Sorry, didn't mean to get so offensive, it just pisses me off at times. The national service I think is a good idea, but a 2 year block (say 19 to 21 or so). And civil duty as well as military would seem appropriate.
The BBC news article here raised the issues as a possibility, not as a certainty. There are plenty of other news commentaries from around the same date speculating on the same thing. Currently it's still only speculation, but that doesn't stop people discussing it without being morons.
That's just filing positions on the local boards. Those boards have to be in place all the time, just in case something the magnitude of WW2 should arise again. This is by no means a reinstatement of the draft. That settled, if there were a draft, I'd enlist. I'm not about to hide when my nation needs men to stand up.
Boy, where do I start... Why not? The US government sees it fit to influence opinion in other countries, to the extent of lobbying them, invading them, slapping trade embargos on them, supplying their political enemies with weapons or training them in terrorist(!) techniques, etc. I'm not saying other nations are as pure as the driven snow in this regard, but we were talking about the US and UK here. Also, when the UK government wholeheartedly went along with this Iraq war farce, the US government was not too bothered about this being foreign opinion which "could not rightly compare itself" to the US situation viz a viz terrorist threat. Well, let's face it, Bush is a substantial part of US politics now, is he? I mean, what with him being the current President of the US and all that? Unfortunately, as history tells us plenty of times, to get ahead in politics, all you need is ambition, power (money), and a certain lack of scruples. Wisdom or goodwill has little to do with it. But there are of course a lot of prominent political figures who for example opposed the war in Iraq, e.g. Norman Schwarzkopf, George Bush senior... Possibly, but in that case so has the UN Security Council, who have been advocating and looking into the formation of a small, highly mobile, specialist rapid-response task force since the nineties. The idea is to get in quick, hit them with high-tech anti-weapon weapons rather than anti-personnel weapons (the idea being that once you figure out that missile is attracted to your weapons, rather than you personally, you figure out the best thing to do is not to be anywhere near weapons), and establish socio-economic stability ASAP. Focus would not be on all-out wars, but on resolving local conflict decisively and rapidly, to neutralise terrorists, to support effective aid in natural disasters and epidemics. And you have to admit that the UN Security Council people are, as you put it, in an "influential position"... Sorry, but that's a crap argument, and one I hear too often. Just because your neighbour is an @sshole, does not justify you being one too. Again, sorry, but you cannot set yourself up by posting some very strong (and poorly supported) arguments, and then complain when people shoot them down. That feels a bit like "working towards a tragic outcome" (wait-- isn't that what Bush is doing? ). I do not tollerate flaming (and you'll note that nowhere in this response are any personal insults) but you have to be prepared to back up what you say in reasoned argument. Anyway, for completeness sake: I do not agree with drafting; ordinary soldiers are seen too often as expendable commodities, and I am nobody's expendable commodity. I will not be ordered to my death, or to kill some utter stranger in the same position, for someone else's political ambitions. If my home gets invaded, I will fight my own battle, in my own way. Hmmm...
Because you aren't doing the SAME thing by telling the US what IT should do... nahhhhh... Bush is a head. He technically only has two roles, though. 1) Command the military. 2) Keep the senate in check by not allowing senseless bills to pass. So no, he is NOT responsible for everything. His cabinet actually does most of the work, just as it has been for almost every President. Since when was Bush Sr. against a war in Iraq!? I want to see this evidence, sir. Very gross difference in being an ******* and admitting that your own government has flaws. I would suggest you are quite ignorant if you think you could set up a perfect government. If you are not willing to be in the military and give your life for your country, in my opinion, you have no room in a discussion about such a thing.
I could argue the same point back to you (no wait, I did in the previous post) and keep going around in circles. When we talk about 'Bush', we are in general actually referring to his administration, not him in person (I'm sure he's a nice guy, really, once you get to know him...). You have to admit that his administration does have quite a bit of impact on US policy, however, and that most things abroad that have been happening lately are down to his administration. (not a war, just the latest war. I learned this through BBC Radio 4, but I'll google it up (if I can't find it, I'll happily stand corrected). Meanwhile, look :here: where Gen. Brent Scowcroft, national security advisor to President Bush Sr. and Gen. Colin Powell, secretary of state are listed also as those advising against the war. That was not at all the point I was making (please read it again). What I was saying is that other goverments doing unethical things does not justify being complacent about yours doing the same. We were not talking about setting up a 'perfect' government, but having a government that, by and large, is honest and practises the principles it advocates (and goes to war over!). It's a bit like saying: if you don't agree with my point, you have no right to discuss it (I'm sure that, too, is current US policy). That would make for a rather one-sided discussion, would it? Sort of like one hand clapping. Anyway, we were not discussing that. We were discussing whether people agree with or oppose drafting. If you choose to kill and die heroically on the battlefield for some government's political ambitions, you have the right to do so, but similarly, I feel I have the right to choose not to. I think people get carried away too easily in romantic notions of "dying for your country" while that is not at all what most wars are fought for.
