Uncle Ted meets bummers goons

[Forever_frost]

The government doesn't own me. It can't make me do something that I don't want to do, especially if what they want is going to put me in harms way.

You're only right if you're willing to put yourself in harm's way to prevent it. Kind of makes it pointless doesn't it?

[Forever_frost]

.....

Read. It. Again

Didn't I say it is still on the books?

Yes, I did.

Did I make any statement that said the law was changed?

No. I did not.

I said:



Do you need to read it again?

I read everything you wrote. You said that 200k people disobeyed to change the law yet said the law was still there and a politician would be an idiot to enforce it. If it's there and only not being enforced, then the 200k people disobeying did not change the law, they made it unpopular to enforce.

[jasone]

You're only right if you're willing to put yourself in harm's way to prevent it. Kind of makes it pointless doesn't it?

why would I need to put myself in harms way?

[sc281]

I read everything you wrote. You said that 200k people disobeyed to change the law yet said the law was still there and a politician would be an idiot to enforce it. If it's there and only not being enforced, then the 200k people disobeying did not change the law, they made it unpopular to enforce.

So you can read.

Mark my words. Unless we have a full scale invasion on American soil (and no I'm not talking about mojados) there will never be another draft.

[Forever_frost]

why would I need to put myself in harms way?

Simple. If you're going to tell the government that they cannot force you to do something and they say "Yes, we can." and send people to force you, you're either going to submit or fight. If you submit, your argument is void, if you fight, you're going to bleed because eventually, they'll either kill you or force you to submit. So either way, if you refuse the government and they really insist, are you going to submit or fight?

[Forever_frost]

So you can read.

Mark my words. Unless we have a full scale invasion on American soil (and no I'm not talking about mojados) there will never be another draft.

I don't know about that. They were talking about a draft for this war. They've already decided to do it, just when and under what guise

[sc281]

Simple. If you're going to tell the government that they cannot force you to do something and they say "Yes, we can." and send people to force you, you're either going to submit or fight. If you submit, your argument is void, if you fight, you're going to bleed because eventually, they'll either kill you or force you to submit. So either way, if you refuse the government and they really insist, are you going to submit or fight?

Are you really trying to argue that we should relinquish our freedom to choose in order to defend freedom, even if that "enemy" isn't even encroaching on our freedom, and we wish to exercise our right to not want to be a part of an unnecessary war?

Are you listening to yourself?!



LAND OF THE FREE!
as long as your definition of "free" is the same as the govt thinks it should be.

[jasone]

Simple. If you're going to tell the government that they cannot force you to do something and they say "Yes, we can." and send people to force you, you're either going to submit or fight. If you submit, your argument is void, if you fight, you're going to bleed because eventually, they'll either kill you or force you to submit. So either way, if you refuse the government and they really insist, are you going to submit or fight?

oh I see what you're saying. I guess it really depends on what the punishment is for not going. But more than likely if it was a war I didn't believe in, I would bail to Brazil. My buddy runs a bar down there and he could set em up working there.

[Forever_frost]

Are you really trying to argue that we should relinquish our freedom to choose in order to defend freedom, even if that "enemy" isn't even encroaching on our freedom, and we wish to exercise our right to not want to be a part of an unnecessary war?

Are you listening to yourself?!



LAND OF THE FREE!
as long as your definition of "free" is the same as the govt thinks it should be.

I'm working on not accusing you of not reading what I wrote. I never said it. I said if you're going to claim freedom, you have to bleed for it. If government tells you to do something and you refuse, what are you going to do? Tell me, what your options are, since you do not believe I have covered them in:

1) Submit

2) Fight

3) Exile

[Forever_frost]

oh I see what you're saying. I guess it really depends on what the punishment is for not going. But more than likely if it was a war I didn't believe in, I would bail to Brazil. My buddy runs a bar down there and he could set em up working there.

Finally someone does. You'd take exile rather than submit. That's an option.

[sc281]

I'm working on not accusing you of not reading what I wrote. I never said it. I said if you're going to claim freedom, you have to bleed for it. If government tells you to do something and you refuse, what are you going to do? Tell me, what your options are, since you do not believe I have covered them in:

1) Submit

2) Fight

3) Exile

Those 200,000 chose none of those 3 and look what happened.

When a war spills American blood unnecessarily, sends us to a far off land with no strategy to win, you will see what kind of value people will put on their lives. Especially after we pull out of the two we are in with our tails between our legs in disgrace because our "leaders" didn't have the balls to do a job right.

The only reason there was popular support for these two was cause of 9/11 revenge lust. Once that wore off, we realized that "blast them back to the stone age" was really cover for "Let's spend $800billion and 300+/- soldiers lives each year for the next 12 years trying to win hearts and minds of people who couldn't give a shit. The American people won't be so easily led in again, at least not for a couple decades.

