose enlistments in the military were only about 25% of what it actually is. What then?? :rolleyes:

But that isn't the situation. The military has the manpower it needs.....

DeDolfan
05-03-2004, 07:20 PM
But that isn't the situation. The military has the manpower it needs.....


wrong !! They are spread out so thin now, that is why it has been brought up. Why do you think general whazhizface was just asking for another 25,000 troops for. Bush has said he'll oblige [somehow]. I suggest that you take a better look around you! ;)

iceblizzard69
05-03-2004, 07:28 PM
wrong !! They are spread out so thin now, that is why it has been brought up. Why do you think general whazhizface was just asking for another 25,000 troops for. Bush has said he'll oblige [somehow]. I suggest that you take a better look around you! ;)

As someone said before, recruitment goals are being exceeded. There is clearly no need for a draft. Anyway, as a whole, soldiers who volunteer will do a better job than soldiers who are drafted and don't want to serve. Do you want soldiers who are good at what they do, or soldiers who aren't?

Drafts take years away from young peoples' lives, and in many cases, they take lives away. People who don't want to be in the military simply shouldn't be forced to be in the military.

Thundercracker
05-03-2004, 08:20 PM
Drafts should only be enforced when desperate times call for desperate measures. Like for WWII. Hitler was trying to take over the world and had amassed a huge army. Do you see that right now? I don't. I see people getting shipped to Iraq to die for no reason. If we were forced into civil service after we graduated, wouldn't that be the exact opposite of what this country was based upon? Freedom? We have the most powerful army in the world and a draft is not needed. There is plenty of reserves if they need them.

Phinzone
05-04-2004, 03:49 AM
wrong !! They are spread out so thin now, that is why it has been brought up. Why do you think general whazhizface was just asking for another 25,000 troops for. Bush has said he'll oblige [somehow]. I suggest that you take a better look around you! ;)

like i said, 2/3 our the recruitment class from this year will give us another 50% more troops in Iraq (if we didn't send some home), and we're exceeding recruitment goals.

Read these draft talks carefuly. Their not saying 'we need bodies" their saying "we want all of society to bare the burden of this war". That's basically bull****. Their saying their going to cycle out our volunteers who signed up willingly, and are trying to replace them with young peolple who don't want to serve simply to "spread out the burden of the war". Why send pheasants, when you have soldiers? It's a ludacris idea, and a piss poor reason to send unwillinging young men over sea's. Unless it's a dire situation, ala WW2, a draft is flat out wrong.

PhinPhan1227
05-06-2004, 09:25 AM
It may not be my whole life, but I have the right to choose if I want to do civil service or not. Two years isn't exactly nothing. As I said before, I don't want the government telling me what to do with my time, I want myself telling me what to do with my time.


You have the right to choose what you do with your time. But the flip side of that is the fact that you were blessed/lucky enough to be born into this society which gives you that freedom. On a certain level, you DO owe this country/society for the benefits you gained just by being born here. Think of it like the kid born into a wealthy family. Yes, you have the right to do what you want with your life. But by the same token, if you are going to reap the rewards of your privaleged birth, you have a debt of gratitude incurred as well. Not that it would ever happen, but I think that voting should carry a price. Two years of service, either civil or military in order for a person to have the right to vote. If you choose not to serve, you shouldn't have the right to dictate to those who do. Again, it would NEVER happen, but I think it would make for a better country.

Thundercracker
05-06-2004, 11:32 AM
Again, it would NEVER happen, but I think it would make for a better country.

And a decrease in voter turnout by 90% :D

DeDolfan
05-06-2004, 12:18 PM
As someone said before, recruitment goals are being exceeded. There is clearly no need for a draft. Anyway, as a whole, soldiers who volunteer will do a better job than soldiers who are drafted and don't want to serve. Do you want soldiers who are good at what they do, or soldiers who aren't?

Drafts take years away from young peoples' lives, and in many cases, they take lives away. People who don't want to be in the military simply shouldn't be forced to be in the military.

Oh, but WHO is that "someone"? One shouldn't need anyone else telling them anything to be able to see the handwriting....... Nat'l Guard troops deployed whereas they customarily fill in the billets stateside of active duty troops that have deployed. Plus the fact that there are so many troops that were to be rotated out and back stateside and NOW have to endure longer deployments. So, just considering these things alone SHOULD tell you that recruitment goals are NOT being met.If you still think so, then may I suggest that you remove your blinders. It will help you to see things more clearly.

In answer to your question, it is not the point at all. But MY question to you now is..........are you one of those folks that "love this country, lover their freedom" but are not willing to even fight for it?

DeDolfan
05-06-2004, 12:32 PM
like i said, 2/3 our the recruitment class from this year will give us another 50% more troops in Iraq (if we didn't send some home), and we're exceeding recruitment goals.

Read these draft talks carefuly. Their not saying 'we need bodies" their saying "we want all of society to bare the burden of this war". That's basically bull****. Their saying their going to cycle out our volunteers who signed up willingly, and are trying to replace them with young peolple who don't want to serve simply to "spread out the burden of the war". Why send pheasants, when you have soldiers? It's a ludacris idea, and a piss poor reason to send unwillinging young men over sea's. Unless it's a dire situation, ala WW2, a draft is flat out wrong.

if they don't need bodies, then how come general whoever asked for more troops. How come the current troops are now staying longer because they don't have the manpower to rotate them out? You will never have the brunt of it shared by all of society. The wealthy affluent never will. if one does, then usually it is by choice. look no further than our prez.
I have no #s on this or even researched this and it is just MO only, but i would venture to say that a great majority of our volunteers do so mostly for the benfits involved such as college tuition, etc. I have no problem with it as it is a small price to pay for their service. But my point is that if those benefits were not available, then I seriously doubt that enlistments would be anywhere near enough. And since the war started, i don't imagiune that enlistments have remained the same and probably have dropped somewhat. I'm sure I'm stepping on some toes by saying this, but so be it as i'm just telling it like it is but it would be a rather "easy" decision to "volunteer" for duty when there are no real conflicts in sight but it's quite another thing during wartime tho.

DeDolfan
05-06-2004, 12:33 PM
You have the right to choose what you do with your time. But the flip side of that is the fact that you were blessed/lucky enough to be born into this society which gives you that freedom. On a certain level, you DO owe this country/society for the benefits you gained just by being born here. Think of it like the kid born into a wealthy family. Yes, you have the right to do what you want with your life. But by the same token, if you are going to reap the rewards of your privaleged birth, you have a debt of gratitude incurred as well. Not that it would ever happen, but I think that voting should carry a price. Two years of service, either civil or military in order for a person to have the right to vote. If you choose not to serve, you shouldn't have the right to dictate to those who do. Again, it would NEVER happen, but I think it would make for a better country.


VERY well said !!

PhinPhan1227
05-06-2004, 02:37 PM
And a decrease in voter turnout by 90% :D


I've never agreed with the efforts to make voting easier. If a person isn't smart enough to figure out a ballot, I certainly don't want them determining the course of the nations future. If the 10% that DO vote actually give a crap and are willing to make the effort, those 10% should make the decision. I'm a little sick of the sheep deciding who will represent the eagle. God, don't I sound like a theocratic a$$hole? :D

PhinPhan1227
05-06-2004, 02:41 PM
Oh, but WHO is that "someone"? One shouldn't need anyone else telling them anything to be able to see the handwriting....... Nat'l Guard troops deployed whereas they customarily fill in the billets stateside of active duty troops that have deployed. Plus the fact that there are so many troops that were to be rotated out and back stateside and NOW have to endure longer deployments. So, just considering these things alone SHOULD tell you that recruitment goals are NOT being met.If you still think so, then may I suggest that you remove your blinders. It will help you to see things more clearly.

In answer to your question, it is not the point at all. But MY question to you now is..........are you one of those folks that "love this country, lover their freedom" but are not willing to even fight for it?


The numbers are the numbers. I provided a link in another post. The military needs more bodies in Iraq...that does NOT mean they need more bodies. Political and economic concerns have kept us from tapping our regular army resources in Europe and Asia. But a draft would have a FAR greater economic and political fallout. Yes, Guardsmen are pulling longer duties than most of them imagined. Those who joined up JUST for the tuition waiver will probably leave...good. But right now, that's just speculation. The last solid numbers all show enlistment AND retention at near all time highs. If you have numbers showing otherwise, lets see them. If all you have is speculation....

iceblizzard69
05-06-2004, 04:11 PM
You have the right to choose what you do with your time. But the flip side of that is the fact that you were blessed/lucky enough to be born into this society which gives you that freedom. On a certain level, you DO owe this country/society for the benefits you gained just by being born here. Think of it like the kid born into a wealthy family. Yes, you have the right to do what you want with your life. But by the same token, if you are going to reap the rewards of your privaleged birth, you have a debt of gratitude incurred as well. Not that it would ever happen, but I think that voting should carry a price. Two years of service, either civil or military in order for a person to have the right to vote. If you choose not to serve, you shouldn't have the right to dictate to those who do. Again, it would NEVER happen, but I think it would make for a better country.