tbh i'd be pretty pissed if England had another draft but *if* they did then i couldnt do anything about it...hell i even wanted to join the army for years and years before i began IT. also the threat of war isnt on a massive battlefeild scale anymore like <1945, its all dirty wepons and suicide bombers so maybe a small task forse would be a very good idea i.e SAS and SEAL style!
But I never said no one could have another opinion. You did. You're condemning the US for telling other people what to do, but you're being a hypocrite by telling the US that they can't do that. I never said you don't have the RIGHT to be a hypocrite, I was simply stating that you are. Then refer to it as the Bush Administration. There is a gross difference. I'll eat a carrot if you find legit evidence that Bush Sr. was against the war in Iraq. I read it many times and it made very little sense, that's why I brought it up. And I would suggest that a war is very different from torturing your own people. There is a difference between pulling people from their homes and torturing them, and shooting at someone who is shooting at you. No, it's like saying, if you don't give a **** about a subject, why are you voicing your opinion on it? If everyone was like you, there would be no army and any nation could invade you, and you would do nothing about it. Whether there was a draft or not would make no difference to YOU, because you wouldn't partake in it even if you were supposed to. That's like voting for tax laws in another country. The tax won't affect you, so you don't care how you vote. "And you can bet I'll pick up the phone if Uncle Sam calls me up. You do your thing, I'll do mine."
No, I said that if the US (administration) feels fit to impose their political views on other countries, then, in turn, other countries can impose their views back. It's sort of a quid pro quo thing. But thanks for allowing me to be a hypocrite. I appreciate that. Really. I'm sorry, I thought that was implied. From now on I will, to avoid confusion. OK, but only if you really hate carrots. OK, I'll clarify. To say that other governments do unethical things, as a justification for your own government doing unethical things, is not a valid argument because we're supposed to be the good guys. If you think that the US government has never endulged in a bit of torture or violation of human rights (Abu Ghraib? Quantanamo Bay?), or fire-bombing civilians (Trang Bang, Korea?), read up on some history and think again. There is no difference. I'm not saying that the UK (or even Dutch) government are not guilty of the same thing --but the same argument applies. We're supposed to be the good guys. Therefore we simply do not have the option to do as the bad guys do. First, if everyone was like me, there would be no invasion, because no-one would go to war. But who said I don't care? Because I'm not lining up to "die for my country", as it is so dramatically put? Let's get something straight. In the beginning, war was straightforward. You live your life peacefully in your stone-age village, trying to eek out a living and raise your family. Suddenly one day foreign hordes come storming over the hill intent on rape, plunder and pillage. What do you do? You pick up arms and defend what's yours, protect your own. I can dig that. I'd do the same. Zoom out a bit. In the 20th Century, wars are fought on a larger scale. Dynamics are not as, well, personal. But if some maniac dictator invades and occupies your country, or wishes to wipe out an ethnic community in a genocidal exercise (World War II?), you'd have something to say about it, right? You'd fight back. Again, I can dig that, and I'd do the same. I can even relate to going abroad to fight on the basis of principle because some maniacs are slaughtering a defenseless population (Sudan, anybody?) and that is wrong. I might sign up for that. However, I will NOT sign up to invade some other country and kill the local conscripts there, because of some complicated political chess-game that has been playing itself out over the last 20 or so years, and which has NOTHING to do with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but all to do with ecomomic interests. I consider my life (and yours, incidentally) as too valuable for that. Our lives matter. I have a wife, and I have an elderly (widowed) mother to look after. You may have children to raise. Our lives are not to be squandered. If we have to go and risk it on a battlefield, there better be a damn good reason for doing so (You may argue that the Iraq War V2.0 was a matter of principle, but frankly, almost nobody buys that --too long to go into that one, just read all the other threads on the subject. And if principle matters so much, why haven't we intervened in Sudan yet?). So the problem (as always) is choice. I believe I should have a choice as to what war I'll fight, because it's my life that's on the line, not the President's, not the Prime Minister's, mine. I'll give it for my country if the reason is good enough: to defend the principles I believe in, and to protect my own. Not for some politcal chess game. Drafting negates all that. It cynically takes the choice away, and therefore your sacrifice, Ubermich, will become meaningless, because your free will, your noble choice (no sarcasm intended), was not involved. To the government, your opinion did not matter.
