There has been many rumors about the draft starting back

[Rudey]

Let's stop playing games with numbers and semantics. On a global level, relative to other countries, Canada is - nothing. This isn't putting Canada down. This is saying not only is it not a superpower, but it is also not influential on any real level. They can name wars and say they have an army, but it is still nothing big...a small business in a world dominated by large corporations.

As for this thread, it is stupid. The original poster sounded stupid when she created it with her reasoning. Then it came out of nowhere. Where has this been in the news? There was talk of a draft for a second a little while ago, but she didn't come on to post then. Somehow her concern grew now?

Either she's dumb as rocks or a troll. I couldn't care either way because I got to tell Cooper he's retarded.

-Rudey

[Kevin]

Originally posted by RACooper
Gee... glad to see that someone else has stepped up for Rudey and made the anti-Canada bash...

The reason the Canada accepted draft-dodgers during Veitnam had something to do with the fact that we felt that being drafted to fight in a war you objected to was illegal (in much the same way as Britain does).... further the reason why most came here is that it was prefrable to Mexico... and cheaper to get to than the UK and the rest of Europe.

As for other countries standing by and watch another's die so they don't have to... the same charge could be made about peacekeeping and the lack of American involvement until the last decade....

Yup. You have to go back to Dunkirk to find the last significant Canadian contribution. Can you honestly say that Canada played a crucial role in ANY modern war? Yes, a few Canadians have died in Afghanistan. Well bully for you. What, are there about 20 of y'all over there?

Where has the US caught more terrorists entering the US from? Canada. You guys do have a great country. Unfortunately, I think folks in Canada take their freedom for granted. To say you did something in the war of 1812, frankly, does not impress me one iota. Originally, I did not seek to attack Canada, but now that you've brought it up, our neighbor to the north has not been helpful lately has it.

Typically, I don't go off on tirades like this. I'm a generally calm person. However, comments like RG's genuinely piss me off. When an American says that they'd neglect their most sacred civic duty and let others go to die in their place, yeah, that's cowardice. I guess you just wouldn't understand, RAC.

***

And as for anyone slse, it doesn't matter if you support the war or not. If called, you go. Simple as that. It's like jury duty. It's part of being an American citizen. Like paying taxes. If you don't go to war when called in this country (I don't know how it is in Canada, maybe they don't believe in a sense of duty to country there), you don't deserve to be here. And RG, by your words, you sure as hell don't deserve to be here.

I think this action in Iraq is getting pretty ugly. I want our men and women out of there. If called, however, I will serve.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by ktsnake
Yup. You have to go back to Dunkirk to find the last significant Canadian contribution. Can you honestly say that Canada played a crucial role in ANY modern war? Yes, a few Canadians have died in Afghanistan. Well bully for you. What, are there about 20 of y'all over there?

Where has the US caught more terrorists entering the US from? Canada. You guys do have a great country. Unfortunately, I think folks in Canada take their freedom for granted. To say you did something in the war of 1812, frankly, does not impress me one iota. Originally, I did not seek to attack Canada, but now that you've brought it up, our neighbor to the north has not been helpful lately has it.

Typically, I don't go off on tirades like this. I'm a generally calm person. However, comments like RG's genuinely piss me off. When an American says that they'd neglect their most sacred civic duty and let others go to die in their place, yeah, that's cowardice. I guess you just wouldn't understand, RAC.

***

And as for anyone slse, it doesn't matter if you support the war or not. If called, you go. Simple as that. It's like jury duty. It's part of being an American citizen. Like paying taxes. If you don't go to war when called in this country (I don't know how it is in Canada, maybe they don't believe in a sense of duty to country there), you don't deserve to be here. And RG, by your words, you sure as hell don't deserve to be here.

I think this action in Iraq is getting pretty ugly. I want our men and women out of there. If called, however, I will serve.

K' first off Dunkirk was a British and French evacuation before the German army in WW2..... perhaps you were thinking of D-Day maybe?

As for Afghanistan last I checked Canada was in command of the NATO forces and Kabul with 1200 troops stationed there.... and a number of Canadians have been killed there (unfortunately the greatest number by US friendly fire).

