1

I think a very large motivating factor for many people to feel apathetic is the massive corruption that is the norm in our civil body politic and much of the federal bureaucracy. Honestly, after 9-11 I had a feeling that the federal government would enact policies that would make people like me wonder what we are actually fighting for.

The west used to rely on free men to fight. Americans really aren't that free anymore, all things considered. We can continue to call ourselves the freest, greatest country on Earth, but many of the Eastern European countries are rapidly outstriping us as centers of freedom.

My question for you Joe is this. What do you think that you and your peers would do in the event of a wholesale legislative or de facto annihilation of the entire U.S. Constitution or part of it in the face of a major disaster? Would you and those around you uphold the federal laws, even in the face of something like a blanket gun ban that you might or might not be asked to help enforce in the even that the popular reaction was too much for the cops?

That's not a pointed question, by any stretch of the imagination. I'm honestly curious since I have two choices after college: immediately apply for Navy OCS or probably go study Italian in Italy and live in Italy for a few years. I'm trying to work it in so that I get a lot of time to study Italian during my college years so that I can give at least 4 years of service, but I have no desire to serve with people whose loyalty is to the decrees of the Congress and President when those decrees fly obviously in the face of the letter of the Constitution.

2

The west used to rely on free men to fight.

Mike--I am not sure what you mean here. If what you are saying is that the West has not historically relied on a draft to meet it military manpower requirements, I think that you have a rather shallow understanding of history. While a draft is a relatively new concept, first having been enacted in the US during the Civil War, the concept of universal military service is certainly not new to Western Civilization. Both the Spartans and Athenians had universal military service for all able bodied men.

3

We can continue to call ourselves the freest, greatest country on Earth, but many of the Eastern European countries are rapidly outstriping us as centers of freedom.

I think it is a bit premature to start comparing levels of freedom in Easten Europe to the US. While things like "flat taxes" look good on the surface, it is important to remember that none of these countries have a recent history of political freedom. Germany was thought of as a center of culture and freedom prior to WW1, but it did not take them long to fall back into barbarism. Talk to me in a fifty or a hundred years.

4

personally, i hope they do. only one memeber of congress has a kid in iraq, maybe that would change.

in the next few years they will need more fodder for iran and syria getting ready to gear-up for armeggedon. best to get started early and aviod the rush for desert fatigues.

5

when taling about your call to service, you need to remember who you are serving. 'give unto ceaser that which is cesear, and to god that which is god's' if getting drafted and giving you life for your country, and their overseas interests is within the realm of what you are giving to cesear, that go for it. for some, giving their life for halliburon conflicts with what they have to give for god. there are plenty of ways to give service to your country without going into the armed services.

6

and, the curent situation in iraq has nothing to do with 911. if someone wanted to join up because of 911 and went to afganistan that would make sense.

7

Actually a lot of people reupped or enlisted after 9/11. A lot of old soldiers signed back up after retiring because they knew they would be needed. At one point supply outstripped the military's demand, which almost never happens.

Other people did the opposite of course. "oh Bush is going to draft me!" whine whine worry worry. I remember seeing that when I used to read Kuroshin. I stopped bothering to read the board soon after. My reaction is the same now as it was then, grow up and be a man. The altar of liberty must be continually refreshed with the blood of patriots. Best you be thankful that better men and women than yourself are willing to spill their blood for you. Are you worthy of them?

As for history of the draft, the feudal levy system was also used to provide a large non-standing militia for the state in the medieval period. There was a fairly short time limit on how long they could be raised without paying them for their service though.

8

"only one memeber of congress has a kid in iraq, maybe that would change."

Actually 7 members of congress have kids in the military right now. A news story about it is here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82469,00.html

That isn't many, but it is more than the general population. You are also ignoring that many members of congress are ex-military themselves too.

9

I have an interesting perspective on my view of military service when I was 18-25. You see in the early '80's, when I was of military age, I was a leftist radical. I was at Stanford University. If you look on a map, Palo Alto is just a teeny bit to the left of Berkeley, CA. Not as close to San Francisco mind you, but way to the left.

My perspective as a youngster relates because I believe many people resist the draft because of their conspiratorial view of the role of America in the world. I know because I was one. I believed rich people were bad. They owned the means of production and lived to exploit the poor and maintain their power. I believed literally that capitalists were a different breed of people than us middle class working folk. So why would I go to war for their interest. That is the lefts actual view of things. This "two-Americas" classist line Edwards is reincarnating from the '60's is the core of the old left's message.

This was the whole point of the Republican Convention. This old school view of the left is still very prevalent and it is incumbent on all of us to marginalize the old left. it is a failed worldview and it is very divisive and polarizing especially in a time of war.

My personal story is that I became a Christian in 1986, and my worldview changed. In the twinkling of an eye, I came to see the source of evil not as a class of people but in the heart of all of us, most clearly in myself. The enemy is not the capitalist or the government, but the human heart in its natural condition.
God Bless,
brad

10

Joe - great post! I know that, for me personally, I had the first reaction during the build-up to Gulf War I in 1990. I was young, and felt like running away because I heard the same rumblings about the draft. But, God, as always, has an interesting plan for each of us. He put precisely the right people into my path at the right time. I signed up for a 4-year year stint in the Air Force in March of 1991. I ended up spending 8 years.