I must admit they're slightly better than boots, but only slightly. That is understandable, but does that mean that the entire war in Iraq was unethical? Did no good come of it? It seems to me that you're arguing that the US is going more harm than good in this war. Let me clarify, if everyone in YOUR COUNTRY were like you... sorry about that. THIS is understandable. I thought you were saying you wouldn't fight for your country, period, under any circumstance. As I know some people like that. They are simply cowards and stand up for nothing. As for me dying for no reason, I don't believe that. Should the government begin a draft, I would volunteer. Thus possibly helping to keep one kid safe at home with his parents, or one retired gentleman at home with his wife. Even if I only survive one month overseas, that's one month that boy gets to stay with his parents, or one month that retired man can stay with his wife. Whether I am alive or dead is really of no importance, it is what I DO with my life that stands beyond time. Edit: for clarification, if I don't quote a part of your argument, I leave it be because I do not argue (whether I agree or not is a seperate matter )
Tough one, that. There are people who argue that, given that Saddam was kept in power by Western foreign policy for a good few decades, we in fact had a moral obligation to put him out of business. I can see that point of view, but I would argue, why create the mess in the first place? But that is beside the point. Whether any good came from it... on balance, I would say "the more things change, the more they stay the same", but I think it's too early to say for sure. The Kurds in Northern Iraq would agree that things have improved for them (but let's face it, they couldn't have got much worse). The average Joe in Iraq may feel less oppressed, but also less certain about the future. I gather utilities are not fully on-line yet, medicine is struggling, security is in shambles with every rent-a-terrorist only just bright enough to work out the point-and-shoot interface of a gun running riot through the region. Thing is, power abhorrs a vacuum. And when Saddam was taken out, that is what got left behind. For the record, I'm not in the habit of pissing on the US goverment. Various US governments also did some good things in history. It's just that, well, the few bad things it has done risks obscuring all that. At the moment, the Bush administration is on a seriously bad home run and people will forget all the good contributions made in the past, like neutralising the Communist block, the Marshall plan etc. And of course other governments all over are easily as bad, if not worse. That's cool, but you have to always consider the reasons for going to war. For instance German soldiers in WWII did not, they just went along with the government's feel-good message. Germany is still feeling the hangover today. Just because you're fighting for your government, doesn't necessarily mean you're fighting for your country. Stay critical...
Heres the way I look at it: 1) This war was completely unnecassary. We didn't find any missiles, bombs, or any other forms of biological weapons. It was just a way for Bush to finish what his daddy started. 2) The guy we made the new president of Iraq is no better than Saddam, and in fact, he might be worse. I bet you think I'm crazy now, eh? Listen up. Iraq's new president has done the following: - Walked into a prison, picked up an assault rifle, and shot and killed 10 men suspected of commiting crimes. - There was another situation in which he cut a mans arm off in order to get him to give information. Saddam doesn't seem so bad anymore, does he? 3) The Patriot Act is unnecassary and is only taking away the rights of US citizens. It has been stated that many members of congress and the government had no idea what the Patriot Act was about when Bush and Ashcroft were trying to pass it. The Patriot Act essentially is the "Anti-Bill of Rights". It pretty much means that if you're not a typical white guy, and you are middle-eastern, hindu, african american, whatever, cops can pretty much arrest you right on the spot without giving you a reason. They will call it "suspision", but the thing is, they dont have to tell you why they are arresting you or anything. You just fit a basic ethnic profile so you're going to get arrested. Great. BTW, If Bush actually manages to get the draft passed, I'm moving to Canada. There is no way I'm fighting this war for him.
