Justification for War and Draft

After reading many threads on ATS on many different issues I have seen many thread responses that lead me to believe there are many amongst us that believe there is no reason good enough to go to war or if at all only after the continental US has suffered an attack.

Along with this subject comes the issue of a military draft which is used either in preparation for a possible war or during a war because of need.

I have several questions on both subjects.

1. Should we pre-empt if intell says risk is high that an attack on CONUS or a major interest is threatened. Or should we suffer an attack first before responding.

2. If a foreign country is developing WMD should we prevent that even with the use of military means or should we wait until such time as they use the WMD.

3. If a draft was needed to support our current needs preventing soldiers in theatre from being unsupported by sufficient manpower would you be in opposition or favor of a draft - and why please.

4. If draft was imposed for future need would you support or oppose it and why.

5. Do you think terrorists should be hunted down irrespective of borders.

These are not loaded questions and allthough I'm sure some flamers and one-liners I'm really much more interested in answers to #1 and #2 because they predicate the rest of the questions.

My object here is to admittedly gauge just how bad things have to get before all of us are united in treating our security as a common interest.

1. US troops should never leave the country. Foreign influence is achieved through diplomacy and national example. So, pre-emption under any circumstances, no.

2. It's hard to prevent the use of WMDs if the country has already used them, so I'm not sure what you're asking.

3. Since I don't believe in US troops abroad, I wouldn't support the start of a draft for a foreign campaign.

4. If our country had strict rules about never sending our troops out of our borders, I'd support a draft without exemption, as long as theirs an alternative for objectors such as civic works program to keep America clean, rebuild from disasters, etc. If US troops can leave our country, then I wouldn't support a draft. National service is important but it has to service the nation.

5. Foreign countries that harbor terrorists of course should be pursued. Justice is very important. However, to send troops abroad to hunt them down can cause more problems than it solves, so I'd put more faith in diplomacy and economic leverage as a means of extraditing them. If a government and a people do not harbor terrorists or criminals, then they have no reprieve and no ability to evade.

Security is always a common interest. The means by which that security is attained is a divisive issue.

taibunsuu, thank you for your frank answer without diatribe you have set an example for others responding to this post no matter their political leanings.

The stay in our borders theme of your answers sounds very libertarian when I had you pegged as an extreme socialist or maybe those two beliefs coincide with each other on that point? interesting none the less.

Originally posted by Phoenix

The stay in our borders theme of your answers sounds very libertarian when I had you pegged as an extreme socialist or maybe those two beliefs coincide with each other on that point? interesting none the less.

I suppose an extreme socialist would be someone sticking to a dogmatic way of thinking and imposing it on others. Imposing someone never works in spreading a message. Living and acting by example, does, which is why I highly respect the idea of neutrality and true self-defense. My overall philosophy don't fit perfectly with any formatted political ideologies. Libertarian comes close to explaining them since I am also a strong believer in the benefits of capitalism and free market forces, and the superiority of individuals over the group.

taibunsuu, Thanks for the explanation it'll help me in the future understanding of your posts not only in this thread but elsewhere.

1. The doctrine of pre-emptive war is not one that I support. Pre-emption hasalmost always meant aggression in the past. Therefore, I believe that an attack should occur before responding.

2. The problem here is that it is hard to remain credible when you condemn others for possessing WMDs, while all the time, the US has the largest and most deadly stockpile of WMDs in the world. What makes the US so special, that it can condemn and yet support the use and production of WMDs?

3. I am against the entire idea of a military, possessed by any country, and therefore the draft is entirely repulsive to me. So no, I would not support a draft under any shape or form.

4. see 3.

5. Again, the 'terrorist' label is a little suspect. As I have made the point before, no american president since Wilson (that I am aware of), under the verbatim definition, has not authorised terrorist activites. Kennedy with his secret bombings of Cuba, Reagan and Nixon with their CIA-sponsored assassinations and overthrows of elected officials, etc.

I do not condone the act of terrorism, and so do believe that terrorists must be stopped, but through co-operation with the international community, not through unilateral, single-minded attacks.

General Zapata as with taibunsuu's response I again am impressed with a considered post to the questions at hand - thank you.

Originally posted by Phoenix
1. Should we pre-empt if intell says risk is high that an attack on CONUS or a major interest is threatened. Or should we suffer an attack first before responding.

This is relative to the quality of the intel. As we have seen, the information our leadership is given does not always reflect reality. Additionally, the term "major interest" would have to be well defined, as this leaves a lot to the imagination. Are we to defend Israel from attackers? or just American bases and such? Were we to obtain solid proof of an impending attack on US soil, I say go do what has to be done.

