You're being an asshhat because you're bright enough to understand the scope of my statement. if you want to be a pedantic idealog who requires everyone to be perfectly literal in their statements, then yes, you are in fact an asshat, and more that I won't bother typing out here.

In other words stop trying to cause problems simply because you want to try belittling someone's post. Thats all you were actually trying to do to begin with, you failed because you were to lazy to actually look up Hawaii's status at the time, but that just further proves my point.

I don't see any way these two things are related. A person doesn't have to agree with everything their leaders say or do. I have no problem with protests. Deciding to just not follow a law is something different.


I don't recall claims of the draft preying on the poor. I had plenty of family members, who were not poor, drafted. These people weren't bucking a system, they were ignoring a federal law...in a time of war. I'm not defending the law, but at the time it was a law...and we do have ways of combating laws we disagree with.

So based on this you're fine with those who used the conscientious objector process? Because they were following the letter of the law.

As Cam's smart ass remarks have shown, clarity is apparently very important in our posts ;)

This has got to be about the dumbest argument that get trotted out every time a discussion of war comes up. Wars are declared by the President and Congress...which by age restriction contains people too old for most of the fighting and which tends to be peopled by some non-trivial amount of military veterans.

Isn't that what Rosa Parks did by refusing to sit in the back of the bus? What about Susan B. Anthony?

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but God before country. I would not kill in an unjust war for my country.

I don't understand this, as a Christian, you clearly are supposed to put God before country. If you believe a war would go against God, it would be far worse to participate.

And I'm sorry, you can call me unpatriotic all you want, but I refuse to end someone's life for something I don't believe in. It's a deeply held personal belief. If you want to take that as me saying "fuck you" to someone who is serving or me bring unpatriotic, that's fine. It's not going change how important that belief is to me.

I fully respect anyone who serves their country because it is what they believe in. But the government is not who I am going to listen to regarding what is ethical or not.

So based on this you're fine with those who used the conscientious objector process? Because they were following the letter of the law.

As Cam's smart ass remarks have shown, clarity is apparently very important in our posts ;)

This is kind of funny actually.

And this, as Cam's statement is about as obviously oblivious to the meaning of the statement as anything else.

For god's sake people read with a tiny bit of context comprehension here.


Edited to add: This post of yours is exactly what a woman does to her BF/husband/whatever when she is clueless as to how to really defend her argument and simply throws out some stupid extreme to somehow prove her point.

You stated that it's unpatriotic to break the law. That is what people like Rosa Parks did. And by your definition, this country was founded by a bunch of "un-patriotic" people.

Simply put, in that era of time, a college degree was much more difficult to acquire if you were poor. Rich kids went to school, poor kids worked in factories. We allowed kids in school to defer which was a huge benefit for wealthier individuals. Estimates have it that 80% of casualties in Vietnam came from poor or working-class families.

For reasons like this, I am glad the we now have an all-volunteer military. You have the right to not enlist based on any reasons...not just moral objections. This was a different situation when the draft was around.

I may not agree with that part of the law, but it was part of the law....for those who are objectors to all wars, and not just a particular law...and for those who were objectors before they got their draft notice. Those who suddenly became objectors because their name was called get no such pass.

My post was in reply to the comment that it is unpatriotic to send people to war if you aren't willing to fight it yourself. It is a crap argument until we give people 18-25 the right to declare a war. Now, if you want to call it unpatriotic to declare a war while not being willing to have your kids involved, that might be a real discussion.

Again, the draft had stipulations for objectors to apply for exemption. I don't see where your argument is going here. There was no difference back then, the CO clauses were part of the draft laws to begin with. What is it you're trying to argue here?

You agree with Jon that people who objected should be shot, why? they were not breaking the law, they were FOLLOWING IT. So what is your actual issue with them?

Nad as I said, if you're pulling a Cam and requiring perfectly literal statements because you're too obtuse to read the statement within the context of the discussion then you really ought to just stop now.

The statement related not to those who can declare war, but those "patriotic" masses out there who scream for war but sit back and let your sons and daughters fight it for them.

I ask again, WTF is your beef with conscientious objectors?

I seem to recall referring to a federal law and during a time of war. If I didn't make that reference often enough, I should have.

And yes, our country was founded by a bunch of un-patriotic people. It was founded by people who were traitors to their crowns. I would have to say that by definition, being involved in regime change is un-patriotic. That doesn't mean that I'm not benefiting because of the traitors, but I don't see the point in not being willing to admit that is what they were.


So the argument has changed from the poor were being screwed by the draft to the poor and working (middle) class were being screwed by the draft? I have less argument with that.

As long as those people applied following the letter of the law there is NO difference.

Love to continue this but I need to go out and grill some steaks for the family I am happy will have the choice whether to serve or not during their lifetimes ;)

Because he commented that he refused to end someone's life for something he doesn't believe in. I read that as him disagreeing with particular wars of aggression, not all wars in general. The conscientious objector clause was for people who object to "all wars", not just a particular war. That is my objection. If he meant that his belief was for all wars, even ones that might take place within our borders, then I will back off as that is what the clause is for.

Wrong, people were not granted objector status if the suddenly became objectors when their name was called...Witmer v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://openjurist.org/348/us/375/witmer-v-united-states

Edited to add link with actual information. I'll leave my bad link in and take my lumps.