Voting is a right, not a privledge. I shouldn't have to do some service to vote. I was born into a society where I have the right to choose if I want to serve in the military or do civil service. I am privledged to have been born in this country. In this country, we have freedom. By making Americans do civil service, Americans are no longer free. We have the right do what we want and say what we want, and making people do a certain job is taking away their freedom for a certain amount of time.

iceblizzard69
05-06-2004, 04:16 PM
Oh, but WHO is that "someone"? One shouldn't need anyone else telling them anything to be able to see the handwriting....... Nat'l Guard troops deployed whereas they customarily fill in the billets stateside of active duty troops that have deployed. Plus the fact that there are so many troops that were to be rotated out and back stateside and NOW have to endure longer deployments. So, just considering these things alone SHOULD tell you that recruitment goals are NOT being met.If you still think so, then may I suggest that you remove your blinders. It will help you to see things more clearly.

In answer to your question, it is not the point at all. But MY question to you now is..........are you one of those folks that "love this country, lover their freedom" but are not willing to even fight for it?

I love my country and love my freedom, and if I was forced to fight in the Military, I would no longer be free. The great thing about our Military is that it is 100% volunteer. Those who are in the Military are in it because they chose to be in it, not because they were forced to, and it should stay that way. As I said before, there is no need for a draft. You can say all you want, but the military has exceeded recruitment goals.

I have the freedom to decide whether I want to join the Military or not, and I don't want to. That, IMO, doesn't make me less patriotic. I am very patriotic, but joining the Armed Forces just isn't in my plans.

DeDolfan
05-06-2004, 04:30 PM
I love my country and love my freedom, and if I was forced to fight in the Military, I would no longer be free. The great thing about our Military is that it is 100% volunteer. Those who are in the Military are in it because they chose to be in it, not because they were forced to, and it should stay that way. As I said before, there is no need for a draft. You can say all you want, but the military has exceeded recruitment goals.

I have the freedom to decide whether I want to join the Military or not, and I don't want to. That, IMO, doesn't make me less patriotic. I am very patriotic, but joining the Armed Forces just isn't in my plans.

You're drastically missing the point. If there wasn't enough ppl to defend this country and we didn't have a draft, then we'd be over run and you wouldn't be free anyway. two yrs obligated service is a rather small price to pay to guarantees YOUR freedom. You love your country AND your freedom and thank you for making it clear that you would not be willing to fight for that. While you're at it, why don't you write a letter to all deceased servicemen's families about you're able to enjoy your freedom because their son's died allowing you to do so.
Oh,btw: voting is NOT a right. Just ask anybody in prison. Same as driving, it is nOT a right either.

iceblizzard69
05-06-2004, 06:20 PM
You're drastically missing the point. If there wasn't enough ppl to defend this country and we didn't have a draft, then we'd be over run and you wouldn't be free anyway. two yrs obligated service is a rather small price to pay to guarantees YOUR freedom. You love your country AND your freedom and thank you for making it clear that you would not be willing to fight for that. While you're at it, why don't you write a letter to all deceased servicemen's families about you're able to enjoy your freedom because their son's died allowing you to do so.
Oh,btw: voting is NOT a right. Just ask anybody in prison. Same as driving, it is nOT a right either.

My point is that we do have enough people to defend this country, making a draft unnecessary. My freedom is being fought for by those who volunteered to fight in the military. I think those who fight for our country are heroes but that is just something I don't want to do, and if I don't want to do it, then I am not going to.

When you turn 18, you automatically gain the right to vote if you are a US citizen. It should stay this way. You shouldn't have to serve this country to vote.

PhinPhan1227
05-07-2004, 12:30 AM
Voting is a right, not a privledge. I shouldn't have to do some service to vote. I was born into a society where I have the right to choose if I want to serve in the military or do civil service. I am privledged to have been born in this country. In this country, we have freedom. By making Americans do civil service, Americans are no longer free. We have the right do what we want and say what we want, and making people do a certain job is taking away their freedom for a certain amount of time.


Not only is voting a privaledge, so is living in a free society. If you chose not to serve in the military that's fine. If you chose not to serve in the civil service, that's also fine. I'm actually STRONGLY against a forced military draft. If someone isn't willing to make the sacrifice, than I wouldn't want them covering my *** if I was still in the service. That's also why I don't see the loss of those Guardsmen who are just there for the tuition as a big deal. But again, if you keep the right to vote without lifting a FINGER to deserve that right, it's only because the majority of the country is also unwilling to make that sacrifice, and we do live in a representative republic. But the bottom line is still this...your freedoms exist because of the daily sacrifice of a few men and women. Your RIGHTS exist because of the sacrifice of a few men and women. You have the "right" to vote because THEY gave you that right. It's just a little sad that because of their sacrifice, some person(not you, I'm speaking in general) can roll out of bed, walk into a voting booth, and pick the next President at random. That's not exactly fair and equitable.

Thundercracker
05-07-2004, 03:59 AM
If this country needed a draft to stay on top of things in Iraq, than we are already screwed.

DeDolfan
05-08-2004, 11:24 AM
My point is that we do have enough people to defend this country, making a draft unnecessary. My freedom is being fought for by those who volunteered to fight in the military. I think those who fight for our country are heroes but that is just something I don't want to do, and if I don't want to do it, then I am not going to.

When you turn 18, you automatically gain the right to vote if you are a US citizen. It should stay this way. You shouldn't have to serve this country to vote.

I'm not saying that a draft is necessary, but when you say we have enough ppl to defend this country, I still contend that you are wrong about that for the very same reasons i've already said. Thirty yrs ago when the draft still existed, troops didn't pull double tours in Nam unless they volunteered to do so, not like it is today. So you think that you're the only one that doesn't want to go halfway around the world, hoping you don't get your head shot off? Nobody truly wants to do that but the big difference between you and others is that they are willing to fight and defend the very same freedoms that you enjoy. Your freedom is simply a priveledge that we are allowed to enjoy because MOST folks are willing to fight for it. You see, freedom is not free at all. It is probably THE most expensive thing we have. Suppose our founding fathers had the same attitude that you have about it, ie, not willing to fight to keep our freedom. Just how much freedom do you think YOU would have today? One word would answer that........NONE !!

BTW: Try and get it right! When you turn 18, you automatically gain the PRIVILIDGE to vote. You do not have the right to do so as they are two distinctly different things. You say we shouldn't have to serve this country to vote? Well, your whole attitude about it is rather despicable. If nobody decided to serve our country because "they don't HAVE to", do you think you'd still be able to vote then??

iceblizzard69
05-08-2004, 01:10 PM
I'm not saying that a draft is necessary, but when you say we have enough ppl to defend this country, I still contend that you are wrong about that for the very same reasons i've already said. Thirty yrs ago when the draft still existed, troops didn't pull double tours in Nam unless they volunteered to do so, not like it is today. So you think that you're the only one that doesn't want to go halfway around the world, hoping you don't get your head shot off? Nobody truly wants to do that but the big difference between you and others is that they are willing to fight and defend the very same freedoms that you enjoy. Your freedom is simply a priveledge that we are allowed to enjoy because MOST folks are willing to fight for it. You see, freedom is not free at all. It is probably THE most expensive thing we have. Suppose our founding fathers had the same attitude that you have about it, ie, not willing to fight to keep our freedom. Just how much freedom do you think YOU would have today? One word would answer that........NONE !!

BTW: Try and get it right! When you turn 18, you automatically gain the PRIVILIDGE to vote. You do not have the right to do so as they are two distinctly different things. You say we shouldn't have to serve this country to vote? Well, your whole attitude about it is rather despicable. If nobody decided to serve our country because "they don't HAVE to", do you think you'd still be able to vote then??

My attitude isn't dispicable. If we are forced to fight for our country or do civil service, then we are no longer free. We are only free if we have the right to choose what we want to do.

Not everyone has the same attitude as me. I know my freedoms are safe because there are other people who are willing to be heroes and to voluntarily fight for our country.

Of course we shouldn't have to serve this country to vote. When you turn 18, you automatically gain the right to vote. That shouldn't change. You shouldn't have to do some civil service to gain the right to choose who serves in our government.

DeDolfan
05-08-2004, 05:30 PM
My attitude isn't dispicable. If we are forced to fight for our country or do civil service, then we are no longer free. We are only free if we have the right to choose what we want to do.

Not everyone has the same attitude as me. I know my freedoms are safe because there are other people who are willing to be heroes and to voluntarily fight for our country.

Of course we shouldn't have to serve this country to vote. When you turn 18, you automatically gain the right to vote. That shouldn't change. You shouldn't have to do some civil service to gain the right to choose who serves in our government.

