Wait, so if I find evidence convincing, that's not adult? Why are you so dedicated to defending enslavement? Have you ever thought about how many people died in "Ronson Lighters" because the brass could just go "Oh well, throw another draftee into the Sherman to make up for the loss. It's not like they are free or anything."?
Good point. Great point actually. Frank, look at it this way. Top brass have thousands of draftees. They are trained to shoot a gun and find cover. That's it. They are EASILY expendable and are almost like little pawns. Then you have volunteer warriors specially trained in their MOS, special schools, and tactical warfare. Less than 100% of draftees want to fight in a war. 100% of volunteers do.
If you are saying, "A volunteer army will be a better army than a conscripted one"...I AGREE. But that is not what is being discussed. Questerr has asserted that there has never been a time in US history where conscription has ever been necessary. It has always been adopted because it is convenient. I have challenged that saying, "I DO NOT KNOW THAT TO BE THE CASE." I seriously doubt that he KNOWS it to be the case either...but he has not been able to work up the ethical behavior to acknowledge it. Now he is trying to work his way around the initial discussion.
The draft was never needed. It's was easier to have it because they could pump out basic infantrymen in crazy numbers, but the volunteer status always reigns over it. Q is right when he says volunteers were pushed away when trying to enlist. The operational mission of the draft hit, so it made recruitment very confusing. However, not every volunteer was pushed away in that initial draft implementation. My grandfather lied about his age and enlisted voluntarily. But the draft created a cluster F of unorganized warfare. Basically "Hey Joe, point that gun and shoot". Soldiers back then were really good at survival. They fought to kill and that's it. Now a days, it's all tactical. To be honest, no one can win this debate.
I don't think military service itself is immoral but drafting folks into the military is a grey area for me. On one hand I say everybody who reaps the benefits of a nation by living there should be willing to defend it if the time comes. I would have a bit of an issue with any able bodied person refusing to help fight if the time ever came to where it the nation seriously needed all hands on deck. To me that's selfish, grow up in a nation, reap the benefits of the nation for years, then when the nation needs you to help fight to defend it you run away...I'd have a problem with that. But on the other hand I say as long as a nation doesn't absolutely NEED to draft people then they shouldn't and should rely on the volunteer military to defend them because thats their job. Plus I agree, a volunteer military does a better job than a conscripted one. It's basic common sense that a person is going to perform better doing a job they actually want to do rather than one they were forced to do. Now as far as forcing people to pay for something they don't support? That's never going to change, that's called taxes. You don't get to pick and choose which programs your tax dollars go to.
The military are fine. Protect every country over 150 in World at least. I likes 4000 or 8000 concripts reserve force in Sweden.
In other words, is it immoral for one person to force another person to kill and die for himself? Apparently, 70% of you believe that you believe that it is not immoral. It's my opinion that you are brainwashed to the point that you are mistaken about your own beliefs.
Russia has big dreams of military superiority. So far, however, they've only demonstrated that they can beat up on ragtag terrorist and rebel forces.
Those who refused to serve in that ego war are heroes. Forcing someone to serve in the military absolutely is immoral. Your "price" is paying taxes and following the law.
People who think that way are sick. Whether or not they are immoral is still up in the air...but the definitely are sick.
Conservative Barry Goldwater was the biggest opponent that I can remember from the 1960s. Libertarians oppose it more than anyone else. Right wingers oppose it only when it affects them. At all other times they applaud the draft so long as other do their fighting for them.
Everyone should oppose the draft. I've made this point a million times. I don't want someone in my squad that DOESN'T want to be here. Why should their EVER be mandatory service when the best military in the world is volunteer? I don't want some snowflake lib freaking out in combat
I think it is harmful because it forces people to participate in wars they may not believe in, may result in injury and death and mental illness, delay their lives by years, and is totalitarian and is against personal freedom. But a nation's self-defense is extremely important and if they simply don't have enough volunteers I see why they want to draft the rest. Also if there is a big war that threatens the nation's way of life then I see a good reason for a draft.
50%+1 makes right? That was true of slavery, too. So you agree that slavery was moral so long as the democratically elected body supported it or did nothing to overturn it.
Is a slave a citizen that can leave if they do not agree? I think not. But if a law is immoral and you feel that strongly about it then work to change it or leave.
Constricption is a waste of money and a form of public enslavement no matter how you look at it, both morally and economically. Conscription is exactly the same as if government were to force every citizen to work as a carpenter for x months - "one day we might find ourselves in a shortage of carpenters, therefore every man has to learn the skill of building a house." If this seems dumb and immoral, then why can you not see how compulsory militar service is too? "One man, one vote, one hammer!"
Well if you believe that then paying the percentage of federal taxes that support the military should be optional.
