• 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!

a draft wouldn't work too well these days because....

with the DADT policy, one can claim gayness to get out of it

  • i agree

    Votes: 8 61.5%

  • i disagree, tell why if you want to

    Votes: 5 38.5%
  • Total voters
    13
Pal said:
It was the second part of your post that brought me to my conclusion. I don't think the US government should be in the business of pointing guns at citizens as a method of persuading them to do something. I wouldn't call a draft fascist per se, but I would call what you said fascist for sure.
Click to expand...

A draft is serving at gun point so to speak. If you are called up and you don't go, real consequences exist including prison in some cases.

Again this is not fascist, or even a fascist ideal. Israel does it, the US has done it, and many other non-fascist country's.

All you have to do is say serving because of a draft is wrong. Nothing more, we get the idea. :)
 
Blackdog said:
A draft is serving at gun point so to speak. If you are called up and you don't go, real consequences exist including prison in some cases.

Again this is not fascist, or even a fascist ideal. Israel does it, the US has done it, and many other non-fascist country's.

All you have to do is say serving because of a draft is wrong. Nothing more, we get the idea. :)
Click to expand...

I thought it was clear I find the draft in general distasteful, sorry if it wasn't. I do. But I wouldn't call the drafts that the US government has instituted in the past fascist. The government was never about to shoot someone who refused to comply.

If it got to the point where we had soldiers pointing guns at young people who didn't want to serve these mandatory years (in peacetime, no less) then I would consider that fascist. How is that not exalting the nation over the individual? How could you not classify a government that did that as "centralized" and "autocratic"? (Borrowing a few words from your definition)
 
Last edited:
Pal said:
I thought it was clear I find the draft in general distasteful, sorry if it wasn't. I do. But I wouldn't call the drafts that the US government has instituted in the past fascist. The government was never about to shoot someone who refused to comply.
Click to expand...

I was speaking figuratively. The gun represents repercussions of not submitting to the draft.

"In the United States during World War I, conscientious objectors were permitted to serve in noncombatant military roles. About 2000 absolute conscientious objectors refused to cooperate in any way with the military. These men were imprisoned in military facilities such as Fort Lewis (Washington), Alcatraz Island (California) and Fort Leavenworth (Kansas). Some were subjected to treatment such as short rations, solitary confinement and physical abuse severe enough as to cause the deaths of two Hutterite draftees." - [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector]Conscientious objector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


"We were cursed, beaten, kicked, and compelled to go through exercises to the extent that a few were unconscious for some minutes. They kept it up for the greater part of the afternoon, and then those who could possibly stand on their feet were compelled to take cold shower baths. One of the boys was scrubbed with a scrubbing brush using lye on him. They drew blood in several places.” - Mennonite from Camp Lee, Virginia, United States, 16 July 1918

"During the Vietnam War, an active movement of draft resistance also occurred... These draft resisters hoped that their public civil disobedience would help to bring the war and the draft to an end. Many young men went to federal prison as part of this movement."

We are no angles.

Pal said:
If it got to the point where we had soldiers pointing guns at young people who didn't want to serve these mandatory years (in peacetime, no less) then I would consider that fascist. How is that not exalting the nation over the individual? How could you not classify a government that did that as "centralized" and "autocratic"? (Borrowing a few words from your definition)
Click to expand...

I was speaking figuratively. You honestly thought I meant shooting people in the head? I suppose anytime someone says "paying taxes at gun point" you immediately think this is what they mean? :lol:
 
Blackdog said:
I was speaking figuratively. You honestly thought I meant shooting people in the head? I suppose anytime someone says "paying taxes at gun point" you immediately think this is what they mean? :lol:
Click to expand...

If you truly were speaking figuratively then I apologize for misinterpreting you. If that's the case, then I only disagree with what you originally said on principle, but would not call it fascist as you're right our government has done that before.

However, if I was so obviously misconstrueing what you meant you could've pointed it out a little sooner...
 
Pal said:
If you truly were speaking figuratively then I apologize for misinterpreting you. If that's the case, then I only disagree with what you originally said on principle, but would not call it fascist as you're right our government has done that before.

However, if I was so obviously misconstrueing what you meant you could've pointed it out a little sooner...
Click to expand...

I did in post #26: "A draft is serving at gun point so to speak. If you are called up and you don't go, real consequences exist including prison in some cases." - Blackdog

No biggie, and good night.
 
Last edited:
Here's how you know if they are getting ready for a draft: Republicans will wake up one morning with double standards to gays serving in the military. :doh
 
Aurora151989 said:
been reading threads about this don't ask don't tell policy and thought I'd post a poll
Click to expand...

Another reason why it should be eliminated.

What if I said I was attracted to sea-turtles (which I actually am, they are sexy)?
 
Cilogy said:
Another reason why it should be eliminated.

What if I said I was attracted to sea-turtles (which I actually am, they are sexy)?
Click to expand...

.... *cracks up*
 
It is definitely a problem.
 
Considering it looks like DADT (along with the rules against gays) will be gone within about 5 years or so anyway, I'd say that if there was a draft needed, we'd see DADT repealed pretty much immediately after or within a few days.

There is one big reason that women do not have to sign up for the draft. Women would only have to get pregnant to get out of it. So if you figure even a few thousand single women (I'll discuss married women later) get drafted, and even 10% of them decide to try to get out of it "the fast way" by getting pregnant, that's a few hundred babies born out of wedlock. Not exactly ideal since, as a nation, we are trying to reduce the number of babies born out of wedlock or at least a committed relationship.
Now obviously the married women wouldn't be having their babies out of wedlock, but they would still be able to use pregnancy to get out of it.
I really don't know what the best way to be fair is when it comes to men and women and the draft.
 
Aurora151989 said:
been reading threads about this don't ask don't tell policy and thought I'd post a poll
Click to expand...

You do realize there are other ways to get out of the military other than just saying your gay? Repeatedly not passing the tape test, Drug problem, or some other violation or you could go to Canada(that is is what commie scum in the 60s and 70s did)You could join the navy, coast guard and air force to avoid actual combat(useless by some slime chance you end up in a special forces unit) .
 
jamesrage said:
You do realize there are other ways to get out of the military other than just saying your gay? Repeatedly not passing the tape test, Drug problem, or some other violation or you could go to Canada(that is is what commie scum in the 60s and 70s did)You could join the navy, coast guard and air force to avoid actual combat(useless by some slime chance you end up in a special forces unit) .
Click to expand...

So you're a communist if you refuse to fight in an illegal war?
 
Cilogy said:
Another reason why it should be eliminated.

What if I said I was attracted to sea-turtles (which I actually am, they are sexy)?
Click to expand...

you're only allowed to be attracted to female sea-turtles

pic-nesting-behavior.jpg


not male ones
301471565_0b0ed83032.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom