Draft Dodging and Cowardice [Archive] - Comic Book Resources Forums

Dan Apodaca

11-09-2005, 03:51 PM

He may heve refused the draft, but this is perhaps one of my biggest reasons for supporting the decision: He didn't dodge the draft and flee to Canada like so many others- he stood up for what he believed in, stood his ground, and ultimately paid the price for what he believed in.

Yeah, let's deride all the people who had to flee the country to escape forced servitude by their government. You know, not everybody was a celebrity athlete when the government called them to the suicide fields.

Joe Rice

11-09-2005, 03:54 PM

Yeah, let's deride all the people who had to flee the country to escape forced servitude by their government. You know, not everybody was a celebrity athlete when the government called them to the suicide fields.

But Ali got judicial punishment, while the guys that ran to Canada could just later come back and enjoy the freedom they refused to defend.

Hey, I might dodge, too, but let's call a spade a spade. Ali took his licks and made a statement. Dodgers ran like cowards and didn't suffer a whit.

Slam_Bradley

11-09-2005, 03:57 PM

But Ali got judicial punishment, while the guys that ran to Canada could just later come back and enjoy the freedom they refused to defend.

Hey, I might dodge, too, but let's call a spade a spade. Ali took his licks and made a statement. Dodgers ran like cowards and didn't suffer a whit.

Man you have been en fuego lately. I may be developing my first ever man-crush on you.

Tom

11-09-2005, 04:05 PM

Joe Rice

11-09-2005, 04:07 PM

Weren't the draft dodgers only allowed to come back after being pardoned? Wouldn't that make their stand at least slightly braver than people are implying here? They risked never being allowed back in their country again.

Maybe slightly, yeah. But still . . .they didn't get punished.

Listen, I see where they came from and might have joined them if I had the choice to make.

But the fact is, Ali did something braver than they did. He took a stand and took his punishment, both as befitting a man and a Kentuckian.

west3man

11-09-2005, 04:16 PM

Yeah, let's deride all the people who had to flee the country to escape forced servitude by their government. You know, not everybody was a celebrity athlete when the government called them to the suicide fields.
Never heard it put like that before.

I respect what Ali, but I think there are some significant differences between his situation and that of the average American who didn't wanna be drafted.

I don't think doing what you've gotta do to avoid that situation makes you a coward.

Joe Rice

11-09-2005, 04:18 PM

I don't think doing what you've gotta do to avoid that situation makes you a coward.

But it certainly makes you MORE cowardly than Ali, in this instance.

5'9" may or may not be short for a guy, but it's shorter than 6'3".

west3man

11-09-2005, 04:22 PM

But it certainly makes you MORE cowardly than Ali, in this instance.

5'9" may or may not be short for a guy, but it's shorter than 6'3".
Maybe.
Man of means and fame* takes a public, principled stand using those things.
Man of little means and no fame hauls ass for similar reasons.

All things being equal, I'd agree that they were "MORE cowardly" than Ali.

* - whose livelihood was provided the former thanks to the latter.

Calybos

11-09-2005, 04:36 PM

Maybe slightly, yeah. But still . . .they didn't get punished.

Why should they have been punished? You make it sound like their refusal to serve was somehow wrong.

Sure, Ali chose to act on his refusal in a different way--but why does that make him "braver"? Whoever dared to resist the government's crimes had to deal with consequences; his were quick and straightforward, that's all.

Joe Rice

11-09-2005, 04:38 PM

Why should they have been punished at all? You make it sound like their refusal to serve was somehow wrong.

I agree with it, but it was against the law. I'm all for social protest or what have you, but if it's illegal, pay the price. Makes a stronger statement of belief.

Beatnikman

11-09-2005, 04:39 PM

Dodgers ran like cowards and didn't suffer a whit.
And Punchy can't figure out why I hate the dodgers so much.

Joe Rice

11-09-2005, 04:40 PM

Why should they have been punished? You make it sound like their refusal to serve was somehow wrong.

Sure, Ali chose to act on his refusal in a different way--but why does that make him "braver"? Whoever dared to resist the government's crimes had to deal with consequences; his were quick and straightforward, that's all.

The draft was not a crime. Immoral, maybe, but that doesn't make it a crime.

Refusing the draft was a crime. Ali was punished for his crime and took it like a man. Dodgers ran away from punishment. I'll call the man who stands up and takes his licks braver any day.

Xiroteus

11-09-2005, 04:41 PM

Edit......

west3man

11-09-2005, 04:45 PM

There never should have been negative consequences for avoiding the draft, as there never should have been one, it should be as it is today, a choice, one cannot remove freedom and say you are fighting for it.
Saved me some typing. Thx.

Joe Rice

11-09-2005, 04:46 PM

People! I am not Mr. Mean Conservative here. I'm a pansy ass liberal that would probably dodge a draft himself.

The fact that I disagree with a law doesn't change the fact that it is a law.

And whether you agree with a law or not, the man who takes his punishment is braver than the man who runs from it.

Bravery doesn't mean everything, but it does exist and can be recognized.

Xiroteus

11-09-2005, 04:53 PM

Edit......

Adam Crocker

11-09-2005, 04:56 PM

The draft was not a crime. Immoral, maybe, but that doesn't make it a crime.

I'm failing to see your logic Joe. Yes taking the punishment might be braver, but implying they are somehow obligated to take it simply because an immoral law is still the law is questionable logic at best.

But Ali got judicial punishment, while the guys that ran to Canada could just later come back and enjoy the freedom they refused to defend.

What pre-tell did fighting in the Vietnam war have to do with defending freedom?

Joe Rice

11-09-2005, 04:59 PM

I tend to be more on the side of thinking there should be no negative consequences to anyone that avoids laws I disagree with, I am aware that the world cannot work well like that, and if one disagrees with a law one must try to have it changed rather then bypassing it all together.

The few laws I do disagree with are either minor or far apart.

Yeah, I'm not talking about "shoulds" or ideal worlds. One guy stood up to punishment, some guys didn't. I'd say the guy who took his punishment is braver than the ones that didn't. They all had good reasons, and I don't think the dodgers were jerks or wrong or anything, but the fact is, they avoided what he took.

Joe Rice

11-09-2005, 05:01 PM

I'm failing to see your logic Joe. Yes taking the punishment might be braver, but implying they are somehow obligated to take it simply because an immoral law is still the law is questionable logic at best.

That is my one and only point here.

What pre-tell did fighting in the Vietnam war have to do with defending freedom?

Nothing. I should have worded it differently. Ali disobeyed the law and took his punishment. Some dodgers disobeyed the law and ran from punishment until they were forgiven. They both had just cause. One showed more bravery. That is my one and only point, people. Stop with the righteous indignation. I wave the red flag with you, but that doesn't stop me from commending bravery.

BlairH

11-09-2005, 05:10 PM

I also think Ali had way more to loose than the "average" Joe Dodger. Remember he did loose what should have been two of his best boxing years.

Think of what the average American steel worker had to loose.

Dan Apodaca

11-09-2005, 05:13 PM

Dan Apodaca

11-09-2005, 05:15 PM

That is my one and only point here.

Nothing. I should have worded it differently. Ali disobeyed the law and took his punishment. Some dodgers disobeyed the law and ran from punishment until they were forgiven. They both had just cause. One showed more bravery. That is my one and only point, people. Stop with the righteous indignation. I wave the red flag with you, but that doesn't stop me from commending bravery.

Of course not. And I wouldn't disagree with you that facing punishment is braver than running away.

What I'm stipulating, though, is that he was in a position where he could afford to be more brave. Not that he was totally safe or escaped the whole ordeal unscathed.

I guess I got a little incensed at draft dodgers being called cowards.

