Military Drafts: What would you do?

[twa]

Which in the context of this thread meant take up arms and fight in the military as such he is STILL using MLK to promote war.

But we have already had posts on positions available for non-combatants.

Anyone know what MLK's position on fighting the War of Northern Aggression was?

[19Skins72]

Am I being drafted to stop ethnic cleansing in Bosnia or Darfur? Count me in. Am I being drafted to fight the Nazis/Japs in WWII? Count me in. Am I being drafted to kill the little green guys from Mars Attacks that blew up Vegas? Oh hell yes count me in. Am I being drafted to fight for corporate interests under the flimsy guise of national security? Count me out.

[Bang]

I understand. I just hope I got my feelings across and where I stand on the issue. Even if I don't like the idea of the draft, I don't see myself running, I really don't.

I got you. It's noble and good to hold a high ideal. But always think first. Chances are if it came down to it, it would be a cause worth fighting for. But it doesn't mean it would be every time.

~Bang

[SC_RedskinsFan]

This is an easy question for me. I went in the USMC 2 days after high school, so i would not have problem with it. I always thought everyone whould have to serve 2 years anyways......

[zoony]

Anyone know what MLK's position on fighting the War of Southern Arrogance was?

fixed

[VTmike]

Scenario: You're drafted into a war, to fight on behalf of your country. Maybe you agree with the war, maybe you don't.

Question: What do you do? Do you go fight? Do you dodge? Do you try to find an escape? Do you leave your homeland to avoid the conflict?

What would you do?

If it got bad I would probably volunteer. But if I was drafted I would go (barring extreme circumstances)

[twa]

You. Find me where MLK endorses and promotes violence and war. Stop trying to act like Ellis was not using MLK's quote to promote taking up arms.

How about provoking violence for gains?...that is easy enough

War is not only fought with bullets or the other sides blood;)

[Mooka]

I already agreed when I turned 18.

Though I could fathom a reason why I would absolutely refuse to go to war, it would have to be an extreme situation. Like we're going to help China invade Tibet or something.

[twa]

fixed

That is certainly applicable as well,after all it is simply arrogance if you lose.

Care to try to answer the revised version?

Think he would preach let's sit this one out since there are more important things to spend the blood and treasure on?

[Ellis]

You. Find me where MLK endorses and promotes violence and war. Stop trying to act like Ellis was not using MLK's quote to promote taking up arms.

ok, i've sat back and just let this mess take on it's own life... and you've put words in my mouth far too much for me to avoid the bait for an argument any further...

The MLK quote "for me" is a call to stand up for what you love and what hold precious to you, especially if those things are threatened to be taken away from you. It is a call to "action". It's a call to getting off your butt and taking a stand. That does not mean ONLY war, although yes it could. It means standing in any way you feel you wish to stand. You can be anti-war and still take a stand against an aggressor in any number of ways.

Bottomline, the quote to me is about standing up for what you love and being willing to defend it... and those who do not, are not fit to live.

[Springfield]

Well this thread was quite the read. Impressed by the life it took on.

My take:

Perception is reality. The perception is that if you don't join the draft, you aren't an American.

Of course I'd join the draft, not because I really wanted to, but because I feel like that is my duty as an American. I signed a piece of paper when I turned 18 that said in case of a draft I had to join the military. No problem, it's a binding contract and I would plan to honor it.

That said, if my country called on me, I wouldn't want some stupid desk job. I wouldn't want to be scrubbing toilets. If my country needed me so badly that I was forced to join the military, I'd want to be killing some mother****ers. Don't bother my life to force me to do menial tasks that bore me and waste my time.

Now... it's certainly a slippery slope. I was the perfect age to join the military for the Afghanistan conflict. I didn't join because I was in school. There were others fighting in that war. I didn't feel like the threat was so great that it justified my enlistment and changing of life plans. So I didn't join.

As others have stated, there would have to be some terrible circumstances in order for a draft to be implemented. So one would have to assume that the well being of the country is in great peril. I'm talking invasion type threat... Chinese landing in California type ordeal.

But yes, I'd certainly join.

As far as the, "you owe it to your country" argument. I disagree. I think that every citizen has paid it to America. We pay for the military to operate year in and year out for god's sake. A large part of our yearly budget exists just so that the military can operate. Don't say, "we owe it to our country" because it just isn't right. Us ordinary citizens abide by every single law out there.

Lastly... It always amuses me when the subject of the military comes up. There isn't any dissenting opinion allowed, at all. Either you are with the military or you are un-American... it's as simple as that. Very sad. Very, very sad. Cost two of my closest friends their friendship, all over a simple argument about the military.

