The Draft=Restricted?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I'll be frank. Anyone who supports the Military Draft (leftist or not) should be restricted.

Why?

Simple. Anyone who supports the military draft is clearly anti-Men. The Draft would force men to give up freedom over their bodies and die for someone else. While women may be forced to serve as well, it's a simple fact that men will be the ones (via physical strength) to bear the brunt of this slavery.

Now, some may say that this slavery was necessary in certain situations. Some may point to the Soviet Unions use of it during their civil and Great Patriotic wars. This is nonsense. No government has the right to force people to die for political means, especially one whose leaders are not ready to die first. Until they have died fighting might their be a situation were forced slavery is necessary.

I wouldn't suggest that the state do something to take away the freedoms of women, like, say, I don't know, forcing them to give birth. But I find it equally despicable that anti-Men pigs are allowed to post in other forums than this one.

Leftism is about freedom for everyone. Not just women and those deemed unable to serve.

All I am asking is that the hypocrisy stop. Every poster who supports this slavery of men should be restricted, and every Leninist/Stalinist/Whatever other ist who's supports forced labor be questioned.

[Chapter 24]

Some may point to the Soviet Unions use of it during their civil and Great Patriotic wars.

Doesn't the fact that women were drafted into the Soviet Army during the Great Patriotic War derail your anti-men argument in that situation?

[spartan]

At first i thought you were referring specifically to the Vietnam war era draft, which i thought odd as it would be hard to support something that ended decades ago:lol:

Anyway conscription, personally it has it's good points and it's bad points.

It's good points are that it gives a majority of the population military training, which could come in handy if there is ever a revolution. Another good aspect is that countries with a conscription military do not have a standing professional volunteer army (usually made up of patriotic people who have no problem crushing any civil disobedience, seeing as they volunteered of there own free will to join this army) to defend the state in times of crises (such as a revolution) as their army is the people who are now rebelling!

It's bad points are that it can be seen as promoting nationalism/patriotism and militarism (thus keeping the people loyal), and can be used to subjugate and re-educate a population in a recently established dictatorship (though there is also another arguement that says that conscription is also a defence against democracy-destroying military coups led by professional officers).

I see no problem with conscription for a socialist state (Cuba and Venezuela have it for example) and it is essential in wartime (if it is a major total war).

Let's not go all utopian with our untrained militia with their AK-47's fantasies:lol:

Militias are shit in the face of modern warfare with it's aerial, electronic, information, and space warfare, and with it's biological, chemical and nuclear weapons (i am talking about a total war scenario, not a scenario like Vietnam or Iraq where urban or rurak militias conducting an urban or rural guerrilla war against occupation forces, seeking good headlines and unwilling to use big weapons, is actually quite a good tactic).

[Red_or_Dead]

Simple. Anyone who supports the military draft is clearly anti-Men.

It is not inherently anti-man. Women can be drafted just as men can be. Only that somwhere along the line most countries decided to only draft men. Why? Beats me.


Anyway, I used to be very pro-draft a while ago, but I must say that my position has changed on it, and even though I think it may be necesary sometimes, its still... well, just not right.

[534634634265]

wow, im the only one to vote no.
what about european countries where youth are required to do either two years of civil service or two years of military service? they maintain standing armies, while teaching their young men(and women) the importance of working for the good of your common man, and having a respect for the work that goes into making the world you live in take place. you can still despise capitalism and authority, but if you don't have any concept of whats going on then your just blindly idealistic.
(braced for shitstorm)

[Red_or_Dead]

wow, im the only one to vote no.

No, I voted no as well.


what about european countries where youth are required to do either two years of civil service or two years of military service? they maintain standing armies, while teaching their young men(and women) the importance of working for the good of your common man, and having a respect for the work that goes into making the world you live in take place. you can still despise capitalism and authority, but if you don't have any concept of whats going on then your just blindly idealistic.
(braced for shitstorm)

They also teach how to kill your common man. But that aside, I believe that "slavery" is to strong an expression for 6 months of military service (it used to be 6 months here, anyway, till they abandoned conscription).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I voted 'yes.' Wage slavery and conscription are both establishments of a state, and they're both frivelous. Conscription, for example, is only needed when the population isn't entirely faithful to a war effort. If that's true, then there shouldn't be a war.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I voted 'yes.' Wage slavery and conscription are both establishments of a state, and they're both frivelous. Conscription, for example, is only needed when the population isn't entirely faithful to a war effort. If that's true, then there shouldn't be a war.


