Draft....

[judgeposer]

I believe that we have a moral obligation to follow the law unless we assess the law to be inherently unjust. This means that laws that do not require our adherence must (the following is a nice summary I found, but is applicable): (1) it is not ordered to the common good, but merely to the private good of those who impose it; (2) it exceeds the authority of those who impose it; (3) it places disproportionate burdens on any of the people in the community.

Let's assume that our government, which we legitimately elected, reinstated the draft, the assumption the OP asks us to ponder, I believe we would be morally obliged to follow it. Our government has always allowed for exceptions, such as for the case for conscientious objectors, who would nonetheless enter the draft, but receive non-combat, but support assignments. Let's make the second, reasonable assumption that were Congress to reinstate the draft that they'd also, as they have before, allow for conscientious objectors (i.e. those with religious or ideological reasons for not wanting to perform actual combat duties), then I believe we would have a moral obligation to register and present ourselves were our numbers picked.

I don't believe any of the three considerations I listed would be violated were Congress to reinstate the draft. Of course specific conflicts will require specifically tailored analysis, but I don't think we can conclude, assuming the above, that the draft, in principle, is an unjust law (were it to exist).

Our adherence to law cannot be be the result of personal agreement with them, but must be the result of a larger, holistic analysis, that doesn't depend only to those to which the law is directed, but the content and legitimacy of the laws themselves. Edited July 27, 2008 by judgeposer

[judgeposer]

I believe that we have a moral obligation to follow the law unless we assess the law to be inherently unjust. This means that laws that do not require our adherence must (the following is a nice summary I found, but is applicable): (1) it is not ordered to the common good, but merely to the private good of those who impose it; (2) it exceeds the authority of those who impose it; (3) it places disproportionate burdens on any of the people in the community.

To give a voice to those who would argue with the draft serving the common good - there is a philosopher who has opined that since government, such as our American government, can often become laddened with special interests, and at the highest levels cannot possibly divine what might serve as a benefit to its citizens, fighting for it is akin to fighting for a utility company. Now, I'm not sure he'd lend his support to draft dodgers in the specific sense we're pondering, but I just thought I'd add that helpful balance to my previous post.

[joytron]

family in canada... fuk yes!

[fineout]

usually if im being drafted, i just try to move enough so the person behind me loses the pocket and i pull away....oh wait..nevermind

[Canon]

you guys all act like joining the US military is the worse possible thing that could happen to you. ppl tend to forget that there are those who join that are EXACTLY like you guys. they grew up in similar households with similar income levels, they have family and some dont like you guys. the military is made up of normal people who decided for either their own selfish reasons ( education, medical, and other benefites) or selfless ( pride in country, the need to help others, ect) reasons to join.

you join the military and you have a job, you have a small family when you join, oyull still get to be with yours, but sometimes you wont and thats a huge sacrifice but alot of people wouldnt make it if they didnt feel what they were doing was important.

honestly, its sad to see how many people would rather kill others and die in their country then help ensure other americans safety outside of the country (im referring to fellow american soldiers).

[Apoc Genesis]

you guys all act like joining the US military is the worse possible thing that could happen to you. ppl tend to forget that there are those who join that are EXACTLY like you guys. they grew up in similar households with similar income levels, they have family and some dont like you guys. the military is made up of normal people who decided for either their own selfish reasons ( education, medical, and other benefites) or selfless ( pride in country, the need to help others, ect) reasons to join.

you join the military and you have a job, you have a small family when you join, oyull still get to be with yours, but sometimes you wont and thats a huge sacrifice but alot of people wouldnt make it if they didnt feel what they were doing was important.

honestly, its sad to see how many people would rather kill others and die in their country then help ensure other americans safety outside of the country (im referring to fellow american soldiers).

That's all well and good, but to me that washes over the entire purpose that the military serves: which is to enforce our govt's interests through military power. At the end of the day, there is going to be killing or the aiding of it, which is something that not everyone can stomach. Yes there may be national pride, and I love what we stand for, but we are not reflecting our core values in our deployments right now.

Few things are as cut and dry as WWII, which is like the golden standard of America as the good guy in a global conflict. The Middle East is certainly not cut and dry and really there is no clear "good guy" and "bad guy". And no, I dont think that the U.S. is completly a good force in Iraq. Take a look at those military contractors we have there. They have none of the morals that our national forces instil. And looking at how much they charge for their services, AND their conduct on the ground, I'd say they are profiterring mercenaries that are hurting us more than helping. But yet the represent us in those countries just as much as our national forces, if not more.

