Where is the Draft?

[Ani_Ibi]

Steve O'Brien:

I urge everyone on this thread to read the U.S. bishops’ *Statement on Registration and Conscription for Military Service *(February 14, 1980):

usccb.org/sdwp/peace/military.htm

In this statement, the bishops oppose the resumption of the draft apart from a “national defense emergency,” reject the involvement of Catholic schools in draft registration, and oppose the conscription of women.

Keep and spread the Faith.

There is no need to read your link.

1. It is about time yall started reading our links.
2. It is about time yall started responding to the points we raise instead of **evading **them.
3. The United States of America does not have the draft. The draft does not exist.

 

[thestickman]

Ani Ibi:

There is no need to read your link.

1. It is about time yall started reading our links.
2. It is about time yall started responding to the points we raise instead of **evading **them.
3. The United States of America does not have the draft. The draft does not exist.

IMO, they evade the points we make because there’s no validity to their argument.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Steve O'Brien:

Cathlicrat’s statement about a third Iraq “re-up” uses the military lingo word “re-up” (re-enlistment) in a loose sense. He is, however, correct about this fact: General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated that third tours of duty for active-duty soldiers may be necessary in Iraq:

Reenlistment is one thing, reassignment another. When a soldier re-enlists, he does it voluntarily. He subjects himself to military discipline and orders for several more years.

General Meyers’ comments have nothing to do with “forcibel re-enlistment.” He pointed out that many soldiers will serve a third term in Iraq – and they voluntarily re-enlist knowing that.

The only bill to re-introduce the draft was submitted by Democrats – in a blatant attempt to scare people.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

vern humphrey:

The only bill to re-introduce the draft was submitted by Democrats – in a blatant attempt to scare people.

But if you listen to the MSM, it was Bush that was intoducing the draft. Here is the truth:
House Opposes Military Draft Bill
PF

 

[vern_humphrey]

WanderAimlessly:

But if you listen to the MSM, it was Bush that was intoducing the draft. Here is the truth:House Opposes Military Draft Bill

PF

The bias of the media is undeniable.

 

[Cathlicrat]

Steve O Brien

Thank you for your kind support.

I should have used the word “obligation” as per their contract. I apologize as I didnt mean anything derogatory in that choice of wording.

I also didnt realize some folks would get bogged down in semantics and ignore the main thrust of my question:

When their “obligations” are fulfilled which for many the third time is happening, will there be a possibility for a draft? dont get too comfy.

And Mr Gilliam…no, as far as this unjust war is concerned, I dont encourage ANY youth to join the service. I do my best to discourage them by enlightening them of events leading up to the war…not to mention if they are Catholic to show them what the Bishops have stated regarding this war…I do the job of the Churchs position on the war, not this administrations to meet recruitment… and I call on all Catholics wishing to be faithful to the magesterium to not encourage our youth to enlist regarding the Iraq war…or at the least to not mislead them and alert them to what the Church stated. That is what a good Catholic should be doing as far I am concerned… at the least,alerting them to what their Church has stated. Catholic FIRST, Country second, and Govt THIRD.

And I was also hurt by being spoken to by others that since Gilliam placed links about no WMDs, that somehow means, the matter is solved, Gilliam gave us “the truth” and I am ignoring posts…I also posted that according to the CIAs FINAL REPORT and Mr Charles Duelfer…NO WMDs…so I could also use the argument that some here arent paying attention to the facts…just posts that seem to fit positions they wish to accept no matter what the facts are bearing out…this saddens me…

Peace and God bless and please refrain from attacking me…maybe just ask me next time if I meant a word as an attack or just picked the verbiage… or accuse me of ignoring posts that bear no semblance to facts.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Jesus warmly praised the Roman centurion, and we repeat the centurion’s words at every Mass when we say: “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed” (*Mt * 8:5-13). It’s also true that expressions of the Faith make use of military language; for example, it can be said that the sacrament of Confirmation makes one a soldier of Christ.

Catholics shouldn’t forget the above points. Nor should they ignore the new catechism’s commendation of the peace-keeping, defensive, and ***protective ** * soldier (not the soldier who participates in an aggressive war involving the unprovoked invasion of a non-threatening country):

"Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace" (section 2310).

American Catholics should realize that the Church’s perspective on military service is light years away from the error of militarism–an error that is beclouding the judgment of many Catholics. The totality of the Church’s teachings on war and peace verifies the wrongheadedness and danger of militarism.

Here’s a citation for the Church’s opposition to militarism:

***“If an economic order is to be created which is genuine and universal, there must be an abolition of excessive desire for profit, nationalistic pretensions, the lust for political domination, militaristic thinking, and intrigues designed to spread and impose ideologies” (Vatican II, Gaudium et spes, section 85).

*Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Cathlicrat:

I should have used the word “obligation” as per their contract. I apologize as I didnt mean anything derogatory in that choice of wording…When their “obligations” are fulfilled which for many the third time is happening, will there be a possibility for a draft? dont get too comfy.

OK. Apology accepted.

Cathlicrat:

I also didnt realize some folks would get bogged down in semantics and ignore the main thrust of my question.

So in ‘apologizing’ you then mitigate your apology by saying ‘some people’ got ‘bogged down in semantics.’ Is that really an apology? This is what you said:

“a third re up the last time soldiers can be forced”

Cathlicrat:

I do the job of the Churchs position on the war, not this administrations to meet recruitment

Selectively it seems. The Church has said more than what you have set out. And other posters have provided that additional information. Also the doctrines of Just War, legitimate self-defence, and double effect need to be explained and applied point by point, not just quoted in the assumption that quoting them automatically supports an anti-war position.

Cathlicrat:

And I was also hurt by being spoken to by others that since Gilliam placed links about no WMDs, that somehow means, the matter is solved, Gilliam gave us “the truth” and I am ignoring posts.

You have been ignoring posts and links. Your posts have not responded to specific points; they have attempted to make broad sweeps without supporting documentation. And they have, at times, tended to flame. To wit: “Didnt daddy say “read my (lying) lips” no new taxes?” Perhaps you have hurt others by the diction you have chosen?

As for gilliam being the repository of truth: who said that? gilliam posted a link on the discovery of WMDs. If you don’t think that the information at that link is true, then please say why you do not think it is true, but at least give gilliam the courtesy of responding to the points set out in his post and in the link which he offered.

Cathlicrat:

I also posted that according to the CIAs FINAL REPORT and Mr Charles Duelfer…NO WMDs…so I could also use the argument that some here arent paying attention to the facts.

It’s not an argument it is just a claim. How does the CIA’s final report relate to gilliam’s WMD link? Have you set out a compare/contrast between the CIA report and the WMD link?

Cathlicrat:

just posts that seem to fit positions they wish to accept no matter what the facts are bearing out…this saddens me…

This is an inaccurate and unfair characterization.

Cathlicrat:

Peace and God bless and please refrain from attacking me.

Perhaps you would consider refraining from attacking others both directly and indirectly?

Asking for clarity and charity from you is not an attack. It is a request that the rules be respected both in form and in spirit.

 

[JMJ_Pinoy]

Ani Ibi:

There is no need to read your link.

1. It is about time yall started reading our links.
2. It is about time yall started responding to the points we raise instead of **evading **them.
3. The United States of America does not have the draft. The draft does not exist.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I’d like to make a general point about debates on the draft, the Iraq war, or any other topic, and I’d like to direct it to anyone who takes the time to read this post.

Concerned about tiring himself out by throwing too many countershots, a boxer may decide not to respond immediately to certain punches thrown by his opponent. That’s the fighter’s call.

By the same token, a debater may make the decision not to answer a certain point made by his adversary if the debater judges that it doesn’t merit a response or has already been adequately answered.

Of course, the audience for the debate may agree or disagree with the debater’s decision.

Another point: the patriotism, camaraderie, and solidarity of soldiers, veterans, and their loved ones are awesome, but these virtues must be implemented in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church. One of those teachings is that we are morally obliged to work for the avoidance of unnecessary wars, even when the state attempts to mislead the populace into thinking that an unnecessary war is just (Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 2242, 2308, and 2311).

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Philip_P]

I don’t think there should be a draft, but I also don’t think one is reasonably possible. Domestic politics wouldn’t allow it. I also think this is one of the reasons that we’ll see a substantial drawdown in 06 (and I’d prefer we have a plan rather than just collapse, which is a real danger if we keep on pretending that we have no plans to leave. The points about “cutting and running” are well taken, but I think that’s precisely what will happen if we don’t start planning for exit NOW).

On a potentially more controversial note, the idea of mandatory 2-year national service has been floated. You could choose to either serve in the military or in some non-military capacity, and in return get help paying for college. I could support something like this…

 

[thestickman]

Philip P:

On a potentially more controversial note, the idea of mandatory 2-year national service has been floated. You could choose to either serve in the military or in some non-military capacity, and in return get help paying for college. I could support something like this…

I’ve always been a fan of the idea. Implementation of it would be problematic due to the size of our population, however.