[GameWinner]

I'm down to kill anyone whos trying to put anyone here at harm. So yes, i would gladly accept if i was drafted

Or I would force a trade like Eli Manning

[AsburySkinsFan]

How about provoking violence for gains?...that is easy enough

Wait..provoking? You mean the civil rights movement provoked the police dogs, and the fire hoses and the Klan and brought the whole thing upon themselves? Surely I'm not reading you right.

[ZoEd]

Which in the context of this thread meant take up arms and fight in the military as such he is STILL using MLK to promote war.

He's using MLK to promote not being a wuss and accepting lifes challenge when faced with them.

[twa]

Wait..provoking? You mean the civil rights movement provoked the police dogs, and the fire hoses and the Klan and brought the whole thing upon themselves? Surely I'm not reading you right.

What do you think?

Long years of experience indicate to us that Negroes can achieve this goal when four things occur:

1. Nonviolent demonstrators go into the streets to exercise their Constitutional rights.

2. Racists resist by unleashing violence against them.

3. Americans of conscience in the name of decency demand federal intervention and legislation.

4. The Administration, under mass pressure, initiates measures of immediate intervention and remedial legislation.

(ML King, Jr., "Behind the Selma March", Saturday Review, April 3, 1965, pp. 16, 17; 57.)

King believed in non-violent revolution FORCING change as a tactic.:cool:

Next ya gonna tell me he wasn't a activist?

[AsburySkinsFan]

He's using MLK to promote not being a wuss and accepting lifes challenge when faced with them.

Which in the context of this thread mean going to war...stop being obstinate.

I fully affirm Dr. King's call too, but you see it as a call to war when it was not, either that or you're just hell bent on defending the position and don't want to give in. Personally I think its the latter.

[AsburySkinsFan]

What do you think?

Long years of experience indicate to us that Negroes can achieve this goal when four things occur:

1. Nonviolent demonstrators go into the streets to exercise their Constitutional rights.

2. Racists resist by unleashing violence against them.

3. Americans of conscience in the name of decency demand federal intervention and legislation.

4. The Administration, under mass pressure, initiates measures of immediate intervention and remedial legislation.

(ML King, Jr., "Behind the Selma March", Saturday Review, April 3, 1965, pp. 16, 17; 57.)

King believed in non-violent revolution FORCING change as a tactic.:cool:

Next ya gonna tell me he wasn't a activist?

So they brought it upon themselves? There is a difference between going into the street to force a change and blaming them for the police dogs, which one is it? Because at this point it sounds like you're blaming the victims, and I don't think you are, but that's what it sounds like.

[RedskinsTime]

Why register? Because you'll be jailed if you don't for one. In normal society a contract under that kind of duress isn't enforcable, so I'd say registering for SS is far from a "contractual agreement". That makes it sound as if there's a real choice involved in entering it. Is paying taxes also a "contractual agreement"?

Yes, it is a contractual agreement. John Locke addressed this issue in his writings, stating that the government is a tool to serve the needs of the people. When it ceases to serve the needs of the people, they have a right to change it, or abolish it completely. What people don't understand is that there is a real choice in entering it. You choose to live in this country, and under our form of government, this country requires that you pay taxes and register for selective service at 18 (healthy males, anyway). By staying here, you're giving your tacet consent (Locke's words) for the government to hold you to this bargain.

Like I said, if you don't agree with how our government is running things, change it. Write your representatives to do away with selective service, cut taxes, whatever. Or, run for office yourself. Or leave the country. But that's your choice.

[Prosperity]

What do you think?

Long years of experience indicate to us that Negroes can achieve this goal when four things occur:

1. Nonviolent demonstrators go into the streets to exercise their Constitutional rights.

2. Racists resist by unleashing violence against them.

3. Americans of conscience in the name of decency demand federal intervention and legislation.

4. The Administration, under mass pressure, initiates measures of immediate intervention and remedial legislation.

(ML King, Jr., "Behind the Selma March", Saturday Review, April 3, 1965, pp. 16, 17; 57.)

King believed in non-violent revolution FORCING change as a tactic.:cool:

Next ya gonna tell me he wasn't a activist?

Big. ****ing. Deal.

[twa]

So they brought it upon themselves? There is a difference between going into the street to force a change and blaming them for the police dogs, which one is it? Because at this point it sounds like you're blaming the victims, and I don't think you are, but that's what it sounds like.

It's not that difficult,it is not blaming them for the dogs,but rather conciously putting them in the position where it is inevitable for benefit.

Don't conflate non-violent tactics with pure pacifism.

