Draft Dodging

[Robot Jesus]

This all assumes one thing, that by going to war you’re defending your countries territory and people. What if you’re only defending its economic or diplomatic interests?

[Archbio]

As RagetheWarrior just hinted at, "draft dodging" is a whole different dynamic if the war is an actual case of "enemy at the gate", as opposed to other wars. And yes, that includes wars that are passed at such with attempted emotional effects. Defending the extended home that is one's nation can include an heavy dose of self preservation just as "draft dodging" when the war isn't really defensive.

I get the impression the "war of ultimate defence" scenario is established (by DBM) only to lend its impact to any war as there is a certain sense of universality about the remarks on draft-dodgers.

And about the whole Canada thing: its a Dominion and not a part of Great Britain. Its entry into World War I was automatic, but the case of World War II shows that the autonomy gained by Canada is concrete. Yes, the Queen is the head of the state, but there's no reason to believe she, or her delegate the governors, can take any substantial decisions by themselves.

The lack of an effective head of state I see as kind of a big flaw, though.

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by DaBiggman

Technically, you are still part of the British Empire, you still pay homage to their queen, you still have representatives in the House of Lords and House of Commons, and some of your tax money still goes to her. You have the same standing as Australia in that, you are somewhat independant, however, if Britain really wanted to, they could toss around your troops like ragdolls, however, that would make the REAL independance movement that much more legit.

Actually, they couldn't. And they didn't. You'll note Canada didn't join WWII when Great Britain did. That's because they do not have any official power over our government anymore, despite what your non-Canadian sources tell you. If Canada WERE still a part of Great Britain, their declaration of war would have been simultaneous to their mother country (a la WWI). I believe that was the reference to the 65 years ago comment in my last post.

Edit: D'oh. Archbio kinda beat me to it. My point stands.

[Dynamite220]

There is no situation where it is ok to for a government to draft soldiers. If a person doesn't want to fight, then I don't want him fighting. All he can do is hinder you. It is safer to go out and fight on your own with no point man than it is to trust a man nursing the "conscript syndrom"* to watch your flank. America has an all volenteer military force for a reason; it realy is that much more efficient and effective even though it may have less soldiers.

*If a man is in war and doesn't want to be there, I have doubts that he'd be able to pull the trigger, even to save his own life. Odds are, he'll cut and run and leave you unprotected at a critical moment which you would have been prepared for if you had just gone out alone. It is, of course, still better to have a squad that you can trust, but if any one of them is a conscript and resents it, you're not likely to live long.

[Luna Santin]

Originally Posted by DaBiggman

Draft dodging is by far the worst thing a United States citizen can do if the war actually is in defence of the United States. Dodging and desertion are the most cowardice acts that someone could show, and in my opinion, treason fits right along those lines. As I have mentioned numerous times, every war fought on U.S. soil has had an ancestor of mine fighting for it so to me, this country is more than a place to live, and the freedom we have fought and died for is a great deal more important to me than it is to most people. If you are too much of a coward to fight and die for freedom, get out, we don't want you.

I've heard it suggested that a government unable to field a volunteer army to support itself must not have had all that much popular support.

In one sense, dodging the draft might be a betrayal of one's country, but the United States is a nation founded upon the principles of freedom and democracy. Should it not follow, then, that this free nation's citizens should be free to stand with or against any particular legislation or administration? Should it not follow, then, that an administration which finds itself unable to man its defenses, and then forces citizens into its defense, has violated and perhaps even betrayed the very principles upon which our nation is founded? We are not ruled by the government; the United States is governed by the people -- a government which strives to rule the people has betrayed the roots of our Constitution.

Can't think of a more polite way to get this across, apologies in advance for any offense. I, too, find it interesting that some of those who most ardently defend the draft will more often than not explain a reason why their being drafted is unlikely or impossible. It is easy to send others to die, isn't it?

[Staizer]

Let me see if I understand the arguement correctly.

One side is saying that dodging the draft is unpatriotic and cowardly, the other side is saying that they consider their self preservation above that of the preservation of a nation

That's sort of silly, the second group is backing what the first group is saying. To consider yourself before others is considered cowardly, and not supporting your nation is unpatriotic . . . You aren't argueing against the concept (you're supporting it actually), you're just trying to support your own (hypothetical) actions against some claim that you may be a bad person.

What about the greater good of humanity? What about upholding our nation's beliefs? If my death will save the lives of millions of people, be they Middle Easter, Chinese, Canadian, whatever, then my life was well spent. I wouldn't sacrifice someone else's life, but my own? Sure. Even if it isn't my nation's war.

Lastly, pointing fingers at people for not being able to do what they actually want to do is childish. Several people have said that they would be willing to do what they have preached but are unable by law or at least recruitment standards and you call them hypocrites? You have the ability and do nothing. Are you better than they?

[Archbio]

the other side is saying that they consider their self preservation above that of the preservation of a nation

Strawman argument, we meet again. I can't speak for others (who have made several points you are occulting), but when I put the words "self-preservation" in my own comment, I was merely noting that while it is probably a trait showing itself in any "draft-dodging", it also appears in military service when that service is actually in defence of what one believes in or holds dear.

What about the greater good of humanity? What about upholding our nation's beliefs?

The obvious thing to respond to that is that draft dodgers will be more numerous when there is reason to think that supporting the war effort in question does neither of these things.

I think the biggest opposition that came out of this is that most war are not in fact unambiguously just, a justified status that often seems to be spread to any war undertaken.

I wouldn't sacrifice someone else's life

Warfare involves that pretty much automatically, so you'd better have a damn good reason.

[Staizer]

Strawman argument, we meet again. I can't speak for others (who have made several points you are occulting), but when I put the words "self-preservation" in my own comment, I was merely noting that while it is probably a trait showing itself in any "draft-dodging", it also appears in military service when that service is actually in defence of what one believes in or holds dear.

But in war it is almost sure that the person that is fighting for the cause won't live as opposed to running away to purely save one's own life. The hero's in war are those who have died saving others (or lived saving others).
To think about one's self is not encouraged in war because then you get people who will run away when they are needed most.

The obvious thing to respond to that is that draft dodgers will be more numerous when there is reason to think that supporting the war effort in question does neither of these things.

I think the biggest opposition that came out of this is that most war are not in fact unambiguously just, a justified status that often seems to be spread to any war undertaken.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear about this one, I was meaning that fighting to bring freedom to any one is worth it. Just because the motives of one person advocating the war are purely monetary doesn't mean that all the people's motives are based on greed, each individual soldier has to decide why he is fighting. That is what the Vietnam veterans did, that's what the WWII veterans did, that's what the Civil War veterans did, that's what the Iraq veterans will do. Just because you don't agree with whoever's in charge doesn't mean you abandon them, it just means you take whatever you can into your own hands and give it your own reason for existing.

Warfare involves that pretty much automatically, so you'd better have a damn good reason.

I wouldn't sacrifice someone else's life when my own life would suffice, and I wouldn't force others to sacrifice their lives just so I could live, it has to be completely voluntary. Each person has to say, I will fight for this cause, and die for this cause if it is required, otherwise it is wrong.

I personally feel that a draft is incredibly stupid because of the fact that most of the people in a draft haven't said they will fight for the cause, but that doesn't mean that I will leave my country when they need me most (if they ever decide they do need me).

[Kikuichimonji]

People don't choose to be born into their home country. How can you demand that they be patriotic when they're born into a system which they have no control over? Forcing others to die for beliefs they don't neccesarily have is wrong. While I personally value human life, you can't force someone to risk their life for another. Forcing others to work for the greater good of humanity is debasing humans into tools of power, regardless of whether it's a good cause or not. Without the ability to choose our own way to live, we've already lost what makes us human. (Yes, that's debatable. Sue me.)

Originally Posted by Staizer

I wouldn't sacrifice someone else's life when my own life would suffice, and I wouldn't force others to sacrifice their lives just so I could live, it has to be completely voluntary. Each person has to say, I will fight for this cause, and die for this cause if it is required, otherwise it is wrong.

Every person who dies on the opposite side of the battlefield is a sacrifice for your cause. How can't you see that? Just because they're wearing a different uniform doesn't automatically remove the immorality of sacrificing another. This is what people don't realize in wars - the heroes are sometimes the ones who kill the most. They might defend a group of soldiers by killing another. Of course, there are the ones who use their bodies as human shields and to cover grenades.

[Lucas]

You say

Each individual soldier has to decide why he is fighting.

Then you say

Just because you don't agree with whoever's in charge doesn't mean you abandon them, it just means you take whatever you can into your own hands and give it your own

But if individual soldiers don't have a reason to fight, as per your first statement, then they wouldn't fight, which contradicts your second statement. If i don't believe the US is worth defending because its become corrupt, then how is that abandoning it? If anything a person is loyal to the ideals he holds, and a nation, quite sadly, is not an ideal. America is all about freedom, yet we've got civil liberties being hucked out left and right. America is a nation of immigrants looking to get away from the pettiness of Europe, yet they pulled the exact thing Europe did in africa, asia, and north america in south america, and they engage in more wars than any other nation on the planet. Oh my, looks like the firm ideological backround that patriots love to preach about is riddled full of holes.

Canada, however, doesn't have said holes, which isn't to say it doesn't have its own problems.

I honestly don't see what's cowardly about leaving a nation that you don't agree with: especially when your odds of changing the status quo are next to nil due to the rigid 2 party structure.