As title, if you have post or link any useful resource you have
Whether it’s a good thing or not depends entirely on your philosophical views. There is no objectively correct answer, and which arguments may convince someone very much depends on the values and perspectives of the person you are trying to convince.
How do you make someone realize that their philosophical views are bad then?
That’s not how it works. It isn’t your way or the highway
How could one convince you that your philosophical views are bad?
Sorry, I’m completely immovable on the stance that war is bad. Never once has mass human slaughter made the world a better place.
I understand that, like everything, there are those who disagree. Moral relativism aside, those people are wrong, in the sense that I have zero tolerance for supporting campaigns of mass death.
So if you have an immoveable stance against war, isn’t it just as likely someone out there believes they have a similarly immovable stance in favor of the draft?
Yeah, and that person, unlike me, is evil, because they are able to see human lives as pawns in a political game.
Uh, just to be clear, I’m not actually trying to sway you. Just pointing out to OP, and to you I guess since you’re engaging, that when someone holds an “immoveable stance” as they themselves say, and aren’t open to changing their views, it is highly unlikely one can convince them to change. Like, someone could up to you and say you’re wrong and evil for your views but that probably isn’t going to convince you, right?
Is every alternative preferable to war? For example, should Ukraine have agreed to become part of Russia to avoid war?
Quite a few nations capitulated against the Nazis within days or even without a fight to avoid war. It saved a lot of lives. Does that make it the right choice? Who is to say…
What’s for sure is that Boris shouldn’t have vetoed the peace agreement in 2022.
I didn’t think it saved lives, since it empowered the Nazis to kill more people. So I say no it wasn’t the right choice.
Look it’s hard to say if it saved lives in the overall ww2 tally, but surrender to save lives was the rationale of the Generals eg in The Netherlands. They looked at what the Luftwaffe had done to Rotterdam, looked at what weapons they had themselves, considered the prospect of what was going to happen to Utrecht next, and decided that further resistance was futile. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_in_World_War_II#German_occupation
Perhaps by bringing up resources that prove my philosophical views bad
What kind of resources are we talking about here? Clearly it doesn’t help to make you talk to 1 person that holds contrasting views, as that seems to be your starting point. A study of 1000? A study of 100000? An empirical research over 100 years? 500? A meta analysis? 5 people talking to you about it? 10? 100?
So have you tried that with the people who agree with the draft? Did you find it was convincing to them?
Classically, you’d discuss their views with them and find the logical conclusions. Then you’d talk though if those ideas contradict with other ideas they hold. That sort of discussion/dialogue is basically all of Plato.
We don’t have a way to do this. I don’t think we ever will. Wish the answer was different.
The one thing I will say is that logical argument is extremely ineffective for changing people’s views. Personal, emotional stories are best. The issue is that war and the draft is already highly emotionally charged, so it’s gonna be hard to find something that will strike a nerve with someone who hasn’t already come around on it.
You can’t force someone to believe something
First you set up a news agency. You tune into their fear of inadequacy. You craft stories and spin truths to Make sure that they’re good and scared of the future of them and their family. You keep slowly chipping away until they have no problem with suspension of disbelief. You make sure that day and their friends all have the right tools to indoctrinate each other. Then you get small and big business on board by offering them tons of money to help keep everybody good and scared. You craft laws and put people in the right places in police organizations to make sure that the people you’re trying to scare them with are seen as the Boogeyman. Sure, it’s not technically forcing but it’s forcing…
OP, nobody in that thread yesterday was saying it was a good thing. When a country gets invaded, your responses are always going to be a matter of lesser evils. Apologies for Godwin’s-Law-ing this off the bat, but it wasn’t great that the Allies drafted hundreds of thousands of people and invaded Nazi Germany. It was still better than every other option.
Godwin’s law itself always confused me. Of course comparisons with nazi Germany are overused, but it’s literally only 80 years ago. The fact that it could happen such a short time ago means that many of the same dangers, same lessons learned are very likely still completely applicable today. The human behaviors that led to Nazi Germany are still there, in/outgroup thinking, fear of foreigners/others, etc etc etc
So yeah I don’t think “Godwin’s law” existing as a concept should stop valid comparisons.
It doesn’t! It’s just a comment on how overused the comparisons are on the internet. To quote Godwin himself:
Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler to think a bit harder about the Holocaust.
