PDA

View Full Version : Should the US bring back the draft?



ChrisF202
01 May 04,, 19:42
With the shortage of troops in the US military I was wondering if we should bring back the draft. Is it necessary or are a few people (including myself) just overreacting? I personally dont want the draft (as I would be elligable in 2 years). If we must bring the draft back I say we make people either join the military, law enforcement, fire/rescue, or nursing. When have we had drafts in history? 1862 - 65 and 1940 - 1975? Also, what major powers still have the draft system?

Praxus
01 May 04,, 23:02
No we should never, ever have the draft. The draft is a non-option and should remain as such.

The problem isn't the lack of US forces but the unwillingness of US Commanders(influinced by annoying politicians of course) to use these forces. Fullujah is a perfect example.

Ironduke
02 May 04,, 02:08
With the shortage of troops in the US military I was wondering if we should bring back the draft. Is it necessary or are a few people (including myself) just overreacting? I personally dont want the draft (as I would be elligable in 2 years). If we must bring the draft back I say we make people either join the military, law enforcement, fire/rescue, or nursing. When have we had drafts in history? 1862 - 65 and 1940 - 1975? Also, what major powers still have the draft system?
If you think it is necessary, then you are overreacting.

tw-acs
02 May 04,, 02:56
I do not think you are overreacting. If the operations , the War in Iraq is not a war by defintion it is executive order , Iraq do not go well.
I mean the plan that the Bush Administration had I follow up until after they have severed the head of the Iraqi government, removing Saddam Hussien from power.

I am curious what this plan is?

A multi national country is not bad. I.E. United States of America

Iraq is a country with 3 nations:

The Kurd's are to the north, which have acted automonously in the past. There is political pressure to not allow for the Kurd's to create a seperate country from the rest of Iraq because during civil wars in Turkey many Kurd's were killed. If the Kurd's are allowed to create their own country, then the Kurd's in Turkey may want to join such a country.

There are distinct religous differences in the Sunni and the Shiite. Also under Saddam Hussien's rule there was a dominant religion. So one religion got many more benefits than the other.

Please do not forget, that if a country invaded the United States, removed the existing government to make it better, would you be wary? What if the occupying nation was torturing citizens of the occupied nation. I.E. US soldiers torturing Iraqi's.

The United States was the aggressor in Operation Iraqi Freedom. If the United States was goin to Iraq with the Iraqi people in mind why were we not there about 17 years ago? Also why was the war justified with Weapons of Mass Destruction?

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

I believe the Iraq people are intelligent enough to put these facts together.

Operation Iraqi Freedom and any extenuating actions resultant of the "War on Terror", a concept that is self defeating, will require more troops if members of the Coalition keep pulling troops out and American soldiers keep dying. I think that there is a certain number of troops that the military believes to be acceptable, as the actual number of troops approaches this said minimum number of troops the pressure from the Military to enact a draft would increase.

Simply, I think the longer the USA has military persons deployed in active duty the more personnel it will require. If the military personnel become deceased the United States may be forced to enact a draft to hold or maintain military position.

They have not enacted one yet, though I think it is proper for a potential draftee to be concerned about a draft.

Confed999
02 May 04,, 14:39
If there is a draft, the war is lost.

Praxus
02 May 04,, 15:20
T-WAC's say the US becomes a Dictatorship and the rest of the western world has a free political and economic system. If they invaded the US and tortured Radical Christian's that want to create a new Christiandom(which by it's very nature will violate my rights) then I certainly would not be upset. If they tortured people loyal to the former dictatorship I certainly would not be upset. If anything I would want it to happen, I would want to seek retribution against thoose who would loot my property, kill my family and friends, and rip away my rights. Also I would actively persue people loyal to the former dictatorship and any militant religious cause and then give that information to the invading armies.

Your are trying to make me look at their way, by doing so you are hoping I will sympothize with their plight. You are doing this because you have no rational argument to present.

tw-acs
02 May 04,, 17:27
Praxus , The All Knowing


Tell me, what else do I think?

Why do I think it?

Praxus
02 May 04,, 17:54
Wow brilliant counter-argument.

tw-acs
02 May 04,, 18:42
Thank you.

See you are a seperate biological entity with a separate brain and nervous system. Therefore, you cannot know what I think and you cannot know why I think it. I do not understand why you have tried to tell me why I say things numerous times, though I have told each time that you cannot know what I think.


Why do you continue to try to tell what I think?

And if you are so determined to tell me what I think, then please tell me why I think it, too.

Honestly, I feel no need to counter your arguement because you do not have one. You took my post out of context and tried to tell me why I said what I said. As I have previosly stated, that is impossible.

Praxus
03 May 04,, 00:38
I suppose there is another reason you would say something like that?

If it is not to make me sympathize with them, then what is it. You just randomly felt like saying it?

There is no reason to say "what if the US was invaded".

It is not out of context, the statement is what it is, what it is.

tw-acs
03 May 04,, 04:53
To think about Iraqi people that have done nothing wrong is exactly what i meant to have you think.

troung
03 May 04,, 05:04
“Also I would actively persue people loyal to the former dictatorship and any militant religious cause and then give that information to the invading armies.”

Just taking one part of your post but I am responding to the central idea.

