<!--quoteo(post=1589484:date=Dec 17 2006, 07:44 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 17 2006, 07:44 AM) [snapback]1589484[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Freedom comes at a price. My father fought for it, as did his father and his grandfather. Unfortunately lives are lost in the process, but it remains a price we must pay. Your ability to post freely on these very forums came as a result of our forefathers fighting for our freedom. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think many of us here would expect to see more specifics about which military conflicts you feel directly contributed to the freedom you mentioned. Do you feel for example that the war in Iraq is being waged for the "freedom" of US citizens?
Also, I don't think anyone here (that I've seen at least) is arguing against maintaining some kind of army to defend one's nation.
The true irony you alluded to in an earlier post to me is the notion of someone dying on _foreign_ soil in defense of their homeland.
Take the United States. Their conscription ended in 1973, arguably as a consequence of the enormous disaster of the aforementioned Vietnam war. The U.S. population was tired of seeing their sons drafted into the army, shipped off to a far-off country to fight a war that they had long ceased to care about. And they were tired of getting apologetical letters with hollow patriotic phrases back, and a body in a casket if they were lucky.
To the U.S. citizens of the 1960s and early 1970s, THAT was the face of conscription: A government institution that ravenously ate their sons, claiming the greater good as justification. Would it be any different today? Has that monster changed its ways?
<!--quoteo(post=1589506:date=Dec 17 2006, 09:50 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 17 2006, 09:50 AM) [snapback]1589506[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I don't really see how the Vietnam war, for instance, made these forums possible, and how not fighting it would have made any difference in this regard. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Good question. The U.S. entered the Viet Nam war to prevent the spread of Communism.
<!--quoteo(post=1589533:date=Dec 17 2006, 12:01 PM:name=FilthyLarry)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FilthyLarry @ Dec 17 2006, 12:01 PM) [snapback]1589533[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Might as well just post the wiki link eh ? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription" target="_blank">Wiki</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thanks. I guess.
<!--quoteo(post=1589540:date=Dec 17 2006, 12:18 PM:name=FilthyLarry)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FilthyLarry @ Dec 17 2006, 12:18 PM) [snapback]1589540[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I think many of us here would expect to see more specifics about which military conflicts you feel directly contributed to the freedom you mentioned. Do you feel for example that the war in Iraq is being waged for the "freedom" of US citizens?
Also, I don't think anyone here (that I've seen at least) is arguing against maintaining some kind of army to defend one's nation.
The true irony you alluded to in an earlier post to me is the notion of someone dying on _foreign_ soil in defense of their homeland. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The war in Iraq imho is a war against terrorism, so yeah. But if you'd like to debate this another thread exists.
<!--quoteo(post=1589569:date=Dec 17 2006, 01:37 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 17 2006, 01:37 PM) [snapback]1589569[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Take the United States. Their conscription ended in 1973, arguably as a consequence of the enormous disaster of the aforementioned Vietnam war. The U.S. population was tired of seeing their sons drafted into the army, shipped off to a far-off country to fight a war that they had long ceased to care about. And they were tired of getting apologetical letters with hollow patriotic phrases back, and a body in a casket if they were lucky.
To the U.S. citizens of the 1960s and early 1970s, THAT was the face of conscription: A government institution that ravenously ate their sons, claiming the greater good as justification. Would it be any different today? Has that monster changed its ways? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Although the draft is a form of conscription, joining the armed forces following high school for a 2 or 3 year hitch does not necessarily mean you'd fight in a war.
<!--quoteo(post=1589646:date=Dec 18 2006, 12:15 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 18 2006, 12:15 AM) [snapback]1589646[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Good question. The U.S. entered the Viet Nam war to prevent the spread of Communism.[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And they lost. And YET these forums exist, and we're free to post in them whatever we want. Not that there's any particular reason to assume that one side's cause was better than the other in that war. The communists fought to prevent the spread of capitalism, while the capitalists fought to prevent the spread of communism. It wasn't a case of "the good guys versus the bad guys," rather a case of a (very violent) difference in philosophy.