StoneGold

11-09-2005, 05:17 PM

Whoo! This, along with StoneGold making with the Arrested Development references, is a great thread indeed.

It just goes to show you that Kentuckians are superior people and superior tread topics.
What do I have to do with Kentucky?

Joe Rice

11-09-2005, 05:19 PM

Of course not. And I wouldn't disagree with you that facing punishment is braver than running away.

What I'm stipulating, though, is that he was in a position where he could afford to be more brave. Not that he was totally safe or escaped the whole ordeal unscathed.

I guess I got a little incensed at draft dodgers being called cowards.

Some of my best friends are cowards.

If you run away from punishment, just or not, you're a coward.

Joe Rice

11-09-2005, 05:20 PM

What do I have to do with Kentucky?

Not a thing. But Cassius and I are natives.

By the way, I don't buy into the "more to lose" theory. He had equal amounts to lose.

Dan Apodaca

11-09-2005, 05:25 PM

Some of my best friends are cowards.

If you run away from punishment, just or not, you're a coward.

I don't know about that. I don't think that running away from unjust punishment makes you a coward. Especially if the party responsible for doling it out is unbeatable.

Joe Rice

11-09-2005, 05:26 PM

I don't know about that. I don't think that running away from unjust punishment makes you a coward. Especially if the party responsible for doling it out is unbeatable.

I call 'em like I see 'em.

Now, if you think I think there's something evil or wrong about being a coward, that's the mistake there. I think it's often smart to be a coward. I'm not particularly brave and wouldn't claim it.

BlairH

11-09-2005, 05:28 PM

A family?
Family will stick by you if they're worth their salt!

A home?
Homes can be sold and bought.

A job?
Is a privelage, not a right. Agreed?

A life?
People can survive "off the grid" if they so wish. Which is irrelevant of course because draft dodgers didn't actually have to do so. They simply returned to the US when they were oficially pardoned.

BlairH

11-09-2005, 05:29 PM

I think it's often smart to be a coward. I'm not particularly brave and wouldn't claim it.
Cowardice can save your life. Self preservation is a basic human instinct. Perfectly natural.

Dan Apodaca

11-09-2005, 05:30 PM

I call 'em like I see 'em.

Now, if you think I think there's something evil or wrong about being a coward, that's the mistake there. I think it's often smart to be a coward. I'm not particularly brave and wouldn't claim it.

Well, it should be noted that Blair definitely seems to think there's something evil or wrong about being a coward. That's the notion I was responding to.

But your point is definitely understood.

Adam Crocker

11-09-2005, 05:33 PM

Family will stick by you if they're worth their salt!

Homes can be sold and bought.

Is a privelage, not a right. Agreed?

People can survive "off the grid" if they so wish. Which is irrelevant of course because draft dodgers didn't actually have to do so. They simply returned to the US when they were oficially pardoned.

Blair, to be frank your argument here is inane. You basically trivialized the process of uprooting one's life with a series of simplistic dismissives about giving up ones home, job, their lives, etc. that don't actually address the full gravity of making these sacrifices.

Dan Apodaca

11-09-2005, 05:35 PM

Family will stick by you if they're worth their salt!

Sometimes your wife isn't worth her salt and can affect your children's view of you. Sometimes losing someone hurts just as bad whether it was for the best or not.

Homes can be sold and bought.

No, houses can be sold or bought. Homes are made. And that doesn't come easy.

Is a privelage, not a right. Agreed?

Still no. As long as food and shelter costs money, people deserve to work if they wish to.

People can survive "off the grid" if they so wish. Which is irrelevant of course because draft dodgers didn't actually have to do so. They simply returned to the US when they were oficially pardoned.

Not survival. I'm not talking about having "life". I'm talking about having a life. When you're living in a foreign country as a fugitive, that's not having a life. That's an existence of fear and distrust.

BlairH

11-09-2005, 05:40 PM

No, houses can be sold or bought. Homes are made. And that doesn't come easy.
Quite right. Same goes for the GIs in 'Nam too

Still no. As long as food and shelter costs money, people deserve to work if they wish to.

There is no legal basis for this. Especially for those on the run from the law. Yes their "crimes" may be trivial. Yes, the charges may be unjust, but work isn't a "right" or something you "deserve".

Not survival. I'm not talking about having "life". I'm talking about having a life. When you're living in a foreign country as a fugitive, that's not having a life. That's an existence of fear and distrust.
Which is a bit more than what some of the guys who took the draft have. Some of them lie dead in unmarked graves. Some of them are still "missing". Some of the guys who came home will never be the same again. In comparison to these men, the draft dodgers have it easy. Still this is perhaps proof that draft dodging was the smart move.

Dan Apodaca

11-09-2005, 05:49 PM

Quite right. Same goes for the GIs in 'Nam too

Yep. That war caused a lot of damage.

There is no legal basis for this. Especially for those on the run from the law. Yes their "crimes" may be trivial. Yes, the charges may be unjust, but work isn't a "right" or something you "deserve".

No, there's no legal basis because that would translate into forcing employers to hire people. I don't think that anyone is in favor of that. It's just that some people would prefer if employers were forced not to discriminate against people in an unjust fashion.

It may not be something that anyone "deserves", but it is something that everyone deserves.

Which is a bit more than what some of the guys who took the draft have. Some of them lie dead in unmarked graves. Some of them are still "missing". Some of the guys who came home will never be the same again. In comparison to these men, the draft dodgers have it easy. Still this is perhaps proof that draft dodging was the smart move.

If you're arguing that draft dodgers has it easier than the soldiers forced to fight...

I'd question the point. Does it really matter who had it easier, when they both suffered?

Hmm. I think I just reprimanded myself for my first comment about Ali. Something to think about...

west3man

11-09-2005, 05:59 PM

Cowardice implies ignoble fear. People who refuse to serve aren't necessarily doing so because of fear. Making such sacrifices hardly seems ignoble.

BlairH

11-09-2005, 05:59 PM

It may not be something that anyone "deserves", but it is something that everyone deserves.
Even fugitives?

If you're arguing that draft dodgers has it easier than the soldiers forced to fight...

The VC were less kind than the US gov't/ employers/housing associations/banks etc.

I'd question the point. Does it really matter who had it easier, when they both suffered?

One sufferring pales in comparison t'other. A papercut is less severe than a stab wound.

BlairH

11-09-2005, 06:01 PM

Cowardice implies ignoble fear. People who refuse to serve aren't necessarily doing so because of fear. Making such sacrifices hardly seems ignoble.

hmmm, it is true that loads refused to fight due to religious/social reasons.

Joe Rice

11-09-2005, 06:24 PM

Cowardice implies ignoble fear. People who refuse to serve aren't necessarily doing so because of fear. Making such sacrifices hardly seems ignoble.

Refusing to fight doesn't make them cowards in my book. It makes them righteous.

Refusing to take the law of the land's punishment for not fighting, that's more cowardly.

Dan Apodaca

11-09-2005, 06:27 PM

Even fugitives?

Yes. Not all law is just. And even in prison, there is work to be done.

One sufferring pales in comparison t'other. A papercut is less severe than a stab wound.

No. Suffering is suffering. This isn't a comparison of physical pain, this a comparison of emotional and psychological trauma. Since the severity of that is partially determined by the patient, it's not a fair analogy.

howyadoin

11-09-2005, 06:41 PM

Refusing the draft was a crime. Ali was punished for his crime and took it like a man. Dodgers ran away from punishment.You think it was the punishment they ran from? I thought it was death in Vietnam they ran from.

Maybe it's a generational thing.