Lets also say these nice invaders decide to prop up a puppet government to export your natural resources very cheaply. Lets say they accidentally kill thousands of civilians invading, raid your house looking for guns, raid your neighbors houses, arrest family members and friends, enter museums to take artifacts from military successes and give them back to a certain nation, continue to accidentally kill civilians by dropping bombs and firing rockets into crowed cities.

Oh yeah and let’s say they also decided it was time to make you buddy buddy with a long time enemy. And to top that off they do lewd acts to prisoners and take pictures of it. So now you are no longer a nation but a puppet state which has to tolerate foreign troops going around shooting people and of course controlling your economy, foreign policy and really day to day lives. And in return they turn the power they took off line back on.

Ask yourself why so many Iraqi’s are fighting…

Hell no one likes to be invaded and then occupied. We are not talking about liberating Belgium but occupying by force another nation. I’m shocked that other people are shocked that they are fighting. The Vietnamese army toppled Pol Pot (far worse then Saddam by far) by force in 1979 and for the next 10 years fought with not only his forces but also other groups (ANS for example). Same situation. I would not call the war in Iraq and Vietnam but more a Cambodia.

The war was a dumb idea and now this nation has to pay the consequences in money and lives…

tw-acs
03 May 04,, 17:10
Troung


I appreciate your post. I hope you continue to post like that.

tw-acs
03 May 04,, 17:11
Why do you peoples keep refering to the Operation Iraqi Freedom as a war?

Praxus
03 May 04,, 20:29
Saying the Iraqi oil wells belong to every Iraqi is just as ludicress as saying my House belongs to everyone in the United States simply because we live in the same Geopolitical Area.

If said puppet Government protects my rights, then I would have absolutely no problem with it, afterall protecting my rights is the purpose of Government is it not?

Thoose people that the invading force would be "torturing" would be just as much my enemy as it would be the invading forces enemy.

The US should not be controling their economy, we should be privitizing everything, including the oil wells. But this needs to be done after a Government is established, but the Government needs to be based on these ideas (Capitalism, Republicanism, etc).

Our enemies in Iraq are nothing but irational nationalists who don't care about peoples rights as long as an Iraqi is in charge and then there are the Islamo-Fascist that want to create a Theocracy. Neither of which can be considered legitimit gripes.

tw-acs
03 May 04,, 21:48
Praxus - The All Knowing

Please continue and tell us what everyone in the world thinks and why they think it.

Confed999
04 May 04,, 00:27
Lets also say these nice invaders decide to prop up a puppet government to export your natural resources very cheaply.
They did? When? Last I saw, a month or two ago, Iraqi oil was selling between OPEC's guidelines.

Lets say they accidentally kill thousands of civilians invading
Yeah, that part is sad. They should have taken care of it themselves then. Anyway, according to liberal organizations like UNICEF, we have killed less in over a year than Saddam starved in 3 months.

enter museums to take artifacts from military successes and give them back to a certain nation
If they were returned to their rightful owners, good. I don't care if you, or an Iraqi, thinks stolen goods belong to them.

continue to accidentally kill civilians by dropping bombs and firing rockets into crowed cities.
They have the power to stop it.

Oh yeah and let’s say they also decided it was time to make you buddy buddy with a long time enemy.
Who is forcing them to be friends?

And to top that off they do lewd acts to prisoners and take pictures of it.
Also truly sad, but a year and a half ago that was the norm, now it is the exception.

Ask yourself why so many Iraqi’s are fighting
I allready know why. They're still listening to stupid statements, like many of the ones above.

The war was a dumb idea and now this nation has to pay the consequences in money and lives
I think it was inevitable. Saddam and the Baath were not going to give in and cooperate, and the people were too weak to rebel, so here we are. It sucks, but they made the choice to be where they are now, and now they can choose to work for a better life, or fight and die.

Praxus
04 May 04,, 00:51
T-wacs are you uncapable of carrying our a rational argument?

All you manage to type is off-topic remarks about my post and insults.

Donnie
04 May 04,, 01:02
With the shortage of troops in the US military I was wondering if we should bring back the draft. Is it necessary or are a few people (including myself) just overreacting? I personally dont want the draft (as I would be elligable in 2 years). If we must bring the draft back I say we make people either join the military, law enforcement, fire/rescue, or nursing. When have we had drafts in history? 1862 - 65 and 1940 - 1975? Also, what major powers still have the draft system?

if you had a draft, the war would instantly lose support, you would have masive counter movments, not to mention political suicide for the ruling party.

i dont know who has the daft and who doesnt, but i know allot of countries have forced service responsibilities, like 2yrs duty at 18 or somthing like that.

Bill
04 May 04,, 01:36
The US doesn't need the draft.

Enlistment rates for 2003 were among the highest ever recorded. 2002 was the highest ever recorded for volunteer enlistees.

Ironduke
04 May 04,, 02:39
Saying the Iraqi oil wells belong to every Iraqi is just as ludicress as saying my House belongs to everyone in the United States simply because we live in the same Geopolitical Area.

If said puppet Government protects my rights, then I would have absolutely no problem with it, afterall protecting my rights is the purpose of Government is it not?

Thoose people that the invading force would be "torturing" would be just as much my enemy as it would be the invading forces enemy.

The US should not be controling their economy, we should be privitizing everything, including the oil wells. But this needs to be done after a Government is established, but the Government needs to be based on these ideas (Capitalism, Republicanism, etc).