We can put the caveat of "I hate the war but I support the troops" all we like, but that dosen't change the reality of what we're actually doing. How are these wars protecting our freedom? Last I checked we are certainly less free than when this war started. If its not the terrorists looking to blow us up, then its our govt. trying as hard as it can to keep a dangerous brand of neo-conservatism in power.

There are people out there who feel that the military is where they are meant to be, for as you said, a variety of reasons both selfish and altrustic. And thats fine. But that is not my world and I don't plan on being a part of it, draft or not.

[TBatcho07]

I dont feel it's right to fight for a country who treats everyone else like shit.

[jimmyjazzzyyy]

you know im not going to lie im american and i love my country i love the people in it i would not die for something i deem unworthy but if my country was ever seriously threatened i would enlist and not wait for the draft.. when i say threat i do not mean a terrorist attack like a country attacks or invasion our occupation of iraq is unwaranted and illegal george bush declared war because of the patriot acts: "glorious" and loosely defined "NATIONAL CRISIS" and one man declared war: george bush. war is a congressional power george bush has acted unconstitutionally
but i would die for my family and others families i believe in life love and pursuit of happiness

[Giant Ninja Robot]

Not going. I have kids. That's all there is to it. They attack us I might fight, we attack them hell no. You better believe it will be of my own volition regardless and my government will NOT make the decision as to whether I live or die. Period. I'm understanding of the military this is just my personal decision. My girls deserve a father, and my wife deserves a husband.

Oh and TBatch, other countries' citizens aren't the only ones our gov't. treats like shit.

"I will no longer pledge allegiance to a government that makes no effort to relieve my suffering" - The Perceptionists Edited August 6, 2008 by giant ninja robot

[TheScotsman]

If they would have me, I would be there.

Who cares where it is, or why, it gets in your blood. After you are done being pissed about having "regular" life tipped on it's head, the worry about family goes, and you get over being scared completely senseless, and so tired you can't remember what month you are in... it IS the ultimate rush.

Both my daughters are commissioned officers currently serving the country in the navy, The oldest just promoted to LCDR, and the younger LtJG... protecting your right to be wimps.

This thread is an insult to those that are serving, or have served.

[TBatcho07]

protecting your right to be wimps.

This thread is an insult to those that are serving, or have served.

I understand your fruststration,I really do,but you have to remember anything to do with the military,or polotics,etc,you will have quick arguments and missunderstandings.It's just how this sort of discussion goes,and always will go.

[ahwahoo2006]

Well, I'm prior service and currently in the Individual Ready Reserve, so I would be in the first group called up. I have more of an obligation to serve if called up than a draft, so I would serve my time.

[Giant Ninja Robot]

If they would have me, I would be there.

Who cares where it is, or why, it gets in your blood. After you are done being pissed about having "regular" life tipped on it's head, the worry about family goes, and you get over being scared completely senseless, and so tired you can't remember what month you are in... it IS the ultimate rush.

Both my daughters are commissioned officers currently serving the country in the navy, The oldest just promoted to LCDR, and the younger LtJG... protecting your right to be wimps.

This thread is an insult to those that are serving, or have served.

I respect your opinion but you know what? I feel STRONGLY that my family is more important than my country and it sucks that you'd be willing to throw yours out the window for some conflict that will likely become another chapter in the endless annals of the history of war. Maybe I'd feel differently if I felt our current government had ANY interest in serving and protecting with integrity and honesty instead of lies and misdirection. Oh, and regular life? I've been kicked out of practically every organization I've been part of, been homeless, and made a reasonable fascimaly of a decent life for my family starting from NOTHING. Don't tell me about regular life. And don't tell me I'm a "wimp" for not wanting to kill innocent "enemies" for the cause of intergovernment bickering. Ultimate rush are you kidding? Killing people is the ultimate rush? Seriously? That made me sick. Oh and I come from a military family and my Grandfather (who served in WWII) was the surliest, proudest, most stubborn Jackass I have ever known. My father is a civilian who works for the Army and is just as much the Jackass. Forgive me if I don't hold the military up on a pedestal when it strips men and women down to animal instinct in which "killing is the ultimate rush" and blind stubbornness is rewarded as steadfastness. I know nothing I nor anyone else will ever say will change a single thought you ever have because of those relationships. I know you didn't say "killing" but that's what it all comes down to doesn't it? I'm not anti-military belive it or not, I'm just anti "war for the wrong reasons and invade other countries just because we can". In my opinion the best offense is a good defense and that's what the military should be. I don't like bullys and I won't be one.

