# General Discussion > Opinions >  What would you do if you were drafted?

## Brooker

If you were to be drafted by your country's military *during war time*, what would you do?

----------


## mad pierrot

Depends. If it was now, for Iraq, then no. If it was for civil war or WWII, I'd probably go.

----------


## Jungle Boy

I would leave. I dont' beleive in war. The only war worth fighting in the last 60 years was WWII. So unless Hitler came back from the grave and tried to establish the third reich agian I would leave.

----------


## Mike Cash

You forgot to include "I have already served voluntarily" and "I have already served voluntarily and am past recall age"

----------


## CC1

> You forgot to include "I have already served voluntarily" and "I have already served voluntarily and am past recall age"


Mike it is sooooo scary how much you and I think alike (sometimes)...I was just getting ready to post something similar!  :Laughing:

----------


## Brooker

I've made the changes to the poll.

----------


## Frank D. White

Even though I'm over the hill, it would be great to put my long range shooting skills back to work! I would love to send deserving enemies to their graves; better than any video game out! What better way to lose your aggression then government santioned killing; makes me drool to think about all that blood & gore. Don't wait for the draft, run down & join now!

Frank

PS - KILL KILL KILL, RAH RAH RAH!!

 :Blush:

----------


## Mike Cash

> I've made the changes to the poll.


Thanks for remember us veterans. If possible, please shift my vote to that from the "would volunteer before being drafted" thingy.

----------


## Brooker

> Even though I'm over the hill, it would be great to put my long range shooting skills back to work! I would love to send deserving enemies to their graves; better than any video game out! What better way to lose your aggression then government santioned killing; makes me drool to think about all that blood & gore. Don't wait for the draft, run down & join now!
> 
> Frank
> 
> PS - KILL KILL KILL, RAH RAH RAH!!


There's a stance you don't hear very often.  :Bikkuri:  Never really thought of it like that.  :Uzi:   :Kaioken:  

mikecash wrote...



> Thanks for remember us veterans. If possible, please shift my vote to that from the "would volunteer before being drafted" thingy.


Done.

----------


## kirei_na_me

I think Frank was being sarcastic, so I wouldn't get too bent out of shape.  :Okashii: 

Well, I guess I'm not in danger of being drafted, but I do have a plan for my sons if ever they're drafted. They have dual citizenship, so if they are drafted, I'll just ship them to Japan.

----------


## lineartube

Patriotism versus Humanism... that's a though choice. I don't usually wake up in the morning with strange urges envolving Spaniards, a rusty sword and some Albrecht Durer visions of hell on Earth. But I admit I can get bitchy before my mourning coffee.
This being said, the only way I could get forced to fight was if the sovereignty of my country was in peril, like for instance in the last EuroCup, when hordes of tourists swarmed down into our towns and pubs and drunk all of our beer! 

Two things come into mind though, that would make me think about raising even a fruit knife at my "enemy": One would be the "how moral is this conflict" and the other "how moral is my government". But in the end it is my country and for the good or for the bad I would have to defend it and I would volunteer. Though if I has faced into serving overseas and getting involved into overthrowing a over-the-hill dictator, I would say no and I would prefer the brig.

----------


## mad pierrot

I see it this way: I am willing to defend my country. Well, sending more troops to Iraq increases social unrest causing _more_ people of Iraq to resort to terrorist tactics. Seems to me, sending more troops to Iraq only recruits more terrorists, which is the opposite of defending my country.

 :Doubt:  


Perhaps we should try diplomacy.

----------


## Satori

> I see it this way: I am willing to defend my country. Well, sending more troops to Iraq increases social unrest causing _more_ people of Iraq to resort to terrorist tactics. Seems to me, sending more troops to Iraq only recruits more terrorists, which is the opposite of defending my country.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Perhaps we should try diplomacy.


What a great answer!  :Cool:

----------


## kirei_na_me

Yes, excellent answer, mad p.

----------


## Wang

It depends on what the reasons are for the war.
The enemy of Taiwan is the corrupt, oppressive and dictatorial People's Republic of China. 
If Taiwan would be attacked by China then I would probably defend it, because I believe in the ideals of freedom and democracy and I don't want that to be taken away from us.

----------


## bossel

I would never join any army! Don't want to end up as cannon fodder.

In a case like Wang described, though, I would probably join some small (!) resistance group & try to take out the occasional soldier or tank. 
Hey! That would make me one of those thugs & assassins Bush likes to talk about, wouldn't it?

----------


## Glenn

> I see it this way: I am willing to defend my country. Well, sending more troops to Iraq increases social unrest causing _more_ people of Iraq to resort to terrorist tactics. Seems to me, sending more troops to Iraq only recruits more terrorists, which is the opposite of defending my country.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Perhaps we should try diplomacy.


Wasn't the question about being drafted in general, and not about the current conflict?

----------


## Lina Inverse

Not bloody likely, since I had the luck to be classified "unsuitable" during the suitability test for the military service  :Laughing: 
Over here, once you become 18 there's a suitability test, and if you pass it, you have to serve for a year, However, you could still refuse and do social services instead (which are a bit longer, I think).




> Even though I'm over the hill, it would be great to put my long range shooting skills back to work! I would love to send deserving enemies to their graves; better than any video game out! What better way to lose your aggression then government santioned killing; makes me drool to think about all that blood & gore. Don't wait for the draft, run down & join now!
> 
> Frank
> 
> PS - KILL KILL KILL, RAH RAH RAH!!


Uh-oh... Uncle Frank has forgotten to take his Prozac once again, and this time it's really bad  :Relieved: 
Run for the hills, he's already foaming at the mouth!  :Shocked:

----------


## Brooker

Lina Inverse wrote...



> Over here, once you become 18 there's a suitability test, and if you pass it, you have to serve for a year, However, you could still refuse and do social services instead (which are a bit longer, I think).


My father was a U.S. Marine back in Vietnam and he said he had to take a similar kind of test. He told some rather entertaining stories about what some guys did in order to FAIL this test. One involved putting the contents of a jar of chunky peanut butter down your pants. When asked about the strange substance during the physical examination, the potential recruit scooped some of it up into his mouth and declaired, "I believe it's sh**, sir". He was denied entrance for "mental reasons". 

Sorry if that was too racey, but hey, I heard that story from my dad. I tried not to be too graphic about it.  :Smiling:

----------


## King of Tokyo

> My father was a U.S. Marine back in Vietnam and he said he had to take a similar kind of test. He told some rather entertaining stories about what some guys did in order to FAIL this test. One involved putting the contents of a jar of chunky peanut butter down your pants. When asked about the strange substance during the physical examination, the potential recruit scooped some of it up into his mouth and declaired, "I believe it's sh**, sir". He was denied entrance for "mental reasons". 
> 
> Sorry if that was too racey, but hey, I heard that story from my dad. I tried not to be too graphic about it.


That story reminds me of the film 'Training Day'.

Oh, and to stay on topic, I chose "It would depend on the circumstances of the conflict, but probably not go." I am completely against war and don't see how a group of poor people (Me and everyone else getting the royal screwjob) murdering a group of another nation's poor people makes any sense. Why should I go and kill others who most likely don't wish to be there either? I don't need that on my conscience, I also don't need a bullet to the head. If I was drafted it'd be cool though, because my parents would pay for me to go live in Japan to get away from it, so I welcome them to draft me.

----------


## Maciamo

I appreciate that some countries (UK, Belgium...) do not have conscription ("draft" for Americans, although it sounds like beer  :Poh:  ). 

In the events of a war, I would rather leave my country (anyway, I already don't live there anymore  :Poh:  ), as 1) I feel little attachment to it, and 2) why should I die for "my country", because some politicians decided it, when I could make the decisions instead of them. I'd rather fight politicians deciding to go to war than the so-called enemy. If "my country" (the EU ?) were attacked, then I would try to find a solution to end the war quickly and with few casualities. But that really depends on how desperate the situation is, I guess.

----------


## Satori

> I appreciate that some countries (UK, Belgium...) do not have conscription ("draft" for Americans, although it sounds like beer  ). 
> 
> In the events of a war, I would rather leave my country (anyway, I already don't live there anymore  ), as 1) I feel little attachment to it, and 2) why should I die for "my country", because some politicians decided it, when I could make the decisions instead of them. I'd rather fight politicians deciding to go to war than the so-called enemy. If "my country" (the EU ?) were attacked, then I would try to find a solution to end the war quickly and with few casualities. But that really depends on how desperate the situation is, I guess.