 

[thestickman]

Steve O'Brien:

Another point: the patriotism, camaraderie, and solidarity of soldiers, veterans, and their loved ones are awesome, but these virtues must be implemented in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church. One of those teachings is that we are morally obliged to work for the avoidance of unnecessary wars, even when the state attempts to mislead the populace into thinking that an unnecessary war is just (Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 2242, 2308, and 2311).

Keep and spread the Faith.

**2309 **The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

 

[vern_humphrey]

thestickman:

I’ve always been a fan of the idea. Implementation of it would be problematic due to the size of our population, however.

We have something over 4 million people a year turning draft age. With a two-year period of service, we’d have something like 7 million in uniform (plus a million or so who just couldn’t serve.) Then we have those already over 18 who never served, and in fairness, they have to be drafted, too. We wind up with some 14 million people in uniform.

The cost of equipping, housing, feeding, clothing, training and so on would be enormous.

 

[thestickman]

vern humphrey:

We have something over 4 million people a year turning draft age. With a two-year period of service, we’d have something like 7 million in uniform (plus a million or so who just couldn’t serve.) Then we have those already over 18 who never served, and in fairness, they have to be drafted, too. We wind up with some 14 million people in uniform.

The cost of equipping, housing, feeding, clothing, training and so on would be enormous.

Yep. And if we kept that large a standing army folks on the left would be screaming bloody murder I can hear it now, “If you stopped spending so much on keeping such a large army then ___ and ____ wouldn’t all be your fault also!”

 

[vern_humphrey]

thestickman:

Yep. And if we kept that large a standing army folks on the left would be screaming bloody murder I can hear it now, “If you stopped spending so much on keeping such a large army then ___ and ____ wouldn’t all be your fault also!”

And some people would be screaming, “The existance of a large Army implies intent to USE a large Army.” And they’d see plots peeping from behind every tree.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Steve O'Brien:

Concerned about tiring himself out by throwing too many countershots, a boxer may decide not to respond immediately to certain punches thrown by his opponent. That’s the fighter’s call.

Ropeydope?
Steve O'Brien:

By the same token, a debater may make the decision not to answer a certain point made by his adversary if the debater judges that it doesn’t merit a response or has already been adequately answered.

Or the point made is so brilliiant that the debater just plain doesn’t have a clue how to respond.
Steve O'Brien:

Another point: the patriotism, camaraderie, and solidarity of soldiers, veterans, and their loved ones are awesome, but these virtues must be implemented in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church. One of those teachings is that we are morally obliged to work for the avoidance of unnecessary wars, even when the state attempts to mislead the populace into thinking that an unnecessary war is just (Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 2242, 2308, and 2311). Keep and spread the Faith.

Quoting the Catechism doesn’t say anything. You are assuming we are applying the Catechism in the same way you are. But we are not. That is why we disagree. For you to find common ground – which is part of the work in discussion – it is contingent on you to take each part of the relevant sections of the Catechism and apply them to the problem at hand, analysing them point by point.

 

[Philip_P]

Most western nations have some form of national service, which leads me to suspect the problems of implementing it are greatly exagerrated (along with those of nation health care, but thats an enitrely different debate).

Also, most nations that have compulsory service offer a non-military option, so you wouldn’t necessarily have 7 million folks under arms.

As far as people seeing plots everywhere, well, if we let paranoid conspiracies dictate our public policy, we’d be in a fine mess indeed. Maybe we could form the conspiracy theorists into their own separate divisions while they served - the John Birch Brigade vs the Organic Granola Patrol

 

[Lizzie]

Ani Ibi:

One of the people supposedly for the draft on your anti-draft website is supposedly Wes Clarke. “Open supporters of the draft range from Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC) to retired General Wesley Clark. (The Hill, July 2004).”

Here’s what Michael Moore has to say:

“He [Clarke] is 100% opposed to the draft. If you are 18-25 years old and reading this right now, I have news for you – if Bush wins, he’s going to bring back the draft. He will be forced to. Because, thanks to his crazy war, recruitment is going to be at an all-time low. And many of the troops stuck over there are NOT going to re-enlist. The only way Bush is going to be able to staff the military is to draft you and your friends. Parents, make no mistake about it – Bush’s second term will see your sons taken from you and sent to fight wars for the oily rich. Only an ex-general who knows first-hand that a draft is a sure-fire way to wreck an army will be able to avert the inevitable.”

Very informative!

Michael Moore is quite strident in claims that didn’t bear fruit, isn’t he? Maybe that’s why he has checked himself into rehab.

It seems peculiar that only radical Democrat politicians like Rangel have called for the reinstitution if the military draft.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Lizzie:

Michael Moore is quite strident in claims that didn’t bear fruit, isn’t he? Maybe that’s why he has checked himself into rehab.

Well God speed to him then. Rehab can’t be a walk in the park.