Edit - I do get the urge to fight and protect when I see movies like Braveheart, LOTR, or 300, when I feel the cause is noble or necessary and would fight in that case hands down. Not a wimp homie I just have a mind of my own to choose my battles. Edited August 6, 2008 by giant ninja robot

[nicayotte]

I dont feel it's right to fight for a country who treats everyone else like shit.

You know you have the free right to leave the country at no charge to you.

I feel if it came to it I would go and serve my country, i feel its our duty to do this as our fathers, grandfathers and friends have done in the past, if we don't do it then the loses we took in past wars are useless

[r1v3th3ad]

I dont feel it's right to fight for a country who treats everyone else like shit.

You know you have the free right to leave the country at no charge to you.

We have our rights here to voice ourselfs and speak out against things we don't believe in too...
I decked a guy once for telling me something like the above bolded...I really hate when people pull that card

[ColibriDon]

Well, I already have a plan.

I'm 19, turning 20 in October so I would be right up there in the draft. That being said, if the draft was enlisted then I would join the army as a warrant officer--hopefully, I really want to fly helicopters. I love this country more than anything and if a draft were put in place then I would take it as my country's call for help and I would try to help. However, I plan on being a politician if I'm not enlisted; or join the CIA. I want to serve my country. I know a lot of people don't think like that but I do.

Well, that's what I would do.

[TheScotsman]

I don't feel it's right to fight for a country who treats everyone else like shit.

You know you have the free right to leave the country at no charge to you.

We have our rights here to voice ourselves and speak out against things we don't believe in too...
I decked a guy once for telling me something like the above bolded...I really hate when people pull that card

You have the right to speak out, and so does anyone that tells you to leave if you don't like it. What, you think you have the right to say something, but someone else doesn't? Says allot about your logic, and ability to deal with disagreement. I bet you kick your dog when it doesn't listen too. You can't take a few words without reacting so poorly, what would happen when some upperclassman, or DI was 2" from your nose screaming garlic-breath in your face, and poking you in the forehead with his hat brim, about something trivial. The Military is better off without people like you, no one around you can depend on your reactions.

Truth be known, the vast majority of the people who pose a lofty stance about an ethical position are nothing more than afraid they will not survive the rigors of the military, or the result of possibly absorbing a few pieces of metal. With logic like yours, the country would still be under the crown... Eh, would be an improvement.

[Giant Ninja Robot]

I don't feel it's right to fight for a country who treats everyone else like shit.

You know you have the free right to leave the country at no charge to you.

We have our rights here to voice ourselves and speak out against things we don't believe in too...
I decked a guy once for telling me something like the above bolded...I really hate when people pull that card

You have the right to speak out, and so does anyone that tells you to leave if you don't like it. What, you think you have the right to say something, but someone else doesn't? Says allot about your logic, and ability to deal with disagreement. I bet you kick your dog when it doesn't listen too. You can't take a few words without reacting so poorly, what would happen when some upperclassman, or DI was 2" from your nose screaming garlic-breath in your face, and poking you in the forehead with his hat brim, about something trivial. The Military is better off without people like you, no one around you can depend on your reactions.

Truth be known, the vast majority of the people who pose a lofty stance about an ethical position are nothing more than afraid they will not survive the rigors of the military, or the result of possibly absorbing a few pieces of metal. With logic like yours, the country would still be under the crown... Eh, would be an improvement.

I think you should stop being so forwardly mean in your posts. There is a point when you stop arguing your views and just start insulting people and I think you definately hit that point(maybe a while ago in other threads). I'm pretty damn offended. I think all you're doing is fueling the military stereotype and giving us more reason to stick to our opinions. Yes you are high and mighty and better than us because you can talk macho and shoot a gun and tolerate someone screaming at you from 2 inches away. Is that what you want to hear? I'm just getting really sick of people being rude on the forum pages. Edited August 9, 2008 by giant ninja robot

[TizaNabi]

Seems like there are many options for Americans since the war is "over there". By me it's in my front yard. During the" Civil War" or "War Between the States" which was anything but civil, people had only the choice of which side they would fight for. Some States like Ohio and Virginia had families split one brother for the South and one for the North.