I definitely agree with that. Actually, I think the leaders who want to go to war should fight it out! 

And I especially loved your reference to beer. If only it were about beer!!  :Poh:

----------


## Brooker

Someone (not me) added "I am beyond recall age" but I don't know if that's a good choice because the question is "What would you do *IF* you were drafted?". Even if you're too old to be drafted, you can surely imagine what you would do if you were drafted. 

Besides, I'm 27, under current rules I'm too old to be drafted (I think), but if a draft were enacted, they could easily up the age requirement to include me. So I can't really say that I'm too old.

----------


## Frank D. White

all the young people leave the country, us old ones will be the only ones left to fight?

Frank

 :Blush:

----------


## Fantt

There's another option for the poll, right? I would guess that if the US tried to draft today's 18 and 19 year old men, an awful lot of them would become gay overnight. Currently, I don't think you can be in the military if you're homosexual. Don't ask, don't tell and all that.

Is that the case? Could a young man get out of military service by announcing he's gay? If so, what sort of proof would the government require? Would young men be willing to prove themselves to be gay over dying for a war they feel is immoral? I might if I was draftable and considered the current war to be immoral.

As for me, I'm too old, but if my son is ever in danger of being drafted for an immoral war we would leave the country.

----------


## Duo

It would depend on the circumstances. If my country is attacked innocently by some other so that it can be invaded I would certainly go and fight. There have been generations and generations of my people that have given their life and spilled their blood to protect the freedom of our nation, starting from the Romans, Ottomans, Slavs and etc, my country has always been on the defensive and never atacked another for reasons other than self defense. So yeah, I view it as a moral obligation that during the thousands of years of my country's history my people have given their life to defend it and its freedom, then what makes me any better, or actually any worse that I would not go and fight. But I would not fight in some stupid useless war that my country would initate, in fact I would rally against it.

----------


## Lina Inverse

> Someone (not me) added "I am beyond recall age" but I don't know if that's a good choice because the question is "What would you do *IF* you were drafted?". Even if you're too old to be drafted, you can surely imagine what you would do if you were drafted. 
> 
> Besides, I'm 27, under current rules I'm too old to be drafted (I think), but if a draft were enacted, they could easily up the age requirement to include me. So I can't really say that I'm too old.


Yes, that goes additionally in my favor... I'm probably above draft age as well.

----------


## Frank D. White

> Yes, that goes additionally in my favor... I'm probably above draft age as well.


 And all this time I thought you were 13 or 14 at most!!

Frank

 :Laughing:   :Poh:   :Blush:

----------


## bossel

> There have been generations and generations of my people that have given their life and spilled their blood to protect the freedom of our nation, starting from the Romans, Ottomans, Slavs and etc, my country has always been on the defensive and never atacked another for reasons other than self defense.


Err..., you're talking about Belgium? I don't think, the nation is that old (independence in 1830/31). If you just talk about the people living there, you can't really claim that they always defended against aggressors (just remember the crusades).

With your stance regarding the poll, I agree, though.

----------


## Duo

Hi bossel, no I'm not talkin about Belgium, I'm a student here, but I am Albanian. So I was talkin about u know old Balkan conflicts etc, you know how it is  :Poh:  

Yeah so hmmmm......... I love the balkans but still got a lil of that old feud blood simmering deep down  :Blush:

----------


## Miss_apollo7

Us females are not included in the draft, but here in Denmark we can choose to get into the military. 

I wanted to become a language officer of the reserve when I was about 18-19 of age (doing interrogations in Russian and/or Arabic), and I was qualified to become stationed, however, I also qualified at being accepted at a university in the UK the same year, so I had to choose - I chose the latter after deep thinking and I am happy with the result! 

If I had the chance today to become an interrogator, I think I would reconsider the path to become an officer - I think I have matured, changed my mind, or simply: I am happy with my "civilian" life with a great boyfriend and two lovely cats.  :Bravo:  

Anyhow, after university I have ended up within the field of defence (civil work); teaching within communications. I *don't*  want to become a professional soldier.

----------


## Lina Inverse

> And all this time I thought you were 13 or 14 at most!!


Suuure... you're the right one to talk there  :Laughing: 
Haven't you seen any of my photos?

----------


## Frank D. White

I'll go see what's new that I missed!

Frank

 :Blush:

----------


## Miss_apollo7

*@Frank:*
I think Frank and I have at least one thing in common: SHOOTING!!  :Laugh out loud:  I shoot for fun also (not people!), but aim at boards like in dart in a club. I do not hunt though....

----------


## CC1

> There's another option for the poll, right? I would guess that if the US tried to draft today's 18 and 19 year old men, an awful lot of them would become gay overnight. Currently, I don't think you can be in the military if you're homosexual. Don't ask, don't tell and all that.
> 
> Is that the case? Could a young man get out of military service by announcing he's gay? If so, what sort of proof would the government require? Would young men be willing to prove themselves to be gay over dying for a war they feel is immoral? I might if I was draftable and considered the current war to be immoral.
> 
> As for me, I'm too old, but if my son is ever in danger of being drafted for an immoral war we would leave the country.


Yes, that is still an option. I know in my case (when I was training recruits) If one came in and said that he wanted to quit, and said he was gay...I usually laughed. They have to go for a pysche (sp) evaluation once they reveal that. Once I had two kids come in at the same time and say that they were gay...I asked them which one liked the top? They said why? I told them that I wanted them to demonstrate exactly what gay men do....  :Laughing:  They changed their minds real quick after that!  :Laughing:  Then I told them why don't they just kiss then so that I would know that they were for real! They decided that the military wasn't that bad after all!  :Poh:

----------


## bossel

> Hi bossel, no I'm not talkin about Belgium, I'm a student here, but I am Albanian. So I was talkin about u know old Balkan conflicts etc, you know how it is


Ah, I see. But I'm always a bit suspicious when people claim that their history is free of aggression against others. Sadly I don't know too much about Albanian history (hrmph!), but I'm pretty sure I could find some black spots there as well. Or maybe the Albanians usually had enough to do with fighting themselves, so they left their neighbours alone. Oh well...

----------


## Maciamo

> Once I had two kids come in at the same time and say that they were gay...I asked them which one liked the top? They said why? I told them that I wanted them to demonstrate exactly what gay men do....  They changed their minds real quick after that!  Then I told them why don't they just kiss then so that I would know that they were for real! They decided that the military wasn't that bad after all!


How could you force someone to demonstrate they are gay ? Would any straight person accept to kiss or have sex with a stranger of the opposite sex they bring to "prove they are straight" ? Most women wouldn't, but I guess lots of men would say "it depends how beautiful she is". Well, let's take an ugly one, or at least one you personally don't like. As most straight people couldn't be forced to demonstrate their "straightness", I can't imagine the army asking gay people to prove they are gay. The very thought of it sounds so childish that I can't actually believe than grown-ups would believe such a story.




> If my country is attacked innocently by some other so that it can be invaded I would certainly go and fight.


I noticed that almost all of you who have expressed their opinion here seem to have a clear idea of what "their country" is. I hear "my country, my country...", but for me these words have little significance. In an age of globalization, when people (from developed countries) can move freely around the world, meet people from all cultures and languages, date or marry some of these people, live and work in almost an country they please... Why should there still be people who would like to die for "their country" ? 

I suppose not everybody has an experience of living in many countries like I have, but most (younger) Europeans have studied in at least one another country (even 2 weeks during the summer holiday, if not on a Erasmus programme or similar), most have friends from "other countries". 

This forum is the best example of a borderless international community. Would you like to fight and protect "your country" (the establishment of politicians ?) against your fellow board-members or other friends from other countries ? You might even meet and kill each others. And for what ? For politicians or military or business leaders who have decided to go to war or provoke it ? For those same people who have brainwashed their population as all good, democratically elected dictator (like Hitler, Mussolini or Bush) have done ? Stirring the masses with words of hatred for others. Often those who believe this brainwashing are justly people who haven't got friends in the "enemy countries".