That means we will have not won 4 out of 5 wars since Korea. (desert storm being the only exception)

Defending freedom? At a 20% success rate, we won't free much longer.

[Forever_frost]

Those 200,000 chose none of those 3 and look what happened.

When a war spills American blood unnecessarily, sends us to a far off land with no strategy to win, you will see what kind of value people will put on their lives. Especially after we pull out of the two we are in with our tails between our legs in disgrace because our "leaders" didn't have the balls to do a job right.

The only reason there was popular support for these two was cause of 9/11 revenge lust. Once that wore off, we realized that "blast them back to the stone age" was really cover for "Let's spend $800billion and 300+/- soldiers lives each year for the next 12 years trying to win hearts and minds of people who couldn't give a shit. The American people won't be so easily led in again, at least not for a couple decades.

That means we will have not won 4 out of 5 wars since Korea. (desert storm being the only exception)

Defending freedom? At a 20% success rate, we won't free much longer.

Actually, many took off to Canada. They chose exile. I'd hazard and say we won Iraq (got Saddam) and got Bin Laden (technically Pakistan but who's counting). The only thing we've fucked up on is nation building

[sc281]

Actually, many took off to Canada. They chose exile. I'd hazard and say we won Iraq (got Saddam) and got Bin Laden (technically Pakistan but who's counting). The only thing we've fucked up on is nation building

Many is not all. Out of 200k, how many went to Canada? How many stayed in Canada?

Won? The Soviets thought that as well. They went bankrupt staying in after they "won"(occupation), and now history considers that a fatal loss.

But we're 'merica. We can do the same thing, in the same country (Afghanistan) and still consider it two marks in the win column. Woot!

I stand by our 1 out of 5 win record.

[Forever_frost]

Many is not all. Out of 200k, how many went to Canada? How many stayed in Canada?

Won? The Soviets thought that as well. They went bankrupt staying in after they "won"(occupation), and now history considers that a fatal loss.

But we're 'merica. We can do the same thing, in the same country (Afghanistan) and still consider it two marks in the win column. Woot!

I stand by our 1 out of 5 win record.

You'll see that I didn't say anything after Laden or any actions engaged that wasn't actively hunting him down, was a good idea or should have been done. We should have had a small number of SF guys hunting him down and we shouldn't have been building shit.

You either haven't paid attention to what I've said or are purposely ignoring it. We secure the objectives we're sent to secure. Wanted Saddam? Done. Wanted Bin Laden? No problem. Want Egypt and Libya destabilized and fucked up? Done in 30 minutes or less or your money back.

Nation building? Extended stays in other countries? Hell no.

[sc281]

You'll see that I didn't say anything after Laden or any actions engaged that wasn't actively hunting him down, was a good idea or should have been done. We should have had a small number of SF guys hunting him down and we shouldn't have been building shit.

You either haven't paid attention to what I've said or are purposely ignoring it. We secure the objectives we're sent to secure. Wanted Saddam? Done. Wanted Bin Laden? No problem. Want Egypt and Libya destabilized and fucked up? Done in 30 minutes or less or your money back.

Nation building? Extended stays in other countries? Hell no.

But in both cases we did nation build. In both cases we are going to leave these countries in a state that will devolve back to the same shit we went in in the first place to address. We lost. Just like in Vietnam. This conversation is as relevant in these wars as it was then

As South Vietnam was collapsing in 1975, Army Col. Harry G. Summers Jr., speaking to a North Vietnamese counterpart, claimed the U.S. military had never lost a battle in Vietnam. Perhaps so, the NVA colonel replied, "but it is also irrelevant." Summers recounts his conversation approvingly, without irony, in his book On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War.

You don't agree with my view that people shouldn't be forced into service, and that is your right. (or maybe you do, and were just pissed at the people who dodged) You seem okay with trusting your life to a squad mate who has his life put on the line by his govt, instead of making a conscious decision to put his life on the line for defending his ideals/family/country. Which one is more likely to jump on a grenade to save your squad's lives?

Personally, the ONLY time I want a conscript serving with me is when we are invaded and are having to fight street by street with the enemy. Then, we will be equals, because his choice is clear. As sun tzu put it, he will be on the 9th ground, Death Ground, and will have no other choices except survival and death. I couldn't trust a conscript to make any other decisions besides that one.

The fate of a Nation should NEVER be put in such a precarious position as trusting it's survival to draftees unless the "draftees" are only so because of the above situation.


You and I don't agree on a lot of things, not just this. This is my last post on the subject and will consider this one of those times we'll ahve to agree to disagree. I will leave what I wrote earlier, which sums up my feelings on the subject, and bid you good day.

I understand your love of country, but you have to understand that the use of tyranny to take someone's freedom to choose, in order to fight for freedom from tyranny is no freedom worth defending, and is no freedom at all.