[daidhaid]

I'm veering somewhat off topic here but the thread got me to thinking about the draft, so here's my rambling personal opinion.
I think conscription will come back when the government thinks it can do it again.
That will be when our society is even more subdued and unresisting.
When our fear and insecurity coupled with economic descent leave us begging the government.
When enough of us forget what freedom tasted like.

So here's to all you new and potential FNG's...

This is worth careful consideration today, while there is time to consider options, because if they decide to do it it will happen fast.
The mechanisms for a draft are still in place. Furthermore, lessons have been learned from the previous draft's problems. They won't make the same mistakes, the next draft will be efficient and probably ruthless. The quick dash to Canada will not be the sure thing it once was.

Every military is told they are "the best, that they are the best trained and finest ever put forth" it's just part of the deal.
Since most volunteers are young and they tend to believe, this line can motivate them.
Couple that with a lot of nationalistic rapid flag waving and you can get enough enlistees to fill a professional Army.
This by the way is not what our founding fathers intended, in fact it is something they feared and through the years we been warned against.
Keeping that professional army in place in is not to difficult, as long as you don't use them to hard, and provided that you throw them a few good bones from time to time.

However, when you put that Army into a war that is or becomes pointless, or is in most any other way perceived by the public as unpopular then the well of volunteers will begin to dry up.
The slippery slope is now squarely in front of you. The government can work to redefine the war with propaganda and such.
They can try to restrict the news as they say "fake it till you make it."
But propaganda and other lies can fail at any moment in time. Especially as soldiers return, bearing witness, and foreign news outlets invade our homes with unedited carnage...
Many Vietnam Vets blame Media coverage of the war for our loss of will and the outcome of the war. Media coverage works both ways. But the truth of what war looks like will shock most people watching it on TV. Imagine being there.

Next the government initiates stop Loss, and bonuses, and even >GASP! <the lowering of standards for enlistment and retainment. These measures can keep the battles going but it will severely erode the core of the military.
The degrading of morale will eventually destroy much of the public's confidence in government and bring into deeper questioning of the justifications for the war. The Military suffers and pays the costs.

Does this sound familiar? It should, if you pay attention to either current events or history.
Anyway if America, and by America I mean Big Big Business, wants to pursue its Imperialistic goals it will need a solution to this scenario, at some point in the future.
The solutions that come quickly to mind are;
A surrogate military, that would be an ally who provides soldiers because they want to for some reason or persuasion, or a Foreign Legion.
A draft of our own young people for service. Conscription for either a specified term or if the need is great for duration.
Oh and there is always the mercenary option, which needs no explanation. It is expensive and unreliable but heck who cares.
Mercenaries are more of a small war option.

Historically we tend to favor the draft. After all it's cheap and dependable. We can have a Lottery to see who goes, and Diebold can make the lottery machines.That sounds fair doesn't it? Just to make it extra fair maybe they will include women this time.
The larger the pool to draw from the easier it is to select those who won't have to go.
One major possible benefit from this future draft would be that it might be harder to gather support for a war.
This can happen if, and only if, the public stays informed and involved in politics.
The theory is that they will have reservations about supporting the sending their loved ones into battle.
That might be a long shot but it is a point to consider.

The professional military does not like to hear this but a drafted army can be superior. Large numbers of soldiers can to trained to whatever standard desired, and for less money. They won't need to use so many inducements to attract volunteers and they will be able to select from a pool that will include young people with skills, education, and other abilities that provide them with many other options in life.
Soldiers are bonded to each other by shared experiences period, and that is regardless of how they came to be together.
Enlistments will actually go up with a draft, as people decide to enlist for an extra year or so in order to select their branch and training.
Also it is more likely that military service will be viewed as a shared duty. We the people will all be invested in the military because everyone in society is expected to serve and sacrifice. A social stigma may be placed on those who don't serve.

Everyone? Well not quite. The elites will not want to participate some provisions to escape the draft will have to be in place before they can allow conscription to proceed. The social stigma thing won't bother them in the least. The rich don't care what we think or say. Only what we do will get their attention.
So how can the Elites keep their kids out of it discreetly ?
Or more important to you. How can you slip through their system.
Money talks and deferments will be for available. That is if you know where and how to obtain them. This is assuming you are positioned in life to take advantage... Class is the key, you need to get some class, lots of it.