But I wouldn't protect my country (which doesn't mean I wouldn't protect myself or people close to me), because I don't know which country that would be. I do not feel attachment to the country where I was born. I grew up in several EU countries. I now live in Japan, which I like a lot. What is _my country_  ? The one where I have lived happiest ? The one of my official nationality ? The one where I have lived the longest ? The one where I have the most friends ? The one which I think is the best ideologically or culturally or politically ? These are all different countries ! I just wish more of you could understand what I feel by having similar experience. At best, I could say that my country is the EU (at least the group of 12 or 15 countries), because that emcopasses most of the above (except Japan). But I know that the EU is already an international community, which have fought together for centuries. Maybe that is also why I find it ridiculous to fight for one's country.

At best a country is a faction. We are all citizens of the world (or world minus a few countries  :Blush:  ) and fighting for one country doesn't make more sense as fighting for one's state or region, or fighting for a political party or for a system. There always need to be a reason to fight. Those bringing the most people together are the reasons of protecting a common land (by not like-minded people who live on it), or a common political system (which can bring countries together like during WWII and the cold war). But in the end, it's always factionalism, and people who die in combat for those "big wars" are rarely those who organized the war or profit from it - almost always the dumb fellows who bravely fought for something they didn't understand and their leaders called "patriotism" or "freedom" - words that mean something to these soldiers, but so detached from the reality at the top).

----------


## thomas

> How could you force someone to demonstrate they are gay ? Would any straight person accept to kiss or have sex with a stranger of the opposite sex they bring to "prove they are straight" ? Most women wouldn't, but I guess lots of men would say "it depends how beautiful she is". Well, let's take an ugly one, or at least one you personally don't like. As most straight people couldn't be forced to demonstrate their "straightness", I can't imagine the army asking gay people to prove they are gay. The very thought of it sounds so childish that I can't actually believe than grown-ups would believe such a story.


When I was in the army, I remember that while being in boot camp one of our fellow conscripts claimed to be gay. Well, we knew he wasn't, but he stated that he couldn't "stand the sight of naked men under the shower". As a matter of fact he was singled out, and after a few interviews with the army shrink he was swiftly discharged. A lot of us seriously contemplated about following his example.
 :Laughing:

----------


## CC1

> How could you force someone to demonstrate they are gay ? Would any straight person accept to kiss or have sex with a stranger of the opposite sex they bring to "prove they are straight" ? Most women wouldn't, but I guess lots of men would say "it depends how beautiful she is". Well, let's take an ugly one, or at least one you personally don't like. As most straight people couldn't be forced to demonstrate their "straightness", I can't imagine the army asking gay people to prove they are gay. The very thought of it sounds so childish that I can't actually believe than grown-ups would believe such a story.


See, the power of suggestion. That is all that it was. An 18-22 year old kid (I use the word kid, because that is exactly what they act like) comes in and tells you he's gay. You plant the suggestion that he would have to prove it in some way, and he realizes that this was a poor choice of how to get out of service. Remember, the US doesn't *force* military service. The men we received for training *volunteered* by signing up themselves. Once they get there, alone and away from everything/everyone they know, all sorts of thoughts rush through their minds. I did mention that they see a physchiatrist right? The doctor makes the decision based on whether or not the person is fit to continue training. (sometimes they just see a priest for counselling, and the priest can make a recomendation) We never actually made *anyone* do *anything* but the power of suggestion does wonders.
Similar tricks were employed on concientious objectors. Maybe Mike will know what I am referring to here? It is truly an eye opener for many young men and women after this exercise. 
Military life is very stressful, even without actually going off to fight in a conflict. These are all good tests just to evaluate a person's state of mind and how they will react to such stresses. 

So to reiterate, the ARMY (or any other service) doesn't ask you to prove you are gay or not....you go for a medical eval...but sometimes when faced with the possibility of having to prove it, a person will change thier (lie) story.

----------


## Fantt

If faced with the possibility of having to kill someone in an unjust war, I would probably not have much of a problem with whatever type of "gayness" test that the army might throw at me. I would guess that a lot of today's kids wouldn't have much of a problem with that either - especially if the casualty of whatever war was going on was pretty high. I'm not talking about voluntary recruits - I'm talking about draftees - kids being forced involuntarily into military service. Being "gay" would be a pretty quick out for them.

----------


## Brooker

Maciamo wrote...



> I suppose not everybody has an experience of living in many countries like I have


I do think your situation is kind of unique.

...and...



> In an age of globalization, when people (from developed countries) can move freely around the world, meet people from all cultures and languages, date or marry some of these people, live and work in almost an country they please... Why should there still be people who would like to die for "their country" ?


I agree.




> This forum is the best example of a borderless international community. Would you like to fight and protect "your country" (the establishment of politicians ?) against your fellow board-members or other friends from other countries ? You might even meet and kill each others. And for what ?


I thought of that too. Imagine "my country" ordered me into battle and I ran into TwistedMac (only using him as an example because I know he plays war games) or someone like him. How would he be any different from the people I was fighting WITH (not against)? Because our country's politicians disagreed about something? Hell, usually I disagree with my country's politicians. Does that mean I should go to war against them? Hmmmm.

Fantt wrote....



> There's another option for the poll, right? I would guess that if the US tried to draft today's 18 and 19 year old men, an awful lot of them would become gay overnight. Currently, I don't think you can be in the military if you're homosexual. Don't ask, don't tell and all that.


I thought "don't ask don't tell" meant that the military no longer considers "gayness" to be an issue. I didn't think you could get out of military service for being (or pretending to be) gay.  :Doubt:

----------


## CC1

> I thought "don't ask don't tell" meant that the military no longer considers "gayness" to be an issue. I didn't think you could get out of military service for being (or pretending to be) gay.


Actually Brooker that is why it is called "don't ask don't tell". As long as the military doesn't know, you can stay. Once you come out, you are not allowed to stay. Mainly because most "straight" men can handle the concept of a gay man living in close quarters with them. It freaks them out! You have to realize this is mainly the "alpha" males thinking this way. Funny how someone who is supposed to be so manyly and fearless can be so scared of such a little fact!  :Doubt:  Yet if men are confronted by a lesbian they are less freaked out! LOL That is considered more like a party!  :So cute !:  

*disclaimer* not particularly my personal views!

----------


## Brooker

Someone voted for, "I have already been drafted and I didn't serve." I'm interested to know what that person had to do to get out of it.

----------


## Frank D. White

> Suuure... you're the right one to talk there 
> Haven't you seen any of my photos?


 I guess you look about 24 or 25, not a teenybopper for sure.

Frank

 :Blush:

----------


## antantrevolution

Well, from what I have been told by a few serviceman that are getting ready to re-deploy, our next vacation spot is going to be Iran. As lovely as that sounds, it gets better as the possibility of Syria after that. 

I have to say, if I were drafted, I would not piss and moan about how unjust it is. I would serve with my fellow soldiers in a way that is expected of me. If I were to decide to stay in service after the war, that depends on where my life would be at the time.

Would the prospect of being drafted scare me? Hell yes. But that is part of it. I don't look at the majority of our soldiers, and think obedient lapdog of Bush as many around the world may. I see them and I realise they are doing their jobs, and doing what they believe in.

I would not leave the US.

I would not become a coward.

The life of one does not gain importance over the lives of the many.

Agree or disagree, I am open for discussion.




> Someone voted for, "I have already been drafted and I didn't serve." I'm interested to know what that person had to do to get out of it.


"OWWWW, MY LIVER!!!!!!!"

Ant

----------


## chiquiliquis

> Remember, the US doesn't *force* military service. The men we received for training *volunteered* by signing up themselves. Once they get there, alone and away from everything/everyone they know, all sorts of thoughts rush through their minds... ... We never actually made *anyone* do *anything* but the power of suggestion does wonders.
> Similar tricks were employed on concientious objectors. Maybe Mike will know what I am referring to here? It is truly an eye opener for many young men and women after this exercise.


You're right, the ARMY, per se, does not force anyone to do anything. But circumstances do. I think you may be downplaying a vital element in this discussion:




> Other incentives under the Montgomery GI Bill include the promises of a college fund of up to $50,000, post service employment and training.
> 
> But activist Carlos Mendes of the Latinos Against the War in Iraq coalition says that many soldiers have told him that these promises often fail to materialise.
> 
> The US military relies on volunteers, the Pentagon argues, and there is no official draft, therefore no pressure on anyone to sign up.
> 
> Yet in a country where further education is prohibitively expensive, and medical care privatised, *these incentives deliberately target America's poor minorities*, as well as those desperate for citizenship, freeing the sons and daughters of those with money and influence from service.
> 
> You can read the whole article here


Saying that your treatment of people who claimed to be gay is justified because all the enlistees were there of their own free will downplays a greater social element at work here. Not everyone is in the army because the army MADE them enlist. Many people are in the army because they have little or no other options.