<!--quoteo(post=1589646:date=Dec 18 2006, 12:15 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 18 2006, 12:15 AM) [snapback]1589646[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> [...]Although the draft is a form of conscription, joining the armed forces following high school for a 2 or 3 year hitch does not necessarily mean you'd fight in a war. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> "Doesn't necessarily mean" is not a guarantee though. It means that you might not fight in a war. Which, it follows, means that you might.
<!--quoteo(post=1589652:date=Dec 17 2006, 06:27 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 17 2006, 06:27 PM) [snapback]1589652[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> And they lost. And YET these forums exist, and we're free to post in them whatever we want. Not that there's any particular reason to assume that one side's cause was better than the other in that war. The communists fought to prevent the spread of capitalism, while the capitalists fought to prevent the spread of communism. It wasn't a case of "the good guys versus the bad guys," rather a case of a (very violent) difference in philosophy. "Doesn't necessarily mean" is not a guarantee though. It means that you might not fight in a war. Which, it follows, means that you might. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The fact that "they lost" does not dismiss why they fought that war. Evidently your freedom was acquired quite differently where you live, if your information lists your location correctly. Therefore I cannot expect you to understand how we Americans got the freedom we enjoy.
Nor do I feel like tutoring you on the subject. If you're against any type of conscription I can respect that. If you'd like to debate freedom, perhaps a new thread on that subject is in order. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
That still leaves us with the issue of forcing young men (what happened to gender equality anyway?) to fight in wars that they may disagree with, though.
<!--quoteo(post=1589782:date=Dec 18 2006, 08:25 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 18 2006, 08:25 AM) [snapback]1589782[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> That still leaves us with the issue of forcing young men (what happened to gender equality anyway?) to fight in wars that they may disagree with, though. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a good question, but not easily answered I'm afraid.
I don't understand the need for conscription, and if we somehow do need conscription why isn't it gender non discriminant.
Conscription SHOULD NOT be gender specific imho. But I'd think the reason it is, is because women bear the children and are therfore responsible for carrying on the human race. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1589662:date=Dec 18 2006, 12:47 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 18 2006, 12:47 AM) [snapback]1589662[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The fact that "they lost" does not dismiss why they fought that war. Evidently your freedom was acquired quite differently where you live, if your information lists your location correctly. Therefore I cannot expect you to understand how we Americans got the freedom we enjoy.
Nor do I feel like tutoring you on the subject. If you're against any type of conscription I can respect that. If you'd like to debate freedom, perhaps a new thread on that subject is in order. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I just read the post again, and I take issue. The Vietnam war was a political disaster, true enough, but that disaster was caused by fighting it. Thousands of young men were drafted and sent to fight a war and die - What would prevent similar mistakes from taking the lives of future conscripts?
<!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->This post has been edited for the sake of respect to the war's participants.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--quoteo(post=1589856:date=Dec 18 2006, 01:09 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 18 2006, 01:09 PM) [snapback]1589856[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> <quote here> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Again, the U.S. was attempting to stop the spread of Communism. <!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->Removing this, as the related part of lolfighter's post has been removed.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> If you want to debate freedom, how we got it, what it means, etc. how about starting another thread on it.
<!--quoteo(post=1589871:date=Dec 18 2006, 07:36 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 18 2006, 07:36 PM) [snapback]1589871[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Again, the U.S. was attempting to stop the spread of Communism. Are you saying that by doing so our freedom is not protected? Omg I went back on my own word, and find myself tutoring you again.... ... .. . soz[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You say that the fight was "to stop the spread of communism" as if that was self-explanatory though. I happen to disagree. Of course, communism as stated has never really existed. The Soviet Union was merely running a different brand of capitalism, one in which the fat cats continuously claimed to represent the people and labor on their behalf. A less honest one than the one prevalent in the western world (where the fat cats (if pressured sufficiently) admit to representing themselves and labouring on their own behalf), but otherwise not fundamentally different. Stalin was obviously psychotic; his successors were far more sane. But when the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. should have attempted reconciliation, they (for endlessly convoluted and almost wholly unintelligible reasons) did not. Under Stalin, the cold war was probably unavoidable. After him, it just went on, possibly because both sides found it convenient to have an enemy to demonise. That was the central reason for the "global fights against communism/capitalism" that both sides led.
