You draft them and order them to invade another country.

Let’s start with the second part of your question? How do you make someone understand that invading another country is not a good thing?

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.

If you want someone to understand that being forcibly drafted and ordered to invade another country isn’t just a bad idea but a downright tragedy, let’s put it in perspective. Imagine you’re just living your life—going to school, working a job, or raising a family—and suddenly, you’re yanked out of that and thrown into a warzone. You’re given no choice, no say, just a rifle, and a command to invade a place you know nothing about, all for reasons that have nothing to do with you.

This isn’t about defending freedom; it’s about being a pawn in a game played by U.S. politicians who are more interested in buying their next yacht than in the lives of the people they send to die. These are the same folks who might be snorting heroin in one breath, chasing it down with a hit of DMT or PCP in the next, all while contemplating their next political move. And let’s not forget Hunter Biden, probably somewhere in the mix, lighting up a crack pipe while surrounded by the latest scandal.

They’re far removed from the battlefield, making decisions that will never impact them directly. They’re too busy floating on their luxury yachts, possibly fueled by the profits of their next arms deal, to care about the human cost. These decisions aren’t just made in some sterile boardroom; they’re made in a haze of substance-fueled excess, where the life of a drafted soldier is nothing more than a means to an end, another dollar in their pocket.

So, when you’re forced into that situation, it’s not about honor or patriotism—it’s about serving the interests of those who are more concerned with their next high or their next luxury purchase than with your life. It’s about being used, discarded, and forgotten, all so a few people can continue living their lives in obscene excess.

Really telling all the radlibs are suddenly pro-draft. Always proimperialist, that bunch. I wonder why they arent in the boots themselves.

You can’t make anyone understand anything.

You can however question their belief and motivate them to consider other options.

I know you’re looking for arguments specifically for your opinion, but you should really try to avoid using arguments at all. If you set an argument, they will attack the argument and use this to dig into their existing belief on whatever is the actual topic of disagreement instead of addressing the actual topic. If you “attack” them, they will “defend”. This does not change their opinion.

It’s better to question them, so they have to think about why they believe in what they do. By questioning, you also show that you do not understand or agree with their opinion.

It also keeps the discussion about something that exists on their side. As soon as you introduce an argument, the discussion turns to being about something that you introduced, and that’s not at all what you intended to discuss or change. Be careful with that. They will attempt to make you present arguments. Don’t let them do that. It’s about what they believe.

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.

You hold up your draft card and burn it.

Lol. Where was this post when Russia drafted citizens to continue the invasion?

The Ukrainian “invasion” is to force Russia to withdraw from the war Russia started.

The issue, from what I can tell, is that the question you’ve asked here doesn’t match the argument you just had in comments of a post about about the Ukraine war. The argument you were trying to make is not “war bad”, but specifically that Ukraine’s counteroffensive is bad. You were additionally arguing that it is morally reprehensible for other countries to provide economic support to Ukraine rather than leaving them to “defend themselves”.

There’s a few important details that such an argument (intentionally) ignores.

• This invasion was not a choice between war or no war. It was simply a decision between locations that battles take place. It is entirely legitimate for Ukraine to pursue a counteroffensive strategy into russian territory if it believes it to be a more effective military strategy than defensive attritional warfare within their own borders.
• The fact that combat is taking place in Russian territory doesn’t change the fact that the war itself is a defensive war against an aggressor with overtly territorial/imperialist goals.
• As far as I am aware, the units involved in the counteroffensive are exclusively non-drafted volunteer units.
• Cessation of funding to Ukraine would lead to their imminent loss. The fact that they have been able to innovate cheaper strategies like domestic drone usage doesn’t change the fact that war is extremely expensive and technology dependent, and their economy is dwarfed by that of Russia’s.

The combination of your proposals that Ukraine should not proactively fight back, and that they should lose access to the resources that would allow them to continue to defend their territory end us meaning that Ukraine would not be able to effectively defend itself.

From reading your comments alongside this post, it seems that the title should actually be “how do you make someone understand that rolling over and dying is good”, to which the answer is “oh fuck off mate”

OP, nobody in that thread yesterday was saying it was a good thing. When a country gets invaded, your responses are always going to be a matter of lesser evils. Apologies for Godwin’s-Law-ing this off the bat, but it wasn’t great that the Allies drafted hundreds of thousands of people and invaded Nazi Germany. It was still better than every other option.

Just to throw my two cents in: This user isn’t a genuinely curious ponderer, rather they are a Russian troll trying to fish for arguments they could further use in bad faith to lick Putin’s boot.

Just read through their comment history and make your own mind. This is not genuine and most everyone is just feeding the troll.

The question itself is worth asking though. A lot of good points here, but they’d be better given in good faith for someone genuine.

War is horrific. If we deem a military is necessary to a peaceful society to protect from threats both domestic and foreign, then we should have a draft of ALL able adults, not just the poor and underprivileged. Rich folks, political folks, and otherwise connected individuals should be subject to be put on the front lines right next to the rest of us. What that means is we might rethink, as a nation, any military action. An all volunteer military would be the next most preferable one that is paid equal or greater to the national average income with full lifetime benefits including healthcare for the whole body including mind, teeth, eyes, etc., pension, free education including masters and doctorate level education, housing, as well as meeting other basic needs of life.

Anything less than that should be unacceptable.

I’m not part of the typical group that gets drafted (presumably young men) but my argument has always been that my country doesn’t own me, I’m not its property. If I want to fight for/serve my country I will, but IMO it has no right to just use me at will like a resource.

This especially goes for times like these, when everything is unaffordable, nobody can get a house, you can barely see a doctor, the police don’t even bother solving most low-level crime and the rich are lining their pockets with our money. The system is not upholding its end of the social contract at all, so why should it expect any extraordinary measures from us?

Federalist Paper 29

The founding fathers thought that standing armies make any leader a tyrant.