2. If a foreign country is developing WMD should we prevent that even with the use of military means or should we wait until such time as they use the WMD.

Who are we to decide who is allowed to have weapons and who is not. Pakistan and India are at each other�s throats but we say nothing about their nuke capabilities. This policy confuses me. If this question is applied only to countries with whom we feel an imminent threat, again, we must have proof that said weapons are intended for use against the United States. To sit and wait for an attack using WMD, when we have clear evidence that it will be used against us, is insane. Should we find cause, and I mean real evidence, again, I am in favor of doing what needs to be done.

In regard to the draft, I oppose it unless there is absolute proof that America is presently under attack. My opinion is that in many ways terrorist activity does not qualify for this, for as we have learned; our leaders are capable of sending the US into combat with countries that have not yet attacked us, under the guise of defending our freedom.

Peace,
BG

Originally posted by Phoenix
1. Should we pre-empt if intel says risk is high that an attack on CONUS or a major interest is threatened. Or should we suffer an attack first before responding.

I don't think it's an either/or situation really. We have as much right to defend ourselves as anyone else, and considering we have greater vested interest worldwide, that would increase our need for defense.

The problem lies in the fact that threats are out there that are, in some opinions, a serious threat to us yet we have done nothing militarily to curtail that threat. We should have as little to do with the rest of the world as possible militarily. Straight war should be the last thing, but covert action, control or oversight of money, and co-operation from other countries might take this big bullseye off out back.

Originally posted by Phoenix
2. If a foreign country is developing WMD should we prevent that even with the use of military means or should we wait until such time as they use the WMD.

No. The development of WMD shouldn't be much concern to us with the arsinal we have. To denounce WMD would be to rid ourselves of them as well. We are the most powerful country in the world, not the master's of the world, and we should act accordingly. What message does it send to say that on we are capable of having WMD and using them appropriatly?

The black market is the problem and terrorism is the problem.

Originally posted by Phoenix
3. If a draft was needed to support our current needs preventing soldiers in theatre from being unsupported by sufficient manpower would you be in opposition or favor of a draft - and why please.

No. The draft is something that never needs to be enacted. We have over 80 million civilian firearms in this country. Someone would be hard pressed to take us over.

Originally posted by Phoenix
4. If draft was imposed for future need would you support or oppose it and why.

Um, no. Again, freedom of thought is something we like here. For those who would rather die than fight, that is their option.

Originally posted by Phoenix
5. Do you think terrorists should be hunted down irrespective of borders.

That's a trick question, because it really comes down to how it's handled. Has it been handled well in the past? Not really, so it stands to reason that we will not use it wisely in the future either.

Originally posted by Phoenix
After reading many threads on ATS on many different issues I have seen many thread responses that lead me to believe there are many amongst us that believe there is no reason good enough to go to war or if at all only after the continental US has suffered an attack.[\quote]

Okay, I'll bite. I've been pretty tongue-in cheek about the draft, and reasons to go to war lately. I'll roll out my opinions for this one.

1. Should we pre-empt if intell says risk is high that an attack on CONUS or a major interest is threatened. Or should we suffer an attack first before responding.

Well, we've seen already how horribly wrong intel can be. Its a very difficult call to make, but I suppose that we should figure out how to make our intel more error-proof.

After all, it only takes one bit of mis-read text, one snippet of mis-translated conversation, one glimpse of mis-identified objects, and then people start dying. I think human life should have a bit more of a safety net.

2. If a foreign country is developing WMD should we prevent that even with the use of military means or should we wait until such time as they use the WMD.

Why should we hold any other nation to a higher standard than ourselves and our allies. It sounds too much like being a bad parent. Everybody knows that the 'Do as I say, not as I do' mentality is inherently flawed. What sort of examples are we setting for these countries, and how ludicrous do we sound when we demand they disarm, or be the victim of our OWN WMDs?

I don't know. Again, this is a gray area, and its tough to make a call. I'd say that you need to be presented with evidence of the intent of malicious use of said weapon. We don't need to worry about the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction with Libya, do we? I think we should concentrate more on responsible ownership, than disarming. Much like my stance on guns in the US.

3. If a draft was needed to support our current needs preventing soldiers in theatre from being unsupported by sufficient manpower would you be in opposition or favor of a draft - and why please.

I would be against it.

Here's why.

The draft would pose more of a moral question than anything else, and more than one at that. Firstly, would you be willing to field soldiers that stand as much potential to harm your morale and manpower as the enemy's? If a soldier does not want to be on the front lines, it becomes apparent very quickly. In this day and age, I don't think that it is a morally responsible thing to do, by sending kids who don't like to fight off to war.