Well, that's out of the way. From the wording of your posts, I hope you will indulge me if I assume that you are going to disagree with me on this. That's fair enough, it isn't even what the thread is about. But it illuminates a different aspect: That we disagree. And in the light of this disagreement, we would obviously not support the same wars. This brings us back to conscription: By drafting people into the military and sending them away to fight, we would be asking some of them to sacrifice their lives for a war they don't support. In terms of freedom, that is robbing them of it.
<!--quoteo(post=1589871:date=Dec 18 2006, 07:36 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 18 2006, 07:36 PM) [snapback]1589871[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]"All in all, it seems that it would not have made the slightest difference for U.S. freedom if they hadn't fought that war at all" is an insult to all of those who fought in that war, and to those who lost loved ones. Seriously. Again, if you want to debate freedom, how we got it, what it means, etc. how about starting another thread on it. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, it is an insult to those who caused that war and perpetrated such a huge and senseless loss of life. As I like to say, in various forms: "The biggest, ongoing, machiavellian success story of all time is the ability of rich and powerful people to get the masses to not only fight their wars for them, but to make the masses believe that they want the war." I.e. almost every single war in history has been fought for financial reasons. And not for the financial gain of the average Joe, but for the profit of the fat cats.
Now, can we <b>PLEASE</b> address the topic at hand, and start a seperate thread if you want to debate freedom?!? <img src="http://www.nsmod.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
I am absolutely against making the military mandatory. In peacetime, I'm sure you can have a decent experience, (even still, I'm against it, why take away people's freedom for several years after high school?) but it's a different story in a time of war. Also, you can get the same kind of maturation from other places, it doesn't have to come from the military.
True Nadagast, but would people volunteer to work in a job that's going to teach them discipline, respect, teamwork, and everything else they'd learn in the armed forces?
<!--quoteo(post=1589914:date=Dec 18 2006, 02:19 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 18 2006, 02:19 PM) [snapback]1589914[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> True Nadagast, but would people volunteer to work in a job that's going to teach them discipline, respect, teamwork, and everything else they'd learn in the armed forces? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You get to blow **** up.
I'd gladly discuss the topic at hand, Depot. In fact, I am doing so. Dismissing my posts as "insults" without even backing that up with some sort of clarifying statement is not discussing the topic, it is refusing to discuss the topic. You haven't given a proper answer to my post, yet you demand that *I* discuss the topic. You seem to have missed th entire first half of my post, for instance. Please read my post again.
If my posts are indeed insults, they are in violation of forum rules, and you should dispute them with forum moderators so that they may take proper steps. Otherwise, please either respond to my posts or tell me that you are going to ignore me so I can stop wasting my time.
<!--quoteo(post=1589940:date=Dec 18 2006, 05:33 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 18 2006, 05:33 PM) [snapback]1589940[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I'd gladly discuss the topic at hand, Depot. In fact, I am doing so. Dismissing my posts as "insults" without even backing that up with some sort of clarifying statement is not discussing the topic, it is refusing to discuss the topic. You haven't given a proper answer to my post, yet you demand that *I* discuss the topic. You seem to have missed th entire first half of my post, for instance. Please read my post again.
If my posts are indeed insults, they are in violation of forum rules, and you should dispute them with forum moderators so that they may take proper steps. Otherwise, please either respond to my posts or tell me that you are going to ignore me so I can stop wasting my time. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're just not listening to me. My entire family has fought in wars to either defend this country or maintain our freedom. Because you don't understand this doesn't mean all of those who fought or lost their lives did so in vain. I'm not going to debate any given war in this thread nor attempt to justify whatever the administration has decided regarding going to war, nor am I going to report your posts simply because you don't understand.
Now, can we please get back to discussing conscription.
<!--quoteo(post=1589937:date=Dec 18 2006, 05:20 PM:name=Renegade)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Renegade @ Dec 18 2006, 05:20 PM) [snapback]1589937[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You get to blow **** up.
Alternatively; veteran's benefits. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Lol, good answers, and nice to see a touch of humor, thanks.
Depot, it's not a personal insult to the troops to disagree with the presmises on which a which a war is fought. There is a difference between the rational questioning of whether or not a certain war is neccessary and whether or not fighting the war is good for American interests, and insulting everyone who fought the war.