Right, the point is whether a comparison is really valid and/or if something else would be more appropriate, not that they should never be used
You can’t make a person understand anything. If the very simple explanation of “draft the unwilling and send them to die” doesn’t convince them, they don’t want to be convinced. I couldn’t name a single person who thinks that’s good, just maybe some folks who would say it’s sometimes a grim necessity. And I guess I’m in the latter camp, but shit would have to be dire.
Yeah like somebody else said, you’d have to challenge their philosophical believes that leads them to hold this opinion first.
And that in turn requires argueing them from a position not based on “I disagree, and my opinion is the correct one”, but on philosophical, logical and argumentative flaws in their believe system. Which is not easy to do. At all. It’s in fact very hard, made harder by the fact that our brains can see information, actively realize this information is correct and contradicts something we thought of earlier, and yet also discard said information and stick to the existing mental model instead. Meaning that even if you do everything correct, they might go “Yes, that’s true” and then nothing happens, out of no ill will.
Just to throw my two cents in: This user isn’t a genuinely curious ponderer, rather they are a Russian troll trying to fish for arguments they could further use in bad faith to lick Putin’s boot.
Just read through their comment history and make your own mind. This is not genuine and most everyone is just feeding the troll.
The question itself is worth asking though. A lot of good points here, but they’d be better given in good faith for someone genuine.
“All my takes are so perfect no one but a troll could disagree with me”
They need to drag it down to personal attacks and othering because all liberals can do is justify why x and y group deserve genocide and solitary confinement for life.
The distinction between liberals is which groups there form of orthodoxy allows the military and the prisons to be directed at, they can agree on a few things though, mainly the ongoing enslavement of black americans and the genocide of palestine.
Observe above me, a liberal unable to compherhend any dissenting opinion to his liberal orthodoxy engaging in ‘othering’.
Irrelevant. If we’re learning, good for us.
Sure. But it might be useful for someone to know this before dedicating time responding genuinely. If it’s still irrelevant, great. If it might change someone’s mind about spending their time, then also great.
Only giving context here. Might be relevant to some.
It was obvious. All good.
Just to throw my two cents in: This user isn’t a genuinely curious ponderer, rather they are a Russian troll trying to fish for arguments they could further use in bad faith to lick Putin’s boot.
You sound like a victim of propaganda. Arguments to convince people that a forced draft is bad does not benefit the russian government or any other. I encourage you to read other people posts better and to think with your own brain.
My reading comprehension is just fine, your lack of capability to understand context and tendency to deal in absolutes and binaries in a world made of wide spectrums, shades of gray and unpredictability, on the other hand, does not seem to pass the smell test.
Either you argue in bad faith, are intentionally a shifting contrarian or just not competent enough to either understand the world or at the very least discuss it with others in a way that makes sense.
deleted by creator
Do you approve of Russias invasion of Ukraine?
deleted by creator
Instance checks out.
Il take that as a yes.
No, I just have no idea what you are talking about. But it’s probably some weird ass tankie shit.
Its very apparent
No and i do not approve any other country invasion of another. What about you?
Are you trying to say Ukraine is wrong to go into Russia?
“Are you trying to say U̶k̶r̶a̶i̶n̶e̶ the government of ukraine who is drafting against their will disabled men with heart disease, spinal injuries, epilepsy, autism, and other illnesses and disorders is wrong in ordering its soldier to invade Russia?”
This doesn’t sound good to me, nodoby should do this or have the power to do it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobilization_in_Ukraine#2024
https://www.businessinsider.com/ukrainian-soldiers-thought-order-to-invade-russia-was-joke-2024-8
Going into Russia has been a huge tactical success for them, we will see if it’s a strategic success, but chances are looking good. Drafting people against their will is kinda the definition of a draft. I haven’t looked into the exceptions or lack thereof specifically though.
Do you have a problem with Ukraine invading Russia at all after Russia is trying to annihilate them as a country? Do you have a problem with their conscription policies? Or a problem with using conscripts in the attack into Russia? Or a combination of those three?
I don’t think being drafted by force and ordered to invade another country is a good thing regardless of who you are.
Russia’s invasion is totally unjustified.
I think starting a war is very rarely justified. The evil prevented by attacking would need to be much larger than the inherent evil of the war. That’s pretty close to Justinian just war theory, but I’d weight present known evils much more highly than theoretically reduced future evils to account for uncertainty. For example, I think an allied invasion into Nazi Europe was justified.