Like you, I'm not a particularly strong man, a typical "military man," someone who grew up with stories of the glory of battle. I just heard a particular calling, I personally believe from God, to join. So, I did. It was probably the best eight years of my life, so far, and I've never regretted my decision for one day. It has made me who I am, and who I was suppose to become. Without it, well, I don't even want to think about where I'd be right now.

As for the draft post-9/11, my first reaction after seeing those planes hit the WTC was to run to the recruiting office and sign back up again. Unfortunately, I could not (I was medically separated for asthma, and hence, I am disqualified for worldwide duty). But, I wanted to more than I can express here.

I would encourage all young people to sign up for a few years. It will change your life.

11

My husband volunteered during the height of the Vietnam war (right after the Oakland Induction Center had been bombed, if you remember that. They took the hearing test over the noise of the contractors trying to repair the building). He says that they rushed the volunteers through, to get rid of everyone physically unqualified, so that they could get to the draftees. That's what they wanted.

That mentality is what caused a lot of heartache for us in that war. They felt like it would serve the draftees right to have to go, instead of allowing those who volunteered to serve. Husband was bounced out fairly quickly and didn't get to take the full range of tests. Had a high number at the draft lottery and didn't serve. I think it would be a big mistake to go from the trained, professional army we have now to the whiners the draft would pick up. Why not send those folks to guard the border with Mexico instead?

12

Or, they could join the National Guard. Sure, many National Guardsmen have died even in the current war, but according to the current Democrat Party line, National Guard service is "draft dodging."

13

John R., more National Guardsmen have died in Iraq than died in all the years of conflict in Vietnam; it used to be a way to avoid overseas service, but not anymore.

14

Mike F.-
"but I have no desire to serve with people whose loyalty is to the decrees of the Congress and President when those decrees fly obviously in the face of the letter of the Constitution."

I have doubts about your story, but just to clarify things, the oath is to defend the Constitution not the "decrees (sic) of Congress and President." The text of the oath is below.

"I, ___________________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

15

I think I would be more apt to join the military if a draft were instated.

Signing your life away for a couple years is a scary thing. I feel very hesitant to say "Okay, now you control my life." Or, even interupting my life and Education and such. (Such meaning, I know this probably doesn't work as an excuse) But many times when I read about recruitment in the news, Military people, or maybe the media said "Well, we really don't need people now, to train new recruits and send them over would take much too long and be to expensive, we're okay." Maybe that's never what they said but that's the impression I got.

16

A draft would be inimical to the interests of the United States, precisely because of the kind of people it attracts. The US military is thoroughly professional, and by far the best in the world, precisely because it is a 100% volunteer force.

The Left needn't worry about getting called up. The military doesn't want them anyway. I was close to a sergeant major at Grafenwohr who enlisted to go to Vietnam and had some interesting things to say about Clinton's draft dodging. The Army was better off he wasn't there, he said, because Clinton is a p@ssy, who would only have gotten good men killed.

True enough. You don't want to serve your country, then stay the hell away. There are still enough real men around to pick up the slack.

17

You have framed this entire issue in terms of "willingness to serve one's country" - as if that were the only question to be answered in responding to a draft or a call for service. But the reaction to a potential draft, I think for most people, incorporates much more than just the question whether they are (or, would ever be) willing to accept arduous civic duty. It is a kind of personal referendum on military service in general, and on the specific circumstances and context of the service demanded.

You see military service as unambiguously an act to "protect the nation". But military service is much more than that. Too often, it is a contribution to cynical and immoral wars of choice cooked up by, and in the interests of, safely removed parties for their own benefit. Too often, too, it is membership in an organization that knowingly conducts and permits atrocities both legal (indiscriminate bombing, assassinations, destruction of food, water, and energy supplies) and illegal (torture, "disappearances", rape and abuse of women and children), and which puts its members under almost-irresistible pressure to do likewise. For many who oppose the draft, their concern is not that they refuse to "protect the nation" but a perception that the military is, or is likely to act as, an organization that canot be trusted or excused in its conduct of its "protective" functions.

You clearly see the military as a force for good. You have consistently minimized incidents such as Abu Ghraib or the reports of atrocities in Vietnam by saying that they were isolated incidents and contrary to official military policy. To others, though, the consistency of these accounts makes them an ineluctable part of what the military is as an organization - whether officially or simply by some sort of malign institutional inertia. The military simply is an organization that blunders around the world like a bull in a china shop, destroying as much as it preserves, killing civilians by wholesale loads "in order to save them", and committing persistent and predictable abuses and atrocities of the most sickening kind. Is this a rather one-sided perspective? I suppose so - but no more so than to see the military as noble and disciplined, and each of its repeated transgressions as yet another (and another . . . and another) mere aberration.