Not at all. I think you're quite right, and that who we got in power now is simply Saddam V2.0. In ten years time he'll do something to piss the US off and the whole saga will start all over again. In fact, I give it less than ten years.
I've only just found this thread and it took me ages to read through it all. I just thought that my opinions on the subject might be of interest. Historically the draft has always been a disaster for armed forces. Conscript troops are the worst trained in the world. Why do you think the iraqi army was such a pushover? On the flip side, the draft has also historically been a great success for society as a whole. We all hear our grandparents saying things along the lines of "didn't happen before the war...". The armed forces matures people very quickly. It teaches teamwork, leadership and most importantly tolerance. Things which are drastically lacking in todays society. Granted, the number of deaths and horrific injuries is a terrible price to pay for a generation or two of youth with morals and tolerance but to be perfectly frank, I think that society is in such a state that we need it. Diverting from the crux of the topic, I have to say that these anti-war tree hugging pansies really piss me off something rotten. Don't get me wrong, I don't like to see people die, and I don't think war should be gone into lightly, but sometimes war is a necessity. Its the same arguement as with the pro-lifers over the death penalty. Their arguement is that every life is precious and that no-body deserves to die under any circumstances. Well, sorry but your wrong, simple as that. There are times when enough is enough and the last resort must be taken. Back on topic now. I spent 3 months in the army doing my basic training. I quit for some reason, I've since decided that it was cos I was homesick, something that I am deeply deeply ashamed of. I found out a few weeks ago that my regiment and all of the lads that were in my platoon during basic are out in the gulf at the moment. I'm absolutely gutted! Why aren't I there doing my bit? I do agree that the war was gone into for the wrong reasons. The heads of government said it was about WMD, but it wasn't. It was about oil, but not for the reasons you guys say. With the situation as it stood, the whole region was massively unstable, at some point in the future Iraq would have had another go at Saudi, Kuwait, or even Iran, the resulting war would have lasted decades and would have completely screwed oil prices. The war was not to secure the oil for us, but to keep the oil secure for all! Now, some people think that even that is intolerable, but our elected leaders have to protect our countries interests through whatever means. So, i've agreed that the war was done for the wrong reasons. BUT, the war was a good thing. Saddam needed dealing with. I won't go into the attrocities that occurred under his "government" as we all know the stories anyway, but the last time we stood by and watched that sort of thing happened, it was Jews being slaughtered and I don't know about you guys, but I can't sit by and watch that happen again! Regarding the post-war phase, I think it's been a disaster. The minute they realised that they had underestimated things they should have filled the country with MP (military police) and as many regiments as they could muster. There should have been military on every street in the country. If you going to occupy a country, you've got to do it properly, otherwise you will always get a resistance. The answer is not to give them the opportunity! Anyhow, i've had my say, and wasted 30 mins at work, so i'm just going to sit back and watch you guys flame me.
I sort of feel it teaches blind obedience and unquestioning acceptance of authority. That, too, is a problem in today's society. And believe me, lots of bad **** happened "before the war". The good ol' days weren't that good. They just were more resigned to and not talked about. I'm not sure how deaths and horrific injuries create a youth with morals and tollerance, rather than with alienation, and shell-shock. A few years ago I treated an elderly gentleman (I am a clinical psychologist) who had fought in about all the nasty hot-spots during WWII (he was extremely unlucky). He still regularly woke up screaming at nights -- until he was in his 80s. Luckily our sessions helped and he slept peacefully for the first time in 60+ years soon after. I will not forget the horrific stories he told me, nor the vicious hate with which this mild-mannered, friendly man still spoke about the Germans and the Japanese. War is not glorious. It is not to be taken lightly. It twists people and makes them do and experience unspeakable things. War is an abomination. Your bit for what? What exactly would you be risking your neck for? Perhaps, if Saddam was such an unstable, maniacal *******, we shouldn't have supported him for a decade in the first place (he was a ******* then; don't think he suddenly turned from saint to sinner in 1990). Perhaps we shouldn't put another maniac in his place, like we appear to be doing now. Perhaps the US shouldn't have supported and trained Osama Bin Laden when he was being a thorn in the side of the Russians in Afghanistan, and showed all signs of being a fundamentalist psychopath. And trust me, the US is "keeping oil safe" for no-one but themselves. Standing by watching people getting slaughtered? We're doing that with Sudan now. But wait, they don't have any oil, have they? And Iraq is a huge, (not just) geographically inhospitable place. How many military troops do you think it would take to slam the lid on that place?