----------


## Fantt

Refusing to kill people for your country in an unjust war does not equate to being a coward. It seems pretty damned heroic to me. "Doing your duty" depends on to whom you owe your allegiance... yourself or your country. For me, my "duty" ends exactly at the point where my country decides to do something that I feel is immoral. Each person has to make that choice individually.

The issue for current servicemen and women is a little bit different. I don't think there are many in the military today who were pressed into service against their wishes. Regardless of what anyone says, no one HAS to be in the military. Many see it as a legitimate way out, but anyone who joins the military should be aware that in doing so, you've volunteered to serve your country regardless of whether your country wants you to serve in a moral fashion or immorally. I think, though, that soldiers are still able to resist orders which are illegal (bombing the white house, destroying an elementary school with kids in it, etc), though that's probably not something that rank and file people have much of a choice about.

----------


## Duo

I also don't have a clear identity, I have lived outside my country for 6 years and even before that I was always watching foreign tv when it was fobidded while the other kids would just watch the same old communist tv stuff ; I have developed completely differently from my peers in my native country and the others that are living abroad. Between the Western/Eastern European and heavy American influence in my personna, i don't know for sure what kind of a citizen I am, or where do I belong. But still, I know that I was born in Albania, I will always be Albanian no matter what, I can't ignore where I come from. Although there are many things wrong with my country nowadays, that sometimes makes me wonder if I really have a place there, so I would defenitely not do the smallest sacrifice to go to war for the stupidity or goals of any Albanian politician or government official since I dislike almost all of the fomer commie/new capatilist Albanian political elite. 



But, I still would not sit back while the land that we have so dearly held on for such a long time from all the other groups of ppl in the Balkans that have tried to clam it way from us. This is the difference between the Balkans and the rest of Europe i think. There is too much old bad blood between nations. I totally have no prejudices against any of the Balkan nations, but, it's a fact that most of our neighbors are hostile to us because we are a lost orphan with nothing in common with anyone in our region, no langauge, religious, and ethnic ties, exept with the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, Macedonia, and a small minority in Greece, who are or were, abused, mistreated and discrimanted for such a long time. If an incident like the one in Kosovo war in 1999 would happen in Albania, I think most of the capable Albanians would take action one way or another. When I mean atacked, I mean in terms like it always happens in the Balkans, squishing the local population, massacres, etc, in that case I dont think any of us could sit back and watch. 



The only hope I see for the Balkans is the EU, I am an ardent advocate of this, but even so, Balkan nations will still continue to dislike each other for sometime, a clear example is Greece that always uses its memebership to ***** at the EU about applicant countries that dont like, ie Albania and Turkey and Macedonia  :Blush: . Sorry if I digressed from the topic a little, but just trying to give a little backround from where I'm coming from in my views. 



One last note, I think most Europeans countries are tired of war, and most European citizens, at least in the West, dont even consider their country going fully to war. I share this view, that's why I hope the EU can once and for all unite our continent and stop the useless irredentist claims on land and old national animosities, because just like Maciamo said, today everyone is dating and marrying everyone else, and everyone has so many foreign friends that really the concept of a country and nation, is becoming to detoriarate, but the country is still the core unit of human societies, so until that changes I don't think that war will completely go away. Let's hope though  :Cool: . 

OMG this is so long, no one will read it  :Poh:   :Blush:

----------


## ippolito

Well I can understand if the situtuation is an invasion of my country......and the most important target is to defend our families and territory.
Wha now is doing us to be the guardian of the world....it would be a difficolt question as i am not american andn my country is not the guardian of the world.
I would like (but only a dream) that all the bilions lost in this iraqui war would be utilized to help poor people ..the helicopters to get the food and water as those big air force aircraft.
The soldiers helping children....and nato doctors try to save more life....
I think this would be the strongest weapon agaist terrorism....
we have seen how is finished all the lifes lost and money in Vietnam.....
Iraq will be the same...the vietcong were under the palms and the iraqui terrorist are inside the houses near children.....this is another kind of war....

Now Rumsfield says to get the soldiers home as soon as possible.....
Perhaps I am wrong but as us forces fly away.......Allawhi and all the other should face a civil war.....and with few possibilities to win.
Perhaps I am wrong this is my impressions of what I see every days in tv and follow the international networks news

----------


## Duo

> Ah, I see. But I'm always a bit suspicious when people claim that their history is free of aggression against others.


Rightly justified. However, as far as I can recall, I dont know of any incedent where Albania, which only became a defenied territory during the middle ages around 1400 smth when the ottomans attacked us and had to unite the different illyrian tribes in order to hold off the ottomans, we formed Arberia, former Albania. Before, that, the Illyrian tribes, our descendats, occupied a territory from northern Greece to present day slovenia. 




> Sadly I don't know too much about Albanian history (hrmph!), but I'm pretty sure I could find some black spots there as well. Or maybe the Albanians usually had enough to do with fighting themselves, so they left their neighbours alone.


Because I have done much of my upper studies in foreign schools, my knowledge of Albanian history is not very detailed and thorough, but I will say that that the origanl Albanians, the illyrians were in many differnet tribes and each had their own alligieance with different greek city states or greek colonies in sothern Italy, like syracuse. Because many Illyrians were pirates and would attack roman ships  :Blush:   :Blush:  , the Roman empire invaded us with the rest of Eastern Europe, and after them, the Ottomans came, and then we had to face some slavic and greek attempts to take our territory, which succeded in some efforts due to the help of the western european powers, see we were allies with austro hungary and after ww1 well..  :Sad:   :Sad:  

Anyhow, that is basic history in a nutshell, that I could say, Im sure the illyrian tribes had their own fights and wars with greek city-states, macedonia etc, but thats about it I would say :). See the illyrians were a freedome loving people, I SWEAR IT'S TRUE, in albanian, ilir, illyrian, means free, so we were the land of the free and the eagles way before the US  :Blush:   :Blush:  

I hope I didnt bother everone with this digression, also a little in my previoust topic, but what can I say I get exited when I have to explain things about my region  :So cute !:   :Poh:   :Poh:  

sorry, here  :Balloon:

----------


## Glenn

> Saying that your treatment of people who claimed to be gay is justified because all the enlistees were there of their own free will downplays a greater social element at work here. Not everyone is in the army because the army MADE them enlist. Many people are in the army because they have little or no other options.


It may be that they had no other options but to go into the army, but why would they be trying to leave if it was their only way out? The whole reason that they said they were gay in the first place was to get out of the service that they signed up for. That would mean going back to having no place to go, or no way out of their situation. I don't see how he overlooked anything. Showing the reasons why someone decides to go *into* the army doesn't really have any bearing on them wanting to get *out* of it, does it?

----------


## Lina Inverse

> When I was in the army, I remember that while being in boot camp one of our fellow conscripts claimed to be gay. Well, we knew he wasn't, but he stated that he couldn't "stand the sight of naked men under the shower". As a matter of fact he was singled out, and after a few interviews with the army shrink he was swiftly discharged. A lot of us seriously contemplated about following his example.


Cool action  :Laughing: 
So even if they find you suitable to serve, you still can pull off stuff like that if you're clever enough.

----------


## bossel

> Someone voted for, "I have already been drafted and I didn't serve." I'm interested to know what that person had to do to get out of it.


That was me. Actually, it's not quite correct, for my experience is a bit more complicated. I try to keep the explanation simple.

I volunteered to serve for 4 years, but after a few days I decided that the military was not really the right place for me & told them I wanted to leave. Unfortunately the unit where I served tried to keep me as a common conscript. Since I absolutely didn't want to stay, I went the way of conscientious objection (which also was not too easy - for being a volunteer - I had to convince some kind of tribunal that I really meant it). I was a soldier for the little eternity of 2 weeks.
Later, after my c.o. had been approved, I had to do alternative civilian service (For which I was drafted just at the time when I had the chance to get a decent job. Thank you so much, Germany!  :Uzi:  ).