Whether, in the end, this perspective is right, it's an important one for many who might be willing to see the military as a undesirable necessity but who are put off by the continual misuse of its power for cynical political ends, and by the destruction and abuse that seems always to accompany the use of that power. For them, then, being drafted is, first, to allow yourself to be made a tool for unconscionable ends, and, second, to put yourself at risk of dying in an unjustifiable or immoral war. It is bad enough to force someone to be the last man to die for a mistake; nobody wants to be the first man to die for the next mistake. And if you cannot see the military as anything other than highly mistake-prone, and especially if you regard the regime under which you are likely to be forced to serve as unconscionable and irresponsible, it would be not merely inconvenient but immoral to allow yourself to be drafted into the military under those circumstances.

So, there is a perspective from which a military draft is highly undesirable, but which is not motivated by a refusal to accept a duty to one's country. This perspective hinges on a perception that the military - by deliberate choice or by an ingrained derangement of its institutional moral sense - consistently behaves in immoral ways, and that the administration in power consistently puts its military to immoral uses. If that perception is false, then the judgment made against military service is too harsh. But if that perception is false, I would say - given the historical record - that the burden falls on the military as an organization to prove itself worthy, and on the administration to prove itself responsible in its use of force. Until it does, the question whether to agree to enter the military to "protect the nation" is a complex one, and incorporates many factors other than simply civic duty.

To end on a personal note, I will say that I am convinced that both institutions have failed in that responsibility. I had actually begun to cut the military some slack after its reasonably responsible performances in Somalia and Bosnia, but my opinion has reversed after Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the massive civilian deaths in Iraq, repeated rapes of Japanese civilians, repeated rapes of female US military personnel at home and overseas, and all the sickening rest of that old familiar story. Even granting that most military personnel are decent and honorable, I don't think we can count on our military to undertake any large-scale project without resorting to barbarism - they themselves have proven it. (And it doesn't matter whether these repeated abuses, time and again and again, are the work of "a few bad apples" or are official policy. We can't allow it to happen at all - and it does, every time.) So we just can't use the military. They have to be kept on base and watched like presumptive criminals, because every time we let them loose the result is criminal behavior. Even worse, whether or not the military itself can be trusted, the powers that control it - especially Republicans - cannot be. These concerns were factors in my own refusal to register for the draft when I turned 18 under Reagan. At that time, Reagan had already been arming the death squads in El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Guatemala for almost two years, had mined the harbors in Nicaragua, and was arming the Taliban; there was open talk (somewhat silly in retrospect, but perfectly sincere at the time) of "another Vietnam in Central America". No decent person could allow themselves to be part of such activities, so, it was clear to me, no decent person could support a draft to do so. (The question whether to register and resist, or refuse to register at all, is another one, but I made the choice I made for the reasons I have explained.) Others today are making similar choices for similar reasons. Times and circumstances have changed, but the basic question has not; people have got to answer it in light of their own best understanding of the situation.

18

"My perspective as a youngster relates because I believe many people resist the draft because of their conspiratorial view of the role of America in the world."

Conspiratorial world views of America are not limited to the left, as any libertarian, right wing militia member, or neo nazi can attest to you any number of far flung conspiracy theories. The right has its fair share of kooks as well.

"I know because I was one. I believed rich people were bad. They owned the means of production and lived to exploit the poor and maintain their power. I believed literally that capitalists were a different breed of people than us middle class working folk. So why would I go to war for their interest. That is the lefts actual view of things. This "two-Americas" classist line Edwards is reincarnating from the '60's is the core of the old left's message."

Sitting around saying there isn't a vast chasm of differance between the rich and the poor doesn't make it so. We can argue how best to lift people up out of that poor category, or if they deserve to be lifted up, but I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that it doesn't EXIST.

I think the issue of the draft, and of military service in general, has been complicated by what many on the left and the right feel is military expeditions that have little to do with the security of America. The left complains about Iraq now, but the right was complaining about Bosnia during the 90's. Should we be performing "peacekeeping" missions? It's a valid question that needs to be discussed. With the exception of a handful I think most people would join the Army if there was a clear cut enemy. But in today's environment, where the enemy isn't clear cut, and where its debatable whether the two wars we've gotten ourselves into have helped to solve the problem, I think people are a little hesitant about enlisting.

19

I had actually begun to cut the military some slack after its reasonably responsible performances in Somalia

Yes, yes to the left, Mogidishu (spelling?) would be considered a great success. The US military left with its tail between its legs. I guess Lebanaon would also be considered a success.

repeated rapes of Japanese civilians, repeated rapes of female US military personnel at home and overseas

I understand that it is a crime punishable under the UCMJ not to rape at least 1 female Japanese and 1 female military personal a week. I think the policy was implemented by Rumsfeld and Ashcroft under the Patriot Act.