Adam Crocker

11-09-2005, 06:54 PM

Which is a bit more than what some of the guys who took the draft have. Some of them lie dead in unmarked graves. Some of them are still "missing". Some of the guys who came home will never be the same again. In comparison to these men, the draft dodgers have it easy. Still this is perhaps proof that draft dodging was the smart move.

Perhaps, but as it stands you basically went and trivialized the sacrifices involved of someone who is rooted in giving up their life and fleeing to a foriegn country. Homes are made and they are things you have an emotional attachment to. And maybe there isn't time to sell the house since you got to get the fuck out dodge. And this ties into having a life, with a family, with friends, with social attachments, a job that provides you and them with income. And a family may be worth its salt, but they're going to go through their own trials getting uprooted as well, or they might be conflicted about the whole thing and it tears the family apart. And crossing the border could also entail not seeing your country again or friends there since it wasn't obvious they'd be pardoned later on.

And maybe someone crossing the border isn't giving up these things either because they are not as rooted. But you defended the statement from the assumption that the person leaving was, and you did so by trivializing what it entails. And that's a crap argument right there.

BlairH

11-10-2005, 05:41 AM

Perhaps, but as it stands you basically went and trivialized the sacrifices involved of someone who is rooted in giving up their life and fleeing to a foriegn country. Homes are made and they are things you have an emotional attachment to. And maybe there isn't time to sell the house since you got to get the fuck out dodge. And this ties into having a life, with a family, with friends, with social attachments, a job that provides you and them with income. And a family may be worth its salt, but they're going to go through their own trials getting uprooted as well, or they might be conflicted about the whole thing and it tears the family apart. And crossing the border could also entail not seeing your country again or friends there since it wasn't obvious they'd be pardoned later on.
I'm not saying it isn't harsh, but the GIs had to undergo all that and a whole lot more. They lost their houses, their friends, some of them even lost family (a lot of girls wouldn't "wait". Wasn't the divorce rate in the USMC something like 80%?)

And maybe someone crossing the border isn't giving up these things either because they are not as rooted. But you defended the statement from the assumption that the person leaving was, and you did so by trivializing what it entails. And that's a crap argument right there.
To be fair if they're leaving of their own voliation it's obviously a choice they made. To them it was the best option from various alternatives. Some guys like Ali could have fled but he decided (again of his own voliation) to take a stand, that counts for something in my book.

Adam Crocker

11-10-2005, 06:15 AM

I'm not saying it isn't harsh, but the GIs had to undergo all that and a whole lot more. They lost their houses, their friends, some of them even lost family (a lot of girls wouldn't "wait". Wasn't the divorce rate in the USMC something like 80%?)

I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the way you initially put it down to "what does a steelworker have to lose?" in comparison to Ali and then wrote off any possible loss, which is what most people would consider the foundations of having a life in North America, as being trifling. It's about thoughtless as me saying "What did Ali give up? He had his celebrity, reputation as a great boxer, as well as the money he made from boxing to come back to after getting out of prison. Does the average draft dodger who fled to Canada or GI have that?" And for the record he did, though that's poor way of putting it since his career (and ability to restart it) as well as his reputation could've been damaged by being sent to prison. Moreover, he still gave up his freedom for a period of two years to stand up for what he believed in, which means his actions do count.

The problem was that your statements acted as though uprooting one's life to escape being drafted into war by the government, even possibly at the cost of things like family, friends, financial security, home, etc. as though it didn't count at all. If you weren't saying it wasn't harsh, I couldn't tell from your earlier statements.

Wesley Dodds

11-10-2005, 06:19 AM

Sticking around so someone can punish you for not doing something that's wrong is retarded.

BlairH

11-10-2005, 06:20 AM

Sticking around so someone can punish you for not doing something that's wrong is retarded.
To you maybe.
To me, it's called "facing the music".

Wesley Dodds

11-10-2005, 06:22 AM

To you maybe.
To me, it's called "facing the music".

You face the music when you've done something wrong. You can't face the music for doing the right thing.

I think your near-sexual mania for punishment is making you see wrongdoing where there isn't any. Dirty, dirty boys have to be punished, punished, punished.

Fabian

11-10-2005, 06:23 AM

To you maybe.
To me, it's called "facing the music".
Even if the law is considered unjust? I'm sure there's people on these boards who've broken some of the dumb state laws they have.

BlairH

11-10-2005, 06:25 AM

You face the music when you've done something wrong. You can't face the music for doing the right thing.
Sure you can. Plus it's debatable if it was the "right thing" or the "wrong thing". I don't particularly like to talk about the morality or not of the draft, nor do I profess to have much of an opinion on the draft as practiced in the US decades before I was born.

I think your near-sexual mania for punishment is making you see wrongdoing where there isn't any. Dirty, dirty boys have to be punished, punished, punished.
Well, that brings me back to my pet "projectionist theory of politicts" essay that Tages likes to post.

west3man

11-10-2005, 06:31 AM

Even if the law is considered unjust? I'm sure there's people on these boards who've broken some of the dumb state laws they have.Yup.

One could say that those who were involved in peaceful protests, but ran when hoses were aimed at them and dogs were sicced (sp?) on them, weren't "facing the music."

Like Fabian said, "unjust."

Wesley Dodds

11-10-2005, 06:36 AM

Sure you can. Plus it's debatable if it was the "right thing" or the "wrong thing". I don't particularly like to talk about the morality or not of the draft, nor do I profess to have much of an opinion on the draft as practiced in the US decades before I was born.

Firstly, as I said before, you can't face the music for doing the right thing. "Face the music" implies you've done something wrong and you're facing up to the punishment you deserve. It doesn't make any sense unless you've done something wrong first.

Secondly, both the draft and the war were wrong. The draft was wrong because the war wasn't for America's security, except in the most tenuous sense. The war was wrong because it killed many innocent people even though American policymakers knew the chance of success there was slender (acknowledged in policy papers, which is why Johnson's decision to escalate in Vietnam has been studied as an example of groupthink).

So, Ali? In the clear -- he didn't have to stick around.

Joe Rice

11-10-2005, 06:41 AM

Wesley Dodds

11-10-2005, 06:42 AM

I don't think I'm talking about just laws or unjust laws. I'm saying that if you knowingly break a law, even out of protest, accepting the punishment for doing so is braver than not doing so.

I cannot imagine how this is arguable.

I'll try!

OK. If you know a law is wrong and you break that law in protest, accepting punishment for breaking that law gives it legitimacy.

Joe Rice

11-10-2005, 06:44 AM

I'll try!

OK. If you know a law is wrong and you break that law in protest, accepting punishment for breaking that law gives it legitimacy.

No, it gives you legitimacy.

Nonviolent protestors that get hauled of for a night in the clink make more of an impact than people who run when the cops show up.

west3man

11-10-2005, 06:47 AM

I don't think I'm talking about just laws or unjust laws. I'm saying that if you knowingly break a law, even out of protest, accepting the punishment for doing so is braver than not doing so.

I cannot imagine how this is arguable.
If I may tweak your earlier example, I think this comes down to something I've never heard a name for:

If one grown man is 4'11" tall and another is 5'1" tall, the second man is taller than the first, but he's not tall.

Similarly, someone who leaves the country to evade the draft may be MORE cowardly than someone else who stays in-country, but he's not necessarily a coward.

Joe Rice

11-10-2005, 06:48 AM

If I may tweak your earlier example, I think this comes down to something I've never heard a name for:

If one grown man is 4'11" tall and another is 5'1" tall, the second man is taller than the first, but he's not tall.

Similarly, someone who leaves the country to evade the draft may be MORE cowardly than someone else who stays in-country, but he's not necessarily a coward.

I can hang with that.

Davideaux

11-10-2005, 06:49 AM

I'll try!