“Ukraine is wrong and they shouldn’t actually have any military at all btw, also I’m not a Russian troll”
— You
It’s like watching a middle-schooler pick a fight, lose, then go crying to an adult that he’s being bullied. You’re pathetic.
I’m Finnish and have done my conscription and it was one of the best years of my life. I wouldn’t want to go into war, but I would definitely go and fight Russia if they had invaded Finland.
Like Ukraine has done, defending their country from the Russian “#+special military operation.”
Go cry into your limited access to the global community, Ruski. Slava Ukraini.
“Ukraine is wrong and they shouldn’t actually have any military at all btw, also I’m not a Russian troll”
never said such thing, that’s actually you saying it
never said such thing
No, it’s what is implied. Perhaps you don’t know the word?
So you think Ukraine is wrong to defend itself from Russian military aggression. You’ve admitted that.
The only people who think Russia is in the right about this are propaganda trolls and brainwashed Russian iidjits.
You can’t make anyone understand anything.
You can however question their belief and motivate them to consider other options.
I know you’re looking for arguments specifically for your opinion, but you should really try to avoid using arguments at all. If you set an argument, they will attack the argument and use this to dig into their existing belief on whatever is the actual topic of disagreement instead of addressing the actual topic. If you “attack” them, they will “defend”. This does not change their opinion.
It’s better to question them, so they have to think about why they believe in what they do. By questioning, you also show that you do not understand or agree with their opinion.
It also keeps the discussion about something that exists on their side. As soon as you introduce an argument, the discussion turns to being about something that you introduced, and that’s not at all what you intended to discuss or change. Be careful with that. They will attempt to make you present arguments. Don’t let them do that. It’s about what they believe.
I’ll take bad faith posts for $1000 Alex
On a related note, if the US continues on its current trajectory, I predict the draft to return within the next eight years. The Selective Service System never went away. Look what congress is up to right now: Lawmakers move to automate Selective Service registration for all men
The automation is because it’s always been a felony not to register, same as it is in virtually every country with mandatory service, so to avoid the horrifically needless societal effects that come from giving someone a felony for a random crime, they simply automated it.
Basically what they did with social security years ago. Used to also be a crime to not sign up by a certain age, so they just started immediately registering all children at birth.
Wait, selective service wasn’t automated? When I turned 18 my card just showed up in the mail. I didn’t have to do anything to get it.
Personally, I’ve come to the conclusion that anyone who has the capacity and wisdom to know why wars are waged in the first place would never voluntarily fight in one.
It’s reinforced my philosophical idea that wars are just a way for humanity to purge the worst of itself.
Eh. Overseas? Definitely not. If my home is invaded? You bet your ass I’m fighting the invaders.
Defending Your hoke is poorly the only way a human can cooe with horrors of war and not come out completely broken.
Being on the invading side is essentially signing for life time of ment issues since there is no good way to cope besides openly saying yeah I like going to other countries to kill people for money…
Even though op’s post history clearly points to the angle they’re trying to get across, I’ll answer for ya.
You educate the Russians. They’re living in a closed room and are being force fed bullshit so Ukraine looks like the bad guys. Once they’re educated and realize what the hell is going on, there will be some uproar to them being drafted and forced to fight Ukraine who has done nothing wrong. Maybe then, they’ll stand up to Putin and take his fucking ass out and this shit can be over. At that point maybe Russia can turn it around and become a productive member of society.
@InternetUser2012 I am Russian. Believe me when I say: most of us perfectly know what’s going on.
We’re just scared. That’s it.
I would be too. Stay safe.
@drq @InternetUser2012 @index
Yes, we’re scared. Of foreign jerks toppling our government again even though they established it here originally. And doing it repeatedly. And they did it in other countries. I’m with Ukrainians. But only with those who fight against NATO and not with it.
perhaps should start by taking your own advice, stepping out of your echo chamber, and educating yourself on what’s going on https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/who-caused-the-ukraine-war
edit: Worth noting how despite all the screeching and downvoting, radlibs can’t actually make any counterpoints to what Mearsheimer says.
I’ve read the contents of your link and I can see how one would fall for these arguments. But I can already point to a couple flaws:
It doesn’t matter who did what before, Russia had a choice. A choice of resolving their issue in a nonviolent manner through diplomacy, espionage, subterfuge and trade. Instead they chose violence. Thus it doesn’t matter that they had no inkling of wanting to conquer Ukraine (or specifically Putin) or not.