20

I had actually begun to cut the military some slack after its reasonably responsible performances in Somalia and Bosnia, but my opinion has reversed after Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the massive civilian deaths in Iraq

So KTK, the civillian deaths in Somailia and Bosnia didn't bother you, but the ones in Iraq do? I don't see the logic in that. The only differences I see is that the US had no national interest at stake in Bosnia or Somailia, while it is at least arguable that we do in Iraq and a Democrat was president for Somailia and Bosnia, while a Republican is for Iraq. Is there something subtle I am not seeing.

repeated rapes of Japanese civilians, repeated rapes of female US military personnel at home and overseas

Isn't that a bit of a non-sequitor. While it may be arguable that what happens in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are official policy, do you really mean to imply that it is military policy to rape female military personal or Japanese civilians.?

21

Nice post Joe. Just make sure them dodgers keep moving. We don't need 'em here in Min-nee-soh-tah.

KTK- How do you think the "massive civilian deaths in Iraq" compare to the civilian deaths in other military campaigns conducted in the age of modern warfare?

BTW, the Taliban did not exist during the Reagan administration. Some of the Mujahedeen that were fighting the Soviets at the time did later join the Taliban, while others fought for various warlords in the civil war that followed the Soviet withdrawal. But to say that "Reagan was arming the Taliban" is an outlandish lie.

22

KTK despite its tremendous length, that post was the most concentrated amount of ignorange and illogic I've seen in one place. Why don't you just stop commenting on things related to the conduct of the military? You obviously know nothing about the workings of the armed forces. Why? Why? Why?

23

Rob:
So KTK, the civillian deaths in Somailia and Bosnia didn't bother you, but the ones in Iraq do?

They do in both cases. But it was my impression that the military showed greater restraint in the prior cases. Certainly one objection to the Bosnian intervention was that it was conducted mostly by bombing, with a reluctance to use ground troops that would have taken some casualties but had a greater protective effect and caused fewer civilian deaths. To the extent that that criticism is accurate - and it is - the Bosnian operation was not as successful as it should have been.

[D]o you really mean to imply that it is military policy to rape female military personal or Japanese civilians.?

I didn't say that. I said that it doesn't matter whether these things happen through official policy or a failure of discipline - the fact that they happen at all, and keep happening, means there is something about the military that tends consistently to produce these incidents. And that fact - whether intentional, inevitable, or just bad luck - must be taken into account in deciding whether to use military force as a nation, or whether to join the military as an individual.

the elder:
How do you think the "massive civilian deaths in Iraq" compare to the civilian deaths in other military campaigns conducted in the age of modern warfare?

Why does that matter? They shouldn't have happened at all, and weren't necessary to "protecting our nation" or to the ostensible goal of the war - defeating Al Qaeda. That makes each one them an unconscionable tragedy.

Kevin W.:

[Me:]This [reluctance to be drafted] hinges on a perception that the military - by deliberate choice or by an ingrained derangement of its institutional moral sense - consistently behaves in immoral ways, and that the administration in power consistently puts its military to immoral uses.

[Sean S.:][I]n today's environment, where the enemy isn't clear cut, and where its debatable whether the two wars we've gotten ourselves into have helped to solve the problem, I think people are a little hesitant about enlisting.

[Kevin W.:]I could cut and paste the two posts above, from Sean S and KTK, and I can't imagine better examples of how the far Left views the military.

Well, yes. That was pretty much the point. And how does "the Left" view military service?

As both Sean and I have said explicitly, there is a history of misuse of power by political leaders and of human rights abuses by military personnel, and those who consider military service should take into account the likelihood of being embroiled in indefensible actions in deciding whether such service is warranted.

The former is no more than a matter of fact. The latter is a question of value, but I don't see why it should be controversial. Are you suggesting that, in contemplating military service, it would be wrong to consider the moral implications of one's behavior? I think otherwise. And so does "the Left".

24

repeated rapes of Japanese civilians, repeated rapes of female US military personnel at home and overseas

Just one question for you, Kevin. What is the punishment under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice - the legal system under which military folk live), for rape?

25

those who consider military service should take into account the likelihood of being embroiled in indefensible actions in deciding whether such service is warranted.

I can't speak for others here, but, for myself and my 8 years of service, I was never ONCE "embroiled in indefesible actions" - in fact, quite the opposite. I was continuously "trained" and drilled on the Geneva Conventions, the Law of Armed Conflict, and the proper actions of military members during a conflict. Every time I did weapons training, we had a short course on military law regarding armed conflict.

Beyond that, when military members did illegal things (note: rapes, theft, DUI, etc.) it was made public knowledge to all military members in the immediate area, and even in the entire theater. A strong message was always sent that these actions weren't tolerated, and would be punished to the furthest extent of military law.

The mere fact of what I've said here shows that what you're saying is simply absurd, Kevin. I don't see evidence to back up such wildly insane statements, save rather a few abiguous references to "rape" and "killing civillians" (note: no specifics), and the best you can come up with for the few specifics you have is "Abu Graib (sp?)" - which, I think even the most casual observer can easily see is an aberration, and is being dealt with by the military in the strongest way possible.

When have civillians been intentionally targeted by the military? When have civillian or military rapes been condoned?

