By the way, Canada did not send any consrcripts in WW2 until 1944.

The 5 years before that were purely volunteer fighters, as King did not want to break his vow to never institute conscription.

Since then our military has been made up entirely of paid volunteers, and reserve volunteers

The same can't be said for the US, while they sent thousands to die in Vietnam for what cause?

I actually may agree with you on this. While the shield does have some benefits in case N. Korea or some other country should take a mark on us, I think global terrorism and WMD in the form of chemical, biological, and suitcase dirty bombs are more likely to have an impact on the US than a trans-continental-nuke. So I question how bad we needed it.

The one thing I would argue on our behalf is that at least we say hey lets get out of the treaty, rather than pretend we are in it while subvertly breaking it. I think this is why we got out. While we hold back others break it and do what they want to anyway. Then they decry the evil USA all the while they were blowing smoke up our buttocks.

I'm against the draft. I didn't think it was right either. It is different if it is a world war and it'* desperate. I think we agree on this....

Yes im glad you agree.

I think the draft is suitable in the proper conditions, like the fate of the world being at stake. In the case of Iraq, or Vietnam, there is no threat to the entire world, so why force 100'* to die against their will?

And finally someone realizes the main reason for this post. And they see the MDS is flawed already. There is no need for it, as detterance already works to prevent nuclear missile attacks. Why create more weapons to worry about and waste money on?

The biggest nuclear threat the US should be worrying about is a suitcase or backpack nuclear bomb that wouldn't be affected by the MDS. Im glad someone else in this planet realizes that!

I do want to clarify one thing. I don't compare Vietnam to Iraq as far as draft goes. For one thing, many soldiers don't read in the fine print when they join the military, and yes this includes the reserves, is that there is a commitment in time beyond the active duty enlisted time. After I got out after serving four years, I was still in the inactive reserves for four more years. If called, it was my duty to fulfill this time. Many of these soldiers who do complain of being in longer than their enlistment times forgot, or didn't read the small print that stated the conditions and terms of enlistment that they voluntarily signed, and it is their responsibility to perform this duty. Just as the print in a mortgage for a house. One must read every line and fully understand before they sign, or it'* their own fault.

The missle defense plan is probly a product of and old way of thinking. Remember, a lot of people that helped bring down the soviet union are still in the us military today, and many of the former soviet generals, such as vladamir putin, are still also in power in russia today, and i would mainly contribute that to growing US missle defense system and the soviet reaction. As far as the iraq war, the real reason we went to war, no matter what anyone else says, is because of one powerful person that was a big part of the dept. of defense during the golf war, paul wolfowitz. I dont remember what his exact position was, i think it was one step down from where he was now; Anyway after the first gulf war, he drew up a new plan for foreign policy that he thought would greatly strengthen our foriegn policy and would help to push his ideals along with the ideals of others close to him, such as then Sec. of Def. Dick cheyney. At the time it seemed way too radical and the first bush would never go along with it, a view that was shared with then chiarman of the joint chiefs of staff, colin powel and others in the state dept. The idea was shot down obviously partly because it was so outrageous at the time and also because powel had more power and say in the first bush admin. What did wolfowitz do? he didnt just drop it and forget about it, he kind of put it in the bottom drawer and waited until he had an opportunity to convince someone to enact it, then after the clintion admin, came bush 2. Since they were already so closely allied with the first bush admin, many of the same players were already close to bush 2 and many of them helped coach him into the position he is in now. Then comes sept. 11 and the perfect opportunity to open up the bottom drawer and brush off that old foreign policy. there is more to it than that but damn im tried of typing so thats all ill put.

The US government claims that the United States has the right to invade sovereign countries and overthrow their governments if they are seen as hostile to American interests.

Heres some things to think about in light of this and the Iraq invasion:
These are the reasons i could find that Bush had for the invasion

1. Iraq is providing support for Al Qaeda and is a center for anti-American terrorism.

Bush has failed to produce credible evidence that the Iraqi regime had any links whatsoever with Al Qaeda. None of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqi, no major figure in Al Qaeda is Iraqi, and no part of Al Qaeda'* money trail has been traced to Iraq.

