As title, if you have post or link any useful resource you have
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
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.
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.
Show them some videos of people getting blown up by FPV drones. If that doesn’t get them to think, nothing will.
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
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
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…
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
Issue is that “old people” had to spend their time in the army, sometimes even in a foreign land (Good old time of the colonial war), so kids these day feel so privileged
I mean, we can blame the boomer for a lot of thing, but in the 60’s and sometimes 70’s (In many countries) young men had no option but do a military service which way involved going to fight to keep the colonies.
Disclosure: I’m Israeli, I’m anti war and anti occupation. I was drafted more than 20 years ago (it’s sort of mandatory here).
I think you paint it in a too much simple colours. In the war between israel and Gaza now, both armies fight for what they believe is the safety of their home, and in both armies there are high numbers if drafted (by force people). Also, in both sides, there is a level of truth that without the auctions of their army their home will be at risk. So you end up in a situation where there is an army that you don’t fully agree with and you serve in it since the alternative is even worse.
It boils down to the fact that your political leaders are not having your well-being at the top of their priorities. I believe that your discussion with that someone should be about that. Not about do/don’t draft but how to promote a world where there will be no need for drafting.
(I believe that the same goes to Ukrain and Russia war).
without the auctions of their army their home will be at risk
Without Hamas’s recent actions, the home of the Palestinians would be at risk?
I think you gotta recheck your math on that one
And of course the same thing applies to Israel; without the IDF and settlers’ actions in Palestine, there wouldn’t have been an October 7th in the first place.
Simply reverse the picture of what you said you’ll see we are saying the same thing. From Hammas /Palestinians perspective Israel and the settlements are the same and their agenda is to drive away all Palestinians (and to be fair, some of the MKs here say that openly, even before October 7th). From Israel perspective, Hammas’s declared agenda is to kill Israel/all the Jews (I mean, it is in their charter). From both perspective, there is a good drive to join the army in order to protect their loved ones.
(I mean, it is in their charter)
pretty sure it’s no longer in their charter.
Also why do you keep calling it an army. Gaza doesn’t have an army.
This is a militant group, with actual guns and drones or explosive and uniform (that they don’t always wear), not a bunch of kids with sticks. This either an army or a terror organisation.
Hamas’s new charter (2017l is sort of accepting Israel (I don’t recall the exact wording, but something along the lines of “if all/most Palestinians accept it”). But the 1988 (in particular article 7, but also 28) charter was never cancelled and the 2017 was never officially approved
First paragraph: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/leading-hamas-official-says-no-softened-stance-toward-israel-idUSKBN1862O4/
Funny story, I was mistaken for an Israeli patriot today, just because of my accent and what I was wearing. I was reassured, if you like, that the world is not going to ostracise Israel and Israel will keep existing. That was the gist of it anyhow. Of course I have no doubt israel will keep existing, what with all the support of the world’s hegemons. What worries me is that Israel will keep existing in its current form: a fascist, genocidal ethnostate. Describing the only armed resistance against occupation permitted by Israel to take hold, as an ‘army’, creates a false sense of equivalence between Hamas’s militants and the IDF with all its powerful tech. To describe what’s been going on in Gaza for the past 10 months as a war between two armies simply defending their own people is, well stunning, when faced with all the evidence of the IDF’s targeted mass killings of Palestinian civilian lives, as well as their callous disregard for Israeli lives (eg Hannibal directive).
First, as I said before, I’m against the war, against the occupation, and in favor of two states solution (ideally, a democratic one Jewish-palestinian state should exist, but this is not going to happen).
Now, I’m sorry, if you ignore the hostages, and the fact that October 7th happened as an offensive act by Hammas, you are painting only a partial picture.
Hamas had 10m to stop the the offensive by Israel, release the hostages. It was that easy 8 months ago, even 5 month ago. Today, I’m not sure. If you ignore this card in hamas’s hands then you are again, painting a partial picture.
And as I said countless times in this thread, directing our anger at the armed forces, rather than politicians (on both sides) only aggravate the war.
I am angry at the politicians in the US etc for their continued support of the mass slaughter and starvation of Palestinians in Gaza.
I’m also angry at the Israeli head of state and political machine, who controls the IDF. When I say ‘the IDF’ I mean of course the military arm of the state of Israel. The Likud charta explicitly states the aim of one Israel ‘from the sea to the river’ - oh, the irony!
What Hamas has done on Oct 7, even if all stories are to be believed, pales in comparison to what Israel has done to innocent Palestinians - schools, universities, hospitals, aid workers, journalists, etc -before and since. And it was clearly provoked by years of being occupied in an open-air prison. So I’m sorry if I’m not interested in the ‘we’re only defending our own’ shtick.
A two-state solution is only possible if Israel withdraws, stops occupying Palestine and allows it to exercise full sovereignty of its borders, governancet, and defence.
I don’t disagree with any of that… the only part I was taking issue with was saying “there is a level of truth” that the armed forces of both sides are working for safety of both sides.
If the IDF stopped killing innocent people, it would dramatically increase the level of safety in the future for the loved ones of the soldiers. And likewise for Hamas.
I mean obviously having 0 Israeli military isn’t gonna work; I do get what you’re saying. But put it this way; if Hamas had disappeared entirely on October 6th, everyone on all sides would be a hell of a lot safer today.
Do you see any scenario where the IDF can allow itself to truly stop Innocent people? A soldier is being fired at from a school, should the soldier allow himself to get killed in such situation?
And vice versa, considering what you know about setlers in Israel, do you really think that they will not get even more violent in the west bank if they know that their actions has no cost?