Point being.. don't make absurd remarks such as these without evidence to back them up! There are many current and former military who read this blog, and, we're gonna catch such whoppers as these!

26

penis enlargement pill

27

"repeated rapes of female US military personnel at home and overseas"

Yeah, you're right. We should go back to an all-male military. Oh, wait, you must not have meant that, because its not politically correct. Never mind.

"How do you think the "massive civilian deaths in Iraq" compare to the civilian deaths in other military campaigns conducted in the age of modern warfare?

Why does that matter? They shouldn't have happened at all, and weren't necessary to "protecting our nation""

Yeah, not like the deaths in Somalia and Bosnia. Those nations were definetely threatening us. Oh, and Somalia's a strange definition of a military 'success'.

Also, your evidence is circumtancial at best, though nicely padded with rhetoric.

I wonder how you feel about the UN-presumably you like it as much as leftists tend to, despite the scandals of child prostitution, workers trading biscuits for sex with 14 year olds, huge financial scandals, and the Sudan being on the human rights council. If you used the same standards for them as you do for the US military, they wouldn't fare well...

28

Oh, and as I've pointed out a thousand times, the Taliban were COLLEGE STUDENTS. They weren't the mujhadeen, though the mujhadeen did support them, so saying Reagan armed them is incorrect.

29

I'll sign up immediately after each of the Bush daughters and Karen Hughes' son have each personally fired a weapon in battle in Iraq.

Damn sick hypocrites is what these people are.

30

I've never understood this mantra of the Liberals, that says that if a politician's children aren't themselves in the middle of a conflict, they're being hypocritical by sending volunteer soldiers, sailors, and airmen to war.

Fair enough. Any liberal democrat who is not a Medical Doctor should not be allowed to write or vote on any legislation regarding medicine. No liberal who is not a small businessmen should be allowed to sponsor legislation that impacts small business.

For that matter, obviously, Bill Clinton is a damned sick hypocrite for deploying troops to Zaire, Somalia, Bosnia--anywhere they might be put in danger. For that matter, John Kerry is a hypocrite for voting to give the President authority to invade Iraq, because his similarly effeminate sons aren't also in the service. That damned sick hypocrite Kerry--just when I thought he couldn't possibly be more hypocritical, I'm surprised again. I'm sure that the day after his inauguration, his trust fund children will give up their cushy lifestyles and go join the Marines.

31

I believe that, during a Kerry presidency, no soldier or airman should deploy, until Kerry's sons personally join up, and lead the way.

I'm awaiting Kerry's kids raping peasants and burning down villages and then putting themselves in for the CMH for a hangnail, just like their proud papa. Help is on the way!!

32

I'll sign up immediately after each of the Bush daughters and Karen Hughes' son have each personally fired a weapon in battle in Iraq.

How about Kerry's daughter or Al Gore's son? What about Chelsea Clinton? Her dad used the military quite a bit, with very little success I might add. Should we amend the Constitution so that only people whose children have served in combat are eligable for President? Or do you think only Republicans should have their children serve in combat, you weed the gene pool a little bit?

33

everyone should be drafted. end of story. just like in isreal and some euro countires: mandatory minimum of two years.

so no one would get out of it, maybe it would be best to go ahead and stamp everyone on their hand and forehead for easier identification.

34

I said that it doesn't matter whether these things happen through official policy or a failure of discipline - the fact that they happen at all, and keep happening, means there is something about the military that tends consistently to produce these incidents.

I really don't know why I bother responding to this, it is obvious that you have no clue about military life. But since rape (and murder, robbery, and speeding for that matter) occur in the population at large and the military is drawn from that population, how do you propose we eliminate that from the military? Is there some population of people that does not have a small percentage of people that rape, murder etc, that we could draw from? It sounds to me that this is just a club to beat Bush with, since I doubt you really thought all that much about military crimes while Clinton was in office or do you really want to blame all that sex abuse at the Naval Academy or the cheating at the Air Force Academy on Clinton since he was in charge when much of it happened?

35

First "enlargement" spam and then an anonymous troll. Yippee.

36

everyone should be drafted. end of story. just like in isreal and some euro countires: mandatory minimum of two years.

Since Israel has a population of about 10 million and is surrounded by enemies it makes sense for them to have a draft. The US population is about 300 million, a universal draft would probably mean quadrupling or quintupling the size and cost of the military. I doubt there is a need or desire for that.

37

just wait, there will be. order your fatigues now. bush and his christain followers want to bring armegeddon, bring it on, texas style, yeehaa!

38

I have a great story to add to the pot here. I work in a manufacturing plant and on Tues. I was in a discussion about politics with two co-workers. One is a young 20 something man and the other is an immigrant from Russia (Kiev), a Russia Jew.
I looked at the the young man and I said are you willing to put your learning hat on and listen to this wise man before you (meaning the Russian immigrant). He said, "OK". I looked at the Russian immigrant and said, "In your opinion why did Bush go to Iraq". To this with a tear welling up in his eye (no lie) he said, "For my freedom and my children's freedom". To which I said, "He is right."