There have been credible reports of extremist Islamist groups operating in northern Iraq, but these are exclusively within Kurdish areas, which have been outside Baghdad'* control since the end of the Gulf War (thanks to what presidents support for their uprising?)

2. Containment (sanctions) had failed

Some countries, due in part to humanitarian concerns, are circumventing economic sanctions against Iraq, the military embargo appeared to have been holding solid. It was only as a result of the import of technology and raw materials from Russia, Germany, France, Britain and the United States that Iraq was able to develop its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs in the 1980s. What a thing to think about.

The Bush Administration has been unable to explain why prior to the invasion, when Saddam had only a fraction of his once powerful military capability, Iraq was considered such a greater threat than before, and that it was necessary to invade the country and replace its leader to protect the world. I guess with a smaller army they could somehow be more dangerous... I sorta understand that logic.

3. The United States has the legal right to impose a regime change through military force.

According to Articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any militarily action unless the Security Council determines that there has been a breach of its resolution, decides that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted and specifically authorizes the use of military force. This is what the Security Council did in November 1990 with Resolution 678 in response to Iraq'* occupation of Kuwait, which violated a series of resolutions demanding their withdrawal that passed that August.

Now sure someone will say "that takes too long". Sure it takes some time, but things are done RIGHT this way. Think about this scenario:

You are charged with first degree murder, you are arrested, your prosecuters claim they will find evidence after your conviction, so you are convicted not by the court, but buy this new precedent that your prosecuters can sentence you, and you are sentenced to death, and then executed. Before your execution, you know you did nothing, you are innocent because you never commited that murder but your prosecuters acted unilaterally because they were sure you did it. Oops, too late to turn back now! I'm sure you would be happy to die for something you never did, right? Not! Now expand that idea to a global scale.

Hopefully this gives the average American an idea of the purpose of the UN. It is designed to prevent things like this from happening, and to prevent international anarchy.

If the United States can unilaterally claim the right to invade another nation because of that country'* violation of Security Council resolutions, other Council members could logically also claim the right to invade states that are similarly in violation. For example, Russia could claim the right to invade Israel, France could claim the right to invade Turkey and Britain could claim the right to invade Morocco. The US insistence on the right to attack unilaterally will seriously undermine the principle of collective security and the authority of the UN and in doing so, would open the door to international anarchy, and more terrorism.

4. Regime change will be popular in Iraq and will find support among US allies in the region.

Well, it seems it is not very popular among the thousands of so called "insurgents"

While there is little question that most of Iraq'* neighbors and most Iraqis themselves would be or were pleased to see Iraq under new leadership, regime change imposed by invading US military forces were not welcome. US allies in the region supported the Gulf War, since it was viewed as an act of collective security in response to aggression by Iraq against its small neighbor.

Clearly it has, with the recent attack on the US consulate in Saudia Arabia, and the daily attacks on US forces in Iraq.

Well so far, it seems that prediction is following through, and even with all these military "pushes" through each city, and bombing them, it still seems insurgent activity is increasing.

In light of strong US support for the policies of Israel'* rightist government and its ongoing occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the anger over US double standards regarding Israeli and Iraqi violations of UN Security Council resolutions and possession of weapons of mass destruction could reach a boiling point. Recognizing that the United States cannot be defeated on the battlefield, more and more Arabs and Muslims will become resentful of American hegemony in their heartland and may be prone to attack by unconventional means, as was so tragically demonstrated last September 11.

We might all get to see the opening of the gates of hell, if we haven't already. Still, there are supporters of the Iraqi war, but they don't take into account the future stability of the world. Iraq was a distraction from the real problems in the world, we aren't any safter than we were during pre-invasion, and it can be argued we are in a more dangerous predicament. I hope i have demonstrated at least some of that so people can wake up and realize this.

I can't speak in Bush'* or anyone elses stead. I am not a politician, just an average fella. One thing I will say, is that 20-30 million free people is a good thing. Sadam is guilty of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children. Matt, are you saying we should let him go and re-establish his reign of murder?