I have tried to be as "sympathetic" about this as I can be. Your attitude about the freedom that YOU enjoy at the expense of others without ANY consideration or willingness to even defend for your own self, let alone anyone else has led me to this conclusion. You, sir, are a spineless coward, to say the least. Why don'r you take YOUR freedom and move to North Korea! The sooner the better! Stop schidting on all those that gave THEIR lives so YOU can be free! I wonder which of the species you belong to since it can not even be human! :fire: :fire:

iceblizzard69
05-08-2004, 09:09 PM
I have tried to be as "sympathetic" about this as I can be. Your attitude about the freedom that YOU enjoy at the expense of others without ANY consideration or willingness to even defend for your own self, let alone anyone else has led me to this conclusion. You, sir, are a spineless coward, to say the least. Why don'r you take YOUR freedom and move to North Korea! The sooner the better! Stop schidting on all those that gave THEIR lives so YOU can be free! I wonder which of the species you belong to since it can not even be human! :fire: :fire:

Spineless coward? LOL. I'm not the only one who has no interest in joining the military. If this country was just made up of people who served in the military or want to, than the population would be a whole lot smaller. I don't need to join the military, and that does not make me a spineless coward. Sorry for doing or planning to do what I want to do in life, and planning to avoid what I don't want.

I don't want to go to North Korea. I like it in the USA, where I am free, and where no one is forcing me to join the military.

If I'm not human because I don't want to join the Military, then I guess a lot of Americans aren't human as well.

Kamikaze
05-09-2004, 12:46 AM
What kind of ****ed up Starship Troopers reality are some of you idiots foaming at the mouth over? Sounds like some of you would have no problem denying the right to vote to someone who doesn't serve the country and sacrifice a couple years of their freedom. You're very good Germans indeed.

Phinzone
05-09-2004, 02:03 AM
I'm not saying that a draft is necessary, but when you say we have enough ppl to defend this country, I still contend that you are wrong about that for the very same reasons i've already said. Thirty yrs ago when the draft still existed, troops didn't pull double tours in Nam unless they volunteered to do so, not like it is today. So you think that you're the only one that doesn't want to go halfway around the world, hoping you don't get your head shot off? Nobody truly wants to do that but the big difference between you and others is that they are willing to fight and defend the very same freedoms that you enjoy. Your freedom is simply a priveledge that we are allowed to enjoy because MOST folks are willing to fight for it. You see, freedom is not free at all. It is probably THE most expensive thing we have. Suppose our founding fathers had the same attitude that you have about it, ie, not willing to fight to keep our freedom. Just how much freedom do you think YOU would have today? One word would answer that........NONE !!

BTW: Try and get it right! When you turn 18, you automatically gain the PRIVILIDGE to vote. You do not have the right to do so as they are two distinctly different things. You say we shouldn't have to serve this country to vote? Well, your whole attitude about it is rather despicable. If nobody decided to serve our country because "they don't HAVE to", do you think you'd still be able to vote then??

your misconstruing the facts buddy.

1. No one said we don't have enough people in the millitary to fight this war. Retention, and recruitment goals are at near all time highs. They actually have a CAP on how man soldiers they take. They are talking about expanding their numbers, which means they'll take MORE soldiers. Having "too few troops" is due to their belief that a small, more mobile millitary is better than a big one. This holds true, and it is working well. We DO have the bodies to fight this war.

What they ARE saying, is that we need to integrate this millitary with the "privilaged" and the "non-privilaged".

Want to know what this means? it means they want free labor. THis war is expensive, they could get all the soldiers they wanted by raising their pay, and giving out better bonuses, but they don't want to. It's not economical for them. THey want free, young bodies to ship out. It's cheaper for them in the longrun to take young men away, than to recruit lifelong troops that will retire in the millitary.

We have the bodies, they want more, and cheap. Sorry, but that's the way it is.


2. you should look up how long a "double tour" was in Nam. It was 2 full years of service. The troops right now are pulling 1 year, and that's AFTER they typically get a few months tacked on. a "tour" now, is 365 days less than it was in Nam.

3. Better take a history class at your local community college. it's called the "RIGHT to vote" for a reason. It IS a right that no one can be denied. I agree, it sucks with some of hte idiots that are out there, however, it is still theri right. To contend otherwise is a totally uneduacated, and unsupportable argument. It's people like you that thought people had to own land to have the "privilage" to vote, or had to have a certain skin color, or certain sexual organs. I'd think that people would have learned by now, that voting is a RIGHT, not a privilage. However, that's apparently not the case.....

Oh, and Prison is prison for a reason. It's a punishment, enforced by the revoking of some of their RIGHTS.

4. EVERYONE in the united states these days has a choice in whether they get a college education. I for one worked my *** off. I worked during the summer to support as much of college as I could, for 2 years I had an internship while going through one of hte toughest majors available at the 8th most prestigeous school in the country for that program at the time. I made that choice, and don't ***** and moan about it. Just like the next guy who went into the national guard shouldn't ***** and moan about his having to go to Iraq. He made a choice, and got his college paid for. That meant he had a lot of extra time on his hands, and could nearly take the summer off. He reaped the benefits of being a guardsmen, and in return, he had to agree to serve his country if called to do so. And there's the third man, who was poor, but didn't think the millitary was an option for him. So he took out student loans. Now, I worked my *** off for 5 years, nearly killing myself, a guradsmen put his life on the line for his tuition to be paid off, and this guy took out loans. Which means he'll be in debt for the next 20 or so years.

We each made a choice, and have to live with the rammifications. Mine are less long-term, but I was able to focus on my studies less, and missed out on a lot of the college life. I didn't have the privilage of goign to friday night parties, and have permanent back pain from throwing boxes for UPS. But that's my burden that I choose. I don't have to worry about spending hte next 20 years paying off my loans, nor did I have to worry about spending a year in a foreign country.

Anyone can make these choices. THere are the few that have mommy and daddy pay for college, but that's the way the cookie crummbles. We can't help that, and a draft surely won't.

DeDolfan
05-09-2004, 09:21 AM
Spineless coward? LOL. I'm not the only one who has no interest in joining the military. If this country was just made up of people who served in the military or want to, than the population would be a whole lot smaller. I don't need to join the military, and that does not make me a spineless coward. Sorry for doing or planning to do what I want to do in life, and planning to avoid what I don't want.

I don't want to go to North Korea. I like it in the USA, where I am free, and where no one is forcing me to join the military.

If I'm not human because I don't want to join the Military, then I guess a lot of Americans aren't human as well.

Something else that is evident is that the military is probably better off with out the like of you in it. You apparently think that freedom is free of cost and anyone that is not willing to defend freedom, IMO, does not deserve to enjoy it. Like i said, find some family who has lost another family member defending your freedom and explain to them how you are glad that they made the ultimate scarifice because you were not willing to even take a chance. You seem to think that if you served, your whole life is tied up. Not even close. You're talking a couple years at most and as I said b4, it is a rather same price to pay. That's why I suggested you go to N Korea, since you're not willing to defend it, you may as well live without it. Thank God most ppl do not share your attitude or there would be no freedom, but you don't understand that, i know. It is sad that you can not even begin to comprehend what freedom really is. Let me share this much with you, a letter to the editor in our local paper....................


NO WISH FOR THE DRAFT, BUT WOULD GLADLY SERVE !
There have been reports concerning the US goverment reinstating the draft to fight the war on terror.i find it humerous that most people who voice their anti-draft views aren't eligible to be drafted in the first place.
I'm a 19-year-old male and would be a prime candidate for the draft if it were to come out of hibernation. I'm not worried for the cause I would serve would be worth the ultimate sacrifice.
Countries in the Middle East suffer under harsh rule. As we sit over here enjoying life, others are being tortured and killed for no other reason than simply trying to be an individual. Those people who wish to turn their back on the rest of the suffering world are the individuals who strengthen the pure hatred that those countries have towatd the US.
I would not hope for a draft, but if it were to happen there would be no burning draft cards or American flags. I would go over there to fight under the leadership of the US and for the freedom of others, in the hope that the sacrifices made will help shrink the rift between the Arab world and the US.

(name with held)

Yes, you are correct that everyone doesn't want a draft, etc., but they all don't share your attitude tho. If you would like to research this story to verify it, have at it. i'm sure you can google it up in the the News Journal (http://www.delawareonline.com), in yesterday's edition.

DeDolfan
05-09-2004, 09:27 AM
What kind of ****ed up Starship Troopers reality are some of you idiots foaming at the mouth over? Sounds like some of you would have no problem denying the right to vote to someone who doesn't serve the country and sacrifice a couple years of their freedom. You're very good Germans indeed.

When you can understand what was being said, then come back! read and try to unbderstand first, that's all!! :rolleyes:

iceblizzard69
05-09-2004, 10:06 AM
Something else that is evident is that the military is probably better off with out the like of you in it. You apparently think that freedom is free of cost and anyone that is not willing to defend freedom, IMO, does not deserve to enjoy it. Like i said, find some family who has lost another family member defending your freedom and explain to them how you are glad that they made the ultimate scarifice because you were not willing to even take a chance. You seem to think that if you served, your whole life is tied up. Not even close. You're talking a couple years at most and as I said b4, it is a rather same price to pay. That's why I suggested you go to N Korea, since you're not willing to defend it, you may as well live without it. Thank God most ppl do not share your attitude or there would be no freedom, but you don't understand that, i know. It is sad that you can not even begin to comprehend what freedom really is. Let me share this much with you, a letter to the editor in our local paper....................