Our enemies in Iraq are nothing but irational nationalists who don't care about peoples rights as long as an Iraqi is in charge and then there are the Islamo-Fascist that want to create a Theocracy. Neither of which can be considered legitimit gripes.
Less Ayn Rand.....

tw-acs
04 May 04,, 20:22
Has congress discussed the possiblity of a draft, in the last 2 years?

ChrisF202
07 May 04,, 23:18
Has congress discussed the possiblity of a draft, in the last 2 years?
I heard they have discussed it several times, dont know the specifics though.

edit: House Bill H.R. 163 (Senate Bill S. 89) reads, “It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this Act unless exempted under the provisions of this Act.”

http://www.rejection2004.com/archives/00000011.htm

bodybag
11 Jul 04,, 20:21
If there is a draft, the war is lost.
If that is truth ,then bring back the draft. :cool:

Praxus
11 Jul 04,, 20:22
Less Ayn Rand.....

No Thanks.

bigross86
11 Jul 04,, 21:41
I think the draft is one of the smartest moves Israel ever made. Everyone has to serve in some form or another, no matter what their affiliation or thought on the matter. Having it at 18 is also smart, cuz then the kids are still full of piss and vinegar and are willing (dumb) enough to actualy WANT to go and fight.

Israel made another smart move by making the drinking age 18 instead of 21...

Semper Fi
23 Jul 04,, 06:16
Their is a draft already its called a poverty draft alot of troops come from low income families as for the other draft you shouldnt be forced to join the Armed Forces if you dont want too unless god forbid World War 3 starts.

Confed999
23 Jul 04,, 15:19
Their is a draft already its called a poverty draft
Anyone with the ability to make it in the military has the ability to buckle down, get an education and a job. You're talking about a "stupid" draft, it has nothing to do with money.

ChrisF202
23 Jul 04,, 19:35
Their is a draft already its called a poverty draft alot of troops come from low income families as for the other draft you shouldnt be forced to join the Armed Forces if you dont want too unless god forbid World War 3 starts.

I know alot of wealthy white people with kids in the military, my town is quite wealthy and of the 200 or so high school graduates each year at least 10 join some branch of the armed forces.

Trooth
23 Jul 04,, 21:13
Forced conscription is only an option if the military objectives need massive manpower. The only reason that massive manpower is needed is if victory is to be won at all costs.

Therefore no, the US doesn't need it as the war on terror is a war where the US military can pick its own fights. It isn't a war where those that wish to attack the US are likely to encounter the military. If they do it won't be a match of equals anyway. The US is under no threat of invasion.

Therefore any need for conscription would have been created by incompetance on the part of the military planners or politicans that have managed to open too many fronts simultaneously.

Praxus
23 Jul 04,, 21:45
I agree.

turnagainarm
24 Jul 04,, 13:34
Saying the Iraqi oil wells belong to every Iraqi is just as ludicress as saying my House belongs to everyone in the United States simply because we live in the same Geopolitical Area.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Your house is your private property, whereas natural resources on the public land belongs to all the citizens of the nation. Who owns Yellowstone national park? Grand Canyon?



If said puppet Government protects my rights, then I would have absolutely no problem with it, afterall protecting my rights is the purpose of Government is it not?

The problem is puppet govt. can not protect your right. Puppet govt. will be doing the bidding of the foreign govt. who controls it.



The US should not be controling their economy, we should be privitizing everything, including the oil wells. But this needs to be done after a Government is established, but the Government needs to be based on these ideas (Capitalism, Republicanism, etc).

It's their economy, let them have the freedom to do what they want to do with their economy. If USA privitzes their economy, that would mean that they are not free.

Praxus
24 Jul 04,, 15:36
You are comparing apples and oranges. Your house is your private property, whereas natural resources on the public land belongs to all the citizens of the nation. Who owns Yellowstone national park? Grand Canyon?

First off the oil wells were private property of American/Western oil companies before Saddam Hussein stole them. It was the companies who drilled them and worked them and who have a right to it.

Public Land is owned by no one and can be claimed by anyone, I wouldn't reccomend it though.


The problem is puppet govt. can not protect your right. Puppet govt. will be doing the bidding of the foreign govt. who controls it.

Why can't it protect your rights?



It's their economy, let them have the freedom to do what they want to do with their economy. If USA privitzes their economy, that would mean that they are not free.

What is your definition of "free"?

To me to be "free" is to be able to do what you want without initiating the use of force against someone else or have someone else initiating the use of force against you.

Trooth
24 Jul 04,, 15:52
Privatising state held assets is tricky at the best of times (in theory if the state owns it then all citizens have a share).

If another nation privatises the state held assets it gets very complicated, especially depending on who then ends up in control. In this instance it would be better if the US left the Iraqi government to get on its feet. Then let the iraqi government privatise stuff at its leisure. Otherwise foreign companies are going to end up controlling Iraq's assets and it is going to look like a straight asset strip of Iraq (whether it is or not).

Praxus
24 Jul 04,, 16:07
I agree for the time being it would be better to keep it for funding while they are still fighting a war and the Government is getting it's feet on the ground.

turnagainarm
25 Jul 04,, 18:30
First off the oil wells were private property of American/Western oil companies before Saddam Hussein stole them. It was the companies who drilled them and worked them and who have a right to it.