I listed the War of 1812 because you said that Canadians were content to let Americans die for our freedom... unfortunately that was one were Canadians fought Americans for our freedom.

Were have you caught the most terrorists from? Funny but I could have sworn that most have been caught in the US.... the only one caught coming from Canada was that guy back in 2000 as far as I know.

Finally the dig at Canada about a sense of duty to country is way off... all of the wars I listed before were fought by volunteers, as no drafted/conscripted Canadian has ever fought in a war. If that isn't a sense of duty I don't know a better example.

[Rudey]

Tomorrow Canada is going to issue its economic report, the world is waiting on its toes. On Wednesday Canada is deciding whether to double the size of its army, while the world waits on its toes. None of these will happen. And the world will not wait on its toes.

And again to everyone else, look at rollergirl's threads. In fact look at her name. You have got to be seriously retarded if you take her seriously.

-Rudey
--There are those from Fiji who serve the military, but they understand Fiji isn't going to make too many dents in global policy

Originally posted by RACooper
K' first off Dunkirk was a British and French evacuation before the German army in WW2..... perhaps you were thinking of D-Day maybe?

As for Afghanistan last I checked Canada was in command of the NATO forces and Kabul with 1200 troops stationed there.... and a number of Canadians have been killed there (unfortunately the greatest number by US friendly fire).

I listed the War of 1812 because you said that Canadians were content to let Americans die for our freedom... unfortunately that was one were Canadians fought Americans for our freedom.

Were have you caught the most terrorists from? Funny but I could have sworn that most have been caught in the US.... the only one caught coming from Canada was that guy back in 2000 as far as I know.

Finally the dig at Canada about a sense of duty to country is way off... all of the wars I listed before were fought by volunteers, as no drafted/conscripted Canadian has ever fought in a war. If that isn't a sense of duty I don't know a better example.

[Taualumna]

Originally posted by Rudey
Tomorrow Canada is going to issue its economic report, the world is waiting on its toes. On Wednesday Canada is deciding whether to double the size of its army, while the world waits on its toes. None of these will happen. And the world will not wait on its toes.

And again to everyone else, look at rollergirl's threads. In fact look at her name. You have got to be seriously retarded if you take her seriously.

-Rudey
--There are those from Fiji who serve the military, but they understand Fiji isn't going to make too many dents in global policy

Rudey, maybe you and Rob should just agree to disagree. There are things that we've done that we're proud of, and maybe it had global impact, maybe it didn't. Maybe we feel certain things are for the good, and you might not believe that it is so. Let's put it from a GLO perspective: ABC believes in saying grace before each weekly formal meal while XYZ belives that it is forcing religion down non-believers' throats. XYZ, however, should respect that it is ABC's tradition to do so, and ABC should respect XYZ's beliefs as well. ABC shouldn't CHANGE because XYZ thinks it isn't right. They are two different organizations just as Canada and the US are two different countries.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Taualumna
Rudey, maybe you and Rob should just agree to disagree. There are things that we've done that we're proud of, and maybe it had global impact, maybe it didn't. Maybe we feel certain things are for the good, and you might not believe that it is so. Let's put it from a GLO perspective: ABC believes in saying grace before each weekly formal meal while XYZ belives that it is forcing religion down non-believers' throats. XYZ, however, should respect that it is ABC's tradition to do so, and ABC should respect XYZ's beliefs as well. ABC shouldn't CHANGE because XYZ thinks it isn't right. They are two different organizations just as Canada and the US are two different countries.

This isn't a matter of opinion. But what is an opinion is the fact that I find you simple but annoying. Stop it.

-Rudey

[James]

Canadian troops fought really well in WWII. I don't lknow how we went from draft dodging to Canada bashing . .

Personally, I haven't liked canada since the movie South Park showed us how they all have flapping heads and beady eyes.

It unnerved me.