<!--quoteo(post=1589950:date=Dec 18 2006, 05:56 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Dec 18 2006, 05:56 PM) [snapback]1589950[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Depot, it's not a personal insult to the troops to disagree with the presmises on which a which a war is fought. There is a difference between the rational questioning of whether or not a certain war is neccessary and whether or not fighting the war is good for American interests, and insulting everyone who fought the war. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I had pointed out that the Viet Nam war was fought to protect us from the spread of Communism, ensuring our freedom. The fact that we lost the war and many lives because of it does not mean those who served did so in vain. Every one of them were battling for our freedom, and for anyone to say otherwise, to me, is insulting.
This is also why I've asked to not discuss any particular war here, or debate freedom. Although related they can serve no purpose but to derail the thread.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited December 2006
<!--quoteo(post=1589906:date=Dec 18 2006, 12:54 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 18 2006, 12:54 PM) [snapback]1589906[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Again, you have personally insulted myself, my brother, and my father, not to mention thousands of others who have fought for the freedom this country has - don't bother saying you haven't or place the blame on any particular administration... that's total bullcrap.
Now, can we <b>PLEASE</b> address the topic at hand, and start a seperate thread if you want to debate freedom?!? <img src="http://www.nsmod.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif" border="0" alt="IPB Image" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saying that a war is pointless, or purely for rich people's profit is not dishonoring those that fought in said war. It may even be true, in many instances. He did not insult your family, so kindly in the future do not imply that he had done so. Behaving in this manner is not acceptable in the Discussions forum, Depot. This is your one warning, as I have seen similar 'arguments' in the past.
Now. On-topic, I cannot support mandatory conscription. If an individual feels that armed conflict is the best way to preserve their way of life, that is their decision. Forcing that path on those who feel that violence and military rule is not the way to establish peace is wrong in principle, ethic, and moral. Short version, if you want to die for your country, fine. That's your call. But you have NO RIGHT to make me, or anyone else die for mine.
<!--quoteo(post=1589856:date=Dec 18 2006, 12:09 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 18 2006, 12:09 PM) [snapback]1589856[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I just read the post again, and I take issue. The Vietnam war had nothing to do with U.S. freedom. I mentioned that the U.S. lost that war because of the seeming unimportance of that defeat. The Vietnam war was a political disaster, true enough, but that disaster was caused by fighting it. All in all, it seems that it would not have made the slightest difference for U.S. freedom if they hadn't fought that war at all. But they did, and thousands of young men were drafted and sent to fight a war and die - for what? What would prevent similar mistakes from taking the lives of future conscripts? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm honestly not sure how you can make an argument over what freedoms we gained from a war that we <i>didn't win</i>. Not winning generally means you didn't gain anything. I do think we were <i>trying</i> to fight for more freedom, but we lost, so we didn't get it.
If you want to talk about the freedoms gained from war, start with a war that we actually won (like WW2), or at least fought to a stalemate (like Korea), rather than discussing a war where we got our butts kicked, which makes it really hard to gain <i>anything</i> from the war.
The reason why I picked the Vietnam war was because it was lost, yet the U.S. seem to be doing fine. Hell, take my own country, Germany. We lost the world wars. I don't think we would have been better off if we had won them. We might have taken less of a beating, but we would have been stuck with a far worse government. Winning or losing a war does not seem to automatically correlate to gaining or losing freedom, or anything else (except that you lose parts of your population in either case).
The point I keep trying (and apparently failing) to make is the immense ambiguity of warfare. It is never a case of simple black and white. And in light of that ambiguity, I am against conscription.
What you dont seem to grasp is that the people gaining freedom aren't necessarily the people fighting. They are the people those fighters are fighting FOR. That could be their home country, or it could be anyone else they feel like defending. For comparison, when the US fought for freedom in these 3 countries, we won our fight in South Korea, lost our fight in Vietnam to a local dictator, and lost our fight in North Korea to a communist-backed dictator. Lets see how those 3 places are doing today...
