I would love to live in an enlightened world where we can all talk out our issues, without ever resorting to violence. I do believe that people, on an individual level, can be reasonable.

The problem <i>is</i> the masses. If a leader comes out with a compelling argument casting group X (country, terrorist cell, religious belief, etc) as a direct threat to the social group YOU belong to, you probably won't want to be the one who stands up and says "maybe that guys full of it?". You look weak and you look like you don't want to be part of the group. And the leader will tell you as much and try to push you out of the group.

Now, spin that story where there's a universal draft. All of a sudden, you and everyone else in the social group have to weigh the consequences of you or someone you love dying somewhere far away. When someone pipes up and tells the leader he/she's full of it, they don't sound like such a nay sayer.

In regards to just 'laying down and letting the terrorists kill you', I don't believe angersock meant that at all (correct me if I'm wrong) - we should avoid all this security theater BS. Do you really think that body scanners at airports are stopping terrorists? Any time I've flown into the states it seems like there's as many TSA agents as there are passengers.

You have a somewhat inflated sense of agency here, I believe. Additionally, these "terrorists" and "rogue states" are hardly "bullies"--and your claim of "no tolerance for that kind of shit" is exceptionally incongruous with past and present US foreign policy.

It's not like the terrorists decide that their favorite golf course is closed for the weekend, so instead they blow up some innocent civilians. In the absence of motivating forces, such as economic depression, sanctions, or political meddling, they are likely to not be terrorists--or even more likely, to be somebody else's problem!

As for the intent of my comment: do a calculation with me.

Average human lifespan is around 66 years.

Average time at airport security line is 20 minutes (http://www.bts.gov/publications/airline_passenger_opinions_o...).

Let's say 600 million passengers embark every year (http://www.transtats.bts.gov/).

Run it through (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28600+million+times+20...) and we see that something like 345 human-life-equivalents are wasted every year waiting in line to pull off shoes and get groped or irradiated. All so that people can feel more safe? From an effective non-threat?

In ten years we've wasted more human-live-equivalents than the WTC attacks. From fear and bureaucracy alone.

"Pakistan should not have it. (Remember, Pakistani leaders knowing sheltered Bin Laden.)"

So, the proper argument here is that Pakistan's security is questionable, but that's beside the point.

What does it matter that the Pakistanis knowingly sheltered Osama? Good God, if we were to hold nations accountable for the company they keep America (not to mention all of Europe and the rest of the world) would have a great lot of explaining to do!

"There are many groups that are actively hostile that are not identical to a national government. There are many national governments that are largely sympathetic to these groups."

There may be a reason for this, yes? If you knew of a world government with an exceedingly strong economy and a disposition for meddling extensively in the sovereign affairs of other states, wouldn't you be a wee bit wary? The reason that we face so much hostility is due to our failings in foreign policy, least of which being our military adventurism.

"If you look at history, from the middle ages until now, you see a continual improvement."

Improvement in what, technology? Amusement? Wealth?

Kill ratios?

This is a lot to unpack, but I think that one could make an argument that things are different--not necessarily better--and that happiness of a serf, a slave, or a modern person is open to debate. I'd enjoy debating this point further, but not immediately.

"Moreover, the idea that people are brutes is disturbing. We have to see people as reasoning individuals; otherwise, we decay into fascism, religious extremism, etc."

You've never seen a reasoning brute? You've never seen a fascist attempting to do what they believe is best for their nation? You've never seen a reasoning zealot do what they think is best for their faith?

"Reason" is not some panacea that magically turns the barbarians into white-collar workers and lays the lion down with the lamb.

At any rate, I intended to suggest not that the great unwashed slavering masses will throw us repeatedly into war: I meant to suggest that any more abstract reasoning, any more intellectual appeal, is too open to debate, argument, and misinterpretation. A draft is quite clear.