You need to understand that Iraqi oil wells/fields are property of Iraqi nation. An American/Western oil company can operate in Iraq (or for that matters any other nation) only at the approval of local govt., and with proper contract/lease to explore/operate the oilfileds. These contracts/lease are for certain duration with a set of terms and conditions and ultimately the power is vested in the local govt. to terminate such contracts/lease, if it chooses to do so.

Even within American borders, American oil companies need approval from US/Sate govt. to drill/explore, sign a lease/contract for the area in which exploration has to be done. Once the lease/contract expires, they are supposed to restore/reclaim the land and hand over the the control to the govt.
Similar terms & conditions apply to foreign companies operting within US borders. Many business sectors are simply off limits to foreign companies in US. An example would be media, US law prohibits foreign companies from owning American media outlet.

Let me give you an example from State of Alaska. BP operates the Prudhoe way and Barrow oilfields. This generates substantial share from oil revenue for the state, so much so that each Alaskan gets a divident check on yearly basis ranging anywhere between $1,000 to $2,000.
Why is that? It is because of the simple principle that Alaskan oil belongs to all Alaskans!

Also do you mind telling us when exactly Saddam stole those oil wells from American/Western companies? Saddam came to power in 1979 and between 1979-1991 he was a close US ally, so certainly it could not have been during this period. It has to be after the gulf war of 1991? So did Saddam steal those oil wells from American/Western copnaies after 1991?


Public Land is owned by no one and can be claimed by anyone, I wouldn't reccomend it though.

Public land and the resources occuring on the the public land are owned by the govt. i.e. it belongs to all citizens of the nation.



Why can't it protect your rights?

A puppet govt. can not protect your rights, look at the Iraqi example. Some Iraqi civilians are killed by American bombing/shooting. Is the Iraqi govt. protecting the rights of these Iraqi civilians?




What is your definition of "free"?

To me to be "free" is to be able to do what you want without initiating the use of force against someone else or have someone else initiating the use of force against you.

My definition of "free" for a nation is that it is totally soverign in all matters of operations. If American forcefully privitize their economy, sell their assests, then Iraq as a nation can not be considered "free".
That is why I said it is their economy, let them do with it whatever they please. If they want to privitize, fine, but if they don't, it is their choice.

Praxus
25 Jul 04,, 21:09
You need to understand that Iraqi oil wells/fields are property of Iraqi nation. An American/Western oil company can operate in Iraq (or for that matters any other nation) only at the approval of local govt., and with proper contract/lease to explore/operate the oilfileds. These contracts/lease are for certain duration with a set of terms and conditions and ultimately the power is vested in the local govt. to terminate such contracts/lease, if it chooses to do so.

What you don't understand is that a(any) nation does not own anything, only individuals and groups of individuals who buy it or claim unowned land can own anything.



Even within American borders, American oil companies need approval from US/Sate govt. to drill/explore, sign a lease/contract for the area in which exploration has to be done. Once the lease/contract expires, they are supposed to restore/reclaim the land and hand over the the control to the govt.
Similar terms & conditions apply to foreign companies operting within US borders. Many business sectors are simply off limits to foreign companies in US. An example would be media, US law prohibits foreign companies from owning American media outlet.


Simply because the Government does it, does not mean it has the right to do it. The Government doesn't have a right to any land not meant to defend our rights.



Why is that? It is because of the simple principle that Alaskan oil belongs to all Alaskans!

Why does it belong to the alaskans? They have done nothing to work the land, it's not any alaskans private property so no body owns it.




Public land and the resources occuring on the the public land are owned by the govt. i.e. it belongs to all citizens of the nation.


It does not belong to anyone, the Government claims it and enforces it with guns, not by right.




A puppet govt. can not protect your rights, look at the Iraqi example. Some Iraqi civilians are killed by American bombing/shooting. Is the Iraqi govt. protecting the rights of these Iraqi civilians?

First off the US Governmnet IS not the Iraqi Government. Second off the new Iraqi Government is hardly a western Republic.

Third of all there is a moral difference between purposly initiating the use of force(and fraud) and the accidentle killing of innocents.




My definition of "free" for a nation is that it is totally soverign in all matters of operations. If American forcefully privitize their economy, sell their assests, then Iraq as a nation can not be considered "free".
That is why I said it is their economy, let them do with it whatever they please. If they want to privitize, fine, but if they don't, it is their choice.

So your definition of a free country is some "mob"acracy(democracy) where the will of the majority no matter how tyrannicle and destructive towards mans rights will always prevail.

Your sick, if this is the case.

Trooth
25 Jul 04,, 22:33
What you don't understand is that a(any) nation does not own anything, only individuals and groups of individuals who buy it or claim unowned land can own anything.


A government is a group of people. Just as a company is a logical entity representing a collective, so can a government be.

Ironduke
25 Jul 04,, 23:00
First off the oil wells were private property of American/Western oil companies before Saddam Hussein stole them. It was the companies who drilled them and worked them and who have a right to it.
Middle Eastern nations have never conferred ownership of oil fields to American or European oil companies. They sold rights to extract and sell oil, but never sold the oil fields.

Praxus
25 Jul 04,, 23:01
A government is a group of people. Just as a company is a logical entity representing a collective, so can a government be.

