04-23-2004, 06:38 PM
Brain,
Your entire argument is based on the belief that government has the authority to determine the lives of individual citizens. In fact, when you say:
you ignore a few facts. First: Yes we entrust representatives to act on our behalf, but that trust has been betrayed. Elected officials only have the ability to govern when they have the consent of the governed. What we're seeing right now is an abuse of that power; government basically has carte blanche to do whatever it wishes, because most people are either too scared or too stupid to call them on their bad decisions. This needs to change.
Also, I have to ask, what "foreign or internal interests" were we protecting when we invaded Iraq? If our Congress - those men and women who were elected by the people to represent everyone - tells us we need to invade Canada for whatever reason, that means we all should sign up?
"Your government says you must go and kill Canadians."
"But no Canadian ever did me wrong."
"Shut up and grab your gun, boy, and never question your leaders!"
What you advocate is slavery.
Second, you fail to mention that a military draft should be the <i>absolute last resort</i> when a country is faced with a war that must be won. Clearly, we have not exhausted our options. We can still increase funding for our volunteer military which would boost recruitment, and/or hand over the occupation of Iraq to the UN. Unfortunately, both of those options would require our president to admit he was DEAD WRONG, and he'd rather force people at gunpoint to go and die than admit he was wrong.
Here is where you're completely, inarguably wrong. Consider the context of Kennedy's words - this was 1961, when Communism was the greatest (and only) threat to America, and here you are in 2004 basically espousing communist ideals!
When Kennedy says, "And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God," he is clearly saying that the rights of man come from the hand of God (or, as John Locke said, rights are natural), and that that the belief that "the rights of man come from the generosity of the state" is the basic principle of communism that we as Americans must oppose. "The same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe" does NOT say that those beliefs are a thing of a past, it says that there exists a threat to those beliefs that needs to be addressed. To twist Kennedy's words completely around and say that "the 'revolutionary belief' in God-granted rights gave way to rights granted by the generosity of the state in more modern times" is disgusting and you should know better.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty & the pursuit of Happiness."
These are not just words, they're the foundation of this country. What you're saying is that this is an antiquated idea, and that now we only have these rights so long as the state <i>allows</i> us to have these rights. You're wrong. If you sacrifice your rights to the state, you may as well live in a totalitarian dictatorship, because you do not value freedom.
You cite the American Revolution, as if that in any way compares to the wars we're fighting today. Look, the Revolution had a clear goal, one that could be understood by everyone: to gain independence from Britan. The Civil War, WWI, WWII, all had clearly defined goals. Vietnam? No clear goal, no objective and - surprise! - we lost. The Iraq War? What are the goals? I thought it was to disarm Saddam, but now I guess it's to bring 'democracy' to a bunch of people who don't want democracy and don't want us there. How the fuck are we supposed to win, and how can you rationalize sending unwilling men and women to die when there are no goals established and the fate of our country is not at stake?
Your entire argument is based on the belief that government has the authority to determine the lives of individual citizens. In fact, when you say:
Quote:We simply put cannot have such individual subjectivity when it comes to preserving our freedom. It's why this is a democratic republic and not a democracy-- we entrust a small representation of the public to act on our behalf as a whole. So if that small group decides we need to go to war to protect our foreign or internal interests, then so be it, that is what we all will do.
you ignore a few facts. First: Yes we entrust representatives to act on our behalf, but that trust has been betrayed. Elected officials only have the ability to govern when they have the consent of the governed. What we're seeing right now is an abuse of that power; government basically has carte blanche to do whatever it wishes, because most people are either too scared or too stupid to call them on their bad decisions. This needs to change.
Also, I have to ask, what "foreign or internal interests" were we protecting when we invaded Iraq? If our Congress - those men and women who were elected by the people to represent everyone - tells us we need to invade Canada for whatever reason, that means we all should sign up?
"Your government says you must go and kill Canadians."
"But no Canadian ever did me wrong."
"Shut up and grab your gun, boy, and never question your leaders!"
What you advocate is slavery.
Second, you fail to mention that a military draft should be the <i>absolute last resort</i> when a country is faced with a war that must be won. Clearly, we have not exhausted our options. We can still increase funding for our volunteer military which would boost recruitment, and/or hand over the occupation of Iraq to the UN. Unfortunately, both of those options would require our president to admit he was DEAD WRONG, and he'd rather force people at gunpoint to go and die than admit he was wrong.
Quote:\"The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.\"
--John F. Kennedy
He is not arguing that the \"rights of Man\" come from God... he acknowledges that the times of that belief have changed, and that mankind (the \"generosity of the state\") now holds sway over the rights of Man, even as he makes his oath before God and country. I know, the wording in that part of the speech is awkward, but it is as it is: the \"revolutionary belief\" in God-granted rights gave way to rights granted by the generosity of the state in more modern times.
Here is where you're completely, inarguably wrong. Consider the context of Kennedy's words - this was 1961, when Communism was the greatest (and only) threat to America, and here you are in 2004 basically espousing communist ideals!
When Kennedy says, "And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God," he is clearly saying that the rights of man come from the hand of God (or, as John Locke said, rights are natural), and that that the belief that "the rights of man come from the generosity of the state" is the basic principle of communism that we as Americans must oppose. "The same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe" does NOT say that those beliefs are a thing of a past, it says that there exists a threat to those beliefs that needs to be addressed. To twist Kennedy's words completely around and say that "the 'revolutionary belief' in God-granted rights gave way to rights granted by the generosity of the state in more modern times" is disgusting and you should know better.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty & the pursuit of Happiness."
These are not just words, they're the foundation of this country. What you're saying is that this is an antiquated idea, and that now we only have these rights so long as the state <i>allows</i> us to have these rights. You're wrong. If you sacrifice your rights to the state, you may as well live in a totalitarian dictatorship, because you do not value freedom.
Quote:Like it or not, from the first Revolutionary army being made up of farmers and merchants called into service, to today's students and up-and-coming businessmen having to put their personal lives on hold for service to this country, the draft has existed, and will continue to exist, in one form or another. Kennedy acknowledged as much, becuase it is necessary for us to be willing to make that sacrifice of individual freedom to maintain national freedom, because the two freedoms are inherently intertwined-- one simply cannot exist without the other.
You cite the American Revolution, as if that in any way compares to the wars we're fighting today. Look, the Revolution had a clear goal, one that could be understood by everyone: to gain independence from Britan. The Civil War, WWI, WWII, all had clearly defined goals. Vietnam? No clear goal, no objective and - surprise! - we lost. The Iraq War? What are the goals? I thought it was to disarm Saddam, but now I guess it's to bring 'democracy' to a bunch of people who don't want democracy and don't want us there. How the fuck are we supposed to win, and how can you rationalize sending unwilling men and women to die when there are no goals established and the fate of our country is not at stake?