• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does a Country have the right to the draft during a time of war.

Draft?


  • Total voters
    85
Do you believe that a country was the right to draft it's citizens into it's armed forces during a time of war?

Right smight lippity spite. It's the government. They don't need your permission. A draft is a completely reasonable measure for the government to take to defend it's borders.

I think when your country is being invaded rights don't really matter too much.
 
The country has whatever "rights" they choose to put in their highest rule of law. If a draft is a legal provision for that country then yes, they do have that right.
 
This is an extremely unconvincing line of argument for me. It smacks of an emotive hyperbole. I do not think the country was lost after the Civil War, after World War I, after World War II, etc. Do you?
In terms of principle, yes. However, only 2% of Civil war fighters were draftees. Most were volunteers. The effect of the draft was largely minimal in that instance. This only further proves my point: if the war is really worth fighting for, there should be no need for the draft. Most of the wars the US is fighting today are not worth it.

I return to my original and sole argument which is that on occasion it is sometimes in our wider interests (even if some disagree) to engage in conscription for specific purposes. I'd never claim it is anything other than a hypocritical position for me to take, but I'll still stake it out. On a practical level it clearly has utility and its comparison to enlistment incentives or mercenaries fails because of the palpable reality that historically conscription has been a more effective mechanism for mass mobilization in more trying or difficult times. When euphoria wears out and crisis draws in it tends to do its job. Is it the ideal course of action? No. But on a limited basis can I justify the violation of your rights to serve what I think is a greater purpose? Yes.
Slavery was also practically more efficient and was in the wider interests of the south, but that does not justify involuntary servitude. The exact same argument is true for the draft. It doesn't matter how practical it is. That the draft has been historically effective is questionable at best (often with the draft there were many volunteers) but even if I grant that historically it has been more effective, that says absolutely nothing about better ways of doing things in the future. If the draft was not granted as an option, other ways would be developed to meet the need. In this way the existence of the draft hinders other more just options from coming into usage.

Can I enslave you to pick my corn, violating your rights, to serve what I think is a greater purpose? No.

Can I enslave you to fight my war, violating your same rights, to serve what I think is a greater purpose? No, for the same reasons.

You are right about one thing: your argument is hypocritical. And to me, a hypocritical argument is far less convincing than theconsistent protection of basic human dignity and liberty.
 
The security of a free State must include the domestic Tranquility. It has to do with a civil obligation to the defense of the State.

No, thats what a military is for. So citizens dont HAVE to fight. They hire someone else to protect them.
 
"War" is GREATLY misused now.

Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq - were not "wars." They were "police military actions."

My answer is NO for "police actions" for foreign policy reasons.

Yes, for wars of true national defense and survival - such as WWII was.
 
Yes, for wars of true national defense and survival - such as WWII was.

Oh yeah? Why did our nation survive so long without getting involved? Didn't Hitler start his shaningans way before the U.S. got involved? He was in Germany. We were in the United States. The Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean were already in place back in 1941. Are you sure it was National Defense? or just doing the morally right thing for suffering human beings?

WWII was not about national defense and survival. This doesn't mean our participation wasn't justified.
 
Did you ever play RISK? Of course WWII was about National Defense. It was about survival.
Oh yeah? Why did our nation survive so long without getting involved? Didn't Hitler start his shaningans way before the U.S. got involved? He was in Germany. We were in the United States. The Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean were already in place back in 1941. Are you sure it was National Defense? or just doing the morally right thing for suffering human beings?

WWII was not about national defense and survival. This doesn't mean our participation wasn't justified.
 
Then why did the USA win WW2 ( they used the draft) if a country has lost already if they draft?

WWII was a war of literal national survival. Worth fighting for.

The problem with a draft in a policing war for foreign policy and for which there are 1,000 rules of limiting engagement as was in Vietnam, is a large percentage of those drafted and sent there singularly care about staying alive and getting out of there. Via filming, the military increasingly came to learn such draftees won't fight, won't shoot except for self preservation if at all, and would avoid battle and armed conflict anyway possible. They also found (I can't find a link at the moment and it wasn't shouted out) then tended to shoot officers who tried to force them into high risk combat.
 
Oh yeah? Why did our nation survive so long without getting involved? Didn't Hitler start his shaningans way before the U.S. got involved? He was in Germany. We were in the United States. The Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean were already in place back in 1941. Are you sure it was National Defense? or just doing the morally right thing for suffering human beings?

WWII was not about national defense and survival. This doesn't mean our participation wasn't justified.

We did NOT enter WWII to help suffering people. Japan attacked the continental USA and Germany declared war on the USA.

Although we were an arms supplier, the USA went to great lengths to stay out directly in terms of war and fighting - and most Americans opposed getting into it, thinking it just another European WWI conflict in Europe and Japan and China battling it out too.

We were in WWII because WWII was declared upon us.
 
A country can do whatever it wants, as long as its people and other countries don't want to/won't stop them. So yeah, sure.
 
No.

And isn't it kind of weird? They want to take away someone's freedom, so that person can fight for freedom.
 
I think we should all have skin in the game, so I am all for the draft. I think it would stop the silly wars.

But on the other side. When I went in the service there were still many around who remembered the draft and hated it. Said people who were drafted were **** birds, a common Marine Corps term for not very high functioning military personnel. I dont believe Marines were ever drafted, but the old guys around here probably know more. Not mentioning any names...you know who you are.

I'm not sure if anyone replied to that in the several pages of this thread - but some Marines have been drafted. The last time that I know about is the Vietnam War.
 
Also, why would anyone vote yes to this?!?!

Or were they just voting yes because how technically the government can initiate a draft?

Or are they saying that it's actually the right thing to do?

It makes a huge difference to which sense it means - when people vote yes or no to this.
 
Back
Top Bottom