> I hope I didnt bother everone with this digression, also a little in my previoust topic, but what can I say I get exited when I have to explain things about my region


Thanks for the little history lesson! I don't think there are many objections when we get to know something about a small state of which we never hear very much under normal circumstances.  :Cool:

----------


## Brooker

Fantt wrote....



> Refusing to kill people for your country in an unjust war does not equate to being a coward. It seems pretty damned heroic to me. "Doing your duty" depends on to whom you owe your allegiance... yourself or your country. For me, my "duty" ends exactly at the point where my country decides to do something that I feel is immoral. Each person has to make that choice individually.


I agree completely. That is the exact response I would give to anyone who said that people who didn't want to serve in the military were cowards. It takes a lot of courage to stand up for what you believe in rather than just doing what you're told.

Duo wrote....



> When I mean atacked, I mean in terms like it always happens in the Balkans, squishing the local population, massacres, etc, in that case I dont think any of us could sit back and watch.


Yes, under circumstaces like those, I would fight. For me the circustances of the conflict would make all the difference in the world. I'm not going to just fight without questioning the reasons for fighting. I guess for some people, having allegence (sp?) to their country is more important than believing in the reasons for fighting (which I'm not trying to fault them for). But for me, I can't even work for a company if I don't like their product. It's important for me to be a part of something that I believe in and not be a part of the things I don't believe in. And I don't belive in the wisdom of the decisions made by my country's current administration. For me, signing up with my country's military now would be like volunteering to fight on behalf of the Nazi party even though you disagreed with their beliefs. But, hopefully the country will change soon to something I'll be more in favor of.

----------


## Maciamo

> Remember, the US doesn't *force* military service. The men we received for training *volunteered* by signing up themselves. Once they get there, alone and away from everything/everyone they know, all sorts of thoughts rush through their minds.


Oh, that's good to know. Countries like France or Italy have *compulsory*  military service for everybody (but can be replaced by civil service). People who don't lose their voting rights and are subject to heavy penalties. I completely object to this. 

But those guys must have been pretty immature (as you said) to sign up, then try to find an excuse not to serve. They can't assume their responsibilities.




> Mainly because most "straight" men can handle the concept of a gay man living in close quarters with them. It freaks them out! You have to realize this is mainly the "alpha" males thinking this way. Funny how someone who is supposed to be so manyly and fearless can be so scared of such a little fact!


This is what I call cowardice and immaturity. Gay men are not likely to jump on the first man they like. I guess gays have the same kind of relationships as straight people, and a relationship can't happen if both sides don't want it. What about unrequited gay love ? It must be even more common than between straight people, given the little percentage of gays in the population. Really don't see any reason to worry. It's not as if gays were all rapists of straight people.  :Laughing: 




> I would like (but only a dream) that all the bilions lost in this iraqui war would be utilized to help poor people ..the helicopters to get the food and water as those big air force aircraft.


Well, I am wondering if there would be protest from US citizens if the US government decided to use their tax money to fight poverty around the world - so in other words give this money for economic, social and political developement in third world countries. I am sure this would be as controversial as attacking Iraq, because ultimately the average people are selfish and juts don't care how Middle-Eastern or African people are living, and only want to know how their tax money is used and how it will profit them (if possible directly rather than indirectly). Not to imply that some people wouldn't applaude the move to help fight poverty rather than fight the poors...

----------


## Brooker

I have two childhood friends who joined the military, one in the Navy (stationed in San Diego) and one in the Army (stationed in Korea). In both cases they joined up because they weren't able to go to college (one liked to use drugs too much and the other just wasn't smart enough) and had no paths in life and wanted a way to not have to live in their parents' house anymore. They didn't know anything about politics or ideology. Luckily when they served (they're both done now) it was not during war time. When they joined up I don't think either of them ever gave any thought to what would happen if America went to war during their service. 

My friend in the Navy told me a joke.... 
Q: What does "NAVY" stand for?
A: Never Again Volunteer Youself.

Let's just say he didn't enjoy his time in the Navy much.

Maciamo wrote....



> Well, I am wondering if there would be protest from US citizens if the US government decided to use their tax money to fight poverty around the world - so in other words give this money for economic, social and political developement in third world countries. I am sure this would be as controversial as attacking Iraq,


I'm not sure that's fair. I think anyone would recognize that a war is a much bigger issue than how their tax money is spent. America gives a lot of money to international aid. 

...and...



> because ultimately the average people are selfish and juts don't care how Middle-Eastern or African people are living, and only want to know how their tax money is used and how it will profit them


I think that's true of everyone, not just Americans.

...and...



> Not to imply that some people wouldn't applaude the move to help fight poverty rather than fight the poors.


I think quite a lot of people would be in favor of helping poor people, but they probably wouldn't want to spend as much money on it as has been spent on the war. That sum is just too much no matter where you spend it.

----------


## chiquiliquis

> It may be that they had no other options but to go into the army, but why would they be trying to leave if it was their only way out? The whole reason that they said they were gay in the first place was to get out of the service that they signed up for. That would mean going back to having no place to go, or no way out of their situation. I don't see how he overlooked anything. Showing the reasons why someone decides to go *into* the army doesn't really have any bearing on them wanting to get *out* of it, does it?


Firstly, CC1 opened the door to discussing why they were there, not I. 



> Remember, the US doesn't force military service. The men we received for training volunteered by signing up themselves.


And he did it in a message intended to justify his actions. If you are going to claim that how people got into the ARMY has no baring on why they want to get out, go back and find out what it means for his argument before you hold it to mine.

That being said, I still have to disagree. 

If you read through the article I posted, then you know that not all the troops under US command in Iraq even speak English as their first language. In fact, reading the article, you would have understood that the US was being charged with disproportionately targeting those who have been socially marginalized for their recruitment--historically blacks, and in this case latinos.

Go into any low income barrio in LA and you will find 18 year olds who are barely literate in their first language, let alone English. They have no work skills and no chance of getting into college. "Well, he volunteered (signed on the dotted line), THEREFORE he must have known what he was getting into!" It doesn't work that way for everyone. 

I don't think it takes that much imagination to fill in the rest of the story.

Yeah... so apparently he has "nothing" to go back to at home... is it at all possible that that "nothing" might be better than killing people in Iraq?

----------


## CC1

> If you read through the article I posted, then you know that not all the troops under US command in Iraq even speak English as their first language. In fact, reading the article, you would have understood that the US was being charged with disproportionately targeting those who have been socially marginalized for their recruitment--historically blacks, and in this case latinos.
> 
> Go into any low income barrio in LA and you will find 18 year olds who are barely literate in their first language, let alone English. They have no work skills and no chance of getting into college. "Well, he volunteered (signed on the dotted line), THEREFORE he must have known what he was getting into!" It doesn't work that way for everyone. 
> 
> I don't think it takes that much imagination to fill in the rest of the story.
> 
> Yeah... so apparently he has "nothing" to go back to at home... is it at all possible that that "nothing" might be better than killing people in Iraq?


If they can't speak the language, maybe they shouldn't be serving in the military, and maybe they should make an effort to learn! Ok, before the attacks start on me, hear this out! If you move to a new country because things were bad where you were...don't you think that learning the "native" language would be a good first move? I mean hell, I agreed to move to Japan with my wife, and I made steps to learn enough Japanese so not to embarrass my family, and to ensure that I won't get lost when out on my own!  :Doubt:

----------


## antantrevolution

> Refusing to kill people for your country in an unjust war does not equate to being a coward. It seems pretty damned heroic to me. "Doing your duty" depends on to whom you owe your allegiance... yourself or your country. For me, my "duty" ends exactly at the point where my country decides to do something that I feel is immoral. Each person has to make that choice individually.


If it was my statement you were commenting on, I didn't mean to offend you. But I would refuse to leave the country to get out of service. Avoiding the draft by way of dodging it to me, is a cowardly act. Others may not agree, but that is just my thoughts on it.

And by way of doing your duty, your duty lies with those stationed with you moreso than an overriding sense of having to mindlessly follow orders. If I, or one of my fellow soldiers were in danger of being killed by the actions of a hostile force, then I would have no hesitation in eliminating that hostile and thus ending the risk of death.

Believe it or not, you don't always have to agree with the reason why something is happening in order to do something good.

Anyway, have a nice day.

Ant

----------


## Brooker

antantrevolution wrote....



> If it was my statement you were commenting on, I didn't mean to offend you


I didn't think he seemed offended.