Very well said.

Though there may be times when a large mobilization was necessary, most of those times enlistment centers where flooded. Using the draft in Afghanistan was a reality for young Soviet men, and any move by our government would be strongly opposed by me (though, god forbid, if the US is attacked again, I shudder to think what this nations reaction will be...)


They also teach how to kill your common man. But that aside, I believe that "slavery" is to strong an expression for 6 months of military service (it used to be 6 months here, anyway, till they abandoned conscription).The time of service makes no difference. You're still being forced to give up your time, and possibly life, or face a prison sentence (I assume).

Or, to say it another way, if a man can give up 6 months, is it not plausible that the last 6 months of pregnancy be forced on women? That can hardly be called repression, right?


what about european countries where youth are required to do either two years of civil service or two years of military service? they maintain standing armies, while teaching their young men(and women) the importance of working for the good of your common man, and having a respect for the work that goes into making the world you live in take place. you can still despise capitalism and authority, but if you don't have any concept of whats going on then your just blindly idealistic.
(braced for shitstorm)I suppose that if a choice of slavery was presented, it would be more tolerable. I think the US has the most guilt-less system, where people who have no way to afford college and have no prospects "volunteer" in order to get these things. I fall into this category.


It's good points are that it gives a majority of the population military training, which could come in handy if there is ever a revolution. Another good aspect is that countries with a conscription military do not have a standing professional volunteer army (usually made up of patriotic people who have no problem crushing any civil disobedience, seeing as they volunteered of there own free will to join this army) to defend the state in times of crises (such as a revolution) as their army is the people who are now rebelling!I've never heard of an instance were conscripts had trouble putting down a revolt. The Soviets, Syrians, Iraqis, Chileans, and several other groups did it very nicely at numerous times, for example.

I will say that the draft seems to lead to civil unrest and demoralizing troops when it involves putting down revolts in foreign lands.

As for the 'come in handy' part, would you argue with the government forcing people (all types of people) to spend several years in a forced labor camp carrying out govt projects? That slave experience would come in handy post-revolution.


Militias are shit in the face of modern warfare with it's aerial, electronic, information, and space warfare, and with it's biological, chemical and nuclear weapons (i am talking about a total war scenario, not a scenario like Vietnam or Iraq where urban or rural militias conducting an urban or rural guerrilla war against occupation forces, seeking good headlines and unwilling to use big weapons, is actually quite a good tactic).Agreed. Though the prospects of troops overthrowing the govt are slim to none....well, actually I'd say there's none. Unless it's a military junta they're installing.



Doesn't the fact that women were drafted into the Soviet Army during the Great Patriotic War derail your anti-men argument in that situation?I wasn't aware of the Soviets enslaving people of both genders...Regardless, I believe the Soviets had an all-men draft by the time the unnecessary wars in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Afghanistan began. Many of the veterans Afghan vets bravely set up veteran groups in the USSR which questioned the regime.

[Plagueround]

wow, im the only one to vote no.
what about european countries where youth are required to do either two years of civil service or two years of military service? they maintain standing armies, while teaching their young men(and women) the importance of working for the good of your common man, and having a respect for the work that goes into making the world you live in take place. you can still despise capitalism and authority, but if you don't have any concept of whats going on then your just blindly idealistic.
(braced for shitstorm)

I don't know about the military in other countries, but here its all about breaking someone's spirit and conditioning them to accept doing things they wouldn't normally want to do (or at least that's what every single person I know who's ever been in the military tells me, they wouldn't take me if I wanted to go due to heart conditions in my childhood). I imagine this would probably be the case for other countries since any military needs to prepare their personnel for combat. Does learning how to serve whatever the interests of the ruling elite truly teach one to "work for the good of your common man", or does it teach obedience? Either way, forcing people into serving their country soley on the basis they were born there seems oppressive to me.

Also:

I'll be frank.

Hello, Frank.

[Forward Union]

I oppose the draft of course, but there are some very clear benefits that are borne from it.

For example, it trains the working class in the basics of millitary engagement. I suspect that many of our great revolutions and uprisings would have faltered in the face of millitary power much sooner than they did, had the workers not been subject to conscription at some point.