Can you expand on that? ;)

I'm happy for that too. I never served, and I never wanted to. But if I had been around during the time of the draft, I'd have sucked it up and done my duty.

Would you perform a non-combat duty for a cause you don't believe in? Say if you were drafted to perform map work or something?

Crap, give me a moment. That is what I get for not checking the link. :D

Was this an option? I actually have no idea. Could you refuse combat duty for a non-combat role?

Remind me again when you were in the military...

In early U.S. wars that was case, I don't think it was an option in vietnam.

I'm just trying to get a sense of where the boundaries are here. For example, if it's OK to refuse a non-combat role, than is it OK for one to refuse to pay taxes if they don't "believe in the cause"?

The government makes us do all kinds of things we don't want to do. I'm curious about people's varying willingness to do those things anyway, especially if it comes with a hardship.

possble death does not equal taxes, try again

I'm talking mainly about supporters. Those who are of military age who demand we go to war with a country but feel they don't want to fight in it.

But if you want to use the people who pushed the Iraq war, you can. Almost all those people were of military age during the Vietnam War. Bush, Rove, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Delay, McConnell, Frist, Lott, Chambliss, the list goes on and on. All people who could have fought but sought deferments or had other excuses not to fight. You have a long list of pundits who love talking about how we need these wars but found ways to avoid them. Hannitty, O'Reilly, Savage, Buchanan, Kristol, and Coulter. Even the great Rush Limbaugh was able to get out because of a cyst on his butt or maybe it was a "trick" knee.

I'm not trying to start an argument on the merits of serving. But I do find it ridiculous to call a guy like Ali a coward for not fighting in a war he vehemently opposed in a country that treated him like a second-class citizen. Then give a pass to a guy like Ted Nugent who loves the wars but when it came down to serving, pussed out.

That's why I said non-combat. I'm curious where the line is.

to me non-combat = protecting your fellow americans so I don't have a problem with it

Depends. Mapmaking probably not, because I'm basically telling them where to go kill people. But sure, I'd be willing to work in a hospital for wounded veterans or something like that.

Proud to come from a family of draft dodgers. Grandpa dodged WW2, and dad dodged Vietnam (he would've been over there during the Tet Offensive)

Now before anybody calls them cowards, instead of fighting they chose the patriotic duty of feeding our country as farmers.

People were allowed to APPLY for objector status and were granted hearings to determine whether it was valid or not. I never said they immediately received it. They got their due process, something Ali was denied and then afterward cleared of all charges about.

And you were calling me an asshat? For cryin' out loud... you made an idiotic statement and I was amused by it. You get this butthurt over something that happens approximately 13,698,233 times a day on the Internet? Forget about Hawai'i's statehood... you said Peal Harbor was part of the mainland. Then you try and claim that I should've known what you meant? Well no, actually I was a little confused. Did he really mean "mainland", or did he mean territories that are thousands of miles away from the mainland? It was kind of hard for me to tell, based on the utter. fucking. incompatibility. of what you wrote.

BTW, if "pulling a Cam" means expecting that people have enough clarity that they don't contradict themselves in the span of a single sentence, I'm fine with that. Now's when I'd usually come up with some witty definition of "pulling a Render", but I think that phrase has already been defined by the board. Something involving multiple partners and pirate role-play I think. :)


*which, if anybody still reading this has forgotten, was: "My personal view is that unless our mainland is under attack (EG Pearl harbor) then a draft is unethical and unconstitutional."

As long as we're getting pedantic about the "letter of the law" regarding the Vietnam draft, I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned the fact that congress never declared war against Vietnam. Throw in the fact that Vietnam was a French territory, and that the entire conflict was largely built upon the second Tonkin Gulf incident that never actually occurred, and I am pretty surprised that even with the benefit of full hindsight we're asking "why didn't people want to serve in Vietnam?".

This is a really easy thing to say.

See this is precisely where you lose all credibility with me. You knew exactly what the discussion was about, you understood precisely what was meant by my statement, even if it was worded poorly and you tried to make a smart ass remark to degrade me for whatever reason. THIS is how your comment came across.

You were just trying to be a fucking smartass and you failed, not only in that it was obvious you knew by your own wording and teh fact that you tried to throw in the added commentary of Hawaii's status at the time. Which you totally fucking blew.

How bout you just stfu for awhile instead of trying to tread water in a position you've already failed at.

SOmetimes you make some great posts, then there are times like this when you devolve into a sorry little piss ant trying to one up someone and then getting pissed because you look like an complete fucking imbicile when you do it.

Oh and nice personal shot there asshole, another glaring point maker that you were just being a fuckwit, you had to resort to insulting my wife and lifestyle to get some sort of gratification.

Oh thank you =) I was just verifying those points to throw out there when I saw your post =)

Dude, I'm pretty sure most guys on here would much prefer to "pull a RendeR" than "pull a Cam". As for the rest of your comment, you make yourself look like an ass much easier than I ever could.

Whatever fail-boy. Carry on with your petty attacks when you can't just admit you were being a fuckwit.

But those two kittens are actually cute :)

Is this better?

Yes

Ok I laughed.

teapot meet kettle...