Secondly, with our ever-growing fondness of our own personal rights, there is a mentality that Military service is nothing more than optional. I for one feel that if I have no desire to fight in the military or otherwise, (Pacifist. ), then I should not be forced into it, regardless of what a draft board may say. Just like here in America it is in most cases illegal for you to force someone to do something they don't want to do, it should be in any other place we have our hands in.

4. If draft was imposed for future need would you support or oppose it and why.

No, and for all the same reasons as above, plus the following:

I want my children to have the right to choose, no matter what.

5. Do you think terrorists should be hunted down irrespective of borders.

Yes, and that is the ONLY thing that we should be concentrating on right now. Fighting conventional war against a man whom America had a grudge against, when the real threat could be creeping along our borders as we speak is a woefully inefficient way to fight the 'War on Terror'




Good questions. You really gave my mind and fingers a chance for some exercise.



[edit on 11-21-2004 by Loki]

1. Suffer an attack first. As we have witnessed with the pre-emptive attack on Iraq, intelligence is either highly incompetent or outright lying in all parts of the world. Therefore the only method to avoid further catastrophic successes such as what has happened in Iraq is to wait to be attacked first. It may not be what you want to read, but if the United States continually creates Iraq-like scenarios where no evidence of imminent attack is found, the repercussions of such actions by the world like trade embargoes or perhaps even pre-emptive attacks upon the homeland to defend against American aggression could prove more disastrous than if singular events like the terror attacks of 9/11/01 happened again.

2. This reads like the first question to me. Not to mention the United States is sitting upon the largest stockpile of WMD in the world and has already destroyed much of its credibility and made itself look quite aggressive and disrespective of international laws. Making the country look like the enemies they are fighting against. As with the first question, actual usage of WMD would be required before any military means should be undertaken.

3. I would be in opposition of a draft. I am against war and am especially against being involuntarily put into a war.

4. This reads like question number three. I would oppose it just as I would be in opposition of the creation of a draft.

5. It would be nice if terrorist suspects were treated like other international criminal suspects and had standard practices of justice applied to them instead of full country invasions, nation building, torture, and indefinite imprisonment without trial. Since most if not all world intelligence is either highly lacking or extremely fraudulent in its own right, there should be huge reforms to such intelligence gathering. Honest crime fighting tactics should be used upon criminal behavior such as terrorism.

[edit on 21-11-2004 by Frith]

1. No we should not pre-empt. Like some have said, Intel is not always accurate and I believe this also. Lets use what intel we have whether it be accurate or not to try and cease an attack against us.

2. What right do we have to stop nations from developing weapons that we already posess? We must wait. They are not a threat until they pose to use the weapon or use in that matter.

3. No. You wouldn't need a draft if the people thought it was for the good. Many would volunteer on their own. But a draft forces people to go against something they don't believe in.

4. No

5. Within our own country yes. But we shouldn't be galloping around in other countries. Are we the only nation who see terorism as a threat? Let other countries step up and take care of their problems and if asked for help then possibly.

Ah, very good thoughts on #5 there, Frith.

I'm pretty much in agreement there, no, wait, I'm totally in agreement there.

1) While I think you need to use discretion, I have no problems with the doctrine of pre-emption against threats. If there is reason to believe that a foreign entity will strike against the US, then I fully support taking whatever measure is necessary to prevent that from happening.

2) Under most circumstances, no, the military should not be involved. I think the majority of countries can be trusted with their weapons programs. However, countries such as Iraq, North Korea, and Iran, for example, that have been a problem in the past might require more aggressive tactics depending upon the situation.

3) I think the situation is unlikely to occur for the US to have insufficient numbers to support its front line troops. Most of the issues we do have are a direct result of the US having too many troops in too many places where they are not needed. But for the sake of argument, if there was a true need for a draft, I would support it, with strong reservations. A draft for frontline combat troops is a recipe for disaster, as they have a tendency to be poorly trained and of poor morale.

4) Absolutely not. I will not support a draft unless I can see an immediate reason for it. Future circumstances can change and make it unnecessary. I am not a big fan of the draft at any time to begin with.

5) It depends on what country you would have to go into. Again, if its a known trouble spot, I have no problems with attacking terrorist camps in foreign countries.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
We have over 80 million civilian firearms in this country. Someone would be hard pressed to take us over.

lmao! they wouldn't get further south than Vermont.

I'm only 25, the only wars I've seen I've been able to witness in my living room on CNN. I come from an extremely different generation than those of you who were alive during Vietnam, or WW2 for that matter. So, I cannot claim to be a war expert by any means...but here's my .02 anyways...