And don’t get me wrong, I wish for Hamas to vanish, and I wish for the IDF to kill only militants (even that definition is not clear), just like you. But I don’t see any realistic scenario (considering the human spirit) that this can happen. Not in the current political situation.
First what needs to happen is the US stop unconditionally funding the IDF.
Do you see any scenario where the IDF can allow itself to truly stop Innocent people? A soldier is being fired at from a school, should the soldier allow himself to get killed in such situation?
The whole concept is bankrupt. An IDF soldier is being fired at from a school because he is on Palestinian land, occupying it by force to maintain the land that was stolen from the Palestinians and facilitate the taking of more.
There are degrees. If he’s sniping schoolchildren, then that will inflame the conflict more and promote more October 7ths. If he’s “only” firing back at the school, so “defending” himself… well, it’s “better” I guess, but if you break in my house in the middle of the night and I attack you, you’re not “defending” yourself even if you limit yourself to fighting with me and not hurting my wife.
And vice versa, considering what you know about setlers in Israel, do you really think that they will not get even more violent in the west bank if they know that their actions has no cost?
Their actions don’t seem to have a cost though. Or rather the mechanism of retribution is so indirect and random that I don’t think that Hamas’s counterattacks make all that much difference to their calculus of what they can get away with doing to the Palestinians. I could be wrong, but that’s my impression.
And don’t get me wrong, I wish for Hamas to vanish, and I wish for the IDF to kill only militants (even that definition is not clear), just like you. But I don’t see any realistic scenario (considering the human spirit) that this can happen. Not in the current political situation.
Like I said, even “killing only militants” leaves Israel in the position of the war criminal. They are invading and stealing homes, farms, anything they can find and pushing the Palestinians into a vanishingly small series of refuges which they then invade in turn. Why would “militants” not fight back in that scenario? What should they do instead?
I do agree with your take on how unrealistic peace is in the present climate. It needs to be imposed from outside by force in order to happen, which won’t happen, because the US would need to be actively involved in making that happen and the US likes things more or less as they are (or at least as they were before the counterattack after October 7th got so genocidal that it started causing political issues for leaders in the US).
I mean, you have that many hostages, who would not be released without strong military force on Hamas/Gaza. There’s a reason that the soldiers are there. I agree that a deal should be made, should have been made 8months ago, but this is not the soldiers’ fault, but rather the politicians (Bibi and Sinwar). If you break into someone’s house, and take their son away, don’t be surprised if that someone is coming back to get them back, hurting your own kids in the way if your refuse to do so.
The thing is that while Israeli left is openly demanding that the settlers will be punished for their crimes, the world left is giving Hamas “a free pass” to do whatever they want, including holding their own civilians hostages. Same for the IDF, Hamas constantly, and purposely shoots rockets on cities and towns in Israel. Again purposely from within civil location. Should Israel just “accept?” Pay the absurd cost of every iron dome rocket while waiting for Hamas to learn how to outperform it?
This lack of global pressure on Hamas of disarming itself brings down the legitimacy of the claims of the left in Israel. People here can’t and won’t rely on foreign forces to protect the Israeli border. I myself don’t rely on that (technically the UN holds the border between israel and Lebanon and we see how useless this is).
So, again, both parties are absolutely sure that they are protecting their home, they don’t, in effect, but they have no way out of it due to politics and corruption (of both sides’ leaders).
Hammas’s declared agenda is to kill Israel/all the Jews (I mean, it is in their charter).
So you can quote/point out the specific part where that is? I would love to read it.
Its a tough one. A pro draft stance I have only seen with the extremes. Usually with the right its nationalism related, real x should be eager beavers when their time comes to serve. On the left its hey the sons of the leaders and the leaders themselves should have representation in the ware zones. I sorta get the last one as we have an all “volunteer” force that has benefits for signup akin to if you coutry had somewhat decent social safety nets along with training and decent pay. So it has no real draw for the well to do. Thing is that when there was a draft the kept their cowardly progency out with things like bone spurs or such. So they had docs make up medical excuses while they called the ones who were plucked to go die suckers and losers.
I mean you can look at Russia as an example for how much of the economy was hurt by forcing people out of normal occupation and into service. You also have too look at their abysmal attrition rate to see its unsubstainable and if used primarily leads to worse and worse outcomes on the battle field as they less and less qualified personnel.
Appealing to morality is probably a lost cause for someone supporting a draft, they have already bought into war as a solution. Like moral arguments that Russia is choosing to sacrifice millions and set back their region is something they are already choosing to ignore, forcing people to do it minor in comparison.
I didn’t think it’s wrong universally, for example, Ukraines current offensive into Russia.
Would you rather see Ukraine fall to Russia than implement a draft?
Why ought countries risk their existence to avoid a draft? The government already dictates other matters of life and death. Forgoing a draft would force bigger permanent militaries and not allow for some defense in depth strategies.
How about WWII? Should the allies have been significantly weaker and prolonged how long the Nazis were in power to avoid a draft?
I’d hold a lesser of two evils justify it. The government already dictates what you need to do. Is it the commanded act of killing people that you think takes it too far?
But I’d be okay with Ukraine deploying conscripts to that front.
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.
Not that I was ever interested in being military, but I was at a lunch with two older lifelong army retirees. They kept talking about how military service broke their bodies and politicians won’t cover their medical costs. These injuries were independent of any combat: It’s just expected that you sell every part of yourself when you sign up.
Who wants to be 45 years old with a limp, be unable to hear a quiet conversation, and have horrible back problems?