The student deferment thing really annoyed the lower class during and after Nam, when all the dust had settled it looked unfair. They may try some version that again if they can. Since school is getting so expensive who knows maybe it can once again become a haven for the few who can afford it. Good grades and the correct field of endeavor will probably be necessary, unless Daddy can throw extra money at the school.
Medical deferments will top the list as the surest way out. Plan ahead for this option, get yours today while they are relatively cheap and easy to obtain. There are also ways to flunk the physical but that's risky business. They will be looking for deception so good for you if you can pull it off.

The worst places to register for the draft will be in any area where the Draft Board has a significant number of poor and minorities. Do yourself a favor, take a vacation goto some fancy well off area away from the humble masses, and register there. That is now your local draft board, it's a small point but it may help.
Of course if you are well heeled socially it won't really matter.
Register for the draft in a foreign country at an American Embassy. This will put you on an even shorter list that will include many of the elites kids. You might stay below the horizon this way.
Speaking of foreign countries Get your passport now before you need it. Find the countries with the independence and sensibilities to grant amnesty. Canada is off the list this time. They will extradite you if they catch you, they may not look to hard, but you never know. France is very nice I hear, and they do love their freedom, I wonder how the weather is in Amsterdam?

Radical activism might do it. They don't like troublemakers in the military, but there's always the specter of the government gulag in the back of the mind. Besides sometimes the Military likes to make examples of troublemakers.
You can run and hide, live underground or with a stolen identity. Survive that and 30 years later you can write a book.
Being openly gay, for the time being at least, or in any other way really perverse or criminal may help to make you undesirable.
I am not saying gays are morally inferior or perverse, I am stating the narrow minded military view here. I knew soldiers who were gay, and they did their jobs well. They tended to be a cut above if you ask me. Honest folks in the military with the cojones to admit it will likely agree too.

The courage to actually resist conscription outright and refuse is rare. Serious commitment and strength will be required, you'll likely goto jail for the effort. You will have the lifelong satisfaction of knowing you took the high road, and I for one would never question your courage.
Conscientious Objection is really hard to get unless you were raised in some seriously pacifistic religion. Selective objection is not allowed, you have to object to war and violence universally on principal and without reservation. Also you have to demonstrate the deep and long held nature of the belief and from what tradition it stems.
For example you Southern Baptists will have a tough time convincing a draft board you can't goto war because you were raised to see Sweet Baby Jesus as the Prince of Peace. While a person raised as Amish has a pretty good chance.
There is a modified form of C.O. where you agree to perform noncombat duties. Unfortunately this usually means being a medic.
That can be a very difficult and traumatic job, which can expose you to more than your fair share of violence and hazard.
To go all the way from Conscientious Objection to infantry medic whew now there's something to think twice before attempting.

So do you think you might want to avoid the draft?
My advice is to start early and work on at two or more options. For example be a sick student like Rush Limbaugh, he went to college and had a chronically sore and festering bump on his anus . Or is that now ? I dunno probably both.
Do everything you can and hope it is enough.

Whatever evasive options that might exist if and when the draft occurs.
I can say with some confidence that you will almost certainly not avail yourself of any of them.
You will just get in line and follow all the others as they grudgingly and fearfully process into the military.
Tell them you want to be a REMF it may help.

Remember 1."War is a racket" and being a soldier is a tough row to hoe, there are no real winners, unless you define winning simply as surviving.
Good luck in the Green Machine !



1. Gen Smedley Butler USMC

Pasted from <http://www.hookahforum.com/index.php?act=p...=10&t=22617> Edited August 14, 2008 by daidhaid

[judgeposer]

I thought the readers of this thread might benefit from the below blog article from Richard Posner, the prolific circuit court judge.

Universal National Service--Posner
There are perennial calls for drafting all 18 year olds to serve in either the military or some civilian alternative. Congressman Charles Rangel has repeatedly introduced bills in Congress (the "Universal National Service Act") that would do this. The bills have never come close to passage, and are unlikely to in the future even with Democratic control of both houses of Congress. But universal national service is one of those seductive ideas that refuse to die completely, and perhaps therefore it deserves a serious analysis. It is analytically interesting and can serve as an example of the utility of a cost-benefit approach to public programs.

Roughly 4 million Americans reach the age of 18 every year. There are only 1.4 million active-duty military personnel, so only a small fraction of each vintage of 18 year olds could be assigned to the military. At their present size, our active-duty armed forces require only about 150,000 new recruits each year. So any universal national service obligation would have to be primarily an obligation to do civilian work.

