What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
214 Comments
- RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -4/+111Democrat Charlie Rangel, who introduced this legistlation is up to his old tricks again. He always puts out a draft bill before every national election just to get the "vote or die" people riled up. Don't be fooled.
January 8 2003: Rangel introduces bill to reinstate draft
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/
October 06, 2004: House rejects bill to restart military draft 402-2
"Yesterday's draft bill — sponsored by Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat — was defeated 402-2, with even Mr. Rangel voting against the proposal that called for reinstituting the practice abandoned in 1973 when the military converted to an all-volunteer force."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041006-012158-2811r.htm - asdfasdf, on 11/09/2007, -25/+97Hopefully we'll have another 60s era, with a lot more LSD and Marijuana than before, and another Summer of Love.
- sconeofstone, on 10/12/2007, -9/+72This is a bill sponsored by Charley Rangel - a DEMOCRAT from New York. He does this before every election, so that the Dems can say that the 'Republican Congress' wants to reinstate the draft. It never makes it out of committee. It's more election year BS. Don't be fooled.
- mlorrey, on 10/12/2007, -13/+68Hell, I'm a veteran, they won't draft me.
BTW: Alice: please define a legal or moral war...
another question: is jury duty slavery, also? - xpaladin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35@Radiant,
Yup. That was the second thing I checked for after milling over the bill. He's been at it for a while and gets shut down every time. - lostmyleggins, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34dongiaconia it appears that Rep. Charles Rangel submitted this bill.
Official Title: To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
Status: Introduced (By Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY])
This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced House bills go first to House committees that consider whether the bill should be presented to the House as a whole. The majority of bills never make it out of committee.
Introduced: Feb 14, 2006
Last Action: Feb 23, 2006: Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
Sponsor: Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY](no cosponsors)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4752 - MikeFromAmerica, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34@Anarchrist... "The United States Gov't has never entered into a just war."
Are there any wars that were just by that definition? - lostmyleggins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Rep. Charles Rangel submitted a similar bill in 2003. I guess he does this every couple of years.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -18/+42ciberw0lf: but they're forcing you to work, it doesn't matter if they "pay well" or not.
- Anarchrist, on 10/12/2007, -23/+44Type "Just War Doctrine" or "Just War Theory" into google. You'll find something along the lines of:
1. A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
2. A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
3. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient to justify war--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
4. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
5. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
6. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
7. The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target. "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation"
The United States Gov't has never entered into a just war. - Klisk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Sometimes it's a good thing to be overweight, and brutally out of shape.
I feel good about myself right about now.
Okay, time for pizza. - herrshuster, on 10/12/2007, -22/+38Know what Alice? I don't care about you or your blog and neither does anyone else here
- antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Oh no! The Republicans are going through with the draft that the Dems said would happen if Bush was re-elected!
Sponsor: Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY]
Oh.... hey! - Canthros, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Why is it always the Democrats who submit these draft bills? Ignore it, it's election-year posturing.
- brentzilla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17It's called "election cycle BS". The "every couple of years" is not a coincidence.
- oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18in some ways, i wonder if a draft would be good for this country. if the general public had the real concern that their children could be drafted, they might stay more informed on issues and feel an urgency to express it and vote accordingly.
- mlorrey, on 10/12/2007, -17/+28Libberkey, you sound like one of those left wing slime balls that used to accuse soldiers of being "baby killers". I thought you were a libertarian.
I asked her a question, which she didn't answer: is jury duty slavery or not?
I know the difference between choice and force... I assumed that since you CLAIMED to be a libertarian that you know what responsibility is.
As for Alice, just who was it that defined those terms you cite there? They seem rather well designed to exclude any war at all from being called a "just war", particularly depending on whose lies you happen to believe about any particular war (all sides lie in war, the only question is which side are you a sucker for, and are they really the sort of people you want to stand beside (and better yet, would they stand for you?)), and because of that, your standards are meaningless, intended only as a complicated shuck and jive for pacifism gussied up as ZAPism, betting that the bluff will never be called with standards like that. - HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15@LastVisibleDog.
There was never an American Civil War.
In a civil war, two (or more) factions fight for control of a country. In the case of the War for Southern Independence, the southern states exercised their constitutional right to leave the Union, and formed a separate country with its own government, court system, laws, money, and military forces. The fight was over the Confederacy's right to exist as a nation separate from the United States.