OK. If you know a law is wrong and you break that law in protest, accepting punishment for breaking that law gives it legitimacy.

However, your cause gains strength by being imprisoned unjustly. If protesters who got arrested for sit-ins weren't hauled in to jail, their protest would be without impact.

Getting arrested is a good marketing plan for a social cause.

Flawless P

11-10-2005, 11:09 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051104/us_nm/medals_dc_2

Personally I'm in favour of the decision. He may heve refused the draft, but this is perhaps one of my biggest reasons for supporting the decision: He didn't dodge the draft and flee to Canada like so many others- he stood up for what he believed in, stood his ground, and ultimately paid the price for what he believed in. Said price was indeed a hefty one in that he lost TWO of his PRIME years as a professional boxer!

Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee!

Blair is a big fan of Mohammed.
All I could think after I read this was that you should have added Ali after Mohammad to make it ryhme! lol

gary bolt

11-10-2005, 11:12 AM

When I was in college the head of my department was a draft dodger and so are several other teachers and prominent people in the glass art scene here in Canada (the profession I'm in). I don't think any of the drafts dodgers I've spoken with made the decision to leave the U.S. lightly. Many of them weren't able to their families for years after they left. They simply thought that their government was so wrong to be in Vietnam that they wouldn't fight.

Similar things are going on today, too. I hear of all kinds of American families (with money obviously) buying property and homes in the Victoria area and on the Gulf Islands so that if the draft comes back they can move up here to protect their kids from conscription.

BlairH

11-10-2005, 11:25 AM

Similar things are going on today, too. I hear of all kinds of American families (with money obviously) buying property and homes in the Victoria area and on the Gulf Islands so that if the draft comes back they can move up here to protect their kids from conscription.
I can more or less guarentee that the draft will never come back (unless there is a nuclear exchange in the ME or whatever)

Boldido

11-10-2005, 11:42 AM

No, it gives you legitimacy.

Nonviolent protestors that get hauled of for a night in the clink make more of an impact than people who run when the cops show up.

You are right as rain Joe. We seem to be living in an age where people believe in civil disobedience but think that there should be no consequences for those who engage in it. By its very nature, those who engage in acts of civil disobedience did so knowing that they would face punishment. That is what made their sacrifice so admirable and so courageous.

If people take the risk for something that they believe in, they should do so knowing that they face punishment for that. To whine and cry shows a lack of dignity and detracts from the power and courage of the protest.

Wesley Dodds

11-10-2005, 12:18 PM

You are right as rain Joe. We seem to be living in an age where people believe in civil disobedience but think that there should be no consequences for those who engage in it. By its very nature, those who engage in acts of civil disobedience did so knowing that they would face punishment. That is what made their sacrifice so admirable and so courageous.

If you're commiting a crime as protest, yes. So, people who break windows to protest globalisation should pay the appropriate penalty for that. But in this case Ali's "civil disobdience" was refusing to obey an unjust law. I see no reason why Ali should have had to pay the penalty for breaking a law that was wrong.

Slam_Bradley

11-10-2005, 12:29 PM

You think it was the punishment they ran from? I thought it was death in Vietnam they ran from.

Maybe it's a generational thing.

We're closer to the same generation, Howy, and I pretty much agree with Joe's interpretation. Nobody was going to MAKE them fight in 'Nam if they were persistant in not doing so. They may have ended up in prison or the stockade...but if they were determined they weren't going to end up on the battlefield.

Slam_Bradley

11-10-2005, 12:35 PM

You are right as rain Joe. We seem to be living in an age where people believe in civil disobedience but think that there should be no consequences for those who engage in it. By its very nature, those who engage in acts of civil disobedience did so knowing that they would face punishment. That is what made their sacrifice so admirable and so courageous.

If people take the risk for something that they believe in, they should do so knowing that they face punishment for that. To whine and cry shows a lack of dignity and detracts from the power and courage of the protest.

That's beautiful, Man.

Wesley Dodds

11-10-2005, 12:38 PM

But we all agree that if not the war then at least the draft was wrong -- why should he accept punishment for a law that's wrong?

Boldido

11-10-2005, 12:38 PM

Erebus

11-10-2005, 12:39 PM

I definetly respect Ali, and I think that standing up for his rights was a brave and honorable thing to do. However, I think that if Ali gets a medal for doing what he believed, then a lot of other people should deserve for the Medal of Freedom, but they dont't have it. Elvis Presley, although one of the greatest mucisians ever, had the courage to serve his draft and stand up to protect his country. Bono has helped millions of people in Africa, inspireing millions of others to help as well. There are others such as Malcom X, Jesse Jackson, and lots of others. I'm not saying that Ali doesnt deserve it, I'm just saying that there are lots of other people who deserve the medal just as much as Ali.

west3man

11-10-2005, 12:39 PM

But we all agree that if not the war then at least the draft was wrong -- why should he accept punishment for a law that's wrong?
You shouldn't.

You do so if it furthers your goal and if you choose to. That's it.

Protesting a bad thing doesn't mean you oughta suffer another bad thing. That may mean that people think less of you, but that's on them.

west3man

11-10-2005, 12:41 PM

Those who benefited from conscription by enjoying the freedoms conscripted soldiers bought for them in previous conflicts but ran when it was their time to serve were cowards. Those who defied conscription because they felt the war was immoral but faced the consequences of their moral choice were not.
Those two groups overlap.

Boldido

11-10-2005, 12:41 PM

But we all agree that if not the war then at least the draft was wrong -- why should he accept punishment for a law that's wrong?

No. I think more people would agree that the war was immoral but that conscription is not.

Boldido

11-10-2005, 12:43 PM

Those two groups overlap.

I don't see it that way. One group ran to Canada. The other stayed in their country and deomonstrated the courage of their convictions.

howyadoin

11-10-2005, 12:58 PM

Nonviolent protestors that get hauled of for a night in the clink make more of an impact than people who run when the cops show up.Do you seriously think that's what happened to people who protested the war in Vietnam? Just a quiet night in jail, and then back on the street?

No tear gas? No dogs, no billy clubs? No shootings?

howyadoin

11-10-2005, 01:02 PM

Elvis Presley, although one of the greatest mucisians ever, had the courage to serve his draft and stand up to protect his country.From what?

Joe Rice

11-10-2005, 01:04 PM

But we all agree that if not the war then at least the draft was wrong -- why should he accept punishment for a law that's wrong?

Because you broke the law. We don't individually get to decide which laws are wrong and which are right. We raise the issue, debate the issue, but the law is still the law until it is changed.

Joe Rice

11-10-2005, 01:05 PM

Do you seriously think that's what happened to people who protested the war in Vietnam? Just a quiet night in jail, and then back on the street?

No tear gas? No dogs, no billy clubs? No shootings?

I'm not talking about protesters. I'd say they were brave, especially the ones facing that.

I'm talking about runners. The ones who didn't fight, didn't go to jail, didn't do anything.

west3man

11-10-2005, 01:06 PM

Because you broke the law. We don't individually get to decide which laws are wrong and which are right.
You get to choose which laws to follow (i.e. breaking some by one's method of protesting), but not which ones to suffer under?

That contradicts the very idea of such protests (including choosing not to fight in a war).

Joe Rice

11-10-2005, 01:10 PM

You get to choose which laws to follow (i.e. breaking some by one's method of protesting), but not which ones to suffer under?

That contradicts the very idea of such protests (including choosing not to fight in a war).

No, it doesn't.

You think a law is unjust, protest it. Organize, get it changed.

Until it's changed, it's the law. If you break it and you get caught, you will pay a price and that's fair dinkum.

Slam: I could never, ever run for office. There exists . . .footage. That's all I can say.

west3man

11-10-2005, 01:38 PM

No, it doesn't.