It's a different critter,and the ultimate in defining the opponent.(which is half the battle)

Look to the Green movement in Iran today,it is the suppression that is a inevitable result that swings opinions much more effectively than simply protests.

[ZoEd]

Which in the context of this thread mean going to war...stop being obstinate.

I fully affirm Dr. King's call too, but you see it as a call to war when it was not, either that or you're just hell bent on defending the position and don't want to give in. Personally I think its the latter.

Obstinate, my what a big word. Obstinate is not what I'm being, at all. Why do you feel so, because I don't agree with you. That's a shocker.

When I read the MLK speech that Ellis quoted I didn't picture or interpret it as a call for going to war. I actually took as encouragement for answering the call, scared or not and stand up for what you believe in or risk losing your soul for not doing so.

Obstinate is you refusing to see that, even after Ellis clarified his reasoning for posting it, even then you refuse to acknowledge it. Who are you to judge where or from what a person draws inspiration? Several on this board probably find you foolish for finding inspiration in the scripture, yet I bet you'd defend that one till you're blue in the face. Honestly, whoa is the person who tries to dictate to someone what a passage in the bible represents because they can represent different things to different people, not to mention a single scripture can inspire people in many different ways.

BTW, if anyone likes to ignore peoples posts and meaning to support their arguement look no farther than the mirror. You convieniently ignore things time and time again and cherry pick so how bout you ease up a little, it's a message board.

[AsburySkinsFan]

It's not that difficult,it is not blaming them for the dogs,but rather consciously putting them in the position where it is inevitable for benefit.

Police dogs and fire hoses are not "inevitable", the police could have let them march, they could have let them eat at the lunch counter, they could have let them ride in the front of the bus. None of the violence was inevitable.

Inevitable: incapable of being avoided or prevented;

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inevitable

Don't conflate non-violent tactics with pure pacifism.

It's a different critter,and the ultimate in defining the opponent.(which is half the battle)

Trust me I understand the difference, but even still the blame does not fall on the non-violent resistors, the blame falls on the guy with the dog.

Look to the Green movement in Iran today,it is the suppression that is a inevitable result that swings opinions much more effectively than simply protests.

Again its not inevitable, the opposition always has a choice in how it will respond thus eliminating the inevitability of their actions.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Obstinate, my what a big word. Obstinate is not what I'm being, at all. Why do you feel so, because I don't agree with you. That's a shocker.

When I read the MLK speech that Ellis quoted I didn't picture or interpret it as a call for going to war. I actually took as encouragement for answering the call, scared or not and stand up for what you believe in or risk losing your soul for not doing so.

Obstinate is you refusing to see that, even after Ellis clarified his reasoning for posting it, even then you refuse to acknowledge it. Who are you to judge where or from what a person draws inspiration? Several on this board probably find you foolish for finding inspiration in the scripture, yet I bet you'd defend that one till you're blue in the face. Honestly, whoa is the person who tries to dictate to someone what a passage in the bible represents because they can represent different things to different people, not to mention a single scripture can inspire people in many different ways.

BTW, if anyone likes to ignore peoples posts and meaning to support their arguement look no farther than the mirror. You convieniently ignore things time and time again and cherry pick so how bout you ease up a little, it's a message board.

Fine make MLK a poster child for the enlisting in the Armed Forces.

Sorry but when you read King in this way, you are reading him wrong.

I understand what you're saying about finding inspiration, but to find inspiration to go to war from Dr. King's words is to put what you wanted in his words and then glorify what you found.

[twa]

Again its not inevitable, the opposition always has a choice in how it will respond thus eliminating the inevitability of their actions.

Why do you overlook "respond"?

Certainly their is choice,just as there is FORCING choice.

Which MLK clearly wished to do,it is not a live and let live tactic.

MLK was no fence sitter,but rather a man of direct action, and that to me is what Ellis's quote represents.

Just as in armed conflict there is a choice,and at least one side forcing the issue.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Why do you overlook "respond"?

Certainly their is choice,just as there is FORCING choice.

Which MLK clearly wished to do,it is not a live and let live tactic.

MLK was no fence sitter,but rather a man of direct action, and that to me is what Ellis's quote represents.

Just as in armed conflict there is a choice,and at least one side forcing the issue.

I fully understand, but you also have to at the same time recognize that MLK's non-violent position was not just a tactic, but also an ideal he lived by. So to use MLK's words in the concert of war would be to suggest that the military should employ the tactic of non-violent resistance to the enemy in order to force change. To used his words as a call to arms well, that is placing what one wants in his words and treating his words as an empty jar to which we are allowed to fill with our own content as we desire.