[534634634265]

i have several friends in the army, and being a soldier isn't about breaking you into an obedient pawn. yeah you have to follow orders, ZOMG you'll have to do as others tell you at various points throughout your life. all my friends in the military are intelligent, politically and socially conscious people. if anything, they have a more clear understanding of what the system is about, and what it does to people. i don't support wartime conscription, but i do support the requirement of civil service.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

No, I voted no as well.



They also teach how to kill your common man. But that aside, I believe that "slavery" is to strong an expression for 6 months of military service (it used to be 6 months here, anyway, till they abandoned conscription).
So because it's only six months long it's not slavery? If I kidnap you and put you to forced labour for six months is it not slavery?

[RGacky3]

I am personally against the draft 100%, and if there was a draft I would be in prison, or Mexico. No state has the right in their wildest dreams to enslave a person to kill or aid in killing others.

However, that being said, I think its interesting that Comskey said once that the draft would be better, because its easier for soldiers to resist and oppose wars, whereas volunteer armies in America pray on poverty, and give soldiers less ground to resist or oppose a war.

[ashaman1324]

i voted yes
in the strict sense of the word slavery is to work without a choice and without pay
the draft does pay i suppose, with pension should u be injured and gi fund i believe?
but i think calling it slavery is a stretch
but that still leaves the choice of fighting for a cause you dont believe in, if you havent enlisted on your own, or being jailed
which isnt much of a choice at all.

[Bud Struggle]

It all depends on the situation. I don't think there should be a draft for wars of "adventure" like America's latest jaunt into Iraq, but certainly the USA and the SU needed conscription in WWII to fight a world menace like Nazism.

[RGacky3]

It all depends on the situation. I don't think there should be a draft for wars of "adventure" like America's latest jaunt into Iraq, but certainly the USA and the SU needed conscription in WWII to fight a world menace like Nazism.

You can't make that distinction, especially for a law, because some would not consider America's jaunt into Iraq an Adventure, and back in the 30s and 40's some would have considered Nazism Europes problem and not Americas. So its all subjective and you can't make a law that vague, based on opinions.

Either the Draft is Slavery or it is not. Considering its forcing a person through the threat of violence to do something I consider it is Slavery, and considering its forcing a person to kill or aid in killing I consider it a very serious form of Slavery and a very reprehensible one.


in the strict sense of the word slavery is to work without a choice and without pay

Slaves were paid in a way, i.e. provided for materially. Thats not what defines slavery, its the threat of violence, thats what puts wage slavery in the same category, only to a somewhat lighter extent.

[danyboy27]

wow, im the only one to vote no.
what about european countries where youth are required to do either two years of civil service or two years of military service? they maintain standing armies, while teaching their young men(and women) the importance of working for the good of your common man, and having a respect for the work that goes into making the world you live in take place. you can still despise capitalism and authority, but if you don't have any concept of whats going on then your just blindly idealistic.
(braced for shitstorm)

i voted no too

LOL

[eyedrop]

wow, im the only one to vote no.
what about european countries where youth are required to do either two years of civil service or two years of military service? they maintain standing armies, while teaching their young men(and women) the importance of working for the good of your common man, and having a respect for the work that goes into making the world you live in take place. you can still despise capitalism and authority, but if you don't have any concept of whats going on then your just blindly idealistic.
(braced for shitstorm)

Ranting

Being through that shit (civil service) and wasting a year of my life because I was unlucky on the lottery (here about 1/3 are picked out) and didn't make up a fake psycological disorder 3 years earlier I don't have much positive to say about it. Basically you do the exact same job as other workers in healthcare (or related areas) get paid 1/5 of a regular Mcjob, you can't choose workplace (you can wish for places, but ultimately it's up to them), you have no flexibility, you don't get pension points and you are stuck in the city they put you into.

There is something special about working in the summer at child-care insitution and earning about 1/5 of the other employess wage and feeling jealously at the other guys/girls who are having a summer vacation next week, while you still have to slave for shitpay through the summer.

All at the treath of a 3 months prison-sentence followed by being called in again after serving it. On the positive side you get cheap train tickets while serving (quite boring taking a 9 hour train ride up to my GF before having to return after spending a day there, if I just could have worked there instead) and you get about 1,5 regular month wages when you are done.

Rant over.