You think a law is unjust, protest it. Organize, get it changed.

Until it's changed, it's the law. If you break it and you get caught, you will pay a price and that's fair dinkum.

Slam: I could never, ever run for office. There exists . . .footage. That's all I can say.
I'll thank you to keep your dinkum to yourself, sir. In fact, put it away. You're gonna give the rest of us a complex.
Your dinkum, aside*, we're still talking about breaking a law to protest a law, then being subject to punishment, according to the law.

You say,"We don't individually get to decide which laws are wrong and which are right."
That's just what Ali did.

* - I just wanted to say it, again.

BlairH

11-10-2005, 02:00 PM

From what?

Correct me if I'm wrong but did Elvis serve in Korea? If this is the case then yes, he was definately in a just war (Imagine a world where ALL of Korea is Communist like the North)

Adam Crocker

11-10-2005, 02:03 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong but did Elvis serve in Korea? If this is the case then yes, he was definately in a just war (Imagine a world where ALL of Korea is Communist like the North)

No, he did not. He served in Germany as an ordinary soldier, but he never saw combat.

BlairH

11-10-2005, 02:04 PM

He served in Germany as an ordinary soldier, but he never saw combat.

Ah well. In that case...
Was he voluenteer or draftee?

howyadoin

11-10-2005, 02:04 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong but did Elvis serve in Korea?Okay. You're wrong.

Adam Crocker

11-10-2005, 02:14 PM

Ah well. In that case...
Was he voluenteer or draftee?

Draftee, though he didn't take any steps to avoid it either despite the fact that his wealth and connections probably could've gotten him out. Nor did he try to take an easy domestic position in the Special Services that would have allowed him to continue singing and maintain a public profile.

K'Nort

11-10-2005, 06:57 PM

There are a lot more layers than everyone either hid out in Canada or got traumatized in Vietnam. Some people avoided the draft and stayed home and employed and cozy. Some people reported and remained stateside or in other parts of the world. A huge number of people wouldn't have had to make the Canada decision in the first place if everyone who got called reported, instead of just the ones without influence. Does that change the justice of condemning them?

Rabid Trekkie

11-10-2005, 07:04 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051104/us_nm/medals_dc_2

Personally I'm in favour of the decision. He may heve refused the draft, but this is perhaps one of my biggest reasons for supporting the decision: He didn't dodge the draft and flee to Canada like so many others- he stood up for what he believed in, stood his ground, and ultimately paid the price for what he believed in. Said price was indeed a hefty one in that he lost TWO of his PRIME years as a professional boxer!

Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee!

Blair is a big fan of Mohammed.

My grandpa must be spinning in his grave. To put it mildly, he didn't have any respect for him dodging the draft.

Rabid Trekkie

11-10-2005, 07:28 PM

Sorry if you've already said, but... What do YOU think?

Not sure really, I'm not against the draft and I do see it as a civic duty if the government calls for it so in that way I'm against him getting it. Yet there's no discounting that Ali made a huge contribution to the U.S. in terms of culture and entertainment value and in that way I understand why he would get it. Then of course there's the part of my brain that says all this stuff happened before I was born so I don't care.

It gets crowded in my head.

BlairH

11-10-2005, 07:36 PM

Not sure really, I'm not against the draft and I do see it as a civic duty if the government calls for it.
Hmmm. I'm of kinda the same opinion. Whilst I'm against the concept of compulsary "service" I definately think that the draft or other forms of conscription are necessary in the gravest of emergencies.

Heck! We wouldn't have won WWII without it.

That being said: Drafting people to serve in some crappy insignificant country nobody had ever heard of??? But then again, wars are only sucsessful in retrospect, so I can't be totally against the 'Nam draft.

Paul McEnery

11-11-2005, 03:27 AM

No, it doesn't.

You think a law is unjust, protest it. Organize, get it changed.

Until it's changed, it's the law. If you break it and you get caught, you will pay a price and that's fair dinkum.

Slam: I could never, ever run for office. There exists . . .footage. That's all I can say.
Joe---

You're wrong.

I mean, in general, I agree with you. I believe in taking my lumps to get things changed.

Standing up to an authoritarian law will not change that law. It won't.

If you have fascists in power, you leave the system and fight it. You join the resistance.

Or, to put it in terms you might understand: when the Empire is building the Death Star, it's more useful to have someone living in Canada/Tattooine to rise up against it -- as opposed to all the Jedi who, well, aren't living at all.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

11-11-2005, 03:46 AM

A family?
A home?
A job?

A life?

Well not a job if they were smart.

The director Robert Altman (MASH, Nashville, Gosford Park) was making Macabe and Mrs.Miller up in Canada at the time, and he wanted the town they used to be an actual town, and so hired carpenters to build it.

Draft Dodgers started showing up and started helping and were fed and given housing in the town.

Not a point really at all, but I found it amusing when I heard about it.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

11-11-2005, 03:47 AM

Standing up to an authoritarian law will not change that law. It won't.

Yeah, those kids at Kent State thought that would work by just protesting.

If you have fascists in power, you leave the system and fight it. You join the resistance.

Those kids at Kent State were in the resistence.

Again, no real point here.

PatrickG

11-11-2005, 03:51 AM

I can more or less guarentee that the draft will never come back (unless there is a nuclear exchange in the ME or whatever)

Uh.

What good would a draft do a nuclear war?

If people are tossing nukes around, outside of maybe some special forces and tactical analysts, frontlines manpower would be pretty useless, I'd think.

Might make sense to draft police or something but conventional millitary forces are pretty much obsolete in face of nuclear attack, aren't they?

And what soldiers MIGHT prove valuable would be highly trained, career soldiers.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

11-11-2005, 03:55 AM

I can more or less guarentee that the draft will never come back (unless there is a nuclear exchange in the ME or whatever)

If it was never going to happen, then why not scrap it altogther?

And I remember a year or so ago it was getting tossed around in various Patriot Act drafts or some such.

Boldido

11-11-2005, 04:18 AM

Joe---

You're wrong.

I mean, in general, I agree with you. I believe in taking my lumps to get things changed.

Standing up to an authoritarian law will not change that law. It won't.

If you have fascists in power, you leave the system and fight it. You join the resistance.

Or, to put it in terms you might understand: when the Empire is building the Death Star, it's more useful to have someone living in Canada/Tattooine to rise up against it -- as opposed to all the Jedi who, well, aren't living at all.

Nice idea Paul, but these people didn't go to Canada and form some rebel alliance, they smoked pot (nothing wrong with that in and of itself), ate back bacon and watched hockey until the were pardoned years later.

I'm curious what percentage stayed in Canada after the pardon and which ones returned home to live again. Does anyone have any stats?

Boldido

11-11-2005, 04:20 AM

If it was never going to happen, then why not scrap it altogther?

And I remember a year or so ago it was getting tossed around in various Patriot Act drafts or some such.

It was being promoted by Democrat senators as a political ploy to generate negative feelings toward Bush (like he needs help to achieve that). It was quickly exposed as the cheap political ploy it was and died a quick death.

Rosie

11-11-2005, 05:01 AM

I'm not sure who to get angry at here...

I would argue though, that draft dodgers wouldn't neccessarily be cowards. All those kids that believed they were dying in glory for their country were running away from having to deal with real lives and purservering for years to get a place in the world were hardly what I'd call brave, though.

macul

11-11-2005, 05:22 AM

Uh.

What good would a draft do a nuclear war?

If people are tossing nukes around, outside of maybe some special forces and tactical analysts, frontlines manpower would be pretty useless, I'd think.

Might make sense to draft police or something but conventional millitary forces are pretty much obsolete in face of nuclear attack, aren't they?