<!--quoteo(post=1589952:date=Dec 18 2006, 06:05 PM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Talesin @ Dec 18 2006, 06:05 PM) [snapback]1589952[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Saying that a war is pointless, or purely for rich people's profit is not dishonoring those that fought in said war. It may even be true, in many instances. He did not insult your family, so kindly in the future do not imply that he had done so. Behaving in this manner is not acceptable in the Discussions forum, Depot. This is your one warning, as I have seen similar 'arguments' in the past. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Which is exactly why I've repeatedly tried to get off the discussion of war and get this thread back on track. If you'll re-read the thread you'll see where I've noted multiple times that American soldiers have given their lives and served this country to ensure we have the freedom we enjoy. It's not taken lightly when one infers they died in vain.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Many of them have died in vain, and many more will suffer pointless deaths in the future. It's the nature of war, no matter how you dress it in the trappings of valor or service.
I have been asked to step in and make a more firm message, in any case. This thread's topic is whether or not enforced conscription should or should not be emplaced, along with the benefits and flaws associated. It is not to debate the pointlessness or point of any given war, or even whether war has a point at all.
The topic will be returned to, and the ad hominem attacks will stop. I would ask that everyone involved take a short breather and review the Discussions code of conduct, helpfully stickied at the top of the Discussions forum. If you are using a specific war as an example, please assure that the discussion does not lead off into the merits of that particular war; rather that it returns to the thread topic in hand. If people feel like discussing the merits of a particular war, they are more than free to start a thread on that topic.
Again. Please be sure to respect the points of view of other posters. <i>Especially</i> if you do not agree with them.
TheAdjHe demanded a cool forum title of some type.Join Date: 2004-05-03Member: 28436Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
I'm against mandatory military service for one reason: I would rather have someone who volunteered to go to combat standing at my side than someone who was forced to because they were conscripted. Volunteers are more reliable than conscripts, and when it's your butt on the line, which would you have on your flanks?
But would you rather have one man on your flanks, or one hundred? Undeniably, conscription can supply the numbers that an entirely professional army cannot. The Soviet Union during World War 2 is a classic example of this. Without conscription, they would have been unable to use the extreme tactics of attrition wittnessed in several big battles on the eastern front, most notably the battle of Stalingrad.
stalingrad, both the turning point of the war and the period with the highest loss of life. if the populace does not want to die for their country, maybe the problem lies with the country.
<!--quoteo(post=1590098:date=Dec 19 2006, 02:34 AM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Dec 19 2006, 02:34 AM) [snapback]1590098[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> stalingrad, both the turning point of the war and the period with the highest loss of life. if the populace does not want to die for their country, maybe the problem lies with the country. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> well i wouldnt want to die for my country too. I would make the other guy die for his...
Comments
Freedom comes at a price. My father fought for it, as did his father and his grandfather. Unfortunately lives are lost in the process, but it remains a price we must pay. Your ability to post freely on these very forums came as a result of our forefathers fighting for our freedom.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think many of us here would expect to see more specifics about which military conflicts you feel directly contributed to the freedom you mentioned. Do you feel for example that the war in Iraq is being waged for the "freedom" of US citizens?
Also, I don't think anyone here (that I've seen at least) is arguing against maintaining some kind of army to defend one's nation.
The true irony you alluded to in an earlier post to me is the notion of someone dying on _foreign_ soil in defense of their homeland.
To the U.S. citizens of the 1960s and early 1970s, THAT was the face of conscription: A government institution that ravenously ate their sons, claiming the greater good as justification.
Would it be any different today? Has that monster changed its ways?
I don't really see how the Vietnam war, for instance, made these forums possible, and how not fighting it would have made any difference in this regard.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good question. The U.S. entered the Viet Nam war to prevent the spread of Communism.
<!--quoteo(post=1589533:date=Dec 17 2006, 12:01 PM:name=FilthyLarry)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FilthyLarry @ Dec 17 2006, 12:01 PM) [snapback]1589533[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Might as well just post the wiki link eh ? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription" target="_blank">Wiki</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks. I guess.
<!--quoteo(post=1589540:date=Dec 17 2006, 12:18 PM:name=FilthyLarry)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FilthyLarry @ Dec 17 2006, 12:18 PM) [snapback]1589540[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I think many of us here would expect to see more specifics about which military conflicts you feel directly contributed to the freedom you mentioned. Do you feel for example that the war in Iraq is being waged for the "freedom" of US citizens?
Also, I don't think anyone here (that I've seen at least) is arguing against maintaining some kind of army to defend one's nation.