Yes, you are correct that everyone doesn't want a draft, etc., but they all don't share your attitude tho. If you would like to research this story to verify it, have at it. i'm sure you can google it up in the the News Journal (http://www.delawareonline.com), in yesterday's edition.

Wow, you finally figured out that the military is better off with people who don't want to be in it!!! People who are drafted don't want to be in the military, and people who don't want to be there do a worse job than people who volunteer!!!

For some who serve, their whole life is tied up. People die serving their country, so you are wrong once again. Many do return from service and have a life after, but some don't.

You clearly aren't in touch with America's youth. People my age DON'T want a draft and most people my age have NO interest in serving in the military. I bet more people my age share my beliefs than yours. America's youth does not want a draft. I guess this means that according to your logic, most of America's youth don't deserve to vote, don't deserve freedom, and are sub-human. :rolleyes2

I support the troops, I just don't want to be a troop.

DeDolfan
05-09-2004, 10:10 AM
your misconstruing the facts buddy.

1. No one said we don't have enough people in the millitary to fight this war. Retention, and recruitment goals are at near all time highs. They actually have a CAP on how man soldiers they take. They are talking about expanding their numbers, which means they'll take MORE soldiers. Having "too few troops" is due to their belief that a small, more mobile millitary is better than a big one. This holds true, and it is working well. We DO have the bodies to fight this war.

What they ARE saying, is that we need to integrate this millitary with the "privilaged" and the "non-privilaged".

Want to know what this means? it means they want free labor. THis war is expensive, they could get all the soldiers they wanted by raising their pay, and giving out better bonuses, but they don't want to. It's not economical for them. THey want free, young bodies to ship out. It's cheaper for them in the longrun to take young men away, than to recruit lifelong troops that will retire in the millitary.

We have the bodies, they want more, and cheap. Sorry, but that's the way it is.


2. you should look up how long a "double tour" was in Nam. It was 2 full years of service. The troops right now are pulling 1 year, and that's AFTER they typically get a few months tacked on. a "tour" now, is 365 days less than it was in Nam.

3. Better take a history class at your local community college. it's called the "RIGHT to vote" for a reason. It IS a right that no one can be denied. I agree, it sucks with some of hte idiots that are out there, however, it is still theri right. To contend otherwise is a totally uneduacated, and unsupportable argument. It's people like you that thought people had to own land to have the "privilage" to vote, or had to have a certain skin color, or certain sexual organs. I'd think that people would have learned by now, that voting is a RIGHT, not a privilage. However, that's apparently not the case.....

Oh, and Prison is prison for a reason. It's a punishment, enforced by the revoking of some of their RIGHTS.

4. EVERYONE in the united states these days has a choice in whether they get a college education. I for one worked my *** off. I worked during the summer to support as much of college as I could, for 2 years I had an internship while going through one of hte toughest majors available at the 8th most prestigeous school in the country for that program at the time. I made that choice, and don't ***** and moan about it. Just like the next guy who went into the national guard shouldn't ***** and moan about his having to go to Iraq. He made a choice, and got his college paid for. That meant he had a lot of extra time on his hands, and could nearly take the summer off. He reaped the benefits of being a guardsmen, and in return, he had to agree to serve his country if called to do so. And there's the third man, who was poor, but didn't think the millitary was an option for him. So he took out student loans. Now, I worked my *** off for 5 years, nearly killing myself, a guradsmen put his life on the line for his tuition to be paid off, and this guy took out loans. Which means he'll be in debt for the next 20 or so years.

We each made a choice, and have to live with the rammifications. Mine are less long-term, but I was able to focus on my studies less, and missed out on a lot of the college life. I didn't have the privilage of goign to friday night parties, and have permanent back pain from throwing boxes for UPS. But that's my burden that I choose. I don't have to worry about spending hte next 20 years paying off my loans, nor did I have to worry about spending a year in a foreign country.

Anyone can make these choices. THere are the few that have mommy and daddy pay for college, but that's the way the cookie crummbles. We can't help that, and a draft surely won't.

Misconsturing?? Perhaps, but i don't think so. Congress has capped the # of troops at around 485,000 or so. rumsfeld has the authority to aquire abother 25 or 30 K if need be. I realize that "no one said" we don't have enough, but they don't have to. If there were enough, they would not be extending enlistments/ deployments and the like. This small, more mobile army is working well??? Since when? It worked fine when the war started, but has been lacking since tho. We lost more troops last month than we did in full major combat or does that fit the description of working well? but besides, small armies exist in a larger one. The overall problem with our small army is defending multiple fronts. In Iraq, mobility is not what is need right now. We've "conquered" the whole country and now, bodies are needed to just hold it. I know what "they are saying", but that is strictly a political statment as we know that integrating the army with "priveldged folks" with the non-priviledged just ain't gonna happen. Proof of that exists with our current prez.
I do agree that the military pay scale sucks big time. But even if they did raise it alot, it wouldn't really have ppl beating down the door to join up and surely wouldn't do a thing as far as integrating the priviledged folks into it.

Typically, a tour in Nam was 13 months. I don't have to look it up, i served during that war. But depending on the branch, it would vary but that's not the point. You say that a tour today is 365 days less than in Nam? I don't think that is what you meant but alot of times we read about this one and that coming home after a 9 month deployment which I guess was fairly standard until now at least, which is my point. If we had enough bodies, i don't think they would be extended. i can't see any other valid reason for it.

I also know that it is called "the right to vote" but I still contend that it is a priviledge more than a right. Priviledges are revoked, not rights. Ever hear of someone having their "right to a fair trial" or their "freedom of speach" revoked. I guess it can be argued that one could have their "right" to firearms" revoked which can be argued as to whether it's actually a right or priviledge tho. but I ain't going there. This just got thrown into the fray along the way somehow that I even really forget how and was off topic anyway.

But as far as your own choices, I've got no problem with what you chose. Obviously most folks would not choose the militery and that is ok. What I DO have a problem with are some that "love their freedom" as long as someone else defends it for them because they "apparently" don't feel it's even worth to fight for. Loving your freedom but not willing to fight for it [if necessary] somehow just does not fit the description of a true blooded American. i realize that I may sound/be a bit harsh, but it's just the way i feel about it and I am of the opinion that more than likely a vast majority would agree with me, to some extent, at least.

DeDolfan
05-09-2004, 10:40 AM
Wow, you finally figured out that the military is better off with people who don't want to be in it!!! People who are drafted don't want to be in the military, and people who don't want to be there do a worse job than people who volunteer!!!

For some who serve, their whole life is tied up. People die serving their country, so you are wrong once again. Many do return from service and have a life after, but some don't.

You clearly aren't in touch with America's youth. People my age DON'T want a draft and most people my age have NO interest in serving in the military. I bet more people my age share my beliefs than yours. America's youth does not want a draft. I guess this means that according to your logic, most of America's youth don't deserve to vote, don't deserve freedom, and are sub-human. :rolleyes2

I support the troops, I just don't want to be a troop.

I didn't say people, I said you. Do not confuse your self with the rest of the young folks. you have already said that you would not be willing to fight for your own freedom and I assume nobody else's either for that matter. Yes, some ppl enter the military as career designated but not all but the ones that do, choose to do so and don't "have to". See the difference. So i am wrong because some ppl die serving? How's that? Did I offer a guarantee that if you serve you don't risk dying?

I never said ppl your age, or any age for that matter, want a draft or have any interest in serving. That's not a point I've been debating you on. and I'll match your bet that most ppl YOUR age do NOT share your belief, you know the one I've been arguing over which is not whether we should/not have a draft or even serve. You've already pointed out that you would not be willing to fight for your freedom if necessary. I'll bet you this much, I'll guarantee you that a vast majority of guys of drafting would surely be willing to fight for freedom if it was in jeopardy. Unlike yourself, I don't HAVE to be THAT in touch with America's youth to know that. It's the way it has been since this country became into existence. You remind me of the draft-dodgers that fled to Canada back in the 60s. I was glad to be rid of them and it was a sad day when those very same cowards were granted amnesty. It casts a dark shadow over the more than 58,000 men and women who died during those times! Quite pitiful, indeed, but now they are all back here in the US enjoying the freedom that so many died for. I hope you sleep well at night!!

iceblizzard69
05-09-2004, 11:53 AM
I didn't say people, I said you. Do not confuse your self with the rest of the young folks. you have already said that you would not be willing to fight for your own freedom and I assume nobody else's either for that matter. Yes, some ppl enter the military as career designated but not all but the ones that do, choose to do so and don't "have to". See the difference. So i am wrong because some ppl die serving? How's that? Did I offer a guarantee that if you serve you don't risk dying?