And what soldiers MIGHT prove valuable would be highly trained, career soldiers.

I guess it depends on how much control you attempt to place on the conquered populace.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

11-11-2005, 05:23 AM

Adam Crocker

11-11-2005, 05:32 AM

That being said: Drafting people to serve in some crappy insignificant country nobody had ever heard of??? But then again, wars are only sucsessful in retrospect, so I can't be totally against the 'Nam draft.

Well it's insignificance is relevant insofar as defence of the United States was concerned. The communists sucked, but as it stood the U.S. was propping up the French colonial system though now run by local heads, while at the very least Ho-Chi-Minh and co. could claim having fought against the Japanese and kicked out the French. Not only were they being sent over to die for reasons that did not involve defending their country, they were being sent over to die to prop up a crappy illegitimate government.

So, yeah I can be totally against the 'Nam draft.

nubly

11-11-2005, 06:00 AM

Yeah, let's deride all the people who had to flee the country to escape forced servitude by their government. You know, not everybody was a celebrity athlete when the government called them to the suicide fields.
i wish the US would have a mandatory 2 year service for every abled 17-18 year old body broly. but not into the out of shape, pussy military that we have these days. some of those kids out there need to learn what respect is

BlairH

11-11-2005, 06:04 AM

Joe Rice

11-11-2005, 07:29 AM

west, how about this phrasing: you can decide what laws are right, but you can't decide which ones are laws in and of yourself. If you break a "wrong" law, you break a law. Sure, it's noble when the draft is dodged or whatever, but what happens when some guy thinks that "not sleeping with children" is an unjust law? For a movement to have legitimacy, it has to be willing to either TOTALLY BRING DOWN THE SYSTEM or work to change it.

Rosie

11-11-2005, 07:36 AM

i wish the US would have a mandatory 2 year service for every abled 17-18 year old body broly. but not into the out of shape, pussy military that we have these days. some of those kids out there need to learn what respect is

Listen here, I dispise most of what the military do, stand for, and have become, and you not only want to put them into that, but a testosteroned up version of it. I am a pacifist. I understand on occasion violence is the only way to protect yourself or stop someone dangerous, but what the US miltary get up to is a mass perversion of this idea. I don't disrespect someone joining the army believing they are making a positive business. I do disrespect someone who wishes that to be forced on others especially when current business is undeniably shaky.
All you can see is little whiney goth kids you wish the government would enforce your bloodthirsty ideals on, moulding them into lifeless little drones.
You are the one with no respect.

Gee. What a way to piss off war vets

Generally awards for bravery are given based on what you actually do, not joining the army itself. Unless I'm mistaken.

macul

11-11-2005, 07:45 AM

Is nubly wrong, though? I like to tell a little story my friend (Marine) told me. My friend was in the Marines for a while, but left a few months before 9/11. After 9/11 he was recalled. Even in that short of a time span he could see major differences. One incident that blew his mind took place when he was chewing out a private. He's really tearing in to this kid. Well, I guess this kid just couldn't take it, so he whips out a stress card and says he wants a time-out. A time-out.

So, I don't know if I'd agree 100% with nubly's statement, but I think he is correct to some degree.

Rosie

11-11-2005, 07:47 AM

It's obvious there will be "Major differences". What Major Differences they'll be, and how positive they'll be, comes into question.

I don't consider "Discipline" a positive different. You want to learn discipline, learn a Martial Art that requires it. That will help find strength in yourself rather than the anger of other people. This "Discipline" is just how little individuality you have and how much blind faith you put in others.

The last thing we need is people trying to turn every young kid into a combination of a drone and a violent nutcase.

Wesley Dodds

11-11-2005, 08:00 AM

i wish the US would have a mandatory 2 year service for every abled 17-18 year old body broly. but not into the out of shape, pussy military that we have these days. some of those kids out there need to learn what respect is

I think you have it backwards. The current military is volunteer-only. A professional army. Conscript everyone who's 17 and you'll have people like me in the army.

macul

11-11-2005, 08:01 AM

Uh, it's obvious there will be "Major differences". What Major Differences they'll be, and how positive they'll be, comes into question.

I don't consider "Discipline" a positive different. You want to learn discipline, learn a Martial Art that requires it. That will help find strength in yourself rather than the anger of other people. This "Discipline" is just how little individuality you have and how much blind faith you put in others.

You can't compare discipline gained from learning a martial art to discipline gained while in the military. You just can't. Completely different foundations. You learn discipline in the military because of the life or death necessity of ensuring that every command is followed. You learn discipline in a martial art because you want to achieve a goal.

BlairH

11-11-2005, 08:03 AM

I think you have it backwards. The current military is volunteer-only. A professional army. Conscript everyone who's 17 and you'll have people like me in the army.
You're not 17 though Wes. Heck, you're older than me.

Rosie

11-11-2005, 08:12 AM

You can't compare discipline gained from learning a martial art to discipline gained while in the military. You just can't. Completely different foundations. You learn discipline in the military because of the life or death necessity of ensuring that every command is followed. You learn discipline in a martial art because you want to achieve a goal.

Actually, that's my point exactly. And is why "discipline" in the military is a bunch of shit outside of the military itself(and on occasion, inside it).
Rebellion is an important trait; without it, we do what everyone else tells us. The army eliminates this trait. It doesn't take too much intelligence to figure out why making people believe everything they hear from "superiors" is stupid.

macul

11-11-2005, 08:18 AM

Actually, that's my point exactly. And is why "discipline" in the military is a bunch of shit outside of the military itself(and on occasion, inside it).

I don't understand your question. Rephrase?

Rebellion is an important trait; without it, we do what everyone else tells us. The army eliminates this trait. It doesn't take too much intelligence to figure out why making people believe everything they hear from "superiors" is stupid.

Rebellious behavior in the military doesn't work. Just doesn't. At least not if you want an effective military. And no one is saying that the kids have to be brainwashed, but it is an undeniable fact that many people benefit from the direction and discipline provided by a structured military. Really, there are just too many military (and former military) out there who will flat out tell you this for it to not be true.

Rosie

11-11-2005, 08:23 AM

Rebellious behavior in the military doesn't work. Just doesn't. At least not if you want an effective military.

Which is why "Military" and "General Populace" just be kept seperate in this respect. "Discipline" works in the military. Questioning everything works in real life.

And no one is saying that the kids have to be brainwashed,

No, I'm sure they have better methods.

but it is an undeniable fact that many people benefit from the direction and discipline provided by a structured military.

Define this supposed "Benefit".

Really, there are just too many military (and former military) out there who will flat out tell you this for it to not be true.

Wouldn't they be a tad biased? If you want to join the militiary, and you do, then there's a chance you might benefit from doing something you actually wanted to do. I don't see how forcing it helps anything.

BlairH

11-11-2005, 08:24 AM

Rebellious behavior in the military doesn't work. Just doesn't. At least not if you want an effective military. And no one is saying that the kids have to be brainwashed, but it is an undeniable fact that many people benefit from the direction and discipline provided by a structured military. Really, there are just too many military (and former military) out there who will flat out tell you this for it to not be true.
Indeed. I hate this stereotype of the "brainwashed" military guy. Rosie: How many military folks do you actually know? I know several. One of whom is possibly the most well read, independant thinking, wiseman on CBR (although he's currently deployed)

macul

11-11-2005, 08:32 AM

Which is why "Military" and "General Populace" just be kept seperate in this respect. "Discipline" works in the military. Questioning everything works in real life.

Some times it does. Some times it doesn't. If I'm a boss and my employee questions everything I tell him to do he/she won't be my employee for long. You have to pick and choose. Questioning everything makes you irritating and not as productive.

Define this supposed "Benefit".