This is the issue. This immigrant's grandfather was killed by Stalin as he was a Rabbi. People who have been on the other side of totalitarian tyranny, love and support the American role in the world as liberators.
Such wisdom is only learned by experience. Experience is the root of our pre-suppositions which is what this discussion hinges on.
God Bless,
brad

39

"just wait, there will be. order your fatigues now. bush and his christain followers want to bring armegeddon, bring it on, texas style, yeehaa!"

O anonymous grammatically-challenged poster, I'd prefer you left the criticism of the current administration to the more erudite; you simply provide fuel for those on the right with your cowardly forays onto their turf. Be a man! Sign your name and speak your mind! Don't stain us respectable lefties with your trollish rants, if you please.

40

Now that is funny...too bad the intended audience would not be caught dead reading this blog-site. Cut and paste it (with permission of course from the author) on every lib-site and anti-bush blog....that's the only way they'll read it and go...also it is a vain attempt (the draft email) to persuade undecideds...perhaps there will be a handful who will, but I suspect they'd be voting anyway for Kerry...ok, get cutting and pasting!

41

Dave S.,

What's your point? Why would you have "serious doubts about my story?" I asked Joe what he felt was the general attitude of those around him about what the military should do in the event that the elected government goes dictatorial. What are you reading into that post of mine, pray tell?

42

Joe says:

" We answer the call to service which they reject. That’s it. A small thing, no doubt. But one that makes all the difference in the world."

I would like to point out that there hasn't been a clear call to service been made. Even since 9-11. Most of the time you need to tell people exactly what is needed. If the President were to hold a press conference and call for people to join the military, there would never be a need for a draft. Instead the constant refrain is "We don't need to increase the size of the military, we don't need to increase the size of the military...." We are in the midst of a War and the President and his
Administration is trying to sell us a "peace dividend". Do not complain that no one answers the call of the drum if there is no drummer.

Military service has not been presented for the last 30 years as a "call to service". It's been presented as a career option. It's been something a recruiter "sells" in terms of its benefits to you, personally. Mostly in terms of College money and Career advancement. Even the Marines do this, although it's more of a sell of the prestige of being a Marine. "Join the Marines and be one of the few" etc. Its also been sold as something you do until you figure out what you really want to do with your life. And Vietnam has had an impact. If we were going to treat our soldiers so poorly, whether it was for sending them to Viet Nam in the first place or how they were treated when they got back, then why would anyone want to be a soldier if you had other options? So blame it on Kerry.

You also say:

On 9/11 how much thought did you give to joining the military?” ... Since I didn’t notice any lines outside of any military recruiting offices, I assume that few citizens had the reaction to rush to the defense of their homeland.

Joe, go back and read the obituaries of those that have died in Iraq since the war began. You will see, as I did, just how many of them, and there are very many, especially the 19 year olds, that have in their obituaries phrases like (After 9-11, Pfc_______ wanted to serve his/her country...) You underestimate Americans Joe, and you do a great disservice to those 19 year-olds.

And yes Joe, even I looked into the National Guard after 9-11, even though I knew I was too old, to fat, and frankly, to gay to join. So we look for other ways to serve. For example, this woman who lives in Los Angeles CA, who wanted to join the Guard but found she was too old. So instead she started Operation Gratitude, which so far has delivered 21,179 care packages to troops overseas. So quit underestimating us civilians. And get that chip off your shoulder. It's unbecoming of a Marine.

43

Emmaus writes

"When have civillian or military rapes been condoned?"

I guess Emmaus subscribes to the peddled view that Abu Ghraib was just a few bad apples. No suprise there.

44

"I've never understood this mantra of the Liberals, that says that if a politician's children aren't themselves in the middle of a conflict, they're being hypocritical by sending volunteer soldiers, sailors, and airmen to war."

You probably have also never understood what motivates "Liberals" to make the statement in the first place, which is the sick attempts by "Conservatives" to silence criticism of an invasion by accusing any dissenters of being traitors and troop-haters and draft dodgers and not supporting the "true patriots" on the front line who are "best among us" and who "are truly doing their duty."

Get it? Of course you don't. You're too emotionally invested in the lies the current President has sold you to comprehend or admit anything contrary to what your script says.

45

It can think of least two very good reasons to support the war right off.

One reason is that your country is engaged in it. You hold a social contract with your nation, and what is required of you, should be given. Seeing that your life is quite comfortable, and not "nasty, brutish, and short", *and* what is (currently) required of each of us is not very much, I can't see the problem. We should be gratefull to those who give more than ourselves.

Secondly, both the "war on terror" and the "war against Iraq" as taken together or seperately constitute a "just war". This conflict fits the "just war" criteria described by both St. Augustine and/or St. Aquinas. Presumably, we are all in agreement, that one should support ones country when engaged in a just conflict. Most on the "left" say they are "against" the war. Yet, I have never heard or seen a rational discussion of how they understand what comprises a just war. Please keep in mind that your criteria should judge WWII to be a prior just conflict.