[Bud Struggle]

Ranting

Being through that shit (civil service) and wasting a year of my life because I was unlucky on the lottery (here about 1/3 are picked out) and didn't make up a fake psycological disorder 3 years earlier I don't have much positive to say about it. Basically you do the exact same job as other workers in healthcare (or related areas) get paid 1/5 of a regular Mcjob, you can't choose workplace (you can wish for places, but ultimately it's up to them), you have no flexibility, you don't get pension points and you are stuck in the city they put you into.

There is something special about working in the summer at child-care insitution and earning about 1/5 of the other employess wage and feeling jealously at the other guys/girls who are having a summer vacation next week, while you still have to slave for shitpay through the summer.

All at the treath of a 3 months prison-sentence followed by being called in again after serving it. On the positive side you get cheap train tickets while serving (quite boring taking a 9 hour train ride up to my GF before having to return after spending a day there, if I just could have worked there instead) and you get about 1,5 regular month wages when you are done.

Rant over.

The Norwegian military seem kind of http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/shaven-pussy.jpg Compaired to the US Marines. ;):lol:

[Red_or_Dead]

http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/shaven-pussy.jpg

Holy fuck. Now thats just plain cruel. Is it your cat, or did you just google it?

[eyedrop]

We only send special forces abroad:cool: (the professional military that get's paid) and the government likes to pretend we're not in the Afgani and Iraq wars even though they have forces there.


Anyway it is Okish I guess, but you get pissed when you has to postphone your life for a year because you had lousy luck at the lottery. I recon it's societies way to punish those of us who are lucky enough to have perfectly functioning bodies.

[Bud Struggle]

Holy fuck. Now thats just plain cruel. Is it your cat, or did you just google it? Google.

My cats would claw my eyes out if I tried to do that to them. :)


Anyway it is Okish I guess, but you get pissed when you has to postphone your life for a year because you had lousy luck at the lottery. I recon it's societies way to punish those of us who are lucky enough to have perfectly functioning bodies.

I understand. And I agree that's not quite fair. If there is an actual WAR on--I have no problem with a draft--but drafting people just for the hell of it and putting them in civilian jobs at a fraction of the pay seems a waist of people, time and money.

[RGacky3]

If there is an actual WAR on--I have no problem with a draft

Being a christian, you sure as hell better have a problem with it. One of the main reasons Christians were killed in the first and second century was for refusing to join the army, and refusing to salute the emperor, and I don't think they were doing it just because it was Rome. I'm pretty sure Christianity at least in the bible is pretty against to violence and war, and as far as I've read, it does'nt give an exception to "if your country is at war its ok."

[Bud Struggle]

Being a christian, you sure as hell better have a problem with it. One of the main reasons Christians were killed in the first and second century was for refusing to join the army, and refusing to salute the emperor, and I don't think they were doing it just because it was Rome. I'm pretty sure Christianity at least in the bible is pretty against to violence and war, and as far as I've read, it does'nt give an exception to "if your country is at war its ok."

You should read the Bible--it's all about war (and of course, adultry!) :lol:

Actually, Thomas Aquinas put together some reasons why a Chrustian may fight in a "just war" here's some conditions placed on the Christian from the Cathichism of the Catholic Church:
the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Clearly something the Iraq wouldn't fit into that kind of situation--WWII and fighting Hitler would.

[Sendo]

Excellent, selective reading from the bastardized Roman biographies of Jesus and the Hebrew Scriptures! This is the fun of Christianity, take and quote what you want to endorse slavery, war, homophobia, sexism, racism, and vengeance! The possibilities are endless!

As far as WWII being a just war. Many soldiers believed and fought for just reasons, but I agree with Howard Zinn when he says the war was carried out unjustly and the reasons the US and the UK went to war were not for the reasons they said. Something about bombing French villages when you're weeks away from the fall of Berlin seems like a waste. In the Pacific Theater we also had the unneeded deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians form a-bombs. We have racist rationalizations (like the whole country was part of the war/better we kill all of them than one of us), or if you prefer, the myth that it saved a land invasion that would have killed over a million. A careful reading of history and especially stuff like the diaries of common people in the military and on the home front show me nations that were needlessly bludgeoned when at the point of collapse.

To evaluate WWII as good or bad is very bad. I'm not entirely on one side or the other, but Howard Zinn made a good case for it being a bad venture on the whole since it killed millions and millions but fascism only rose from the ashes a few years later.

