Draft....

[judgeposer]

I've read a lot on here about having a willingness to fight for the right cause. The present war aside, I wonder from those who would fight for the right cause, what sort of cause is worthy fighting for? Also, who decides that cause's worthiness? - is it always, and in every instance a personal assessment?

If deciding whether a cause worthy of enlisting for is then a personally assessed one, then what does American patriotism, or nationalism, or solidarity mean?

These are true questions I have - and I believe are worth our exploration. Philosophers who introduce new "terms," which in this case is a phrase, he must, what we call, give an account for it. That's sorta what I am asking.

The only disclaimer I have is that when I've read "worthy" cause, or some such thing, and without more explanation, I believe it's a way to end debate prematurely. It serves as a way to say, one the one hand, "I'm willing to fight, yeah," but on the other, it also says "But only when I want to." I'm trying to account for that - there's a lot left unexplained there.

[Apoc Genesis]

I've read a lot on here about having a willingness to fight for the right cause. The present war aside, I wonder from those who would fight for the right cause, what sort of cause is worthy fighting for? Also, who decides that cause's worthiness? - is it always, and in every instance a personal assessment?

If deciding whether a cause worthy of enlisting for is then a personally assessed one, then what does American patriotism, or nationalism, or solidarity mean?

These are true questions I have - and I believe are worth our exploration. Philosophers who introduce new "terms," which in this case is a phrase, he must, what we call, give an account for it. That's sorta what I am asking.

The only disclaimer I have is that when I've read "worthy" cause, or some such thing, and without more explanation, I believe it's a way to end debate prematurely. It serves as a way to say, one the one hand, "I'm willing to fight, yeah," but on the other, it also says "But only when I want to." I'm trying to account for that - there's a lot left unexplained there.

Those are good questions and they are definitly worth a good answer.

People know in their hearts when something is really worth taking up arms and fighting for. We've been doing it since the beginning of time, but nationalist feeling tries to add "because its in the interest of the government to go to war, it should be your interest too" on the list of reasons why people want to fight. Our government is not as strong of a motivator for war amongst the average civillian as is the well being of you and your family. There isnt so much a feeling of "my family is in danger" in this country as there is "the economy sucks and i may not be able to support my family". Its bad, but thats not a reason for men to sign off to war.

Also, nobody wants to feel like a wimp without some sort of caveat, like their religon forbids them. This is because if their families actually WERE in danger, no self respecting man would say "i'd like to, but i really cant defend them". Of course that caveat was there because you know that if they were actually in danger, many people would not be on the forum but rather taking up their boomsticks and fighting off whatever bad guy is banging at their door.

[r1v3th3ad]

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.

1. I don't own a dog and do not believe in animal cruelty...I'm a pacifist anyway.
2. My logic is not off...I can take a few words without reacting poorly, I just cant take ignorance and stupidity. The person that got decked was a complete jerk lost in what was brainwashed into his head by the government. He did not try using logic or counter-argueing what I had to say at all, he had pleanty of chances. He just said "if you don't like it here, then get the f-ck out!" while spitting in my face, so hit him in the gut. As he bent downward, grabbed his head and slammed it off my knee, then decked him and he was out. He was coming at me for a fight, so he didn't get the chance.
I can't stand the close-minded militant complex fused into this society. Sit back, smoke a hookah, and quit being a dick. I said nothing to you for you to attack me like that scottsman

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

+1

[judgeposer]

Those are good questions and they are definitly worth a good answer.

People know in their hearts when something is really worth taking up arms and fighting for. We've been doing it since the beginning of time, but nationalist feeling tries to add "because its in the interest of the government to go to war, it should be your interest too" on the list of reasons why people want to fight. Our government is not as strong of a motivator for war amongst the average civillian as is the well being of you and your family. There isnt so much a feeling of "my family is in danger" in this country as there is "the economy sucks and i may not be able to support my family". Its bad, but thats not a reason for men to sign off to war.

Also, nobody wants to feel like a wimp without some sort of caveat, like their religon forbids them. This is because if their families actually WERE in danger, no self respecting man would say "i'd like to, but i really cant defend them". Of course that caveat was there because you know that if they were actually in danger, many people would not be on the forum but rather taking up their boomsticks and fighting off whatever bad guy is banging at their door.

Thanks for answering; your response shed some answers, for sure.

The remaining problem I see, however, is that we can tend to treat the government, at whatever level, as "the other," using nefarious distancing language like simply referring to it as "the government," or the all-time-employed "they." While these phrases would not on their own connote anything special, when employed in this context, like "I'm not fighting their war," or "it' the government's war," these phrases carry the added connotation and function of distancing the speaker while also claiming, perhaps, the speaker would have asked something else of his government, not war.

So, while I agree with you that we can have an exacting ability of knowing when, in what instances, and for what causes, we supposed to fight, I do not know whether we can as easily apply the same criteria (i.e., if our family is in danger, or our lives are immediately threatened) to wars. More simply, if someone uses deadly force to threaten my life, I will likely respond with deadly force, but if my long-term livelihood becomes threatened, I might not so easily or willingly percieve a danger because my survival is not comparably threatned (as say when someone comes at me with a broken beer bottle).

I see that the language we choose to employ when we disagree with our government as a useful distancing mechanism that we believe divorces us from having to accept its motivations/ends/purpose. This does not reflect, however, that our government is in fact our government; we've chosen it. While it can make decisions on our behalf we might not choose ourselves--especially when our representation may cast votes contrary to our desires before we can un-elect them--that's how our system works. Inasmuch as we attempt to distance ourselves from our government, it remains the government we deserve, not often the government we need.

Speaking about the draft more directly, I should repeat that once it is ordered to the common good (e.g., the defense of a nation), comes from a legitimate authority (e.g., a democratically elected government), and does does not place disproportionate burdens on any of the subjects involved (e.g., everyone or most is reasonabably subject), we have the obligation to follow it. We have to conduct specific assessments for each contended law, but merely assessing that one's immediate life (or the life of say, one of your family members) is not in direct danger does not seem to me to be an adequate reason for not following a law.

[Foxfenrir]

first of all, sorry about my english, its not my main language...

Well, most of you guys dont know whats a real war. I live in brazil and thanks god im in São Paulo... but just search some facts about rio de janeiro favelas... at least everyday someone is killed in the middle of the city... and drug dealers, and innocent killeds, poor people killed, innocents arrested, "lost bullet" like we call, when someone try to shoot one guy and the bullet travels to another random place and hits someone... that said im 100% agains war. its pointless now. in the past there were some reasons but now its totally pointless.

[ryno]

In light of all this... there tis but one option for me... move to the Hookah Forum Island!