A Government(at least everyone that has exsisted ever) is a group of people that loots and murder. They are not the same as a company.

What you say is only true if the Government get's it's money through volunteery means(contract fees, etc) and does not attack peoples rights.


Middle Eastern nations have never conferred ownership of oil fields to American or European oil companies. They sold rights to extract and sell oil, but never sold the oil fields.

The Middle Eastern Nations never owned them in the first place!

Ironduke
25 Jul 04,, 23:31
The Middle Eastern Nations never owned them in the first place!
Wrong. In nations that nationalized their oil fields, they did indeed own them. In other nations (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE) the ruling families own them to this day.

Western oil companies have never purchased the oil fields, and make no claims of ownership over them.

turnagainarm
26 Jul 04,, 00:40
What you don't understand is that a(any) nation does not own anything, only individuals and groups of individuals who buy it or claim unowned land can own anything.


What an Individuals or group of Individuals own is their "private" property. Who owns the "public" property? The Govt. owns the public property! It is a very simple concept, not difficult to understand.
Who owns Grand Canyon? Yellowstone national park? Yosomite national Park?

If nobody owned public land then you would see all the oil comapnies drilling for oil in ANWAR, in fact drilling all over place!




Simply because the Government does it, does not mean it has the right to do it. The Government doesn't have a right to any land not meant to defend our rights.

The authority is vested in the govt. If you are challenging the authority of govt. then you might want to find an uninhabited island and live there!




Why does it belong to the alaskans? They have done nothing to work the land, it's not any alaskans private property so no body owns it.

I just gave you the facts. Money from oil revenue reimbursed to the state is shared by all Alaskans in form of yearly divident check. Obviously the underlying assumption is that resource such as oil found on the public land belongs to all Alaskans.

You can disagree with the concept, it doesn't matter.



It does not belong to anyone, the Government claims it and enforces it with guns, not by right.

Govt. has the authority vested in it to enforce it. If not govt. Who else do you think would enforce it?



First off the US Governmnet IS not the Iraqi Government. Second off the new Iraqi Government is hardly a western Republic.

Third of all there is a moral difference between purposly initiating the use of force(and fraud) and the accidentle killing of innocents.

I did not say any of that. I said a puppet govt. can not protect its citizen rights and gave you Iraqi example.



So your definition of a free country is some "mob"acracy(democracy) where the will of the majority no matter how tyrannicle and destructive towards mans rights will always prevail.

Your sick, if this is the case.


Where did I use the word "mob"aracy? I was defining freedom with respect to a whole nation not just one person.
An independent nation and an independent individual are two different things.
Let me repeat the context, I said if Americans start prvitizing Iraqi economy and selling their assests then the Iraqi govt. can not be considered free.
I said it was their economy, let them do whatever they want to do with it. It is their choice, not yours to impose on them.

I am begining to see that your are right wing wacko.


PS: You claimed that Saddam stole the oil wells from American/Western companies, you did not answer my question in what time frame he usherped those oil wells from American/Western companies? Was it after gulf war of 1991 or before that? Just to remind you Saddam was an US ally from 1979 when he came into power upto 1990, when he invaded Kuwait. So its not likely that he could have taken over those wells in the 1979-1990 timeframe when he was an US ally.

Praxus
26 Jul 04,, 01:44
What an Individuals or group of Individuals own is their "private" property. Who owns the "public" property? The Govt. owns the public property! It is a very simple concept, not difficult to understand.
Who owns Grand Canyon? Yellowstone national park? Yosomite national Park?

NO BODY

A theif doesn't own my house but it doesn't mean they won't claim it.



If nobody owned public land then you would see all the oil comapnies drilling for oil in ANWAR, in fact drilling all over place!


That is such stupid logic. Just because an entitiy has control over a given location does not mean that it is their by right.


The authority is vested in the govt. If you are challenging the authority of govt. then you might want to find an uninhabited island and live there!

This is a non-sequitur and as such does not deserve a serious response.



I did not say any of that. I said a puppet govt. can not protect its citizen rights and gave you Iraqi example.

You said the US has killed civilians. You didn't say anything about the Iraqi Government. My statment is exactly how it should be.


Where did I use the word "mob"aracy? I was defining freedom with respect to a whole nation not just one person.
An independent nation and an independent individual are two different things.
Let me repeat the context, I said if Americans start prvitizing Iraqi economy and selling their assests then the Iraqi govt. can not be considered free.
I said it was their economy, let them do whatever they want to do with it. It is their choice, not yours to impose on them.

You said and I quote, "It's their economy, let them have the freedom to do what they want to do with their economy. If USA privitzes their economy, that would mean that they are not free."

You obviously believe that a free nation is one where the the majority can destroy the rights of the minority. From what you have said, you are implying that being a "free nation" is a good thing. My statement stands.


I am begining to see that your are right wing wacko.

Ading another logical falacy to your post is not going to help you.


PS: You claimed that Saddam stole the oil wells from American/Western companies, you did not answer my question in what time frame he usherped those oil wells from American/Western companies? Was it after gulf war of 1991 or before that? Just to remind you Saddam was an US ally from 1979 when he came into power upto 1990, when he invaded Kuwait. So its not likely that he could have taken over those wells in the 1979-1990 timeframe when he was an US ally.

