Debate discussion
Other Debates
>
Army Drafting
message 1:
by
jack
(new)
Oct 25, 2008 02:59PM
I've had nothing to do so i really want to debate about whether people should be still drafted in the army.if someone wants to debate.
reply
|
flag
Neither do I.Of course, I wouldn't want the draft because of my brother. He's 18.
I don't think it's fair either. It should be a choice.
My brother's just signed up for the draft. And they only draft guys 20 or older. the 18 year olds don't get drafted unless its really bad.
Ur brothers goin to war? im sorry!I really want to get out of iraq, cause i dont want my older brother to be drafted....i almost cry whenever i think about it.
No he's not. He just had to sign up bc he's 18 now.
i thinks its dumb to draft people.
i dont think its dumb, its a smart move on behalf of the military, but i think since the usa is all about freedom nobody should be drafted.
yeah on behalf of the military but on the rest of the country and the person's family? its stupid. OMG you HAVE to see this its hilarious look up "Robin Williams obama and bush" its HILARIOUS on youtube
well i dont think stupid is the right word to describe it. the government and military clearly think it a good idea and it probably is. they are guaranteeing a supply of soldiers. but for the family it must be awwwfulll.thats so sad courtney.
okay yeah maybe its not stupid but its not fair and it doesn't really provide people with a feeling of love and devotion for their country. war is stupid though, you can't really deny that unless your some type of violence-obsessed psycho.
Sovlatia wrote: "well i dont think that JUST because the government and military think its a good idea, it is! just because they get to decide what our country does, doesnt mean that its always a good idea."im not at all saying it is a good idea-its totally not, im just saying that it is a smart move on the governments choice because now they have massive resources, meaning every male over the age of 18 in the entire country.
and war is a very horrible thing. violence is awful. but without it, evil dictators and terrorist heads like hitler and osama and saddam hussein would be alive and thriving. war is sometimes very neccessary, and, even though it tears some countries apart, it stops much evil and is needed in many circumstances.
the hard cold sad truth.
i wish it wasn't this way, but which is better; hitler and osama bin laddin having free reign or a dirty, awful war fought to gain justice once and for all?
people should actually choose if they want to be in the army or not
no no no liz back up the dictators and terrorists wouldnt HAVE that power without war! in order to gain all that power they have to enforce violence! so NO war is NOT necessary! sorry to break it to you, but its not!
no emma i have to disagree and this is why;dictators and terrorists don't necessarily need war, they just bomb and attack and commit genocide and the works. so yes, war is not neccessary for them, violence is though. terrorist attacks are not war, they are typically either religious extremists or random acts of evility. war is needed though, in order to protect the victims and discourage further activity from these dictators and terrorists. think about how the world would be without war...bad people would have free reign and there would be bad stuff going on and the good people wouldn't be able to stop it. yes a perfect world would be nice, it would be great, most of us want it. and most of us want to live by pacifist ideals that violence is never the answer, it is wrong. but some wars need to be fought to gain justice and STOP the genocide and evil. yes, many people are killed by every war but without the war, bad things would keep going on and on and nothing would stop it. so yes violence is awful, but in many situations, necessary. look at it this way;
violence is going on
people (using violence) fight for good and justice
as a result, people are killed and its bloody and bad but as a result there is peace in that region for a long while after.
think past the idealist utopia everyone tries to imagine and think about the real way it breaks down.
but yes people should choose whether they want to be in the military or not.
war is technically violence, liz. ok fine VIOLENCE IS STUPID there gosh.....VIOLENCE IS NECESSARY FOR DICTATORS AND STUFF ok happy?
Its true that sometimes war IS necessary for teh sake of a country but all violence is stupid. And forcing young men and women to join the army where they have to leave their friends and family to fight for their lives is just... depressing!
agreed with chandani AGAIN. man i am having an odd day.
Emma the Dork wrote: "war is technically violence, liz. ok fine VIOLENCE IS STUPID there gosh.....VIOLENCE IS NECESSARY FOR DICTATORS AND STUFF ok happy?"you don't really agree with me at all. thats okay. you can have whatever opinion you like.
:)
Sovlatia wrote: "well i dont think that JUST because the government and military think its a good idea, it is! just because they get to decide what our country does, doesnt mean that its always a good idea."
America only drafts people when it is absolutely necessary. Even in the Civil War, Lincoln drafted people because he needed soldiers. They'll only do it if they know that without more soldiers, they'll lose. It would suck though, to know someone who was being drafted. Just know it isn't stupid, and as long as there are enough volunteers, everything's okay (=
America only drafts people when it is absolutely necessary. Even in the Civil War, Lincoln drafted people because he needed soldiers. They'll only do it if they know that without more soldiers, they'll lose. It would suck though, to know someone who was being drafted. Just know it isn't stupid, and as long as there are enough volunteers, everything's okay (=
Emma the Dork wrote: "war is technically violence, liz. ok fine VIOLENCE IS STUPID there gosh.....VIOLENCE IS NECESSARY FOR DICTATORS AND STUFF ok happy?"
war is violence, but violence is not war. if bob punched mary, is that war? no, but it is violence.
war is violence, but violence is not war. if bob punched mary, is that war? no, but it is violence.