Second, they absolutely did try to install puppets and Russia-friendly governments before. They succeeded sometimes, somewhat. And the last time those puppets had to flee to Russia of all places to escape the wrath of Ukrainian people.
Third, this didn’t start on February 22, 2022, but in 2014, when Russia decided to occupy Crimea. So they didn’t just do it once, but on two occasions. Except the West somehow glossed over the first time on the heels of the Winter Olympics.
Seems like there are a couple of flaws in your own narrative there.
It doesn’t matter who did what before, Russia had a choice. A choice of resolving their issue in a nonviolent manner through diplomacy, espionage, subterfuge and trade.
Russia did exercise this choice for whole eight years. That’s what Minsk agreements were about, and now prominent western officials have come out and admitted on record that the goal of the agreements was in fact to give more time for Ukraine to arm itself.
Instead they chose violence. Thus it doesn’t matter that they had no inkling of wanting to conquer Ukraine (or specifically Putin) or not.
Stoltenberg openly admits that it was in fact NATO that chose violence and refused to negotiate https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm
Second, they absolutely did try to install puppets and Russia-friendly governments before. They succeeded sometimes, somewhat. And the last time those puppets had to flee to Russia of all places to escape the wrath of Ukrainian people.
Last I checked, it was the US that overthrew the democratically elected government and installed puppets. Which is also not exactly the first time that US has done this around the world.
Third, this didn’t start on February 22, 2022, but in 2014, when Russia decided to occupy Crimea. So they didn’t just do it once, but on two occasions. Except the West somehow glossed over the first time on the heels of the Winter Olympics.
Oh you mean when Russia annex Crimea in response to US running a color revolution. I love how you just ignore that little detail there.
I really have to wonder if people like you genuinely believe what you say. It’s absolutely incredible if that’s the case.
Stoltenberg openly admits that it was in fact NATO that chose violence and refused to negotiate https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm
I’m not going to read the whole minutes. Can you quote please what you are referring to?
Last I checked, it was the US that overthrew the democratically elected government and installed puppets. Which is also not exactly the first time that US has done this around the world.
This seems to be whataboutism. Do you have any evidence for the US causing the euromaidan and subsequent revolution? Seems to me like the people were fed up with the shit that ol’ Viktor was peddling.
Oh you mean when Russia annex Crimea in response to US running a color revolution.
Did anyone from the West ever conquer anything that belonged to Russia? Russia answered with violence for nothing. Notice how there’s a string of attacks on territories that weren’t actually Russia’s in recent history.
I love how you just ignore that little detail there.
I really have to wonder if people like you genuinely believe what you say. It’s absolutely incredible if that’s the case.
Classic distraction scheme. Attacking the person instead of the point. Not even sure why I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and engaged with you.
He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that. So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
Here you go ^
This seems to be whataboutism. Do you have any evidence for the US causing the euromaidan and subsequent revolution? Seems to me like the people were fed up with the shit that ol’ Viktor was peddling.
here’s a detailed explanation with lots of mainstream sources for you https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-credible-evidence-that-Ukraines-2014-revolution-was-due-to-a-CIA-coup
If you think that US overthrowing a neutral government in Ukraine to put in a far right regime that allowed NATO to start building out offensive capabilities on Russia’s border is not relevant to Russia pushing back NATO, really don’t know what else to tell you.
Did anyone from the West ever conquer anything that belonged to Russia? Russia answered with violence for nothing. Notice how there’s a string of attacks on territories that weren’t actually Russia’s in recent history.
Ukraine descended into a civil war after a US backed coup. The fighting between the right wing western backed government and Donbas started right after it. You seem to be utterly ignorant on the history of the conflict.
Classic distraction scheme. Attacking the person instead of the point. Not even sure why I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and engaged with you.
Except I addressed your “point” which is sheer nonsense.
summed up: well i dont read shit so you’re gonna have to spoonfeed it to me so i can spit it out in your face without even tasting it
dude, Russia complained to the UN and obviously NATO and the US many many many many many many times. You’re being brainwashed by US media, which is 100% ALL controlled by the CIA. For basics, you should simply look at what Russia’s foreign diplomats are saying. They speak clearly and don’t bullshit. Weigh what the two sides say. Simply put, the US just makes up childish stories with no factual basis behind them and Russia gives long factual history lessons.