[cherrycola]

I disagree with this war as well. There were no acts of major aggression on the part of Iraq. If there was to be any action taken the governing body, the UN, should have approved it. We can't go invading countries, because we "believe" there are WMD.
I honestly believe that the war has more to do with oil and revenge than WMD or "freeing" oppressed people.
I don't think America should continue playing big brother to the world, especially when we have such incompetent leaders.
BTW, I respect Canada's position.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by cherrycola
I disagree with this war as well. There were no acts of major aggression on the part of Iraq. If there was to be any action taken the governing body, the UN, should have approved it. We can't go invading countries, because we "believe" there are WMD.
I honestly believe that the war has more to do with oil and revenge than WMD or "freeing" oppressed people.
I don't think America should continue playing big brother to the world, especially when we have such incompetent leaders.
BTW, I respect Canada's position.

So, genocide is not an act of major aggression? The UN has an abysmal record of fighting genocide. They did nothing about Rwanda. They also did nothing about Bosnia. The Bosnian genocide was stopped by an outside coalition.

[cherrycola]

but when is it our right to intervien in a sovereign nation. The genocide in that country has been going on for quite a sometime.
Also our reasons for invading a country had nothing to do with the genocide, it was only a subfactor if anything.

[cherrycola]

I found this on the Selective Service System:
Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new. Further, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq. Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25.

http://www.sss.gov/

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by cherrycola
but when is it our right to intervien in a sovereign nation. The genocide in that country has been going on for quite a sometime.
Also our reasons for invading a country had nothing to do with the genocide, it was only a subfactor if anything.

It wasn't the reason, but it was a reason. Just because the genocide had been going on for some time, does not mean that it should be allowed to continue. Bill Clinton should have demanded a regime change as soon in 1994, but he was a moral coward.

In my opinion, we have the moral obligation to intervene in any genocide, past American transgressions not withstanding.

In the first week of March, of 2003, Eli Weisel met with President Bush and urged him to force a regime change in Iraq. Not because of WMD, but because of genocide. That Eli Weisel would urge such an action speaks volumes about the moral imperative to intervene.

We did not go into Iraq for WMD (that was an excuse for the British population) or for oil. Our primary motivation was to remake the region, and do so in the interest of national security. That region needs to be changed. Genocide should have been the primary shield against our motivations. Instead, the Bush administration chose the WMD argument, something that I opposed at the time.

This war is just, and history will probably show it as such.

[Rollergirl2001]

I apologize for the comments. But if you were drafted and you chose not to go, you get to go to jail for not going. I have stated that I would rather go to Canada. I do not want to got to jail. Again, I'm sorry about the comments. I'm not stupid for you information, Rudey. I have a 3.0 in school. So there.

[James]

Russ, I think we get reproached becaue we tend to trot out the morality card when our interests are involved in other ways.

Its not like we make a systematic attempt to stop genocide. WE aren't making lists of countries that need to be intervened it. We use morality as a cover to go in for other reasons. Stopping genocide is a happy plus.

Now, I personally have no problem with us killing foreign people just to further American Interests, but I don't need things sugar coated like many seem to require.

I think the use of a moral cloak is more dangerous because its misinformation.

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
It wasn't the reason, but it was a reason. Just because the genocide had been going on for some time, does not mean that it should be allowed to continue. Bill Clinton should have demanded a regime change as soon in 1994, but he was a moral coward.

In my opinion, we have the moral obligation to intervene in any genocide, past American transgressions not withstanding.

In the first week of March, of 2003, Eli Weisel met with President Bush and urged him to force a regime change in Iraq. Not because of WMD, but because of genocide. That Eli Weisel would urge such an action speaks volumes about the moral imperative to intervene.

We did not go into Iraq for WMD (that was an excuse for the British population) or for oil. Our primary motivation was to remake the region, and do so in the interest of national security. That region needs to be changed. Genocide should have been the primary shield against our motivations. Instead, the Bush administration chose the WMD argument, something that I opposed at the time.

This war is just, and history will probably show it as such.

[WhiteDaisy128]

There were no acts of major aggression on the part of Iraq.

So if your President killed hundreds and thousands of Americans, you would not want anyone to stop him or her?

If the draft was re-instated, even if women were not included, I would volunteer for service. I owe it to my country. We are so lucky to live in the US, we owe it to our future children to attempt to continue the luxeries we are blessed with. Furthermore, we owe it to the children of Iraq to ensure that the supression (and murder) of their people is stopped.