> If I, or one of my fellow soldiers were in danger of being killed by the actions of a hostile force, then I would have no hesitation in eliminating that hostile and thus ending the risk of death.


Charging into battle to prevent death? Hmmmm, that's an interesting rationalization. The thing is, the other side is exactly the same as you - a bunch of young guys who don't know why they're there, doing what they're told, trying to keep their buddies from getting killed. So what's the point? Why do they deserve to die any more than you and your buddies? It's all so pointless. In the end it just becomes killing for the sake of killing. I understand that an effective soldier has to put his compassion for the enemy/his fellow man aside, but I don't think I could do it unless I thought the cause was worth my death and theirs. The current cause ain't worth sh.....

----------


## Maciamo

> In the end it just becomes killing for the sake of killing.


I don't want to be too cynical again, but one of the purpose of war (except enriching the elite) is to reduce unemployment. It just looks better in the country's fact sheet... 

Going a bit further, you could say that the elite hopes to recruit all those unemployed and needy people who are potential criminals, as a preventive mesure against both crime and poverty. The idea is to make them believe that they die for a noble cause, like protecting their country or following god's orders.

----------


## Melkor

I would volunteer so I could get into a position away from the combat.

----------


## digicross

Frankly, when the country where you are its current citizens drafted you, you got no choice at all, either participate in it, or move to another country (or at least move beyond the country's authority, one doesn't necessary have to leave the country).

Of course, if you don't like the idea of participating in a war you don't agree on, I'm sure that you willl find some way to duck out of it (doesn't necessary have to leave the country, avoid being drafted, being in jail, and so on). Humans are very resourceful.

It should be noted that, all of the modern wars are done to make people fight each and are initiated by the same group of people anyway. And all of the official countries are actually controlled by the same group of people, and the leaders of these countries are nothing more but subordinates that shared the same boss. That's right. Bush, Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Hirohito, Julius (Caesar), and so on shared the same boss, it's nothing more but a play.

So there's not much use of participating in wars these days.

It's not about taking resources, it's not about taking land, it's not about principles, it's not about freedom, it's not about survival, and so on, it's just about making people fight each other.

There's nothing wrong of participating in a war that you want to participate, but there's something wrong of you being conned into doing something you think is right when it's actually wrong for you (imagine getting tricked to eat ham when what you really want is to eat fish or vegetable), and there's plenty of wrong of participating in a war that you don't want to participate (both for you, the war itself, and every parties that participate), and there's a lot of wrong participating in a war that has no use at all other than to people fight each other (unless of course you like fighting just for the sake fighting).



As for World War II and the current Iraq War.

It's the same. Heck, the people who caused are the same. Heck, the M.O. is the same. Heck, it look very similiar. I wondered why on why some people choose to participate in World War II but refused to participate in the Iraq War.

It should be noted that the current Iraq War like much of its predecessors is done to make people fight each other. For example, there are alot of people around the world fighting each other due the Iraq War, and they don't even participate in the actual battle itself! Hurting other people's feelings probably is worse than killing them, and that's the intention of the wars these days, to hurt people feelings and make them fight each other, not to kill them.



As for being a patriot.

Don't worry. There are other ways of being a patriot and defending your country, you don't necessary have to join a military service, and if you're forced to do so, I'm sure one can easily ducked out of it.

Personally, I find that the easiest way to increasing my spirit of patriotism is to travel to another country. Each time I travel to another country, the more I find my country more interesting and loveable when I returned home.

There are several type of patriotism:

- To yourself.

- To your family.

- To your village.

- To your town.

- To your city.

- To your island.

- To your country.

- To your continent.

- To your species.

- To your planet.

- To your world.

And so on.

There's another type patriotism that due constant negative propaganda get discouraged by some people, that is being patriot to God. But... God prefer if you being just you, that's why God give some guidelines, not to enforce His will on you, but to make sure that you're you. Of course, then there are some people who want to make sure that you're not acting like yourself.

So I guess that the ultimate patriotisme is to be a patriot to yourself.

----------


## Maciamo

> So there's not much use of participating in wars these days.
> 
> It's not about taking resources, it's not about taking land, it's not about principles, it's not about freedom, it's not about survival, and so on, it's just about making people fight each other.


I agree.




> As for World War II and the current Iraq War.
> 
> It's the same. Heck, the people who caused are the same. Heck, the M.O. is the same. Heck, it look very similiar. I wondered why on why some people choose to participate in World War II but refused to participate in the Iraq War.


Here I disagree, because WWII was a war for land (Hitler's lebensraum, Japan's empire), for resources (plundered gold, etc.), for ideologies (even if nationalistic or racist), for revenge and pride (Germans still had harsh feelings about their defeat in WWI and the ensuing "Diktat"; Japan wanted to prove it was as strong as Western powers) and about freedom (for those who were occupied). The war in Iraq is nothing like that. At best it is for resources (oil) and freedom (from Saddam's regime), but oil only benefit a few, and freedom is a controversial issues for Iraqi people themselves (some were happier before, others are happier now).

----------


## Fantt

I'm not offended by anyone's opinions here. My primary point is that I view myself as myself first, then a husband, then a father, then more and more things, and then down towards the bottom is whatever "duty" I feel toward my country. My country takes things by force from me without asking me (taxation, etc). My country jails people for crimes which are victimless (drug use, prostitution, etc). My country reserves the right to press me, my child or my wife into military service and to order me or mine to commit acts which I think are deplorable.

I don't think my country is "bad," but my first priority is my own freedom and that of my family. Personal freedom and strong governments don't co-exist well. I care more about the welfare of humanity in general than I do in just those who live within artificial geographical boundries.

----------


## ippolito

I am agree to serve the country...but It seems Iraq is similar to Vietnam...
there will be a defeat not directly on the field like in Vietnam...but as the us soldiers will leave.
Big forces like Us or Russia has been very strong in convetional war...
but both paid for vietcong guerrilla and Afganistan guerrilla in the mountains (Russia)
Iraq...the Allawi gov. I think will be not able to resist to ex saddam and alquaida attachs. So all the deads of the coalisation and iraqui civilians will be dead for nothing. But this is my simple opinion...perhpas the future will be different.
I do not live in Usa and I am not american citizen....so I try to understand what the people think of this strange war. Could you american of this forum tell me how is the humors there about to continue the war or back home????


About american here a funny story ....about the IIww.....
when british were bombing germans were running away....
when german were bombing british and americans were running away....
when american were bombing all were running away.......
bye all

----------


## sgt. Pepper

Well, since Sweden only would go to war if it was attacked, i'd serve my country. I actually look forward to (hopefully) getting to do my military duty when i'm 19.

----------


## antantrevolution

> Charging into battle to prevent death? Hmmmm, that's an interesting rationalization. The thing is, the other side is exactly the same as you - a bunch of young guys who don't know why they're there, doing what they're told, trying to keep their buddies from getting killed. So what's the point? Why do they deserve to die any more than you and your buddies? It's all so pointless. In the end it just becomes killing for the sake of killing. I understand that an effective soldier has to put his compassion for the enemy/his fellow man aside, but I don't think I could do it unless I thought the cause was worth my death and theirs. The current cause ain't worth sh.....


Oh, I under NO circumstances meant charging blindly in the hopes of preventing friends casualties! Haha, that would defeat the purpose of preventing them, huh?  :Laughing:  

What I meant was that, while I do not believe in harming others or by course of action, allow others to be harmed, I know that I would be fully capable of it due to being forced into situations at places in my life where I had to shut off the inhibitor, and ensure the safety of those close to me.

Anyway, I hope that I make more sense now?

Ant

----------


## Brooker

I saw a report about American soldiers fleeing to Canada to avoid being sent back to Iraq. In some cases they've been turned away by the Canadian government. Many of them have requested asylum from the Canadian government because if they return to America they'll be jailed for their political beliefs - they believe the war is wrong. Now Canada is trying to decide if it should grant asylum to these people.

I'm not saying what I think Canada should do because that's up to them, but it seems that a lot of Canadians are proud of the fact that many people became Canadians in the first place because they made a conscious decision not to be American because they had a difference in beliefs. Therefore, it seems that these former soldiers might make the ideal Canadians. They may even become extremely patriotic Canadians because in their minds Canada would have rescued them from a government they disagreed with and that wanted to either send them off to kill or send them to jail.