As far as the Holocaust went, we didn't have to fight the Nazis. We could have merely not given emotional and material support to the Nazis all throughout the 1930s and 1940s, though by the 1940s the support came through nation-less companies who would do business with anyone. (IBM, case in point)

[RGacky3]

Thomas Aquinas lived hundreds of years, actually more like a thousand years after the last book of the bible was written, so he can say whatever the hell he wants, and I'd have to say that the Catholic Church is'nt the best example of people who follow the Christian bible.

[Bud Struggle]

and I'd have to say that the Catholic Church is'nt the best example of people who follow the Christian bible.

Catholics are to Christianity what Trotskyists are to Marxism. :)

[Ultra-Violence]

I voted no wtf? WIf anything we need the god dam draft I mean look at vietnam the big ass anti-war movement would have not would of happend because of the draft. Also if we have a mercenary army like we do have in the states of amrerikkka only the most disadvantge people will join for a fucking paycheck (I.E Minoritys and poor whites) and whackos for thrills also if we had a draft the country will always be more relucetant to go to war becuase it will affect every one come on now, thats why no one in this counrty give a shit becuase it doesnt affect none of them personaly untill gas prices go up if anything the draft is fucking pro-peace chomsky explains better than i ever could but its roughly the same arguement

[Publius]

You should read the Bible--it's all about war (and of course, adultry!) :lol:

Actually, Thomas Aquinas put together some reasons why a Chrustian may fight in a "just war" here's some conditions placed on the Christian from the Cathichism of the Catholic Church:
the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Clearly something the Iraq wouldn't fit into that kind of situation--WWII and fighting Hitler would.

Someone on a religious forum I post at (TheologyWeb) has a sig that I think covers this issue:

"When Jesus said 'Love your enemy' I'm pretty sure he meant don't kill them."

I think that sums it up nicely.

[Bud Struggle]

Someone on a religious forum I post at (TheologyWeb) has a sig that I think covers this issue:

"When Jesus said 'Love your enemy' I'm pretty sure he meant don't kill them."

I think that sums it up nicely.

My favorite part is where Jesus casts all the non believers into the pits of Ghenna. But, to each his own. :lol:

[Publius]

My favorite part is where Jesus casts all the non believers into the pits of Ghenna. But, to each his own. :lol:

Nobody ever said Jesus wasn't full of shit.

Well, maybe some people did.

But they were wrong.

EDIT: Diversionary side-note. There's a suburb of Columbus called Gehanna. Who named it Gahanna, and who let him? That's about as unflattering a name as you can get. That'd be like naming your town "Purgatory" or "Shithole."

DOUBLE EDIT: Never mind. Turns out it was named after an Indian word for 'creek', not the Biblical Gehanna. Still, that's an unfortunate name for anyone who's read the Bible.

[spartan]

My favorite part is where Jesus casts all the non believers into the pits of Ghenna. But, to each his own. :lol:
What about when Jesus physically attacked the merchants in the temple courtyard?

Seems like Jesus was a contradictory bastard who said one thing and did the opposite!

That's my kind of guy.:lol:

[Plagueround]

My favorite part is where Jesus casts all the non believers into the pits of Ghenna. But, to each his own. :lol:

This is my favorite one. I'm sure you'll find it interesting.

You say, "I am rich. I have become wealthy. I don't need anything." Yet you don't realize that you are miserable, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked.
-Revelation 3:17

[Bud Struggle]

This is my favorite one. I'm sure you'll find it interesting.

You say, "I am rich. I have become wealthy. I don't need anything." Yet you don't realize that you are miserable, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked.
-Revelation 3:17

But of course the Book of Revelations wasn't added to the Bible in some parts of the Church until the 4th Century--and thankfully I'm a "give me that old time religion" Christian. :lol:

[Comrade B]

I voted no because I don't think those that are pro-conscription should be restricted, though I am against drafting people. The rich always escape drafts, the poor always get fucked by them.

[Killfacer]

im against the draft. Particuarly for shit wars. But i would worry how many people would have volounteered to fight Hitler.

[redSHARP]

is the draft slavery? hmm...did the first african slave get on the boat kicking and screaming? in some ways it is, such as peace time. during wars, some sacrifices are needed to be made. overall, one has to balance ideals with survival.