The true irony you alluded to in an earlier post to me is the notion of someone dying on _foreign_ soil in defense of their homeland.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The war in Iraq imho is a war against terrorism, so yeah. But if you'd like to debate this another thread exists.
<!--quoteo(post=1589569:date=Dec 17 2006, 01:37 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 17 2006, 01:37 PM) [snapback]1589569[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Take the United States. Their conscription ended in 1973, arguably as a consequence of the enormous disaster of the aforementioned Vietnam war. The U.S. population was tired of seeing their sons drafted into the army, shipped off to a far-off country to fight a war that they had long ceased to care about. And they were tired of getting apologetical letters with hollow patriotic phrases back, and a body in a casket if they were lucky.
To the U.S. citizens of the 1960s and early 1970s, THAT was the face of conscription: A government institution that ravenously ate their sons, claiming the greater good as justification.
Would it be any different today? Has that monster changed its ways?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Although the draft is a form of conscription, joining the armed forces following high school for a 2 or 3 year hitch does not necessarily mean you'd fight in a war.
Good question. The U.S. entered the Viet Nam war to prevent the spread of Communism.[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And they lost. And YET these forums exist, and we're free to post in them whatever we want. Not that there's any particular reason to assume that one side's cause was better than the other in that war. The communists fought to prevent the spread of capitalism, while the capitalists fought to prevent the spread of communism. It wasn't a case of "the good guys versus the bad guys," rather a case of a (very violent) difference in philosophy.
<!--quoteo(post=1589646:date=Dec 18 2006, 12:15 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 18 2006, 12:15 AM) [snapback]1589646[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
[...]Although the draft is a form of conscription, joining the armed forces following high school for a 2 or 3 year hitch does not necessarily mean you'd fight in a war.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Doesn't necessarily mean" is not a guarantee though. It means that you might not fight in a war. Which, it follows, means that you might.
And they lost. And YET these forums exist, and we're free to post in them whatever we want. Not that there's any particular reason to assume that one side's cause was better than the other in that war. The communists fought to prevent the spread of capitalism, while the capitalists fought to prevent the spread of communism. It wasn't a case of "the good guys versus the bad guys," rather a case of a (very violent) difference in philosophy.
"Doesn't necessarily mean" is not a guarantee though. It means that you might not fight in a war. Which, it follows, means that you might.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fact that "they lost" does not dismiss why they fought that war. Evidently your freedom was acquired quite differently where you live, if your information lists your location correctly. Therefore I cannot expect you to understand how we Americans got the freedom we enjoy.
Nor do I feel like tutoring you on the subject. If you're against any type of conscription I can respect that. If you'd like to debate freedom, perhaps a new thread on that subject is in order. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
That still leaves us with the issue of forcing young men (what happened to gender equality anyway?) to fight in wars that they may disagree with, though.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a good question, but not easily answered I'm afraid.
I don't understand the need for conscription, and if we somehow do need conscription why isn't it gender non discriminant.
The fact that "they lost" does not dismiss why they fought that war. Evidently your freedom was acquired quite differently where you live, if your information lists your location correctly. Therefore I cannot expect you to understand how we Americans got the freedom we enjoy.
Nor do I feel like tutoring you on the subject. If you're against any type of conscription I can respect that. If you'd like to debate freedom, perhaps a new thread on that subject is in order. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just read the post again, and I take issue. The Vietnam war was a political disaster, true enough, but that disaster was caused by fighting it. Thousands of young men were drafted and sent to fight a war and die - What would prevent similar mistakes from taking the lives of future conscripts?
<!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->This post has been edited for the sake of respect to the war's participants.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<quote here>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, the U.S. was attempting to stop the spread of Communism. <!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->Removing this, as the related part of lolfighter's post has been removed.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
If you want to debate freedom, how we got it, what it means, etc. how about starting another thread on it.
Again, the U.S. was attempting to stop the spread of Communism. Are you saying that by doing so our freedom is not protected? Omg I went back on my own word, and find myself tutoring you again.... ... .. . soz[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You say that the fight was "to stop the spread of communism" as if that was self-explanatory though. I happen to disagree. Of course, communism as stated has never really existed. The Soviet Union was merely running a different brand of capitalism, one in which the fat cats continuously claimed to represent the people and labor on their behalf. A less honest one than the one prevalent in the western world (where the fat cats (if pressured sufficiently) admit to representing themselves and labouring on their own behalf), but otherwise not fundamentally different.