> TORONTO -- Jeremy Hinzman enlisted in the Army in Boston, did a tour in Afghanistan and prepared for elite Ranger school. Then came orders to go to Iraq. He neatly piled his Army gear in his living room at Fort Bragg and fled to Canada with his wife and baby. 
> 
> No matter how much I wanted to, I could not convince myself that killing someone was ever right," Hinzman, 25, said in an interview here. 
> 
> Spec. Hinzman is a deserter, one of at least four who have followed the path of Vietnam War resisters a generation ago to seek refuge in Canada. Here, they have been embraced by many from that time -- former peaceniks who are now pillars of the community. 
> 
> The government is less welcoming. Despite Canada's opposition to the Iraq war, the government also is opposing the deserters' refugee applications, saying the soldiers are not persecuted. It is resisting the argument that the Iraq war is illegal. 
> 
> "Canada is worried if they grant us refugee status, others would come up," said Hinzman.





> Estimates of how many Americans came to Canada in those times [during the Vietnam War] to avoid service in the war range from 30,000 to 90,000. They were invited by the prime minister at the time, Pierre Trudeau, who in 1969 declared Canada to be "a refuge from militarism."


I'd like to know what some of our Canadian members think about this.

----------


## Kintaro

> I have to say, if I were drafted, I would not piss and moan about how unjust it is. I would serve with my fellow soldiers in a way that is expected of me. If I were to decide to stay in service after the war, that depends on where my life would be at the time.


There are two terms which I don't know if you're aware of... stop-loss or draft-creep. One reason right there not to get drafted is to run the risk of being forced to go AGAIN.


> Would the prospect of being drafted scare me? Hell yes. But that is part of it. I don't look at the majority of our soldiers, and think obedient lapdog of Bush as many around the world may. I see them and I realise they are doing their jobs, and doing what they believe in.


Apparently it is the case for you and a majority of a voluntary military force. The chaos is drafting untrained troops and having them eat the patriotism like chocolate flavored s... against their will


> I would not leave the US.


Neither would I considering I don't live there to begin with. This said, anyone who bitches at the possibility of a US draft and wants to move to Canada/NZ/Japan/whatever... but isn't until the last possible moment... I find them weak and wouldn't want them in my country.


> I would not become a coward.
> 
> The life of one does not gain importance over the lives of the many.


Umm, the opposite is exactly what contemporary existence means (since +/- 1750). At a neutral point, it's not doing anything to aggravate your neighbors. In a negative light, assume an invasion of Canada by the US, I wouldn't care if my neighbors died. I'm here to ensure my survival, and possibly those close to me.


> Agree or disagree, I am open for discussion.
> 
> 
> Ant


Glad you're open for discussion. There are many faces to this dilemma. What happens if a country sharing a common border with you resorted to mandatory service... what would happen if your own did ?

Canada is not stupid. We know damn well if anything generates into WW3 that our government would do all it could to reinstate the draft. in 1939 the electoral promise of King was NOT to draft (happened in 1917 against our will on order of the British monarchy). But since it was anglophones in 1942 (US+UK) fighting they let the country decide via referendum. Anglo-Canada voted 85 % for. Franco-Canada voted 95 % AGAINST. (And people still wonder why we want to separate, even Anglo-Quebecers)

My father has raised me with very fluid ethics but he has told me two things. 1 is that he'd probably shoot either of his kids if they joined the Canadian Forces. 2 is that one of his uncles has *successfully* avoided the 1942 draft without fleeing the country, and that is one source of pride for the family.

If the US reinstated the draft instantly via presidential decree, two things will happen. Our population will either double quite fast, or the border will shut down completely to block anywhere from 20-50 million people. Probably both.

In any case, it's going to get ugly sometime fairly close. If you resent draft, prepare now to counter it. In the United States, you have the C.O. status. If you do not wish to leave your country (hell, even if you do) then take care of that now. In Canada we can't "CO" at the moment, since the draft was only during wartime and no measures to accept that possibility were implemented. But since we're 10 times less dense than the US, hiding is a possibility still.


I will never surrender my ability to decide who is the enemy.

----------


## ippolito

In Italy for these kind of wars.....we send only volunters that ar generally
professionals.....normal soldiers..shoud be ready (hope never) to defend our territory
from another nation attach.
From this year the youngs are not anymore forced to go in army at 18 year old
but only volunters that will be proffessionists....paid as a work.
As we partecipate with not a great number...actually we have more than 10.000
soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan, Balcany area and Africa.
I am not so sure about this never ending story of Iraqi war....
I think that all middle east must be treated as one big problem and local problems that needs solutions not only wars..solutions that should be found with Onu
Usa, Europe, and arabic leaders that are not terrorist.
Us cannot continue to bomb every day evrywere killing also children and women
but I understand that it is difficolt to cath the terrorist as they are inside houses ot moscheas....
To continue this war in this way I suppose that could really be another Vietnam.
bye

----------


## No-name

I'm too old, I've got bad feet and I am too heavy. If they draft me, everyone should be worried.

----------


## babar-san

ahh, so many different angles on that one. if dubya was still in offfice, then HELL NO. if it was a president with some brains, behind an obviously good cause, then i would go to war without hesitation. its difficult to decide, because i would have gone to afganistan, but i would have never gone to iraq.

----------


## Antifederalist

Heh heh. I always find it funny how Bush is the most evil, scheming bastard the world has seen in generations, yet at the same time a complete dolt. 

But anyway, as much as i wouldn't like the probability of me dying during a day in my life increasing, I would go and serve to the best of my ability.

----------


## TwistedMac

> Heh heh. I always find it funny how Bush is the most evil, scheming bastard the world has seen in generations, yet at the same time a complete dolt.


Just like Hitler.

But yeah, I'd serve my country.. My country is my country after-all.. no place like home.

----------


## Glenn

> Just like Hitler.


Hitler was certainly *not* a complete dolt. If he were, he wouldn't have been able to orchestrate that whole Third Reich thing.

----------


## TwistedMac

> Hitler was certainly *not* a complete dolt. If he were, he wouldn't have been able to orchestrate that whole Third Reich thing.


his generals beg to differ. and so does history.

he made some pretty obviously stupid military mistakes.

Nothing he did was ever really very advanced. It just happened to work.

----------


## Glenn

So, you're saying that his whole ruling Germany thing was just pure luck? Just because he botched some military missions doesn't automatically make him an idiot. I'm no idiot, but there are things that I don't do very well, and I make dumb mistakes like everyone else.

----------


## TwistedMac

> So, you're saying that his whole ruling Germany thing was just pure luck? Just because he botched some military missions doesn't automatically make him an idiot. I'm no idiot, but there are things that I don't do very well, and I make dumb mistakes like everyone else.


I'm not saying it was pure luck.
He had a go-get-it attitude that made all others pale in comparison.
He saw exactly what he could take advantage of and did as soon as he saw it.

But he believed what people were saying about him. That he was a genious, borderlining on god.

A lot like Bush. He wouldn't be able to become the pres of the US if he were a *complete* dolt.

----------


## Brooker

TwistedMac wrote...



> He wouldn't be able to become the pres of the US if he were a complete dolt.


*He did and he is.*

Hitler's undoing was that he was TOO confident. He thought he couldn't loose and got way too ambitious with what he thought he could conquer.

----------


## bossel

> Hitler's undoing was that he was TOO confident. He thought he couldn't loose and got way too ambitious with what he thought he could conquer.


It's not that easy. Hitler was some kind of genius in manipulating people, while he was a complete dork in other regards. It all depends, really.

----------


## Bob in Iowa

It has been very interesting reading the responses in this thread. The "what would you do" question is one that I had to answer in late 1970, when I received a notice from the draft board reclassifying me as 1-A (suitable for service). Prior to that, I had a student deferment, and for a short period of time, a 1-Y (unsuitable for medical reasons), which had been an administrative error by the draft board (I got lucky for a few months). There had been a lottery drawing, based upon date of birth, the year before, and I had a low number, which meant that as soon as I was reclassified 1-A, it would be just a matter of a day or so before I would receive my draft notice.

I had friends who had gone to Viet Nam; some returned, and some did not. Those who returned urged me not to go, even though at the time I still felt a willingness serve. My views on the justification of the US involvement in the war had changed in the previous two years from a viewpoint of having bought into the government propaganda, to a realization/suspicion that we had been duped. 