I never said ppl your age, or any age for that matter, want a draft or have any interest in serving. That's not a point I've been debating you on. and I'll match your bet that most ppl YOUR age do NOT share your belief, you know the one I've been arguing over which is not whether we should/not have a draft or even serve. You've already pointed out that you would not be willing to fight for your freedom if necessary. I'll bet you this much, I'll guarantee you that a vast majority of guys of drafting would surely be willing to fight for freedom if it was in jeopardy. Unlike yourself, I don't HAVE to be THAT in touch with America's youth to know that. It's the way it has been since this country became into existence. You remind me of the draft-dodgers that fled to Canada back in the 60s. I was glad to be rid of them and it was a sad day when those very same cowards were granted amnesty. It casts a dark shadow over the more than 58,000 men and women who died during those times! Quite pitiful, indeed, but now they are all back here in the US enjoying the freedom that so many died for. I hope you sleep well at night!!

- People who join the military join either because they want to or because they need money. The people who don't join the military don't join because they have no interest in serving. I can guarantee you that those who don't join (which is a large majority of America's youth) have no interest in being in the military like myself and are against a draft.

DeDolfan
05-09-2004, 01:41 PM
- People who join the military join either because they want to or because they need money. The people who don't join the military don't join because they have no interest in serving. I can guarantee you that those who don't join (which is a large majority of America's youth) have no interest in being in the military like myself and are against a draft.

You continue to MISS the point!! I've not argued about what you just now said. What I HAVE been arguing that most of those same ppl you were JUST talking about would indeed serve if they felt their well being [freedom] was in jeopardy. i know that they would but you apparently do not.

PhinPhan1227
05-10-2004, 04:28 PM
What kind of ****ed up Starship Troopers reality are some of you idiots foaming at the mouth over? Sounds like some of you would have no problem denying the right to vote to someone who doesn't serve the country and sacrifice a couple years of their freedom. You're very good Germans indeed.


Or Israeli's. They also have enforced public service. Switzerland too. YOU are free because of others sacrifice. Even though I served I am also free because of others sacrifice. America does not need a draft right now. Given the advance of technology, we may never need a draft again unless it's for a mandatory 3 year hitch(modern US soldiers are almost worthless in their first year, to much training needed to get them up to speed). And public service is also currently voluntary. But what you may not recognize is that prior to generation X(of which I'm a member), Americans had a concept of self sacrifice. Mandatory service wasn't required, it was offered up freely. This generation however has a VERY healthy streak of self centeredness. Someone else will do whats needed so I can do what I want. In the interest of justice and fairness, someone who isn't willing to make the sacrifice, shouldn't really be allowed to make the decisions either. Why let those unwilling to walk the walk talk the talk?

DeDolfan
05-10-2004, 04:52 PM
Or Israeli's. They also have enforced public service. Switzerland too. YOU are free because of others sacrifice. Even though I served I am also free because of others sacrifice. America does not need a draft right now. Given the advance of technology, we may never need a draft again unless it's for a mandatory 3 year hitch(modern US soldiers are almost worthless in their first year, to much training needed to get them up to speed). And public service is also currently voluntary. But what you may not recognize is that prior to generation X(of which I'm a member), Americans had a concept of self sacrifice. Mandatory service wasn't required, it was offered up freely. This generation however has a VERY healthy streak of self centeredness. Someone else will do whats needed so I can do what I want. In the interest of justice and fairness, someone who isn't willing to make the sacrifice, shouldn't really be allowed to make the decisions either. Why let those unwilling to walk the walk talk the talk?

You make alot of sense. The ONLY reason I would be for a draft today is to get rid of alot of that self-centeredness. i believe that when push comes to a shove, enough ppl would join up to protect and defend what we already enjoy for you, me and everyone! You touched on som'n about the draft............back when it was last here, if you were drafted, it was for 2 yrs [active], you went thru basic, had combat training of sorts, went to nam for 13 months and if you were lucky enough to stay alive, you were able to get out. The draft itself is not all together a bad idea but how it is instituted can be tho.

Phinzone
05-10-2004, 05:33 PM
you know, EVERY generation has looked down on the following ones.

It's sad really. My fathers generation looked down on their kids, he looked down on ours, and currently my generation is looking down at the newest generation of youngsters.

Every generation asks "what is this world coming to"? Every following generation is more self centered, more "liberated", and more "self centered pansies".

news flash to everyone that thinks this...it's not true. Our children are no more self centered these days than we were when we were kids. They don't do more drugs, or have more sex. Things change, human behavior doesn't. While you sit there and call this young generation "self centered" think back to your days as a young lad. Your head wasn't thinking about war, you liked women, listened to loud music, and liked muscle cars. You could have cared less about the ills of the world, you weren't at college solely to get an education (you did your share of partying, and in most cases got your future wife knocked up in the process), their not dumber, they don't have a lower set of standards, or any of that bruhaha that you people are saying.

Look through history. EVERY generation has has their share of sex, drugs, murderers, adulterers, divorcers, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. The same social ills plaque society now, as when our forefathers founded this country. Minor details have changed, but the root of problems are obviously the same.

I really hate to see genertions point fingers at other generations. Not every generation has accompished a huge feat. Look back in history, very few generations in the United States truely has something to be proud of. WW2 mainly, where our nation bonded together, and everyone pitched in.....great generation that made a difference in this world. But they had their share of **** too. When I listen to people say how bad this following generation is, ti makes me wonder what MY generation has done. What HAVE we done? Are we any less great than the WW2 generation? No, we haven't sacrificed our lives to stop a ruthless dictator...but would you had you had the chance? I would have, we were just never faced with that problem. Does that make us any worse of a generatoin? We rode the stock market, people dont' share their money anymore, many families get divorced, etc. etc. etc.

So are we worse than the WW2 generation? Yeah, they fought a war, they also came back, were womanizer, not great fathers, thought less about education than we do today, etc. etc. etc.


fact is, EVERY generation is in essence, the same. My geneartion didn't do jack **** when I look back on it, the WW2 generation did something great, and yet had MANY faults.

This younger generation may do something, they may not, but that doesnt' make them any worse than us etiher way. If we were faced with global domination, I gurantee you, they would step up to the challenge, and would be capable of doing so. Their more educated than us (don't believe it? When did YOU learn trig? they learn it before they graduate highschool, they have a LOT more to learn in a smaller time than we did due to technology), and with that comes new problems and challenges.

Thier no differnet than our generation, just in a differnet time. To say they should be forced to give up two years of their lives for "public service" makes about as much sense as telling our generation to do so. It would have held my life back 2 yeras, I knew what I wanted to do, as do the kids of this generation. We have no more right to demand that they put that on hold, than they do to demand that we put our lives on hold for 2 years.

For everyone that thinks this is a good idea, i pose this. Start with the 50 year olds, and work your way down the ladder. Would YOU be willing to donate 2 years of your life for "civic service"? How is that any different than asking this younger generation to do so?

DeDolfan
05-10-2004, 05:48 PM
Yeah, yeah yeah............... very true! BUT when we were called to duty, we ANSWERED the call. Not sit around enjoying our freedoms and laughing at the OTHER dumb schmucks keeping their sorry asssssesss all nice and cushy. Big ****ing difference!

iceblizzard69
05-10-2004, 06:49 PM
you know, EVERY generation has looked down on the following ones.

It's sad really. My fathers generation looked down on their kids, he looked down on ours, and currently my generation is looking down at the newest generation of youngsters.

Every generation asks "what is this world coming to"? Every following generation is more self centered, more "liberated", and more "self centered pansies".

news flash to everyone that thinks this...it's not true. Our children are no more self centered these days than we were when we were kids. They don't do more drugs, or have more sex. Things change, human behavior doesn't. While you sit there and call this young generation "self centered" think back to your days as a young lad. Your head wasn't thinking about war, you liked women, listened to loud music, and liked muscle cars. You could have cared less about the ills of the world, you weren't at college solely to get an education (you did your share of partying, and in most cases got your future wife knocked up in the process), their not dumber, they don't have a lower set of standards, or any of that bruhaha that you people are saying.

Look through history. EVERY generation has has their share of sex, drugs, murderers, adulterers, divorcers, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. The same social ills plaque society now, as when our forefathers founded this country. Minor details have changed, but the root of problems are obviously the same.

I really hate to see genertions point fingers at other generations. Not every generation has accompished a huge feat. Look back in history, very few generations in the United States truely has something to be proud of. WW2 mainly, where our nation bonded together, and everyone pitched in.....great generation that made a difference in this world. But they had their share of **** too. When I listen to people say how bad this following generation is, ti makes me wonder what MY generation has done. What HAVE we done? Are we any less great than the WW2 generation? No, we haven't sacrificed our lives to stop a ruthless dictator...but would you had you had the chance? I would have, we were just never faced with that problem. Does that make us any worse of a generatoin? We rode the stock market, people dont' share their money anymore, many families get divorced, etc. etc. etc.

So are we worse than the WW2 generation? Yeah, they fought a war, they also came back, were womanizer, not great fathers, thought less about education than we do today, etc. etc. etc.


fact is, EVERY generation is in essence, the same. My geneartion didn't do jack **** when I look back on it, the WW2 generation did something great, and yet had MANY faults.