I know there are many people who are not going to agree with what I'm about to say but I really believe that we should take our allies opinions into consideration before declaring war. Seems like the USA made up their mind about Iraq before we had to hear what our "friends" had to say. We need our neighbors to keep us honest. To downplay those opinions says a lot about how much we value the leadership in other countries. We were stubborn and attacked anyway further damaging our reputation and credibility...everyone will remember this down the road. It may have been different if in fact we did find those WMD's or successfully mapped the link to Saddam and 911...but we have proven to be unsuccessful so far. (Unless you ask people like Edsinger :p)

While I believe we should always hold our country's best interest as far as defending ourselves...did Iraq pose a real threat? Who knows, one day we may get into some serious trouble (hopefully not anytime soon)...and ask our allies for help...will they take us seriously this time? Does anyone take U.S seriously anymore?

Also, why the hell can't we find Osama Bin Laden? This may sound far fetched but don't you think we would have more international cooperation in the hunt for this man if the United States was as innocent to all accusations as we claim? He could be right under our noses...

(BTW before anyone starts flipping out over this thread...yes I am well aware of the France/Russia/Iraq/oil connection...and would also like to remind you that we still have yet to find WMD's or Saddam links to 911)


[edit on 11/21/2004 by Lecky]

All have contributed very good and interesting thoughts to my questions - Thank You! - and no flaming wonder of wonders I am amazed.

A common thought seems to be the need to improve our intelligence gathering and this makes great sense becuase informed decisions cannot be made without it.

I'm thinking if intell was reliable then some with a problem with pre-emption would possibly change their stance - as it is now I don't blame anyone for being opposed to pre-emption.

The draft only in a true national emergency (Conus) seems to be the consensus.

Originally posted by Lecky
I know there are many people who are not going to agree with what I'm about to say but I really believe that we should take our allies opinions into consideration before declaring war. Seems like the USA made up their mind about Iraq before we had to hear what our "friends" had to say.

Well, the US did listen to what it's " friends " had to say. Some of them disagreed. I take by " friends " you mean the French as well. Look at their veto they used in the UN to veto action over Iraq. No matter what conditions were met they would still veto any US sponsored resolution. Not only did they do that, they actively lobbied other countries not to support the US action over Iraq. Very " friendly ". As you probably well know this was mainly due to the secret deals the French had with Saddam.

We need our neighbors to keep us honest. To downplay those opinions says a lot about how much we value the leadership in other countries. We were stubborn and attacked anyway further damaging our reputation and credibility...everyone will remember this down the road. It may have been different if in fact we did find those WMD's or successfully mapped the link to Saddam and 911...but we have proven to be unsuccessful so far.

Even if WMD's had been found, your mentality suggests you would latch onto some other reason to opppose the war. This may have something to do with your extreme personal dislike for Dubya.

While I believe we should always hold our country's best interest as far as defending ourselves...did Iraq pose a real threat? Who knows, one day we may get into some serious trouble (hopefully not anytime soon)...and ask our allies for help...will they take us seriously this time? Does anyone take U.S seriously anymore?

Did Iraq pose a real threat ? Well if you consider it was led by a person who had a pathelogical hatred for America, you could maybe consider it dangerous. He may have destroyed his WMD's however his desires for these weapons were still there, a person psyche just doesn't flip. Once UN embargos were lifted he would have very easily been able to contine his WMD programs.

Also, why the hell can't we find Osama Bin Laden? This may sound far fetched but don't you think we would have more international cooperation in the hunt for this man if the United States was as innocent to all accusations as we claim? He could be right under our noses...

There is plenty of cooperation in the hunt for OBL. You can rest assured every major intelligence agency is looking for him. Looking for one man is the literal equivalent of finding a needle in a haystack.

Are you trying to say, that countries aren't helping the US becuase they agree with what OBL is doing ?

Originally posted by Yarnos
Well, the US did listen to what it's " friends " had to say. Some of them disagreed. I take by " friends " you mean the French as well. Look at their veto they used in the UN to veto action over Iraq. No matter what conditions were met they would still veto any US sponsored resolution. Not only did they do that, they actively lobbied other countries not to support the US action over Iraq. Very " friendly ". As you probably well know this was mainly due to the secret deals the French had with Saddam.

You don't think it may have been because we didn't have enough proof against Saddam?

Even if WMD's had been found, your mentality suggests you would latch onto some other reason to opppose the war. This may have something to do with your extreme personal dislike for Dubya.

That's interesting, I felt like I was using logic to show my opposition to the war in Iraq. My "hatred" for Bush has nothing to do with the fact he made a mistake.