In 1973 all the foreign oil companies were taken over by the government.

turnagainarm
26 Jul 04,, 04:35
NO BODY
A theif doesn't own my house but it doesn't mean they won't claim it.


Your house is your private property therefore only you have the right to your house, whereas public property belongs to everybody. It is not a hard concept to understand!



That is such stupid logic. Just because an entitiy has control over a given location does not mean that it is their by right.

Right to public property belongs to govt., it not a hard concept to understand.



You said the US has killed civilians. You didn't say anything about the Iraqi Government. My statment is exactly how it should be.

The puppet gvot. in the example was Iraqi govt. You seem to think that a puppet govt. can protect individual citizen rights, I don't. I gave the example of Iraqi citizens killed in US bombing and shooting, and Iraqi govt. not being able to protect them.



You said and I quote, "It's their economy, let them have the freedom to do what they want to do with their economy. If USA privitzes their economy, that would mean that they are not free."

You obviously believe that a free nation is one where the the majority can destroy the rights of the minority. From what you have said, you are implying that being a "free nation" is a good thing. My statement stands.

I am not saying that, what I am saying is that if US privitizes Iraqi economy then Iraqis can't be considered free. It is their economy let them do what they want to do with it.
Notice that I am not saying anything about majority/minority rights. You are making wrong assumptions.



In 1973 all the foreign oil companies were taken over by the government.

Actually the year was 1972 when Iraq re-nationalized its oil industry. Now Saddam did not become president of Iraq until 1979, I don't see on what basis you made the statement that Saddam stole the oil wells which were American/Western oil company property.
Again, American/Western oil companies did not "own" oil wells/fields, they worked under contract/lease, and at the time of re-nationalization in 1972 these lease/contracts were terminated.

Praxus
26 Jul 04,, 15:13
Your house is your private property therefore only you have the right to your house, whereas public property belongs to everybody. It is not a hard concept to understand!

That was not the point of my example. My point was that the just because the Government does it, it does not mean they have the right to do it.


Right to public property belongs to govt., it not a hard concept to understand.

Please tell me why the Government has this right.



The puppet gvot. in the example was Iraqi govt. You seem to think that a puppet govt. can protect individual citizen rights, I don't. I gave the example of Iraqi citizens killed in US bombing and shooting, and Iraqi govt. not being able to protect them.

You have yet to prove that it can't.


I am not saying that, what I am saying is that if US privitizes Iraqi economy then Iraqis can't be considered free. It is their economy let them do what they want to do with it.


Again you are essentially saying that an Iraqi dictator or the Iraqi majority has a right to do whatever they want, just as long as their Iraqi.


Notice that I am not saying anything about majority/minority rights. You are making wrong assumptions.

No I'm making a logical inferance.



Again, American/Western oil companies did not "own" oil wells/fields, they worked under contract/lease, and at the time of re-nationalization in 1972 these lease/contracts were terminated.

The Government didn't have the right to contract or lease the oil fields because they didn't own them in the first place!


Actually the year was 1972 when Iraq re-nationalized its oil industry. Now Saddam did not become president of Iraq until 1979, I don't see on what basis you made the statement that Saddam stole the oil wells which were American/Western oil company property.

That is such a petty little detail. The fact is that their Government destroyed the private property rights of private western companies.

So Saddam didn't personally issue the order to Nationalize the oil industrty, but he certainly kept it going under his regime.

turnagainarm
27 Jul 04,, 22:50
That was not the point of my example. My point was that the just because the Government does it, it does not mean they have the right to do it.


Yes they have the right under the constitutional provision. Ask yourself if govt. does not have the right then who is the bigger authority than govt. in any country?




Please tell me why the Government has this right.

Govt. has the right because it is the ultimate authority within the boundary of a nation. If govt. will not have this right, then who else will have?





You have yet to prove that it can't.

Since you are having a hard time understanding Iraqi example of why a puppet govt. can not protect rights of its civilian, let me try to explain to by a hypothetical example in American context.

Say for example the Canadian liberal govt. does not approve of conservative Bush administration and decides to do a regime change in Washington. So Canada invades US and conquers the Washignton DC in 3 weeks and installs a liberal puppet govt. with Howard Dean as president! In the meantime American patriots like living in Florida mount a counter insurgency operation against the occupying Canadian forces. Canada bombs insurgent hideouts in Florida and in the process kills scores of civilians as "collateral damage". President of the puppet govt. Howard Dean has no say Canada descison to bomb Florida.
Is puppet govt. of Howard Dean protecting American civilian rights?

Hopefully this example should make it clear to you why puppet govt. cant protect the rights of its citizen!





Again you are essentially saying that an Iraqi dictator or the Iraqi majority has a right to do whatever they want, just as long as their Iraqi.

Yes. By the same token Americans have the right to do with their economy whatever they want. The same principle apply to all sovereign countries.





The Government didn't have the right to contract or lease the oil fields because they didn't own them in the first place!

Public land and resources occuring on such land is controlled by the govt. as far as I can tell in all countries including US of A.



That is such a petty little detail. The fact is that their Government destroyed the private property rights of private western companies.

So Saddam didn't personally issue the order to Nationalize the oil industrty, but he certainly kept it going under his regime.

You were simply wrong to say that Saddam stole the oil wells from the Americans/Western oil companies, and for the umpteen times those oil wells/fields were not the privatre property of American/Western oil companies. Read IronDuke post above.