What choice would I make when the letter came? This thought was on my mind constantly, for several months. Having abandoned any feelings of serving for patriotic reasons, my reasoning became more pragmatic than anything else. I did not want to have to flee the country or live underground. Also, I did not want to play the games of feigning ailment, mental instability, or homosexuality. On the otherhand, I did not want to be in a position to have to kill or be killed in an unjust war. 

I opted to volunteer for duty in the Air Force, as did many others at the time for the same reasons. So, when the letter came, I went immediately to the Air Force recruiter, and volunteered. I got lucky, and was selected for training as an electronic technician supporting weather reconnaisance missions, and I had excellent duty assignments for the entire time that I was in uniform.

I was extremely lucky. Had I not joined the Air Force, I would probably not have gone to Japan in 1973, and I would have not met the wonderful Japanese lady to whom I have been married for the past 30 years. You never know what would have happened by taking a different fork in the road of life, but the path that I chose has been a very happy one.

--Bob

----------


## Brooker

Thanks for sharing your story.

----------


## SkippyDaStudent85

This is what I like to call "moving to Canada"

----------


## Miss_apollo7

> It's not that easy. Hitler was some kind of genius in manipulating people, while he was a complete dork in other regards. It all depends, really.


Yes, Hitler was good at manipulating people, and he must have had some good leadership skills as well as oratory skills since he took over Germany that way he did.
Of course, Hitler was also a dork.  :Laughing:

----------


## SkippyDaStudent85

The hair style alone screams "Beat me up!"

----------


## Miss_apollo7

> The hair style alone screams "Beat me up!"


LOL!!! YOu mean Hitler???  :Laughing:

----------


## SkippyDaStudent85

> LOL!!! YOu mean Hitler???


*smiles innocently and nods*  :Smiling:

----------


## Bob in Iowa

> This is what I like to call "moving to Canada"


 Skippy, I hope that you are never faced with having to make that decision.

----------


## Japanimaniac

Though I would never dream of joining the military under normal circumstances, I would, of course, serve. Even if I didn't agree with the conflict itself. Everyone is looking for that one thing they can do to bring about some good, and to me, serving your country sounds like a pretty good way to do that.

Then again, I'll probably never be drafted. Isn't having survived cancer one of those things that puts you at the very bottom of the list?

----------


## Brooker

> Everyone is looking for that one thing they can do to bring about some good, and to me, serving your country sounds like a pretty good way to do that.


Would you still think it was good if your country was Germany and your leader was Hitler? If "no" then there has to be a point where serving your country is NOT good. Then the question is, "Where is that point?"

----------


## Windy

As I am deeply opposed to war, I would kill the people attempting to draft me

----------


## Glenn

That begs the question: why are you opposed to war? Obviously it's not because of the killing.

----------


## Japanimaniac

> Would you still think it was good if your country was Germany and your leader was Hitler?


Obviously, in this day and age, that's a big "NO". But had I been a german in the times of Hitler, and I held the same personality, moral values, and beliefs that I hold today, I would more than likely serve. I might not agree with the thinking or actions of the country's leader, but I would still jump at the chance to potentially better my country's situation, because I would be unaware of the outcome and consequences.

When I say "do good", I mean to make the lives of my family and my home better, not the world. The USA is undoubtedly safer without Sadam around, but as for the world...that is yet to be seen.

----------


## Brooker

> I might not agree with the thinking or actions of the country's leader, but I would still jump at the chance to potentially better my country's situation, because I would be unaware of the outcome and consequences.


Sounds like you'd be the kind of soldier every general wants - one who follows orders without question and doesn't think for himself. You wouldn't care about the outsome and the consequences?

Well, more power to ya, but I personally don't think I could do that. I've always questioned authority and make a point of deciding for myself what I think is right and wrong. If Hitler told me to gas people, I wouldn't follow the order just because he was my leader and he told me to.




> When I say "do good", I mean to make the lives of my family and my home better, not the world.


I DO care about the welfare of the entire world. Of course I also want what's best for my country, but I think you can do that without screwing over the rest of the world.




> The USA is undoubtedly safer without Sadam around, but as for the world...that is yet to be seen


Saddam posed a threat to his own people, but not to America. However the U.S. oil interests are safer. Is that worth it? I whole heartedly believe the world and America are at a much greater risk now than they were when Saddam was in power. Saddam was a bad guy, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking we've made anything safer.

----------


## Japanimaniac

> Sounds like you'd be the kind of soldier every general wants - one who follows orders without question and doesn't think for himself.


You're probably right on that count. I'll admit that I prefer taking orders over giving or questioning them.

----------


## Brooker

> You're probably right on that count. I'll admit that I prefer taking orders over giving or questioning them.


Fair enough.

----------


## Shooter452

I do not think that conscription works very well these days. Even if it does provide a mass of personnel, their length of service tends to be short (most nations conscript for only two years unless in time of total war of national survival). By the time the personnel are trained and ready for combat, they are nearly ready for discharge. The only way around that is to send conscripts into battle without proper training--which gets lots of conscripts killed. 

And conscripts are less-than-willing participants in the military game. Wars these days are come-as-you-are, so conscription is not only not very helpful, it is also politically unpopular. Republics and democracies are sensitive to unpopular issues. Even monarchies can become sensitive to violently unpopular issues. Speak to the last Czar of all Russia about that. 

Of course, if you do not conscript, the issue of military force falls into the hands of professional soldiers. One of the great dangers to a republic is a large, standing, professional military. The danger comes from the political influence such a force can exert. In the last days of the Roman Republic, it was the professional legionaries who put many men into the position of _Imperitor_. 

A republic is only safe when soldiers are taken from the citizens at large. Farmers and factory workers will not support a military coup just because they are in uniform. Refer to the French military putsch in Algeria in 1961. The pro's of the French army and the _legion etranger_ followed orders and revolted. The conscripts arrested their rebellious officers and put the coup down. Professional warriors cannot be allowed to make political decisions in a republic. But the only way to avoid a large professional army is for all citizens to serve.

Quite a problem, isn't it? And running off to Canada will not solve it. It is the selfish and cowardly thing to do when you avoid military service, but conscription of reluctant soldiers is not the answer. When the citizens of a republic no longer can muster the civic virtue to defend their form of government, it cannot and should not stand. 

The same is true of citizens of a republic who abrogate their obligations to control their own government. That is what voting is all about, gang.

----------


## Mycernius

No, I'd p*** off to another country. I believe in self-presevation and have an allergic reaction to being shot at. The might die bit is a bit worrying too. Fortunalty the UK doesn't have conscription and I hope it stays this way.

----------


## Doc

I would rather kill myself than be drafted into a war.

Doc

----------


## Brooker

I guess I just don't understand how people could fight for a cause they don't believe in. It seems that some people wouldn't even care about why they were fighting, they'd just do it because they were told to. And I guess a military would need people like that, it's just that it's so different from my way of thinking that I have a hard time understanding it. 

Being forced to fight would be like a potential death sentence for something you want no part of. It would be as if your life doesn't belong to you, but rather belongs to your government. And that's a scary thought. One of the things I like about my country as that its citizens are able to make decisions about what they want to do with their lives. A draft would be very contrary to that. But they haven't enacted a draft yet, so I guess there's no point in getting all worked up over something that may or may not happen. I'm not opposed to people joining the military, but I am opposed to people being forced to.

----------


## Doc

Personally I'm not going to get myself killed just for my country. If I'm going to die by force, than I'd rather do it by forcing a gun upon myself than having the government do it for me.

Doc

----------


## Xkavar

I have a plan. 

While my mom works on obtaining Canadian or New Zealand citizenship (as her sons are Hawaiian and somewhat decended from those folk) I enlist. My little brother weighs too much for them to consider him, and he's currently underage. 

I don't want to go, but damned if they'll take both of us to fight somewhere. My little bro will continue the lineage.

----------


## Nordsee

Depends on fighting for what. I would not go into war to defend other countries. I only would go into war to defend my own country and volk and I would fight to death. Don't want my country being destroyed and/or conquered (again).

I probably won't go to other countries to fight for freedom or anything else there while mine is not in danger (for example Afghanistan, Iraq, south eastern Europe). I don't feel like it's my business.

----------


## last-resort

> You forgot to include "I have already served voluntarily" and "I have already served voluntarily and am past recall age"


 Also Change: 'I would volunteer before being drafted' to 'I would/did volunteer before being drafted'

----------