Did Iraq pose a real threat ? Well if you consider it was led by a person who had a pathelogical hatred for America, you could maybe consider it dangerous. He may have destroyed his WMD's however his desires for these weapons were still there, a person psyche just doesn't flip. Once UN embargos were lifted he would have very easily been able to contine his WMD programs.

Well using that logic what's stopping us from declaring war on all the other country's that hate us? That would get them to like us more

There is plenty of cooperation in the hunt for OBL. You can rest assured every major intelligence agency is looking for him. Looking for one man is the literal equivalent of finding a needle in a haystack.

Really? I don't have any connections to all the major intelligence agencies like yourself, I never hear about the search...but I guess you are right...what are they going to say "Osama Bin Laden - Still Can't Find Him!"

Are you trying to say, that countries aren't helping the US becuase they agree with what OBL is doing ?

Not that they approve of what he's doing, more they just don't like us or give 2 sh$ts about our bounty hunt on the man. Like I mentioned...it was just an opinion...could be far-fetched.

Basically, my whole point was that the United States should respect our relationships with other nations. In recent years, I've noticed our foreign relations have soured dramatically. Sometimes "playing nice" is the best plan in the long run, and "playing by the rules" is a must for the USA. I hold high expectations for my country, that's considered a good thing right? One could also argue that since America is the #1 superpower in the world that it's our duty to lead by example to perhaps play rolemodel to any lesser developed countries (whatever "lesser developed" may mean to you).



[edit on 11/21/2004 by Lecky]

1.

Ah, in this world, there are three types of control: Corrective control, Concurrent Control, and Preventative Control. Ideally, Preventative control would be the best way to go. However, if you do not have a crystal ball, you are gonna make a lot of mistakes. I would love to see Preventative control used, but right now it is impossible for the reasons that have been listed. Our intelligence is more than just fallible these days, they are seeming more and more like lies. Don't get me wrong, there is room for errors, but this seems to be a huge gaping error. There are thousands of people dead because of supposed errors. Preventative is out. Concurrent control would probably be the best that we can do these days accurately enough. It is horrible to think like that, but the world cannot be perfect. Hopefully, we can knock down whatever is coming our way, but aggressing at people who we do not have a true knowledge of is more than a faux pas.

2.

However silly this may sound, this type of stuff should make a country feel safer. Not the country that is eyeballing them, but those who are making them. We have them for the same reason. However, there is really no threat of use from a country with a thousand of them. The real threat (as pointed out in the last Jack Ryan movie I believe) is the despot who has one. As far as Saddam, if he would have dropped one on our interests, he would have been sent to hell before he finished his victory cigar. And Saddam knew that. I think Saddam was very little threat to us even if he had the weapons. Wanting to do something to us and going to do something to us are two completely different things. Honestly, I could not invade someone who has done nothing with their "security blanket". Look at Pakistan and India. They hate each and both countries have the bomb. They would love to use thier nukes on each other. Have they made the fatal mistake? Not yet. I believe the only reason Saddam used them on Iran and the people of the Northern part of Iraq was because Iran didn't have any. Do you honestly think he would use them on us? I don't, but then again, I'm naive.

3.

There is a test for this. If we were going to be crushed and driven to the west coast and have us doing the Bataan Death March all the way there, then yeah...let's have a draft. But let's get real, we haven't had a war that our very lives and the life of our country has been at stake since I have been born. A draft is the most hideous thing that could possibly happen unless The US of A was in the face of death. A few thousand Arabs are not going to bring the Giant down.

4.

See number three.

5.

Just by us, I don't think so. I do believe that there are a great deal of nations that would help us out in that quest. There is a large number of diplomatic ways to accomplish this. And if that fails, then we should look into other ways of accomplishing. Nah, I'm kidding. I think what we did to Afghanistan was completely called. Al Qaeda's Qaeda was in that country. It was held up by it's government at that time.

Now, if you are talking about a country that may have terrorists, but the government can't really do something about them, then no. We can try different avenues, but invading that country to eliminate their threat is wrong. Should we invade the entire island of Jamaica because they have two terrorists. No.

Evil K rant: And then there are many more evil ways to accomplish it without a sustained ground effort. Hello, haven't any of ya'll ever heard of starving a nation out? It may be inhumane, but I gaurantee that if we would have imposed outrageous amounts of embargos and sanctions on Afghanistan, the Afghanis would would have brought OBL out hanging by his toes. The main thing I am against is our boys dying face down in the mud while some sixteen year old extremist pops rounds into his back. If we are going to be hated, we might as well be really hated the right way.