46

MikeF,
You asked, "What do you think that you and your peers would do in the event of a wholesale legislative or de facto annihilation of the entire U.S. Constitution or part of it in the face of a major disaster?"

Look at the last time that happened. It was in Rome. The man in question was Julius Caesar. Civil war was the result.

A second question for you to answer is why do you think you are not free? What onerous restrictions chafe at you right now? You can say what you want, go where you want, and pretty much do whatever you want. I'm personally not feeling a profound lack of freedom, but I'm wondering why you do.

47

"Get it? Of course you don't. You're too emotionally invested in the lies the current President has sold you to comprehend or admit anything contrary to what your script says."

****
How little you know. I haven't plugged my fax machine in since Ivan came through, so I haven't gotten my scripts from the RNC and the 700 Club. For the past week, I've been on my own, making it up as I go along.

48

The 'truth' about the bills HR 163 & S 89 calling for the re-instatement of the draft is that they are a tactic by Rep Charles Rangel (Michigan) and 14 other House Democrats (see below) and one Senate Democrat , Sen Fritz F. Hollings (South Carolina), to raise a "scary" spectre of the draft. It is a dishonest tactic, and it's attribution to the Republicans and Bush is an absolute falsehood. The likelihood of its passage is nil and it should not be given serious consideration other than to refute it and expose the true source.

MJ

P.S. I had a low number in the very first draft lottery, lost my student deferment, was 1A for 4 months, and was ready and willing to be drafted after I became a Christian in December of 1970. US soldiers were dying at about 200-250 per week at the time.

* Rep Neil Abercrombie [HI], Rep Corrine Brown [FL], Rep Donna Christensen [VI], Rep William Lacey Clay [MO], Rep John Conyers, Jr. [MI], Rep Elijah E. Cummings [MD], Rep Alcee Hasting [FL]Rep Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. [IL] Rep Sheila Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX], Rep John Lewis [GA], Rep Jim McDermott [WA] Rep James P. Moran, [VA], Rep Fortney Pete Stark, [CA] Rep Nydia Velazquez, [NY] and Rep Eleanor Holmes Norton [DC] withdrawn (6/21/2004)

49

I'm struck by the tone of the self-described "Christians" in the original post and the comments that follow. My understanding of the Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John has to do with things like "love God" and "love your neighbor" and "blessed are the meek" and charity and kindness etc. How is it that so many so-called Christians seem to reject this aspect of Jesus' teachings in favor of snide remarks, inflamatory words, and uncharitable thoughts?

50

Well, Andy, may I meekly suggest it is probably because we may love you as a person and desire nothing more for you than a saving knowledge of our Lord, but we are also taught to not waste time or effort on those who repeatedly refuse to reason and wish to stay blind. And - forgive me if I'm wrong, but - KTK and a few others (which group may or may not include you) seem to deliberately misapply common sense and logic, never wishing to discuss when instead they can rant and parrot the left's lies.

So you see, you only have a partial understanding of what the NT authors tell us about the meek.

By the way, no beatitude ever said, "Blessed are the stupid". We are patient, but not 'patsy's'. Sorry to warp your mind like this.

51

Great post, Joe. If enough of them want a ride I will rent a bus and drive about 4 dozen of them up North as my contribution to a freer country.

52

Has this anything to do with Evangelical Christianity?

53

yes, it does.

sing 'onward christain soldiers' while reading joe's post. it makes a lot of sense.

this the new crusade people, get used to it. if you can't convert them to chrisianity and walmart, then call them enemy combatants and kill them from apache helicopters (ever wonder what the flying insects were that paul was refering to in revelations?).

god bless america and pass the ammo. world-wide texas, yeeehaaaa!

54

So much for trying to get the thread back on topic.... ;-)

55

No, tommy, we're not saying we should convert anybody.

We have to kill them. Every Muslim terrorist on earth needs to be hunted down and killed.

On my way to Wal-Mart. Pick you up anything? A new set of blinders, maybe?

56

Perhaps someone has already pointed this out; I didn't read all 57 of the comments posted before this one.

But I think that in fairness it should be mentioned that after the Vietnam War, it was a Republican president, Gerald Ford, who pardoned the draft-dodgers who had gone to Canada during that period.

57

Actually, I am pretty sure it was Carter who pardoned the people who fled to Canada to avoid the draft.

58

Actually, I am pretty sure it was Carter who pardoned the people who fled to Canada to avoid the draft.

59

I just confirmed it. Carter pardoned the draft the day after being inaugurated. See http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/vietnam/vietnam_1-21-77.html

for one reference.

60

MikeF- "Why would you have 'serious doubts about my story?' "... "What are you reading into that post of mine, pray tell?"

I find it odd that someone who is supposedly seriously considering joining the Navy after college would say that "Americans really aren't that free anymore, all things considered."

I find it odd that this person would be concerned that they might "serve with people whose loyalty is to the decrees of the Congress and President when those decrees fly obviously in the face of the letter of the Constitution."

Something about your story just doesn't ring true.