They learn how to achieve goals, get a better education, receive skill training, teamwork, et cetera.

Wouldn't they be a tad biased? If you want to join the militiary, and you do, then there's a chance you might benefit from doing something you actually wanted to do. I don't see how forcing it helps anything.

Who else are you going to ask if military training helped? Someone not in the military?

spoon_jenkins

11-11-2005, 08:35 AM

If you're commiting a crime as protest, yes. So, people who break windows to protest globalisation should pay the appropriate penalty for that. But in this case Ali's "civil disobdience" was refusing to obey an unjust law. I see no reason why Ali should have had to pay the penalty for breaking a law that was wrong.
I think participants in civil disobedience (though perhaps not all) through history have considered suffering the punishment for disobeying the war to be an essential. Folks sitting-in at segregated lunch counters didn't run when the cops came. And the whole point of Gandhi's idea of satyagraha (counterpart to civil disobedience) was to suffer all sorts of harms from the authorities peacefully in order to stir people's conscience. So fleeing punishment would gut that idea.

The higher motive of bringing about societal change is served by suffering punishment.

But I see the reasoning on the other side. Basically, I think that fleeing the draft for an unjust war occupies a middle ground. It's not admirable like taking punishment to try to protest an unjust war. And it's not despicable like avoiding the draft for a just war reasonably calculated to protect one's nation (where one's elected respentatives have allowed the draft as method to protect collective security) purely to protect oneself. Fleeing the draft for a unjust war is valuing self-preservation over a cause that's not beneficial for others. But it's not any more admirable than other acts of self-preservation.

Wesley Dodds

11-11-2005, 08:42 AM

If you want to make a protest, it would be more effective to get yourself arrested. I only dispute that someone who breaks an unjust law has to turn themselves in or accept the judgement of the state.

Of course, Plato took the opposite position, having Socrates accept the judgement of the state and swallow hemlock.

Rosie

11-11-2005, 08:42 AM

Indeed. I hate this stereotype of the "brainwashed" military guy. Rosie: How many military folks do you actually know? I know several. One of whom is possibly the most well read, independant thinking, wiseman on CBR (although he's currently deployed)

I've known a few in my time. Some of them can be decent people, I don't think I made the kind of generalisation you're putting in my mouth. One aspect of someone's being may or may not have a major influence on the whole.

But, a lot of them are very sad machoist little people. I'm more arguing that being in the army doesn't make you exceptionally brave, and that just as many people join it for escapism as join it out of bravery. I'm saying that they're inherently no better than anyone else, and that I believe the military itself is ultimately harmful, which is very anti-testament to the way america thinks, but I guess that's me.

Some times it does. Some times it doesn't. If I'm a boss and my employee questions everything I tell him to do he/she won't be my employee for long. You have to pick and choose. Questioning everything makes you irritating and not as productive.

Questioning things doesn't mean you do it all the time. Just as long as you don't leave things going unchecked purely because he says so. Here, you would employ some level of common sense. It's more about serious moral decisions than "Hey, photocopy this for me, please".

They learn how to achieve goals, get a better education, receive skill training, teamwork, et cetera.

But there are so many places you can learn these skills better without subjecting yourself to being moulded in that manner.

Who else are you going to ask if military training helped? Someone not in the military?

Well, as everything I'm saying would imply, someone that was forced to join. But if they really did "Mould" someone it'd be hard to tell either way. Kinda the point of it really.

K'Nort

11-11-2005, 09:04 AM

All those kids that believed they were dying in glory for their country were running away from having to deal with real lives and purservering for years to get a place in the world were hardly what I'd call brave, though.

"All those kids." What group are you talking about here exactly? I'm going to go with the benefit of the doubt angle and assume you aren't summing up everyone who ended up in Vietnam.

And the perservering for years to get a place in the world part makes no sense at all. Even if you're saying they went off to war because they were "running away from real lives" (by committing suicide for god's sake? do you really think that's what they were doing? leaving aside you're talking about the fathers/uncles/brothers/husbands of a lot of us right here reading this.) how did they not have to still find a place in the world when they got back? For the ones who did get back. Do you have any idea of what life was like for returning vets? You think that was a totally cush situation compared to the guys in Canada?

Rosie

11-11-2005, 09:30 AM

"All those kids." What group are you talking about here exactly? I'm going to go with the benefit of the doubt angle and assume you aren't summing up everyone who ended up in Vietnam.

I wasn't talking about a specific group.

And the perservering for years to get a place in the world part makes no sense at all. Even if you're saying they went off to war because they were "running away from real lives" (by committing suicide for god's sake? do you really think that's what they were doing? leaving aside you're talking about the fathers/uncles/brothers/husbands of a lot of us right here reading this.)

Not even "suicide" - just the fact that they don't have to deal with the "real world" for months on end. And if you say nobody has ever thought about joining the army to escape life, that's a lie.

how did they not have to still find a place in the world when they got back?

A number of things to consider here - first of all, the fine pension you get (meaning you have to pay less into it as you go), the fact that friends and family may percieve you as being stronger - but all in all, you're right, they do. It's not a permanent solution.

For the ones who did get back. Do you have any idea of what life was like for returning vets? You think that was a totally cush situation compared to the guys in Canada?

I don't recall saying it's cush. The fact that it's not cush would be one of the big reasons why I'm against forcing people into it. But it doesn't change that people join the army for many reasons other than bravery, no matter what it turns out being like on the inside.

I suggest you look online for a transcript of the play "The Plough and the Stars". It was a play written about 1916 rising in Ireland when people wanted to do nothing more than die for their country. There are some shocking parrellels to what still goes on in this day and age in the US and other countries.

The main character, Norah, didn't want her husband to die for her country. All the other women assured her of glory for her husband and she was proud - but she would take none of it.
She came to the conclusion that they weren't doing it because they were brave - they were doing it because they were afraid; afraid of having to live their bleak little lives. Which is fair enough in some ways, as long as you admit to it.

I saw it performed once. It's pretty interesting social commentry.

BlairH

11-11-2005, 09:37 AM

"All those kids."
Are belong to us.

Sorry. I honestly couldn't resist!
http://kse3.dyndns.org:1129/ah/akon2002/images/DSC00374.jpg

K'Nort

11-11-2005, 10:03 AM

Not even "suicide" - just the fact that they don't have to deal with the "real world" for months on end. And if you say nobody has ever thought about joining the army to escape life, that's a lie.

Do NOT call people liars for something they might possibly have meant if they were looking at the world in one possible way. You want to start fights, go somewhere else.

You really think that being in Vietnam was easier than dealing with the real world? There's really nothing to say to that.

A number of things to consider here - first of all, the fine pension you get (meaning you have to pay less into it as you go),

Drafted Vietnam vets got a fine pension? Wow. Someone totally screwed over my dad and.... well, pretty much every other guy out there.

Rosie

11-11-2005, 10:20 AM

Do NOT call people liars for something they might possibly have meant if they were looking at the world in one possible way. You want to start fights, go somewhere else.

You really think that being in Vietnam was easier than dealing with the real world? There's really nothing to say to that.

I don't recall even mentioning Vietnam. All I'm saying is that I don't think that many people in the army are particularily brave. And as I said, I never said it was easier, just that it seems tempting as an escape. Not that like, anything I say actually matters when you can pull something better for me to say out of your ass and shove it down my throat.

Drafted Vietnam vets got a fine pension? Wow. Someone totally screwed over my dad and.... well, pretty much every other guy out there.