You are in desperate need of some education Follow this link to the US Senate website. That page will allow you to look up bills that are currently in the senate. Type "S89" in the box to look up a bill by number. That will take you to the text of the Universal National Service Act. I encourage you to read it. Then, take into account that the selective service office (the agency that manges millitary drafts) got a 10 million boost in its budget for next year. If you take these two pieces of information into account and still think that people are "morons" for worrying about the draft, then maybe you could tell us what YOU would consider sufficient evidence for a draft reinstatement being on the horizon?
This sort of attitude really gets me going. Why is it that people seem to think that just because we cocked up in the first place we shouldn't do anything about it when we finally figure it out. Surely it is our moral duty to sort out the mess that we started? I agree with you in part though. I do feel that our governments need to take a long hard look at which individuals and governments they support. I certainly agree about their support of Bin Laden, but I must confess to not knowing enough about this new chap in iraq to be able to form an opinion. Spoken by a truly ignorant civvy. Just because you're in the military doesn't mean that you're a robot. It gives them a better perspective of live. Most of the soldiers and pilots that I know have a much much higher regard for human life than most of the civvies that I have come across. Sure most of them have nightmares now and then, but I can assure you that I would be alot more worried about those that DON'T have nightmares. I'm sure as a pyschologist you can appreciate the potential consequences. I totally see your point there, but I think you take my words a little to literally. I certainly don't mean that life was rosey "before the war", but I definitely think that society as a whole was in a much better position then than it is now. Again, you missunderstand me. You assume that I'm after some glorious death or something. I don't know about you, but I have a very close bond with my friends and family. I would be honoured to stand alongside and support my friends in whatever situation they are in. Aside from that, I believe that they are doing a good job. They are doing a job that I believe in. Sure there is alot of uprising and discord in Iraq at the moment, but I believe that it is what is best for the people of Iraq and that eventually they will thank us for it. I know if we had a dictatorship in Britain (god forbid) I would be just a tad greatful for help restoring a rightfully elected government. Alot, so? There are plenty of countries involved. Granted not some of the ones that could provide ALOT of troops (russia, france, german etc.) but it is certainly not an impossible task.
Nexxo, you have been busy lately! I think the draft is a terrible idea. If a person does not volunteer for the military, they should not be made to participate in it. If I had been accepted when I tried to join I would be even MORE against the draft. I would MUCH rather depend on five volunteers to watch my back than twenty draftees who don't want to be there.
I agree with you on that to an extent (as mentioned in a previous post), but history teaches us we make the same mistake over and over again. Surely it would be better to learn and not make any mess in the first place? Spoken by a truly arrogant would-be warrior. Johnnie, get your gun.... No, it just means you have to obey the orders of your superior. Even if it goes against your better judgement or ethics, or sends you to a certain death. I may be a civvy (and a truly ignorant one at that ), but at least I have some decision making power and control over my own life. At least professional soldiers would have this as well (I mean, if they really object, they can resign their commission). Draftees have not. Yeah, and then they go and kill people. On command. I'm not saying all civvies (ignorant or otherwise) are saints, or that I would never, ever kill anybody (after all, as I said there may be that foreign horde storming over that there hill, intent on rape, pillage and plunder), but if I do, it will be my decison, for reasons I can live with. My life. My actions. My responsibility. I'm not sure I get your reasoning here... But I think, as a psychologist, that it would be far preferable not to put people through experiences that may give them screaming nightmares in the first place. I don't think it was. Historical anecdotes of the times tell us life was pretty grim. People who lived in those days tell me life was pretty grim. There was poverty, ignorance, prejudice, abuse, exploitation, the whole Seven Deadly Sins just like there is now. Believe me, in those days people lived and children grew up in circumstances that you and I would find extremely hard to imagine. It was just that you didn't know any better and you couldn't do anything about it, so you put up and shut up. No, I think you're after honour and glory. The first is admireable, the second understandable, but war is not the way to get it. War is not "heroically standing alongside your brothers in arms, fighting for thruth, justice and the American Way". Let me illustrate what war is. War is lying in mud and blood, scared sh*tless as the bullets and grenades