PS: It seems we are not gonna agree on the issues we are discussing, so let us just agree to disagree on these issues. I have had enough of this topic, it seems I am repeating myself over and over!

Praxus
28 Jul 04,, 01:53
Yes they have the right under the constitutional provision. Ask yourself if govt. does not have the right then who is the bigger authority than govt. in any country?

Rights are not derived from constitution pervisions, but rather our nature.


Govt. has the right because it is the ultimate authority within the boundary of a nation. If govt. will not have this right, then who else will have?

This is a none answer.



Hopefully this example should make it clear to you why puppet govt. cant protect the rights of its citizen!

No it doesn't.

I can say that "A meteor might hit a free country, therefor I shouldn't create a free country" but that doesn't mean it has any basis in reality or even makes any sense.


Yes. By the same token Americans have the right to do with their economy whatever they want. The same principle apply to all sovereign countries.

So your saying that a dictator or majority, can rape, murder, loot, and pillage by right??


Public land and resources occuring on such land is controlled by the govt. as far as I can tell in all countries including US of A.

Prove to me that the Government has a right to that land. Your statement is based on a logical fallacy(argument ad populum). You are saying that simply because countries do it, it makes it right.


You were simply wrong to say that Saddam stole the oil wells from the Americans/Western oil companies, and for the umpteen times those oil wells/fields were not the privatre property of American/Western oil companies. Read IronDuke post above.

You are building a strawman. You are attacking the weakest part of my argument while ignoring the main purpose of it being stated. It doesn't matter that Saddam himself didn't order the confiscation. What matters is that what was soon to be his Government did!


PS: It seems we are not gonna agree on the issues we are discussing, so let us just agree to disagree on these issues. I have had enough of this topic, it seems I am repeating myself over and over!

No, it seems to me you are unable to properly defend your arguments.

turnagainarm
28 Jul 04,, 05:38
Rights are not derived from constitution pervisions, but rather our nature.

Rights and duties of citizens and the govt. is defined by the consititution of the country. You have a right to free speech under the provision of constitution of US, it does not matter wheather it is in your nature or not. If tomorrow US constitution is ammended and right to free speech withdrawn, and you still try to excercise free speech you will be breaking the law.



This is a none answer.

Answer me this, who is the highest authority in a country? I would say govt. Now if you think govt. is not the highest authority, then who is?




No it doesn't.
I can say that "A meteor might hit a free country, therefor I shouldn't create a free country" but that doesn't mean it has any basis in reality or even makes any sense.

Do you understand that as long as you are occupying a foreign country that country can not be considered a free country? A puppet govt. in an occupied country simply can not protect the rights of its citizen, since it is doing the bidding of the occupying govt.

Go back to my example, if Howard Dean, installed as a puppet president of US by the liberal Canadians, does not save your from being bombed by Canadians, would that mean he is protecting your rights? I would say he is not protecting your rights.



So your saying that a dictator or majority, can rape, murder, loot, and pillage by right??

I have not said that at all. Can you point out where I have said that?

What I have been saying that a sovereign country has the right do make decision about its own economy wheather to privitize public assests or keep it public. You and I should not try to impose our views on them. Because if we force our views on them then they can not be considered truely sovereign and free.



Prove to me that the Government has a right to that land. Your statement is based on a logical fallacy(argument ad populum). You are saying that simply because countries do it, it makes it right.

Who owns public property of any country? Who owns Grand Canyon? Yellowstone National Park?
I would reckon that the govt. does. If you think otherwise, then tell me who does?



You are building a strawman. You are attacking the weakest part of my argument while ignoring the main purpose of it being stated. It doesn't matter that Saddam himself didn't order the confiscation. What matters is that what was soon to be his Government did!

The Iraqi oil wells and oilfields were not the private property of the American/Western oil comapanies. They could lease them and operate them, but could not own them, that is how it works in most countries.

Praxus
28 Jul 04,, 14:33
Rights and duties of citizens and the govt. is defined by the consititution of the country. You have a right to free speech under the provision of constitution of US, it does not matter wheather it is in your nature or not. If tomorrow US constitution is ammended and right to free speech withdrawn, and you still try to excercise free speech you will be breaking the law.

There is a difference between rights and law. Rights are objective, because they are required for man to live qua man. The law can be whatever the Government wants it to be, but it should be designed to protect man's rights.


Answer me this, who is the highest authority in a country? I would say govt. Now if you think govt. is not the highest authority, then who is?

That doesn't give them the right to do what they do, and you have not proven that they do have this right.


Do you understand that as long as you are occupying a foreign country that country can not be considered a free country? A puppet govt. in an occupied country simply can not protect the rights of its citizen, since it is doing the bidding of the occupying govt.

You still have not explain to me why it is inherant in the nature of "puppet governments" to not allow the exsistence of a free country.

I define a free country as one where it's people are protected from from the initiation of force and fraud. This can exsist under a puppet Government.


Go back to my example, if Howard Dean, installed as a puppet president of US by the liberal Canadians, does not save your from being bombed by Canadians, would that mean he is protecting your rights? I would say he is not protecting your rights.


I already explained why this example is rediculus.


I have not said that at all. Can you point out where I have said that?