Stalin was obviously psychotic; his successors were far more sane. But when the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. should have attempted reconciliation, they (for endlessly convoluted and almost wholly unintelligible reasons) did not. Under Stalin, the cold war was probably unavoidable. After him, it just went on, possibly because both sides found it convenient to have an enemy to demonise. That was the central reason for the "global fights against communism/capitalism" that both sides led.
Well, that's out of the way. From the wording of your posts, I hope you will indulge me if I assume that you are going to disagree with me on this. That's fair enough, it isn't even what the thread is about. But it illuminates a different aspect: That we disagree. And in the light of this disagreement, we would obviously not support the same wars.
This brings us back to conscription: By drafting people into the military and sending them away to fight, we would be asking some of them to sacrifice their lives for a war they don't support. In terms of freedom, that is robbing them of it.
<!--quoteo(post=1589871:date=Dec 18 2006, 07:36 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 18 2006, 07:36 PM) [snapback]1589871[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]"All in all, it seems that it would not have made the slightest difference for U.S. freedom if they hadn't fought that war at all" is an insult to all of those who fought in that war, and to those who lost loved ones. Seriously. Again, if you want to debate freedom, how we got it, what it means, etc. how about starting another thread on it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it is an insult to those who caused that war and perpetrated such a huge and senseless loss of life. As I like to say, in various forms: "The biggest, ongoing, machiavellian success story of all time is the ability of rich and powerful people to get the masses to not only fight their wars for them, but to make the masses believe that they want the war." I.e. almost every single war in history has been fought for financial reasons. And not for the financial gain of the average Joe, but for the profit of the fat cats.
Now, can we <b>PLEASE</b> address the topic at hand, and start a seperate thread if you want to debate freedom?!? <img src="http://www.nsmod.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
True Nadagast, but would people volunteer to work in a job that's going to teach them discipline, respect, teamwork, and everything else they'd learn in the armed forces?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You get to blow **** up.
Alternatively; veteran's benefits.
If my posts are indeed insults, they are in violation of forum rules, and you should dispute them with forum moderators so that they may take proper steps. Otherwise, please either respond to my posts or tell me that you are going to ignore me so I can stop wasting my time.
I'd gladly discuss the topic at hand, Depot. In fact, I am doing so. Dismissing my posts as "insults" without even backing that up with some sort of clarifying statement is not discussing the topic, it is refusing to discuss the topic. You haven't given a proper answer to my post, yet you demand that *I* discuss the topic. You seem to have missed th entire first half of my post, for instance. Please read my post again.
If my posts are indeed insults, they are in violation of forum rules, and you should dispute them with forum moderators so that they may take proper steps. Otherwise, please either respond to my posts or tell me that you are going to ignore me so I can stop wasting my time.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're just not listening to me. My entire family has fought in wars to either defend this country or maintain our freedom. Because you don't understand this doesn't mean all of those who fought or lost their lives did so in vain. I'm not going to debate any given war in this thread nor attempt to justify whatever the administration has decided regarding going to war, nor am I going to report your posts simply because you don't understand.
Now, can we please get back to discussing conscription.
<!--quoteo(post=1589937:date=Dec 18 2006, 05:20 PM:name=Renegade)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Renegade @ Dec 18 2006, 05:20 PM) [snapback]1589937[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
You get to blow **** up.
Alternatively; veteran's benefits.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lol, good answers, and nice to see a touch of humor, thanks.
Depot, it's not a personal insult to the troops to disagree with the presmises on which a which a war is fought. There is a difference between the rational questioning of whether or not a certain war is neccessary and whether or not fighting the war is good for American interests, and insulting everyone who fought the war.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I had pointed out that the Viet Nam war was fought to protect us from the spread of Communism, ensuring our freedom. The fact that we lost the war and many lives because of it does not mean those who served did so in vain. Every one of them were battling for our freedom, and for anyone to say otherwise, to me, is insulting.