This younger generation may do something, they may not, but that doesnt' make them any worse than us etiher way. If we were faced with global domination, I gurantee you, they would step up to the challenge, and would be capable of doing so. Their more educated than us (don't believe it? When did YOU learn trig? they learn it before they graduate highschool, they have a LOT more to learn in a smaller time than we did due to technology), and with that comes new problems and challenges.

Thier no differnet than our generation, just in a differnet time. To say they should be forced to give up two years of their lives for "public service" makes about as much sense as telling our generation to do so. It would have held my life back 2 yeras, I knew what I wanted to do, as do the kids of this generation. We have no more right to demand that they put that on hold, than they do to demand that we put our lives on hold for 2 years.

For everyone that thinks this is a good idea, i pose this. Start with the 50 year olds, and work your way down the ladder. Would YOU be willing to donate 2 years of your life for "civic service"? How is that any different than asking this younger generation to do so?

I totally agree with you. It is so easy to say that there should be a draft if you aren't eligible for the draft. Those who are eligible or will be in the next few years are against one for the most part.

I think it is stupid to call the youth "self-centered" like DeDolfan said we were. A draft won't change anything. I don't think of myself as self-centered. Just because I don't want to join the military doesn't mean I'm self-centered. I think about other people besides myself, I help out other people all the time, but you sometimes have to think about yourself as well, and in terms of what I want to do with my life, I'm not going to let others tell me if I should go to college or join the military. I'm lucky that I want to go to college and my family does as well, so there is no conflict anyway. :)

As for education, I wouldn't really say it is hard. They do now have foreign language requirements and other stuff, but HS is still easy IMO. I do pretty much no homework at home and take hard classes (I had an AP exam last week and I take Pre-Calculus as a Junior). I don't know what HS was like 30 years ago, but it still isn't very difficult. As for trig, I covered that in 9th grade in Algebra 2. :)

A draft is unnecessary and it seems like DeDolfan wants one so that people who don't want to join the military have to serve, not because we actually need one. A draft would make the military weaker, soldiers who want to be in the Armed Forces will do a better job than those who don't want to be there. By having a draft, you would basically just fill the military with bad soldiers who don't want to be in the Armed Forces.

Phinzone
05-10-2004, 07:08 PM
Yeah, yeah yeah............... very true! BUT when we were called to duty, we ANSWERED the call. Not sit around enjoying our freedoms and laughing at the OTHER dumb schmucks keeping their sorry asssssesss all nice and cushy. Big ****ing difference!

Your call was TOTALLY different. The WW2 vets had no choice, they were threatened with invasion by the Japanese, had they not done something, Hitler would have ruled the world. As I said, no one from any generation would argue against going to war to save the world. They did a great job, and we're all proud of them.

Nam was a different story. One could say the Vietnam generation was a bunchy of weak *** ******* too. They *****ed and moaned, and kicked and screamed about being sent over. people refused, went ot jail, held rallies, started riots, and spit on the troops that went. The troops that went should be proud, and we should be proud of them. But if your reflection of a good generation is going willingly to war, and not *****ing about it then the Vietnam generation is FAR from a patriotic generation.

And that war was wrong. I'm sorry, but there should NEVER have been a draft in that war. The people had a right to ***** and moan about going over there, just like people would have a right to ***** and moan about going ot war wtih Iraq.

You don't draft to start a war, you draft ONLY in times of DIRE need. We are not in dire need and dire times with this war. By the militarys own admission we have enough troops, we're not over stretched, we just need to get better at putting troops in the right place, we have the troops, we're exceeding re-inlistement, and and inlistment goals.

Your arguments for the draft don't hinge on a country trying to take over the world, our assets are in no direct threat, we're not being invaded, etc. Your suggesting that we use a draft of civil service because it would be good for you young kids.

Which as I pointed out is a really stupid stance. By that reasoning, we should draft everyone in the united states...it'll help the crappy parents out there see hte error of their ways, the kids will get their heads out of their asses because their obviously so diretionless and don't give a damn about the world, etc.
Forcebale millitary service should NEVER be used, outside of times of dire need. If it were a dire need, people would serve, I would leave me career to fight along all the young people, if we had another hitler on our doorstep, or had our harbors bombed. I will not however support a draft because i view the younger generations as directionless and inferior to ours.

DeDolfan
05-11-2004, 10:47 AM
I totally agree with you. It is so easy to say that there should be a draft if you aren't eligible for the draft. Those who are eligible or will be in the next few years are against one for the most part.

I think it is stupid to call the youth "self-centered" like DeDolfan said we were. A draft won't change anything. I don't think of myself as self-centered. Just because I don't want to join the military doesn't mean I'm self-centered. I think about other people besides myself, I help out other people all the time, but you sometimes have to think about yourself as well, and in terms of what I want to do with my life, I'm not going to let others tell me if I should go to college or join the military. I'm lucky that I want to go to college and my family does as well, so there is no conflict anyway. :)

As for education, I wouldn't really say it is hard. They do now have foreign language requirements and other stuff, but HS is still easy IMO. I do pretty much no homework at home and take hard classes (I had an AP exam last week and I take Pre-Calculus as a Junior). I don't know what HS was like 30 years ago, but it still isn't very difficult. As for trig, I covered that in 9th grade in Algebra 2. :)

A draft is unnecessary and it seems like DeDolfan wants one so that people who don't want to join the military have to serve, not because we actually need one. A draft would make the military weaker, soldiers who want to be in the Armed Forces will do a better job than those who don't want to be there. By having a draft, you would basically just fill the military with bad soldiers who don't want to be in the Armed Forces.

How can you agree with it if you don't agree with doing a couple yrs "civic duty" ?
BTW, i didn't say they are selfcentered, just agreeing with another post. but maybe that is the same, could be, who cares cuz it is basically true. My reasons for a draft is not particularly for the #s but for reasons that you can not understand since you never experienced it first hand. B4 the draft was eliminated, times and folks were indeed quite different than today. Young ppl today don't have the same respect as in years past. What I am getting at is simply basic courtesies, etc. in life. Years ago, all young folks always addressed elders as sir or ma'm even if that particular individual really deserved it. The boys rarely, if ever, used to cuss in front of the girls, just among themselves if at all. Today, it is just common place trash talking between the sexes. Matter of fact, if an older person tries to correct a Jr High kid, that kid is just as apt to tell them to go **** off as anything. You know what I'm talking about. today, parents can't hardly correct/discipline their kids or the kid will threaten to have them arrested. What's wrong with this picture. Granted, the late 60s started the sexual revolution and such and that along with the elimination of the draft, those times are when it seems that things really went awry. I'm not singling you out and saying you are one of "these", I'm speaking, generally, as the yound population in general compared to years past. Now enter the draft. Back then there was some unruly sorts, not denying it, but once in and then out of the military, most "grew up" very quickly and often became better persons. When entering boot camp and such, everyone is equal, treated the same and no certain individuals allowed to become "spoiled", so to speak. Being disciplined and showing respect was not an option there, it was a requirement. iMO, a 2 yr military hitch will school the average person alot quicker/better than simply being out on the street during that time. but that is basically why I would support a draft. Granted, we did get way off base a bit from the original topic as such and I got caught up in the other stuff as i'm sure you did. But anyway, i do not want a draft just so folks that don't want to serve will have to. THAT would be stupid.

DeDolfan
05-11-2004, 11:22 AM
Your call was TOTALLY different. The WW2 vets had no choice, they were threatened with invasion by the Japanese, had they not done something, Hitler would have ruled the world. As I said, no one from any generation would argue against going to war to save the world. They did a great job, and we're all proud of them.

Nam was a different story. One could say the Vietnam generation was a bunchy of weak *** ******* too. They *****ed and moaned, and kicked and screamed about being sent over. people refused, went ot jail, held rallies, started riots, and spit on the troops that went. The troops that went should be proud, and we should be proud of them. But if your reflection of a good generation is going willingly to war, and not *****ing about it then the Vietnam generation is FAR from a patriotic generation.

And that war was wrong. I'm sorry, but there should NEVER have been a draft in that war. The people had a right to ***** and moan about going over there, just like people would have a right to ***** and moan about going ot war wtih Iraq.

You don't draft to start a war, you draft ONLY in times of DIRE need. We are not in dire need and dire times with this war. By the militarys own admission we have enough troops, we're not over stretched, we just need to get better at putting troops in the right place, we have the troops, we're exceeding re-inlistement, and and inlistment goals.

Your arguments for the draft don't hinge on a country trying to take over the world, our assets are in no direct threat, we're not being invaded, etc. Your suggesting that we use a draft of civil service because it would be good for you young kids.