Civilian national service (in the United States--thus excluding the Peace Corps, and the missionary work that young Mormon men are required to perform for two years without compensation) funded by the federal government exists already. The "AmeriCorps" program provides federal grants to a large number of service organizations, both public and private. Although these organizations pay only the living expenses of their volunteers plus a modest education grant, the federal contribution amounts to some $27,000 per volunteer.

The number of volunteers supported by AmeriCorps grants is small--well under 100,000. But of course total volunteer activity is much greater than that, and by no means limited to young persons--an affiliate of AmeriCorps is the "Senior Corps." A survey by the U.S. Department of Labor found that there were some 60 million American engaged in volunteer activities in 2006 and that the median number of hours that the volunteers devoted to such activities was about 50 hours a year. Thus, assuming that the average is not much different from the median and that a full-time job is 2000 hours a year, there were the equivalent of 1.5 million full-time volunteers (50/2000 x 60 million). That number is important because a universal national service obligation would have a substitution effect: someone required by law to provide a year of national service would be likely to reduce the amount of volunteer service that he would provide in the future. If, for example, there were a two-thirds reduction in volunteering, from 1.5 million full-tine equivalents to 500,000, and thus a loss of 1 million full-time-equivalent volunteers, universal national service would augment volunteer activities by only 3 million full-time equivalents a year (4 million - 3 million). Granted, this number would rise if universal national service had a complementary effect on volunteer service rather than or, more plausibly, as well as a substitution effect--if, that is, the year of obligatory service created a taste for such service. I find this implausible.

If 4 million persons were conscripted for one year's national service, at an annual expense of $27,000 per person, the program would cost more than $100 billion a year--probably much more, because the $27,000 figure excludes the overhead expenses of the service organizations that receive the per capita grants. The $100 billion (or whatever the correct figure is) would be a transfer payment, but it would generate costs of two types. The first would be the deadweight costs that the taxes required to fund the payment would impose. The second and doubtless greater cost would be the difference between the value of the conscripts' national service work and the value of their output in whatever jobs they would have had were it not for their national service obligations. About half the 18 year olds would (but for their national service obligation) be in college rather than working, and so the effect of universal national service on them would be to postpone their entry into the job market by a year. Their lost wages in their first job would be a rough estimate of the value of their work in that job. The starting salary for college graduates is more than $40,000, other than for liberal-arts majors, and this is about twice the starting salary for high school graduates. That is some evidence that a universal national service program would be inefficient: it would in effect reallocate a year of a college graduate's working life from after college to before college, when he would be less productive.

Against this it could be argued that the national service work that the 18 year olds would perform would have a social value in excess of its private value. But this seems unlikely for most jobs that these teenagers would perform, such as helping out in hospitals and nursing homes and picking up litter on roadsides and in parks. A possible exception is tutoring children, since education produces significant social benefits. But only a small fraction of the 4 million national service conscripts could usefully be employed in that activity.

Universal national service would also have peculiar effects on the distribution of income. The unpaid national service workers would replace low-paid service workers, pushing many of them into poverty.

Proponents argue that, all narrowly "economic" issues to one side, universal national service would confer intangible social benefits in the form of increased solidarity, as all Americans would share in the experience of working for the overall social good without compensation beyond modest living expenses. But given the heterogeneity of the jobs that the national service workers would be performing, the solidarity-enhancing effect would surely be quite limited. It would be different if the 4 million were all drafted into the armed forces for a year, but that is infeasible.

In a candid moment proponents of universal national service might respond that its real purpose is to take rich kids down a peg by forcing them to work for a year with minimal compensation. The hope would be that the experience would make the rich empathize more with the poor and therefore treat them more generously. This seems unlikely, though the issue is worth studying. A person's attitude toward issues of distributive justice is shaped by a variety of factors, including temperament, parental values--and personal experiences not limited to a year's working without pay.

[Pilgrim]

I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous to tell people they can leave if they don't like the way things are in their country. Not agreeing with certain institutions has nothing to do with love for your country or your fellow american. Not agreeing with the war in Iraq DOES NOT make you a coward. Blindly accepting and agreeing with every decision that your country makes DOES make you a fool.
Furthermore I believe nationalism is dangerous, because it's easy to go from believing that your country is the best place in the world to believing you are (morally) superior to the rest and acting that way.