I agree with you on previous points, but you must know for a fact that Russia has a whole department for rewriting history in their favour that didn’t fall with the Soviet Union.
That makes your long factual history lessons claim ridiculous, besides relying on historical Russia to justify current carnage is ridiculous.
NATO driven by the US definitively pokes at several beehives, and once those beehives lose diplomatically (because given the pressure we do it definitely is a loss on the world stage not an agreement) they start stinging.
Russia has an history of brutal governments when it comes to warfare, and in Ukraine they show they still don’t refrain from uncontrolled barbarism. It’s a bed the West helped do, but comes from an expansionist desire of both Russia and the US.
PS: I’m focusing on the US which has more impact world wide, but we just need to see France in West Africa to see the former empires are still doing their old thing under the table. Bunch of power hungry minorities making live miserable for a larger humanity is something we have everywhere.
What you linked does not support the statement that NATO choose violence by not negotiating.
It very clearly does. NATO kept pushing towards Russia for decades after USSR dissolved. Russia tried to find a peaceful compromise with NATO this whole time. Yet, here you are pretending that it’s actually Russia that won’t compromise.
Can you quote the part that you believe supports your statements? The bit I think you are referencing doesn’t support your statement at all.
I already did in this very thread. If you think the bit I referenced doesn’t support what I said it’s clear that no productive conversation is possible here.
It doesn’t matter who did what before
this didn’t start on February 22, 2022, but in 2014
History starts and stops exactly when it best suits my argument
Russia invaded Ukraine. All anyone besides tankies and trolls need to know.
That’s right history started in 2022, nothing happened before that. You are very intelligent.
Thank you for the compliment, if you keep reading outside your safe space and opinion articles, you’ll get there too!
LOL, the only people who would say this to Yogthos are those speaking from ignorance. The dude is like a machine when it comes to reading and sharing articles from all over the place. I’ve never seen anyone else read the news so widely.
if only you would take your own advice there buddy, but we both know you won’t
Take the L bro, you earned it
says the bro who has no concept of history without a hint of irony
Dude we couped Ukraine in 2014 and got them to kill tens of thousands of civilians in the 2 independent republics. We were supporting Ukranian nationalism, which is aligned with naziism for quite a while. Decades. Euromaiden happened because of us. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html
I don’t think you know what the term radlib means. It’s kind of sad. But I do know that when one country advances into another country, and expands territory, that’s an aggressive fact. You can try to justify it however you want, I know you’re trying hard, but it’s just not convincing. Seizing the Crimea and then expanding more recently, those are the actions of a country that wants more power and more territory and more control. That’s not the kind of country that I respect.
And if you want to point out that the US does shady stuff too, you’re absolutely right. But that doesn’t make Russia’s actions reasonable.
This is the sort of understanding of the world young children have before their brains fully develop.
Said a clown spouting text book Russian propaganda
I hope you get paid for this lol
Is Russian propaganda in the room with your right now?
I think it’s more fruitful to look at who benefits from the Ukrainian war.
Life for the average Ukrainian will not be radically different under Russian rule. Most of them will get up, go to work the same job they always have and funnel as much money as possible to those who already have it.
It just so happens that under Russian rule, Russian rulers will be making profit instead of Ukrainian rulers. The people actually fighting the wars never benefit and the ones who benefit never fight.
It just so happens that under Russian rule, Russian rulers will be making profit instead of Ukrainian rulers.
I think we’re missing a couple of nuances here, no? Although it’s a stretch to call them nuance. The way Ukrainian rulers have been making money has been through privatization. And because there’s so much privatization we need to look at who owns Ukraine’s economy. It’s only escalated since Russia invaded, with national assets being sold off to foreign private sectors so cheaply that one has to wonder why they did it when the gains are a drop in the bucket compared to the direct aid they’ve been getting from Western public sectors.
If Ukraine emerges from this conflict with its own sovereignty, it’ll be sovereignty over a flag, a presidential palace and a state framework that protects foreign companies’ investments from hungry Ukrainians.
The country is dead. They sold their infrastructure to blackrock and other investment firms. They are now taking out loans to buy weapons which won’t do shit against Russia. The country is gutted by capital. Zelensky himself has at least two mansions in other countries including one in Miami. He will either get killed Diem-style (backstabbed by the US/CIA) or flee. It’s also possible Azov nazis kill him.