Which as I pointed out is a really stupid stance. By that reasoning, we should draft everyone in the united states...it'll help the crappy parents out there see hte error of their ways, the kids will get their heads out of their asses because their obviously so diretionless and don't give a damn about the world, etc.
Forcebale millitary service should NEVER be used, outside of times of dire need. If it were a dire need, people would serve, I would leave me career to fight along all the young people, if we had another hitler on our doorstep, or had our harbors bombed. I will not however support a draft because i view the younger generations as directionless and inferior to ours.

from an individual's standpoint, why was the call to Nam any different than WWII? We didn't have a choice in the 60s either, other than to enlist. Granted, we shouldn't have been there in the first place. The problem with the draft then were all the loop holes that allowed certain folks get deferrments. Big reason why most draftees then were poor/minorities etc. I would us e the word "willingly" to describe answering the call to duty.

Draft to start a war? Did I ever suggest that? We're already in 2 wars right now. But other than my reasons, a draft would insure sufficient troops. I will agree that we should draft only in dire need, but would you please define "dire need" ?

Well, I suppose my stance would be stupid if you don't agree with it. No, you can not possibly draft everyone, so that would be "stupid" to even suggest it. But it could possible help give some folks a more positive direction tho, which in itself can't be all bad. Granted, a big problem even with that would be the selection process. But for the ones that "made it", it could do wonders for them, attitude-wise at least.

one thing about this particular war in iraq that just amzes me is that how so many think it's the right thing to do, apparently as long as their not the ones having to do it tho. in other words, for that war, but against a draft in any sense. Hmmmm............

PhinPhan1227
05-11-2004, 11:44 AM
Just to reiterate a couple of points, since there is a lot of cross analizing going on...

#1-I'm against a current draft-mostly because we don't need one, and it would be counterproductive.

#2-I do however think that it would be beneficial to our youth and country if they were given a strong incentive to serve in SOME fashion...whether it be civil OR military.

#3-No generation is homogenious. There are some of the most civic minded, generous, and self sacrificing young individuals in this generation that this country has ever known. But overall, I can point to generation PRIOR to MY OWN that had a more complete sense of self sacrifice. It's not that those people were better people, they just lived in a different time. They grew up during BAD times. Nobody in America under the age of 60 has actually seen BAD times. Sure, there are individuals who have had it hard, but nothing like the Depression or anything. People who grow up surrounded by wealth just aren't going to have as developed a sense of self sacrifice as those who grow up in poverty. Look at immigrants. They are willing to live and work in ways that you or I aren't so that their KIDS can have a shot. For you and I the shot is for US. In many ways, we are victims of our own success.

DeDolfan
05-11-2004, 12:16 PM
Just to reiterate a couple of points, since there is a lot of cross analizing going on...

#1-I'm against a current draft-mostly because we don't need one, and it would be counterproductive.

#2-I do however think that it would be beneficial to our youth and country if they were given a strong incentive to serve in SOME fashion...whether it be civil OR military.

#3-No generation is homogenious. There are some of the most civic minded, generous, and self sacrificing young individuals in this generation that this country has ever known. But overall, I can point to generation PRIOR to MY OWN that had a more complete sense of self sacrifice. It's not that those people were better people, they just lived in a different time. They grew up during BAD times. Nobody in America under the age of 60 has actually seen BAD times. Sure, there are individuals who have had it hard, but nothing like the Depression or anything. People who grow up surrounded by wealth just aren't going to have as developed a sense of self sacrifice as those who grow up in poverty. Look at immigrants. They are willing to live and work in ways that you or I aren't so that their KIDS can have a shot. For you and I the shot is for US. In many ways, we are victims of our own success.


Well said, 27, and I pretty much agree with all you said. unfortunately, I am not one able to convey my total thoughts into words w/o any context, etc. I do much better in person and alot of thoughts/context either gets lost or simply does not come out alot of times on a public forum such as this. Others, such as yourself, do alot better job of it than I am able. i'm sure that alot of the POVs shared here are probably not all that different in reality. Just as i do not believe that IB would not serve if his freedom really depended on it. It just ain't the American way but anyway, with this, I'm putting this thread to rest as nothing in the thread title was really accomplished.
Cheers, folks! :)

iceblizzard69
05-12-2004, 04:22 PM
How can you agree with it if you don't agree with doing a couple yrs "civic duty" ?
BTW, i didn't say they are selfcentered, just agreeing with another post. but maybe that is the same, could be, who cares cuz it is basically true. My reasons for a draft is not particularly for the #s but for reasons that you can not understand since you never experienced it first hand. B4 the draft was eliminated, times and folks were indeed quite different than today. Young ppl today don't have the same respect as in years past. What I am getting at is simply basic courtesies, etc. in life. Years ago, all young folks always addressed elders as sir or ma'm even if that particular individual really deserved it. The boys rarely, if ever, used to cuss in front of the girls, just among themselves if at all. Today, it is just common place trash talking between the sexes. Matter of fact, if an older person tries to correct a Jr High kid, that kid is just as apt to tell them to go **** off as anything. You know what I'm talking about. today, parents can't hardly correct/discipline their kids or the kid will threaten to have them arrested. What's wrong with this picture. Granted, the late 60s started the sexual revolution and such and that along with the elimination of the draft, those times are when it seems that things really went awry. I'm not singling you out and saying you are one of "these", I'm speaking, generally, as the yound population in general compared to years past. Now enter the draft. Back then there was some unruly sorts, not denying it, but once in and then out of the military, most "grew up" very quickly and often became better persons. When entering boot camp and such, everyone is equal, treated the same and no certain individuals allowed to become "spoiled", so to speak. Being disciplined and showing respect was not an option there, it was a requirement. iMO, a 2 yr military hitch will school the average person alot quicker/better than simply being out on the street during that time. but that is basically why I would support a draft. Granted, we did get way off base a bit from the original topic as such and I got caught up in the other stuff as i'm sure you did. But anyway, i do not want a draft just so folks that don't want to serve will have to. THAT would be stupid.

I don't necessarily agree with everything you just said but I know where you are coming from. Things are different today than they were in the 30-40 years ago. I will admit that I do curse in front of my parents. I don't do it to piss them off or anything, it is just part of the way that people talk nowadays. If they had a problem with it, I would try not to do it. I don't curse excessively, but I must say that they do come out of my mouth once in a while, and my parents really don't care.

I do think that parents discipline their kids a lot. I have friends who get grounded occasionally and stuff like that. I was never punished/disciplined/grounded, but that is because I never really did anything worthy of getting punished.

Kids have definitely changed. I don't think they are necessarily worse because they curse, or because they don't call elders sir or maam. It's just a difference in times.

PhinPhan1227
05-12-2004, 05:46 PM
I don't necessarily agree with everything you just said but I know where you are coming from. Things are different today than they were in the 30-40 years ago. I will admit that I do curse in front of my parents. I don't do it to piss them off or anything, it is just part of the way that people talk nowadays. If they had a problem with it, I would try not to do it. I don't curse excessively, but I must say that they do come out of my mouth once in a while, and my parents really don't care.

I do think that parents discipline their kids a lot. I have friends who get grounded occasionally and stuff like that. I was never punished/disciplined/grounded, but that is because I never really did anything worthy of getting punished.

Kids have definitely changed. I don't think they are necessarily worse because they curse, or because they don't call elders sir or maam. It's just a difference in times.

Quick question Ice...when your parents get old and inferm, are they going to live with you? If I told you that you were going to have to choose between going to college yourself, or taking 2 jobs to insure that your kids were going to college, what would you do? It's not that kids now are worse than kids 40 years ago...it's just that kids 40 years ago knew what it was like to have it bad and as such knew how to sacrifice. Again, just like immigrants from poor countries. "Kids" today (and by kids I mean anyone under 50) grew up in the top economy in the world. They aren't worse than the generation of 40 years ago, but I gurrantee you they're softer. It's just the environment they grew up in.

iceblizzard69
05-12-2004, 06:03 PM
Quick question Ice...when your parents get old and inferm, are they going to live with you? If I told you that you were going to have to choose between going to college yourself, or taking 2 jobs to insure that your kids were going to college, what would you do? It's not that kids now are worse than kids 40 years ago...it's just that kids 40 years ago knew what it was like to have it bad and as such knew how to sacrifice. Again, just like immigrants from poor countries. "Kids" today (and by kids I mean anyone under 50) grew up in the top economy in the world. They aren't worse than the generation of 40 years ago, but I gurrantee you they're softer. It's just the environment they grew up in.

People who go to college on average make more money than those who don't, so I will have more money if I go to college, and thus, have more money to send my future kids to college as well.

If I don't go to college, I'll probably make less money in life, and thus, my future kids (if I ever have kids, which I do hope to have one day) will have a smaller chance of going to college.

The question you just asked is a terrible one. If I go to college, I'll probably make more money in life. If I don't and have two jobs my whole life, I'll be working more, and the jobs probably wouldn't be great ones. It would make me a worse parent because I would be around my children less.

If I went to college and had to pay on my own (I'll probably end up paying for part of it on my own depending on how much the college charges me (I'm going to apply for financial aid but even if I don't get it I'll still go to college), I would be in a large amount of debt after but would make it back, and in the end, I'll have more money in the bank account as a result of getting a college education.