Chandani wrote: "Its true that sometimes war IS necessary for teh sake of a country but all violence is stupid. And forcing young men and women to join the army where they have to leave their friends and family to ..."
yeah, i agree.
yeah, i agree.
yes, actually it IS war eliza, war doesn't have to be with men and bombs and generals. war can be any form of violence, big and small. on dictionary.com, the sixth definition of war is "a struggle". thats what bob punching mary is, so thats war.
so, anything that involves violence is war? what about the violence of standing aside? for example: mary sees bob abusing judy. she does nothing. she stands by, and allows judy to be hurt. that is violence. but not war. neither is a punch, in my mind.
YES exactly!!!! violence is a struggle, is it not? and one of the many definitions of war is A STRUGGLE!!!!!!
Emma the Dork wrote: "YES exactly!!!! violence is a struggle, is it not? and one of the many definitions of war is A STRUGGLE!!!!!!"
what is your reply to the standing by example? that was not a struggle. it was, however, violence.
what is your reply to the standing by example? that was not a struggle. it was, however, violence.
do you think that when a person doesn't intervene when someone is hurting someone, an act of violence, it is war?
Emma the Dork wrote: "uh i never said that so no...."
You lose this section of the debate.
War is violence.
Violence is not war.
The end.
You lose this section of the debate.
War is violence.
Violence is not war.
The end.
OMG THE DEFINITION OF WAR IS A STRUGGLE AND VIOLENCE IS A STRUGGLE DAMMIT!!!!!!sorry for the outburst but JEEZ!!
Emma the Dork wrote: "OMG THE DEFINITION OF WAR IS A STRUGGLE AND VIOLENCE IS A STRUGGLE DAMMIT!!!!!!
sorry for the outburst but JEEZ!!"
And you said, what, the sixth definition of war is 'a struggle.' Obviously that simple definition of the word is not what was meant. And for the record, here is the first definition of war:
'a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.'
Which does not include all degrees of violence.
sorry for the outburst but JEEZ!!"
And you said, what, the sixth definition of war is 'a struggle.' Obviously that simple definition of the word is not what was meant. And for the record, here is the first definition of war:
'a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.'
Which does not include all degrees of violence.
but the OTHER DEFINITION IS A STRUGGLE SO ITS STILL THE DEFINITION OMG HOW MANY TIMES MUST I SAY IT????
It is a different definition of the word. In this topic, which is drafts that nations use, the first definition is meant.
Your argument is like saying "Bangs are awesome."
Which can mean both "The bangs on her hair are awesome." or "The bangs from the gun are awesome."
Which, obviously, have two different meanings. As do the definition of war you are using, and the definition that is relevant to this topic.
Your argument is like saying "Bangs are awesome."
Which can mean both "The bangs on her hair are awesome." or "The bangs from the gun are awesome."
Which, obviously, have two different meanings. As do the definition of war you are using, and the definition that is relevant to this topic.
clearly, we are on different pages of the same book because i haven't the slightest idea what your saying.
J wrote: "Emma the Dork wrote: "OMG THE DEFINITION OF WAR IS A STRUGGLE AND VIOLENCE IS A STRUGGLE DAMMIT!!!!!!
sorry for the outburst but JEEZ!!"
And you said, what, the sixth definition of war is 'a stru..."
thank you so much!
sorry for the outburst but JEEZ!!"
And you said, what, the sixth definition of war is 'a stru..."
thank you so much!
Emma the Dork wrote: "uh i never said that so no...."
no, emma, i said that. im asking you to answer my question.
no, emma, i said that. im asking you to answer my question.
Eliza wrote: "so, anything that involves violence is war? what about the violence of standing aside? for example: mary sees bob abusing judy. she does nothing. she stands by, and allows judy to be hurt. that is ..."
because of that post.
because of that post.
i still don't get it.....anyway, this whole thing started with me saying that war is stupid, then liz saying that war can be stupid but it can also be good for overthrowing dictators and stuff, and then i said that without war the dictators wouldnt have all that power and then liz said they use violence not war and i said violence is war and now you all hate me and i am now saying, "so you think violence is good?"
i will post it again, and please read this time:
so, anything that involves violence is war? what about the violence of standing aside? for example: mary sees bob abusing judy. she does nothing. she stands by, and allows judy to be hurt. that is violence. but not war. neither is a punch, in my mind.
that was my question.
so, anything that involves violence is war? what about the violence of standing aside? for example: mary sees bob abusing judy. she does nothing. she stands by, and allows judy to be hurt. that is violence. but not war. neither is a punch, in my mind.
that was my question.
ok, ok, ok.but i am not going to answer it because this topic is DRIVING ME INSANE!!
no, i do not think violence is good! have you read my posts? i have not really said either way, have i? i have said, i believe, that war is necessary. i did not say i liked any form of violence. most of this discussion has been about the difference between violence and war.
then stop debating it with me!!
Okay so this just went from an "Army drafting debate" to a "Is this violence?" debate. An dthe three of you have been bickering nonstop so im just going to get back on topic.War is wrong, and sad and drafting should be banned.