explode around you. It is seeing your friends being eviscerated and blown apart. It is having your friend cry in your arms that he just wants to go home, while you desperately try to stop the bleeding, put his guts back inside, knowing, all the while, that he never will. It is shooting at soldiers, civilians, anything that moves in a wild, panicked frenzy. It is seeing torture and rape being committed by comrades and superiors that you thought you knew and could trust. It is seriously concidering to shoot that little boy innocently walking towards you NOW because he could be hiding a suicide bomb under his clothes and YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. It is seeing the burnt corpses of women and children in a flattened village and realising it was your side that did this. It is actually feeling good shooting that scared old man because he wouldn't do as he was told, wouldn't stand still and be inspected, was too hysterical and wouldn't stop screaming, you can't trust them, and it is all their fault anyway, they made you do this, made you be here, seeing your friends killed, standing in the sh*t and the mud doing things you hate yourself for, being scared and miserable and homesick, knowing that you will never be able to go home again, eat again, sleep again, because of how you now loathe yourself. They deserve it... Welcome to war, soldier. Welcome... You want honour? Become a fireman (there, you actually do get to carry babies from burning buildings). Join the paramedics. Become a "Doctor Without Borders". As for the glory, nobody gets that, mate... not unless you're a footballer or a vacuous pop star. There are many people living their quiet, unassuming lives, making a modest living, doing the right thing by their family and fellow human beings, that will never get any acknowledgment for it, will never be praised, or even known. But they are loved by their children for being good parents, and respected by their friends. They are considerate neighours. My elderly neighbours are such persons. I respect and honour them. Again, some arrogance here? Perhaps the people of Iraq know what is best for the people of Iraq. Perhaps we should not have supported their oppressor, only to jank him away and leave a chaotic power vacuum when he did not suit us anymore. Perhaps we should have let them manage their own lives, and stick to managing our own. OK, I like this scenario. Suppose we have us a real b@stard here. A real low-life, mud-sucking dicator a la Adolf Hitler, say. We live in fear every day. You go to work, raise your family, keep your head down. Then in come the liberators. They bomb some military targets, which, of course, kills some of our young men, amongst which your son or brother or nephew (we would have drafts, after all). Some bombs stray and kill our civvies too, and demolish our cities: Londo, Birmingham, Manchester... We lose water, gas, electricity. Hospitals go into breakdown. Your child is sick --doctors can't cure it. Your family are hungry and thristy --you can't feed them. You're afraid to go out as security has collapsed and gangs are roaming everywhere. You have no money. Our future is uncertain. Still feeling grateful? OK, lets add some context. you find out the liberators were the ones who supported your dictator for a decade. Sold him weapons, guns and horrendous chemical stuff, that he used to suppress you. The liberators make a B-line for our natural resources --the coalmines, oil rigs, and seize control. They put up roadblocks and pull you over at gunpoint, inspect you like you were one of the criminals that roam your streets. "When are you going to fix our water, electricity and hospitals?" you protest. There is no answer; only cold distrustful stares. Eventually, a new leader is put in Westminster. A British guy, but you've never heard of him. You wouldn't vote for him! What did he ever do for Britain? What is he going to do for us? Who says he won't be as bad as the first guy that those "liberators" supported? They just swapped one dictator for another! In YOUR country! Oh, I forget. The liberators, they're all Arabs. Yes it is. It is really expensive, and at some point parents are going to find it a real drag to keep getting their children sent home in body bags. History tells us empires collapse for the same reason. Seizing control is easy. Keeping control impossible.
Yeah... I have to stop myself getting sucked in so much... And I agree with your point. As much as I am against war, armies, the whole shebang, as I stated before even I can conceive of situations where I would take up arms or support military intervention --keeping in mind all its caveats, of course. But, as you imply, it has to be personal choice. A professional soldier is free to join, and free to leave, so in the end, he has some sense of control over and responsibility for his actions. Draftees do not. Not only are they likely to be less reliable in a pinch (as you point out), I also suspect they'd be more prone to committing war crimes. After all, they don't choose to be involved, so they will feel a lot of anxiety, powerlessness and resentment, and no sense of personal responsibility for their actions ("Hey, I was just given a gun and sent here. I'm just following orders. It's nothing to do with me..."). With no sense of personal control and responsibility, they'd be more prone to acting out.