I would think that someone who was seriously considering becoming a Naval officer as one of only two options that they might follow, might think a little more highly of their country. I would think that they might have a little better understanding that we are a nation of laws and not "decrees."

I do not doubt that you might be considering studying in Italy. But I think that the other "option" is something that you made up so that you could frame your question as a serious inquiry. That is what I am reading into it.

61

To KTK and the gang -

Don't worry, the "exertions of better men" will keep you safe.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stewart Mill (1806-1873)

62

Mike:
"I'm honestly curious since I have two choices after college: immediately apply for Navy OCS or probably go study Italian in Italy and live in Italy for a few years.

Put me down along with Dave as another with some questions. How can you "immediately" apply for Navy OCS? Are you enlisted in the Navy now? If no, how can you go to navy OCS? And isn't the Navy Officer's program a minimum 6-year commitment, not four?

63

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stewart Mill (1806-1873).

No offence intended by the the above quote but it does illustrate the trappings of using selective quoting to reinforce an argument.

64

'On my way to Wal-Mart. Pick you up anything? A new set of blinders, maybe?'

until walmart stocks automatic gas-powered shotguns, i have no use for them. i want to go hunt islamic terroists with it, they are everywhere.

i they aren't here, i'll go to some other country to find them. then, i can bring their heads back on put them on a pole and put in front of my evengelical church and tell all the christians how i am converting the world for christianity.

praise the lord and pass the ammo. yeehaaa!

65

An automatic shotgun?

Sounds like you'd better leave Islamist-hunting to the men.

66

no way, they are great. italian made for their riot police. gas charges load the next round.

67

Kevin W,

Go take a look at the U.S. Navy's recruitment site, it says that you don't have to be prior-enlisted. Anyone fresh out of college can apply for OCS.

What is with you and Dave? Are you incapable of differentiating between how I see my country and its leadership?

Since you "are with Dave on this one" I feel I can safely respond to both of you in one post. Between the laws passed under Clinton and Bush, not to mention the SCOTUS rulings in cases ranging from Campaign Finance Reform to Dudley Hiibel's, you'd have to be daft to think that the elected government and the judiciary all things considered really respect law and order and the U.S. Constitution.

What is a decree but a law made on the fly? My point to Joe was much more relevent than you give it credit for. It is very simple. Our government flat out doesn't give a rat's ass about real law and order, it does whatever the hell it wants.

I asked Joe a clear and simple question. If and when the rule of law finally goes completely out the window, where does he see himself and those he works with standing? If a universal gun ban were passed today, and the police lost too many men trying to enforce it because the people actually fought back this time, would he and his fellow marines help enforce a law they know is illegal per the 2nd amendment or stand down?

68

I went to the Navy website, and I owe you an apology. It never occurred to me that one could go to Navy OCS straight from civilian life. The Army is far different; I don't know about the Air Force, though I was pretty certain yesterday.

We don't maybe see eye to eye on your observation that the rule of law has flown out the window. When Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, he famously said that the US Constitution is not a suicide pact, and that the Constitution cannot be used as cover by those who would destroy the country itself. I feel the same way. The fact that the Taliban is at Guantanamo, even American citizens who were found to be combating US forces abroad, does not trouble me at all. It seems illogical to work to overthrow the government of the United States, then scramble under constitutional protections when we find you.

Still, if these issues trouble you, your choice becomes clear--don't join. You will have the option at all times to refuse to follow illegal orders, orders that are given in contravention to the rules of warfare. Barring that, you must follow them. You are a commissioned officer of the United States government.

I'll answer your question re: weapons ban. If the United States passed a constitutional amendment that overturned #2, such a ban is legal. Probably not enforceable, but legal. But in the very remote event that I as a uniformed member of the armed services were called upon to perform police functions within the United States, I would have to decide for myself. I may be imprisoned for taking the stand I do, and face court martial. Or not.

Good luck in whatever you decide.

69

Wow, tommy, didn't know about those. I personally wouldn't trust anything Italian for something as important as close-quarter defense, but if it works for you, go for it. Better, don't you think, to employ the US infantry's complement of grenades, claymore mines, and M-16's or MP-5's?? We always thought that if the enemy were close enough that they had to be engaged by our 9-mils or, by extension, shotguns, you were in for a long afternoon.

70

David writes

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Ah, yes, miserable creatures like: the Bush daughters and Karen Hughes' son, the daughters and sons of vile hypocrites of the lowest calibre.

And how are we doing against our "enemy", Iraq, which posed such a threat that Emmaus and people like him wet their beds for months after 9/11 until The Great Protectochimp promised to git bad ol' Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11 but so what he's Arabic.

Yes, how are we doing?

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9753603.htm

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis - most of them civilians - as attacks by insurgents, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry and obtained exclusively by Knight Ridder.

According to the ministry, the interim Iraqi government recorded 3,487 Iraqi deaths in 15 of the country's 18 provinces from April 5 - when the ministry began compiling the data - until Sept. 19. Of those, 328 were women and children. Another 13,720 Iraqis were injured, the ministry said.