Since I'm european, I'll probably be considered as a typical USA-basher, which I'm not. I think the US is a beautiful country, I lived there for a month, visiting my dad, who's in the military and (ironically) was working there in a military base in Tampa Florida, as part of US Central Command. I've met some real nice people, had a great time and I really hope to see the rest of the USA some day.
But I truely believe that being proud of your country also means looking at it from a critical point of view, being able to see the flaws (nothing is perfect) and then try to fix those flaws.

On topic: I would only go to a war that I believe is right. So if the US is ever invaded by Mexico or canada, and you guys need help, I'll be on my way

[Giant Ninja Robot]

I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous to tell people they can leave if they don't like the way things are in their country. Not agreeing with certain institutions has nothing to do with love for your country or your fellow american. Not agreeing with the war in Iraq DOES NOT make you a coward. Blindly accepting and agreeing with every decision that your country makes DOES make you a fool.
Furthermore I believe nationalism is dangerous, because it's easy to go from believing that your country is the best place in the world to believing you are (morally) superior to the rest and acting that way.

Since I'm european, I'll probably be considered as a typical USA-basher, which I'm not. I think the US is a beautiful country, I lived there for a month, visiting my dad, who's in the military and (ironically) was working there in a military base in Tampa Florida, as part of US Central Command. I've met some real nice people, had a great time and I really hope to see the rest of the USA some day.
But I truely believe that being proud of your country also means looking at it from a critical point of view, being able to see the flaws (nothing is perfect) and then try to fix those flaws.

+1, the voice of reason speaks!

[NickReppinThe909]

i would just go back to israel or move to cancun

[Apoc Genesis]

I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous to tell people they can leave if they don't like the way things are in their country. Not agreeing with certain institutions has nothing to do with love for your country or your fellow american. Not agreeing with the war in Iraq DOES NOT make you a coward. Blindly accepting and agreeing with every decision that your country makes DOES make you a fool.
Furthermore I believe nationalism is dangerous, because it's easy to go from believing that your country is the best place in the world to believing you are (morally) superior to the rest and acting that way.

Since I'm european, I'll probably be considered as a typical USA-basher, which I'm not. I think the US is a beautiful country, I lived there for a month, visiting my dad, who's in the military and (ironically) was working there in a military base in Tampa Florida, as part of US Central Command. I've met some real nice people, had a great time and I really hope to see the rest of the USA some day.
But I truely believe that being proud of your country also means looking at it from a critical point of view, being able to see the flaws (nothing is perfect) and then try to fix those flaws.

On topic: I would only go to a war that I believe is right. So if the US is ever invaded by Mexico or canada, and you guys need help, I'll be on my way

Agreed. Leaving a country is alot harder than leaving a job, whcih even then sometimes is not easy at all. The "love it or leave it" attitude makes it really hard for people who really do love this country to voice their opinions when they dont feel their country is moving in the right direction.

Put it this way: how would you act if your kids were misbehaving, and rather than give you advice on how to change their behavior, told you rather rudely "well then give them up for adoption if you hate them so much".

All the parents out there think about that statement. If someone told you to give your parents up for adoption as an answer to how they are acting, what would you seriously do?

You don't just "leave" a country, epecially if you were born and raised here. It takes time and adjustment to a new culture if you really do feel the need to leave. Most of us don't have the time or paitence to make another country our home, so we have to make with the one we have. Which for most of us here (i think) is America.

Theres ups and downs abiout this country for sure, but they are all just great genearlizations of culture portrayed by the media, which has become our eyes and ears these days.

My country is a place with lots and lots of problems. But we are lucky enough to have the tools to fix them. Unfortunatly the people who weve elected to run our country for us are putting us in a rather poor spot while trying to benefit themselves and their friends. I love this country, but we arent defending anybody's freedoms and liberties doing what we are doing around the world. It's naiieve and jingoistic to think that we are. Yes we dont have GOP supporters knocking down our doors when we say that we dont like bush, but right now we dont have any sort of gurantee that our voices are taken into account when these people make decisions.

The draft is a BAD idea right now. These wars are illusions and the people fighting them are going to come home with more baggage than we can imagine. What's at stake in the Middle East? Oil? Unstable and corrupt governments that are ready to fall and be replaced with even crazier folks? We're missing the big picture. The biggest threats are going to be China and Russia, without a doubt. Terrorism is not going to define our future just like the anarchist scare 100 years ago did not define our country for the next century. We have to open our eyes and shape up for when the draft is REALLY going to count, I want to sign up proudly knowing that we are going to be fighting for the right cause.