This is also why I've asked to not discuss any particular war here, or debate freedom. Although related they can serve no purpose but to derail the thread.
Again, you have personally insulted myself, my brother, and my father, not to mention thousands of others who have fought for the freedom this country has - don't bother saying you haven't or place the blame on any particular administration... that's total bullcrap.
Now, can we <b>PLEASE</b> address the topic at hand, and start a seperate thread if you want to debate freedom?!? <img src="http://www.nsmod.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saying that a war is pointless, or purely for rich people's profit is not dishonoring those that fought in said war. It may even be true, in many instances. He did not insult your family, so kindly in the future do not imply that he had done so. Behaving in this manner is not acceptable in the Discussions forum, Depot. This is your one warning, as I have seen similar 'arguments' in the past.
Now. On-topic, I cannot support mandatory conscription. If an individual feels that armed conflict is the best way to preserve their way of life, that is their decision. Forcing that path on those who feel that violence and military rule is not the way to establish peace is wrong in principle, ethic, and moral.
Short version, if you want to die for your country, fine. That's your call. But you have NO RIGHT to make me, or anyone else die for mine.
I just read the post again, and I take issue. The Vietnam war had nothing to do with U.S. freedom. I mentioned that the U.S. lost that war because of the seeming unimportance of that defeat. The Vietnam war was a political disaster, true enough, but that disaster was caused by fighting it. All in all, it seems that it would not have made the slightest difference for U.S. freedom if they hadn't fought that war at all. But they did, and thousands of young men were drafted and sent to fight a war and die - for what? What would prevent similar mistakes from taking the lives of future conscripts?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm honestly not sure how you can make an argument over what freedoms we gained from a war that we <i>didn't win</i>. Not winning generally means you didn't gain anything. I do think we were <i>trying</i> to fight for more freedom, but we lost, so we didn't get it.
If you want to talk about the freedoms gained from war, start with a war that we actually won (like WW2), or at least fought to a stalemate (like Korea), rather than discussing a war where we got our butts kicked, which makes it really hard to gain <i>anything</i> from the war.
The point I keep trying (and apparently failing) to make is the immense ambiguity of warfare. It is never a case of simple black and white. And in light of that ambiguity, I am against conscription.
<!--c1--><div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><!--ec1-->
GDP: Gross (official exchange rates)
South Korea 801.2 Billion US
Vietnam 43.7 Billion US
North Korea (no data)
GDP: Gross (estimated purchasing power)
South Korea 1,101.0 Billion US
Vietnam 235.2 Billion US
North Korea 40.0 Billion US (estimated)
GDP: Per Capita
South Korea $ 22,600 US
Vietnam $ 2,800 US
North Korea $ 1,700 US<!--c2--></div><!--ec2-->
Let me ask you...does it GET any clearer than that?
Saying that a war is pointless, or purely for rich people's profit is not dishonoring those that fought in said war. It may even be true, in many instances. He did not insult your family, so kindly in the future do not imply that he had done so. Behaving in this manner is not acceptable in the Discussions forum, Depot. This is your one warning, as I have seen similar 'arguments' in the past.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is exactly why I've repeatedly tried to get off the discussion of war and get this thread back on track. If you'll re-read the thread you'll see where I've noted multiple times that American soldiers have given their lives and served this country to ensure we have the freedom we enjoy. It's not taken lightly when one infers they died in vain.
I have been asked to step in and make a more firm message, in any case. This thread's topic is whether or not enforced conscription should or should not be emplaced, along with the benefits and flaws associated. It is not to debate the pointlessness or point of any given war, or even whether war has a point at all.
The topic will be returned to, and the ad hominem attacks will stop. I would ask that everyone involved take a short breather and review the Discussions code of conduct, helpfully stickied at the top of the Discussions forum. If you are using a specific war as an example, please assure that the discussion does not lead off into the merits of that particular war; rather that it returns to the thread topic in hand. If people feel like discussing the merits of a particular war, they are more than free to start a thread on that topic.
Again. Please be sure to respect the points of view of other posters. <i>Especially</i> if you do not agree with them.
stalingrad, both the turning point of the war and the period with the highest loss of life. if the populace does not want to die for their country, maybe the problem lies with the country.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well i wouldnt want to die for my country too. I would make the other guy die for his...