What I have been saying that a sovereign country has the right do make decision about its own economy wheather to privitize public assests or keep it public. You and I should not try to impose our views on them. Because if we force our views on them then they can not be considered truely sovereign and free.

Yes you did say that, just not in that many words.

You said and I quote, "Yes. By the same token Americans have the right to do with their economy whatever they want. The same principle apply to all sovereign countries."

Yes you are saying they have the right to loot, murder, and plunder. You are saying they have the right to run whatever kind of economic system they want. Obviously one hell of a lot of economic systems(statist/collectivst ones) allow for loot, murder, and plunder.



Who owns public property of any country? Who owns Grand Canyon? Yellowstone National Park?
I would reckon that the govt. does. If you think otherwise, then tell me who does?

I am not arguing about who claims to own them, I am making a point and that point is that a Government has no right to own any land outside the land required to defend our rights given the fact that the Government has our money taken by force.


The Iraqi oil wells and oilfields were not the private property of the American/Western oil comapanies. They could lease them and operate them, but could not own them, that is how it works in most countries.

What part of the fact that the Governments never had a right to lease them in the first place and the fact that the companies have a right to claim this land which is owned by no one. This is the point you should be trying to refute.

Christine
13 Aug 04,, 11:50
A Draft should never be implemented again. Unfortunately, the more I read between the lines of our politicians in general, not only are we having a back door draft right now but I am sure that who ever wins this ELECTION is not going to bring our troops back anytime soon. You are not overreacting at all. Secondly, not everyone is fit to be in the military and as how someone else already replied: the minute we do it, is the same minute we are going to lose our war in the Middle East and everywhere else. :frown:






With the shortage of troops in the US military I was wondering if we should bring back the draft. Is it necessary or are a few people (including myself) just overreacting? I personally dont want the draft (as I would be elligable in 2 years). If we must bring the draft back I say we make people either join the military, law enforcement, fire/rescue, or nursing. When have we had drafts in history? 1862 - 65 and 1940 - 1975? Also, what major powers still have the draft system?

Rudolphuss
13 Aug 04,, 13:39
Also, what major powers still have the draft system?
Russia has a draft system.

ChrisF202
13 Aug 04,, 14:06
Russia has a draft system.
France had it till 1996 and I belive Britian had it until the 1980's sometime. Israel also still has it.

Trooth
15 Aug 04,, 00:00
France had it till 1996 and I belive Britian had it until the 1980's sometime. Israel also still has it.

If you are referring to National Service, the last National Serviceman was discharged in 1963 in the UK.

Several Scandinavian countries, as well as Switzerland have a period of national service too.

ChrisF202
15 Aug 04,, 00:24
If you are referring to National Service, the last National Serviceman was discharged in 1963 in the UK.

Several Scandinavian countries, as well as Switzerland have a period of national service too.
Thanks for the correction. I found a website with a list of countries that still have the draft, ill try and dig it up.

Confed999
15 Aug 04,, 05:39
not only are we having a back door draft right now
What is a back door draft?

griftadan
20 Aug 04,, 04:35
With the shortage of troops in the US military I was wondering if we should bring back the draft. Is it necessary or are a few people (including myself) just overreacting? I personally dont want the draft (as I would be elligable in 2 years). If we must bring the draft back I say we make people either join the military, law enforcement, fire/rescue, or nursing. When have we had drafts in history? 1862 - 65 and 1940 - 1975? Also, what major powers still have the draft system?

me too, i just turned 17; it kind of gives you extra incentive to get into college, doesnt it?

Ray
20 Aug 04,, 05:54
Praxus,

Your debate on public land and private property is indeed interesting.

Can I build a house smack in the middle of a freeway or a Highway? After all a highway or a freeway is owned by no one as per your definition.

What's the difference between a squatter and a private owner?

AussieSoldier
11 Sep 04,, 10:48
me too, i just turned 17; it kind of gives you extra incentive to get into college, doesnt it?

I was 17 when I joined the military and I got accepted into law at university, I could be driving a BMW, fucking blonde sluts working in my uncles law firm probably nearly be partner by now but I chose not to. Hey two out of three aren't bad and I don't own a BMW. I am Australia and I thought two years national service for high school graduates would do wonders for my country until i talked to a crusty old warrent officer who had been around a bit more then me. He basically said, "I don't want those young punks who don't want to be here anyway, who would rather be smoking drugs and playing nintendo watching my back", I do agree with him because after 5 years since I left the hood back home, my mates are still doing that and in five years time, they probably still will. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. If they want to be here, they will join up or otherwise there's no real point.

Confed999
06 Oct 04,, 03:03
The Democrat sponsored draft bill was "killed" today.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6422347

Praxus
06 Oct 04,, 03:14
Praxus,

Your debate on public land and private property is indeed interesting.

Can I build a house smack in the middle of a freeway or a Highway? After all a highway or a freeway is owned by no one as per your definition.

Sure you could by right, but the question is, is it in your interest to do so?

Of course not.


What's the difference between a squatter and a private owner?

Say there is an unclaimed peice of land. The first one to claim it and use it owns it.

Franco Lolan
07 Oct 04,, 04:15
a lil late:
rights are "inalienable" "from God"
law of the land is the Constitution
if Constitution does not uphold rights, it ceases to be representative of the social contract and the ppl have a moral imperative to overthrow it
thats the logic in the US