In America, one murder gets life or the DP. To what should such a brutal dictator get for his atrocities? Now, I'm speaking as a civilian, and not from a position of shoulda coulda woulda. If Sadam had raped your wife, and held her tied up just inches away from your(her) child and unless she gave your location away(being a fugitive from him), she would have to watch as your(her) child slowly starved to death. So close but unable to do anything but watch the baby scream and slowly die in agony. Would that break your heart? Well, he did this. That is him and his croonies.

Yet, you have the audacity to argue politics when so many are brutalized. Yet you speak of wanting peace! Is political correctness more important than the lives of countless men, women and children. Would you wish America never went to Iraq? How many more would have died at Sadam'* hands by now? How many should die before someone steps in and helps, reguardless of the reasons?

I care more about people than politics and proving points and debates. What if indeed it was your family, would you still wish noone helped, just to be "right"? Think about it. Don't be so quick to lash out at me and ponder yourself in their position. Ask yourself the question of whether you would want an intercessor to stand up for you and your family, or someone who will do nothing and just turn the other way.

And yes, I understand that the insurgents are killing, but at least people are dying free, not as slaves and prisioners. Not to mention that freedom comes with struggle. Struggle to gain. and struggle to maintain.

Again, I speak as a civilian. I'm not debating the political side, just the humanitarian side of this issue, even if the political part was wrong as you suggest. Also, I like you. This is not an attack on you, just part of your arguement. While it is strong, it is done with compassion and as a cyber friend, not an opponent or enemy. Please remember this, okay?

I agree with you Kevo. As I continue to read this thread I can't help but feel that no answer given will appease Matt. It is apparent that this is not going anywhere but from bad to worse. This topic started as one thing and has grown into another. Sometimes it is just time to agree to disagree.

Responses (and I'm really trying to be calm now):
----A---- Except that lots and lots of people have disagreed with you on the idea of the missile shield, including me personally... just because you ignore them doesn't mean that they go away. Read the whole thread, Matt, not just what you've already written.

----B---- So you'd rather we just leave then? I'd get the feeling that you'd start complaining if we reinstated the draft, and I KNOW you'd be complaining if we "just pulled out and left the country to suffer after the US destroyed it." Those soldiers were volunteers. I have a close friend who'* been re-upped... but the contract is as it is. No exceptions to the rule, sorry to break it to you, but the military ain't always "fair."

----C---- Why don't you yell at France for surrendering, or Holland for capitulating, or Chamberlain for appeasing Hitler by letting him have Austria because "The German people of Sudetenland wanted to rejoin Father Germany?" Why do you have to single us out, the nation that was fighting a major, brutal war on two fronts? Germany declared war on US. Japan declared war on US. We stayed out of it then because people like YOU thought that we needed better reasons to help out our allies in Great Britain. If it were up to people like US, who WANT the United States in Iraq to depose people like Saddam Hussein, we would have arrested Hitler in 1939 and been DONE with it!

People back then thought that Germany wouldnt' be too much of a threat!! They had been destroyed in WWI. Their male population had been wiped off the planet. Vast stretches of farmland had been cut into trenches for the war. The country was four-billion dollars in debt to the United States of America for the war-crimes fines (which they never paid to us, by the way... imagine how much money that is with interest today).

But look what happened. People like YOU, Matt, let the blitzkrieg happen, because people like YOU felt that we needed an attack on our homeland to go to war, so that something like WWI would never happen again.

December 7th, 1941.

It happened anyway.

You can disagree with the United States foreign policy all you want. That'* your right, and I'm not going to be the one to take it away from you. But remember that it was people like Chamberlain, and people like YOU, that let World War II get as bad as it did... because YOU didn't want to see what COULD happen. You only saw what you wanted to see. And it f*cked us all.

----D---- Unlike you, I've never been ungrateful to anyone'* support in time of war. So thank you to your predecessors who put their lives on the line, even though they DIDN'T have a Pearl Harbor to motivate them.

EDIT: Maybe you should learn a lesson from them.