I would rather see my future children go to college than myself, but it is more likely that my children would go to college if I also go to college.

PhinPhan1227
05-12-2004, 07:34 PM
People who go to college on average make more money than those who don't, so I will have more money if I go to college, and thus, have more money to send my future kids to college as well.

If I don't go to college, I'll probably make less money in life, and thus, my future kids (if I ever have kids, which I do hope to have one day) will have a smaller chance of going to college.

The question you just asked is a terrible one. If I go to college, I'll probably make more money in life. If I don't and have two jobs my whole life, I'll be working more, and the jobs probably wouldn't be great ones. It would make me a worse parent because I would be around my children less.

If I went to college and had to pay on my own (I'll probably end up paying for part of it on my own depending on how much the college charges me (I'm going to apply for financial aid but even if I don't get it I'll still go to college), I would be in a large amount of debt after but would make it back, and in the end, I'll have more money in the bank account as a result of getting a college education.

I would rather see my future children go to college than myself, but it is more likely that my children would go to college if I also go to college.


That's all true, but it also wasn't the question. You are able to go to college, AND will probably be able to send your kids as well(hopefully...40k of student loans is a biatch). For other generations, and for many immigrants, it wasn't an option. They came here with kids...or they didn't have the funding available now. I'm asking you to put YOUR values into THEIR situation. And I'm not downing you or being insulting. You and I grew up in the wealthiest country in the world. We take for granted THOUSANDS of things that the majority of the world(and Americans from 50 years ago) would not. That gives people a different perspective. Again, people who grow up in a harder environment are going to be stronger as a group than those who do not. Any psychologist worth a damn will confirm that.

Dolfan954
05-15-2004, 03:00 PM
Just curious about everyones feelings on it. My present thinking is that it's probably not a bad idea.
If a draft ever happens again, I'll gladly turn myself in for my five year prison sentence and $10,000 fine. Either that or I'll move to Canada and never come back. I support our troops. They can't be commended enough for their unselfishness and bravery. They are truly heroes.

I do not, however, support the administration that has our troops over there. They didn't find any weapons, and now the "PR" message is we're liberating the Iraqi people. Great. That's why thousands of soldiers have been killed...to liberate people halfway around the world. I'm sure the parents, sons, daughters, etc.. are cool with that explanation.

Dubya says that we can't trust them with weapons. Who the hell is he to be the authority on who can and cannot have what? Who's to say that a prime minister of a foreign country doesn't wake up one morning and say, "Gee, I don't think America can be trusted with all those nuclear weapons. Let's invade their country and remove them."

I don't care what anyone says. The government can try and push that, "They hate us because of our freedom" line all they want. The real truth is, they hate us because our government feels the need to be the world police. Too many people are sick and dying right here in the United States....with no health insurance. How many billions have they spent on the war now? There's no reason why we shouldn't have some kind of nationwide healthcare plan for all citizens. Canada has accomplished it. Why don't we? Because we're too busy telling other countries what to do.

Phinzone
05-15-2004, 05:07 PM
If a draft ever happens again, I'll gladly turn myself in for my five year prison sentence and $10,000 fine. Either that or I'll move to Canada and never come back. I support our troops. They can't be commended enough for their unselfishness and bravery. They are truly heroes.

I do not, however, support the administration that has our troops over there. They didn't find any weapons, and now the "PR" message is we're liberating the Iraqi people. Great. That's why thousands of soldiers have been killed...to liberate people halfway around the world. I'm sure the parents, sons, daughters, etc.. are cool with that explanation.

Dubya says that we can't trust them with weapons. Who the hell is he to be the authority on who can and cannot have what? Who's to say that a prime minister of a foreign country doesn't wake up one morning and say, "Gee, I don't think America can be trusted with all those nuclear weapons. Let's invade their country and remove them."

I don't care what anyone says. The government can try and push that, "They hate us because of our freedom" line all they want. The real truth is, they hate us because our government feels the need to be the world police. Too many people are sick and dying right here in the United States....with no health insurance. How many billions have they spent on the war now? There's no reason why we shouldn't have some kind of nationwide healthcare plan for all citizens. Canada has accomplished it. Why don't we? Because we're too busy telling other countries what to do.

a few things....

1. I too want Nationwide health care, but I want to make a few points clear. These systems have a LOT of problems.
-the most important problem, is that the quality of healthcare suffers...a lot. It's llike comparing communism to capitalism. When everyone gets the same amount of money for doing differnet htings, where's the incentive to work harder? Drug companies, doctors, surgeous, will get paid a flat fee, thus there is no incentive to work harder. Progress in the drug community would slow down CONSIDERABLY, with companies not competeing against eachother, there would be little need to invest heavily in research.

-it turns away prospective great doctors. A nationwide healthcare system would like I say give doctors a flat pay. It may be a decent sum, but it won't be anywhere near what their paying now. THe best doctors get the most, the small town doctors get the least. They could still be paid on their job, but not their performance, therefore HUGE problems would emerge down the road.

I'm all for it, i think no one should have to worry about healthcare, however the negatives are just too much to accept. Lower standards, loss of jobs (insurance companies) etc. I just don't think it's a good idea anymore. I used to agree with you, until I looked into it further.



2nd....Saddam lost the right to have weapons after he invaded an innocent country. Just like the Germans lost the right to have an army after WW1. THey built it up, and they went and started WW2. Get the picture yet? Same reason Japan wasn't allowed to have an army for a LONG time after WW2. No one picked on Saddam until he started wars, and committed genocide. "America" didn't make those rules, the WORLD did, and Saddam signed off on it. He invaded a foreign country, and got his *** kicked. It's sad that you still defend him against the "capitalistic americans" that are obviously trying to force their way of life on the rest of the world.

PhinPhan1227
05-16-2004, 04:41 AM
If a draft ever happens again, I'll gladly turn myself in for my five year prison sentence and $10,000 fine. Either that or I'll move to Canada and never come back. I support our troops. They can't be commended enough for their unselfishness and bravery. They are truly heroes.

I do not, however, support the administration that has our troops over there. They didn't find any weapons, and now the "PR" message is we're liberating the Iraqi people. Great. That's why thousands of soldiers have been killed...to liberate people halfway around the world. I'm sure the parents, sons, daughters, etc.. are cool with that explanation.

Dubya says that we can't trust them with weapons. Who the hell is he to be the authority on who can and cannot have what? Who's to say that a prime minister of a foreign country doesn't wake up one morning and say, "Gee, I don't think America can be trusted with all those nuclear weapons. Let's invade their country and remove them."

I don't care what anyone says. The government can try and push that, "They hate us because of our freedom" line all they want. The real truth is, they hate us because our government feels the need to be the world police. Too many people are sick and dying right here in the United States....with no health insurance. How many billions have they spent on the war now? There's no reason why we shouldn't have some kind of nationwide healthcare plan for all citizens. Canada has accomplished it. Why don't we? Because we're too busy telling other countries what to do.


1)Thousands? Are you counting Iraqi soldiers killed? Americans losses to date have been around 700 killed.

2)Saddam invaded his neighbor without provocation, and used chem/bio weapons to kill his own and other nations citizens. We haven't used OUR nukes innapropriately. All that being said, if some nation wants to take them away, they are free to try. Force and might of arms ARE the most basic forms of diplomacy.

3)Show me a universal healthcare system in a nation the size of the US that WORKS, and maybe I would agree with you. Until then, it's a pipe dream. Universal healthcare will require caps on doctors salaries...what shmuck is going to run up 500k worth of student loans to become a doctor when his capped salary and malpractice insurance premiums won't allow them to pay them off? Get ready to say hello to Doctor Ramirez...graduate of Grenada Medical School.

DeDolfan
05-16-2004, 01:57 PM
If a draft ever happens again, I'll gladly turn myself in for my five year prison sentence and $10,000 fine. Either that or I'll move to Canada and never come back. I support our troops. They can't be commended enough for their unselfishness and bravery. They are truly heroes.

I do not, however, support the administration that has our troops over there. They didn't find any weapons, and now the "PR" message is we're liberating the Iraqi people. Great. That's why thousands of soldiers have been killed...to liberate people halfway around the world. I'm sure the parents, sons, daughters, etc.. are cool with that explanation.

Dubya says that we can't trust them with weapons. Who the hell is he to be the authority on who can and cannot have what? Who's to say that a prime minister of a foreign country doesn't wake up one morning and say, "Gee, I don't think America can be trusted with all those nuclear weapons. Let's invade their country and remove them."

I don't care what anyone says. The government can try and push that, "They hate us because of our freedom" line all they want. The real truth is, they hate us because our government feels the need to be the world police. Too many people are sick and dying right here in the United States....with no health insurance. How many billions have they spent on the war now? There's no reason why we shouldn't have some kind of nationwide healthcare plan for all citizens. Canada has accomplished it. Why don't we? Because we're too busy telling other countries what to do.

i'll not re: about the draft, since I have already put that part to rest.

I do agree with 100% of what else you said tho. You said it in a way that I meant but simply couldn't "find" the right words" Thanks! ;)