That’s only because Russia has already privatized and sold off all of its national assets to oligarchs after the fall of the USSR.
that doesn’t make sense in the context of the post you replied to
The reason the US has a special hate-on for Putin is precisely because he kicked the Western shock therapists out of the country. He stanched the tide of privatization.
It’s pretty obvious that the only country that benefits from the war is the US. Don’t take my word for it though, RAND wrote a whole study explaining how in detail https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
It’s also absolutely phenomenal that people think Russia needs Ukraine to make profit when it’s already the largest country in the world with plenty of undeveloped resources. If you think countries benefit from having to fight a war, then you might wan to learn a bit of history.
I actually showed that article about a year ago to a co-worker of mine. LMAO
Then why would Russia attack Ukraine? Especially since they had already agreed to let go of their nukes and not join NATO. Just let them be then.
If you bother reading the paper I linked, it explains it in great detail. But if you don’t believe RAND, then here’s the head of NATO explaining it in black and white
The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.
So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm
The sheer intellectual dishonesty of pretending that this was about anything other than NATO expanding to Russia’s border even when top NATO officials openly admit this to be the case is truly astonishing.
Haha sorry I’ll save your link to read later
You seem to misunderstand your own sources. What you cited only proves how utterly insane Russia’s conditions were / are. Of course NATO won’t let Pootin blackmail them into giving up their stations etc.
Russia and brainwashed tankies like yourself always seem to reject the notion that former Soviet nations are actually sovereign and might have an interest in increasing their defensive strength in light of, wait for it, HISTORY.
Nah I understand my own sources just fine. Meanwhile, anybody with a functioning brain can understand that countries overrun but US propaganda and reliant on US military protection are in no way sovereign. Figures that radlib like you wouldn’t even understand what sovereignty means.
Its irrelevant whether or not life would be different under Russian rule. Russia choose to invade a sovereign nation. The fact that ukrainians are still fighting to this day shows they want to be independent.
The fact that ukrainians are still fighting to this day shows they want to be independent.
This is a post about conscription, where people who do not want to fight are forced to
I don’t have anything specific, but generally speaking those who idolize war have never seen the horrors of war. Speaking with veterans who have actually seen real combat is a good place to start.
I’m not part of the typical group that gets drafted (presumably young men) but my argument has always been that my country doesn’t own me, I’m not its property. If I want to fight for/serve my country I will, but IMO it has no right to just use me at will like a resource.
This especially goes for times like these, when everything is unaffordable, nobody can get a house, you can barely see a doctor, the police don’t even bother solving most low-level crime and the rich are lining their pockets with our money. The system is not upholding its end of the social contract at all, so why should it expect any extraordinary measures from us?
The 13th amendment protects us from forced labor. No matter what the supreme court might bring up bullshit about how other countries do it.
Hey Dipshit’s, maybe needless wars wouldn’t start if it wasn’t fucking possible to force people to fight in them.
Unless as punishment.
Hunter Thompson opined that the US draft was better than the alternative.
Under the draft everyone, rich and poor, was expected to serve. With a ‘volunteer army’ only the poor need to go.
Another drafted vet said that draftees are more likely to speak up if civilians are targeted because the soldiers know that they are eventually going home. Lifers will obey all orders.
Under the draft everyone, rich and poor, was expected to serve.
You can’t expect shit from the parasitic rich… In practice poors went anyway.
Bone spurs bitch
And when they went, they chilled at some air force base like Bush Jr
Good point on war crimes but if war crimes are part of the order, peasants will have to do it and that’s how these things happens mostly anyway IMHO ie it was the order, then once they are caught it is always the “intern’s” fault
Systemic racism in the US ment an inproportionate number of drafted service personnel were black as white draftees were able to get college deferments in higher numbers.
This boiled back down to the poorer economic situation of black peoples in the Civil rights era fighting for basic equality.
The draft also caused friction that increased fraggings as this racist treatment by educated white officers or NCOs were dealt with locally. Fragging was furthered by a disconnect between draftees who wanted to just survive and glory hounds who saw military service and War as some great adventure.
Lol. Where was this post when Russia drafted citizens to continue the invasion?
The Ukrainian “invasion” is to force Russia to withdraw from the war Russia started.
Back then the forced draft supporters where hiding behind their hypocrisy
Same reason you cant make them understand that making and holding onto billions in profits is also not a good thing
Being drafted (which is forced labour where you additionally have a high chance of being killed or wounded) is always not okay, not just when it is done to invade another country.