Well, I'm sorry for your Dad. I thought you were meant to get one. And regardless, it doesn't change my point that it is a temporary solution. It would hardly be the first time someone got screwed over by your lousy government, anyway.

bfrank

11-11-2005, 10:28 AM

Yeah, I'm not talking about "shoulds" or ideal worlds. One guy stood up to punishment, some guys didn't. I'd say the guy who took his punishment is braver than the ones that didn't. They all had good reasons, and I don't think the dodgers were jerks or wrong or anything, but the fact is, they avoided what he took.
and that's it in a nut shell....I don't get why this is being argued...

bfrank

11-11-2005, 10:31 AM

Cowardice implies ignoble fear. People who refuse to serve aren't necessarily doing so because of fear. Making such sacrifices hardly seems ignoble.
but running to canada does....

west3man

11-11-2005, 10:34 AM

but running to canada does....
Nobility is determined by motivation, not a change in location.

http://www.joeheadquarters.com/movie7.jpg

StoneGold

11-11-2005, 10:37 AM

Nobility is determined by motivation, not a change in location.

http://www.joeheadquarters.com/movie7.jpg
Now I know how everyone else must feel. I don't get it.

Rosie

11-11-2005, 10:46 AM

Because someone refuses to have ideals forced on them, they're a coward? I don't get this. If anything, it would probably be less hassle just to go through with it. With drafts they generally make sure to mess you up good if you don't do as they say.

west3man

11-11-2005, 10:52 AM

Now I know how everyone else must feel. I don't get it.
It was just supposed to be a picture of Roadblock (from G.I. Joe) since I accidentally rhymed. Ignore the mutated form of Cobra Commander.

K'Nort

11-11-2005, 11:02 AM

I don't recall even mentioning Vietnam. All I'm saying is that I don't think that many people in the army are particularily brave. And as I said, I never said it was easier, just that it seems tempting as an escape. Not that like, anything I say actually matters when you can pull something better for me to say out of your ass and shove it down my throat.

This conversation has been very specific to American GI's who were drafted against their will into Vietnam. So those are the people you are generically insulting. If you were doing a topic change and suddenly talking about soldiers in another time and another country, then you need to actually say so.

And no one ever promised those soldiers a pension. That's not how it works in the US military. Nor do people who join up for a stint or two in peacetime get a pension.

Rosie

11-11-2005, 11:05 AM

This conversation has been very specific to American GI's who were drafted against their will into Vietnam. So those are the people you are generically insulting. If you were doing a topic change and suddenly talking about soldiers in another time and another country, then you need to actually say so.

And no one ever promised those soldiers a pension. That's not how it works in the US military. Nor do people who join up for a stint or two in peacetime get a pension.

I don't think you've been following the topic train. I was speaking out against forced drafting at first, which was on topic, and that evolved into a discussion(albiet a rather one sided one) on "Bravery" in the military in general.

BlairH

11-11-2005, 11:06 AM

it would probably be less hassle just to go through with it. .
Try telling that to anybody who has actually experienced combat!

It's days like today when I realise that we need rememberance day. Some people do indeed forget the brave deeds that were enacted in their name so that they could remain free!

StoneGold

11-11-2005, 11:08 AM

It was just supposed to be a picture of Roadblock (from G.I. Joe) since I accidentally rhymed. Ignore the mutated form of Cobra Commander.
OK. I thought it had something to do with the locale, since we were talking about Canada and all. Still a little on the esoteric side.

StoneGold

11-11-2005, 11:09 AM

Try telling that to anybody who has actually experienced combat!

It's days like today when I realise that we need rememberance day. Some people do indeed forget the brave deeds that were enacted in their name so that they could remain free!

But more serious note, the holiday was originally called Armistice Day, which was to celebrate the peace at the end of WWI, one of the more pointless wars ever fought. Something to think about.

nubly

11-11-2005, 01:14 PM

Listen here, I dispise most of what the military do, stand for, and have become, and you not only want to put them into that, but a testosteroned up version of it. I am a pacifist. I understand on occasion violence is the only way to protect yourself or stop someone dangerous, but what the US miltary get up to is a mass perversion of this idea. I don't disrespect someone joining the army believing they are making a positive business. I do disrespect someone who wishes that to be forced on others especially when current business is undeniably shaky.
All you can see is little whiney goth kids you wish the government would enforce your bloodthirsty ideals on, moulding them into lifeless little drones.
You are the one with no respect.

Generally awards for bravery are given based on what you actually do, not joining the army itself. Unless I'm mistaken.
im a pacifist too. everyone has their own opinions on every subject. it just so happens that mine, on this topic, is that i beleive everyone should do a minimum of two years in the military. it has nothing with starting wars. as for beating kids if i had any, i dont even like killing roaches or flies. i love the military. everyone should get the experience in it

Rosie

11-11-2005, 01:18 PM

im a pacifist too. everyone has their own opinions on every subject. it just so happens that mine, on this topic, is that i beleive everyone should do a minimum of two years in the military. it has nothing with starting wars. as for beating kids if i had any, i dont even like killing roaches or flies. i love the military. everyone should get the experience in it

If you think people should try it out of their own free will, fine. But you said you wished that they should be forced into it, to "teach them some respect".

nubly

11-11-2005, 01:30 PM

If you think people should try it out of their own free will, fine. But you said you wished that they should be forced into it, to "teach them some respect".
yea i think it should be mandatory. and i didnt mean the sole reason is 'to teach them some respect'

Dan Apodaca

11-11-2005, 02:55 PM

i wish the US would have a mandatory 2 year service for every abled 17-18 year old body broly. but not into the out of shape, pussy military that we have these days. some of those kids out there need to learn what respect is

Seriously. I've told you this before. Don't call me broly. We are NOT affectionate.

This is a really stupid idea, for a number of reasons which have all been hashed out plenty of times.

1. Conscript army is less effective.

2. Respect is not created through fear. Respect is created through a demonstration of exemplary behavior.

3. We live in a democracy, where people have the right to choose how to live their lives.

Dan Apodaca

11-11-2005, 02:57 PM

That being said: Drafting people to serve in some crappy insignificant country nobody had ever heard of??? But then again, wars are only sucsessful in retrospect, so I can't be totally against the 'Nam draft.

If the results of Vietnam are what you call a successful war, I have to question what you are trying to achieve with said war.

BlairH

11-11-2005, 03:09 PM

If the results of Vietnam are what you call a successful war, I have to question what you are trying to achieve with said war.

Dunno.
The immediate results of the war were catastrophic for all parties involved. The Vietnamese lost many civillians, their country was devastated (defoliants, agent orange etc), the South fell to the Commies. Likewise, the US lost many of her sons to that war, and she was imasculated in front of the world.

However, as a battleground of the Cold War, it's more difficult to evaluate. The very fact that the US was there, in-country sent a message to the USSR that they wouldn't tolerate the spread of Communism (the fact that they were beaten -it could be argued- sent a different signal). I guess the outcome of the war when taken in the context of the cold war is impossible to judge. After all, in the end, the Commies dissapeared from the world stage without a fight, and after all, that's what matters right? There was no World War III, no armageddon, no massive conflict that left Europe as one big smouldering crater

We can't say how history would have played out had the Vietnam War never happened I guess is my point. The world may have been a perfect utopia. It might have been a hellhole.

Spike-X

11-12-2005, 12:06 AM

Breaking the law was a crime. All of these people enjoyed the freedoms and privileges that living in this country provided until it was their turn.

There is nothing unjust about conscription.

Not when you're being conscripted to defend your own country, there's not. However, you can't seriously tell me that the Viet Cong were such a serious threat to the United States of America that your army had to go over there and blow the crap out of them when they hadn't even lifted a finger against you.

The soldiers in Vietnam weren't defending their country, any more than the soldiers in Iraq today are doing so. They were, and are, defending their current government's political agenda. Nobody should be drafted into doing that.