So the war was fought between two separate nations; the Confederate States of America, and the United States of America. That fact makes it NOT a civil war. The reason it's popularly called the "Civil War" is because the victors didn't want to acknowledge the Confederacy's legitimacy as a nation. This plays out in other ways as well.
For instance, the battle between the U.S.S. Monitor and C.S.S. Virginia, is often incorrectly called the battle between the Monitor and the Merrimack. The battles of first and second Manassas are referred to as Bull Run. One of the benefits of winning a war is that you get to rename and twist history books in your favor and that is certainly what happened.
If you still maintain that it was a civil war, then you should be consistent and refer to the American revolution as a civil war. It fits the definition a little better than the War for Southern Independence ever did.
For the record, I'm awfully glad we lost, but I'm not going to use incorrect terminology to describe what happened.
Oh, and the atricle is inaccurate too. A draft just ain't going to happen. - TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20@Libberkey
Browbeating? I don't see that he's browbeating at all. He's stating his opinion in a calm manner, unlike you. Looks more like you're giving mlorrey the browbeating because he stated that he's a veteran. And calling a vet a warmonger and/or a murderer? That's absurd. Do you live in the US? Show a vet some respect. - gummih, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13@MarkCiccone
No, a ruthless bloody revolt, THAT is the last resort. But until then civil disobedience will have to do I guess - MarkCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -20/+29@asdfasdf
Organize protests at the closest city you live, I'm organizing them in Portland, Maine for the November elections. Washington DC is next. Civil disobediance, it's our last resort. - captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Yea. Liberals aren't tough like conservatives. Bush and Cheney for example. No wait...Bush got into the National Guard and Cheney got five deferments during the Vietnam War. Ok, bad examples.
- drawkbox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Conscription and drafts to not work. They end up making the military full of people who don't want to be there. Why make a kid who is unwilling to fight spend 2+ years after high school and put us further behind in education and science/technology? There are other wars to fight in addition to warfare, there is the war of information and the race to stay ahead or up on technology and science. If we all consripted it might do some good but it woudl also change this country dramatically in a way that may not be so freindly to a powerful military or a healthy market. People in Israel, Denmark etc do this because they only have a limited amount of citizens. THere is no reason to put so many people into the military. 25 million soldiers at any given time? How much would that cost to upkeep? All we would do is spend money on soldiers rather than technology to win wars. Wars do not require the type of soldiers that WWII did. Its about the tech, if we fall behind or outsource all our tech R&D we are done. That is the new war front.
- thewaz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12i'm a liberal and i made it through boot camp as an honor grad and dorm chief.
of course most people there were conservatives, the high school dropouts they have been recruiting. - uttles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Lots of countries have mandatory military service to this day, even some in Europe (I know, it suprised me too)
- twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Ladies, please...
The Civil War was not the US vs The south.
It was between the Northern American states and the Southern or Sessesionist states.
We were never called "The United States" until AFTER the Civil War. We were called by our correct country name "America".
The individual states, stemming from ideas like "The Articles of Confederation" considered themselves like EU states, separate countries united by a small Federal Government with few actual powers within these states.
The Civil War was NOT about slavery or taxes.
It was about the Federal Government passing laws about practices held by the sum states against their own sovereignty. Lincoln himself didn't care one way or the other about slavery. He only freed the slaves (in the south) to attempt to cause confusion behind Confederate lines.
Slavery was a moot issue in the south. The Federal government passed laws and emgaroes against southern states without making any considerations of what to do with the slaves. Where they would be housed, how they would live. Slaves outnumbered the population in the south 3-1 and there was no work for them after the cotton gin and steam powered harvesting equipment had been introduced in the 1850s. The south saw utter chaos in an overwhelming population of former slaves, homeless and with no way to feed themselves, roaming the south. Many northnerners were against slavery, but didn't want blacks in their states either. Racism was a huge factor in the war, but not slavery.
Please try to understand what the Civil War actually was about, and try to stop repeating the revisionist BS brought out in the early 20th century. We know it was wrong, they knew it was wrong, but they were invested in an industry with no option of getting out without losing millions of dollars and suffering potential catastrophic results with no thought of the consequences by the Federal government or the northern states. It was a huge impasse. Imagine if tomorrow, the Federal government declared automobile manufacturing illegal and imposed tariffs and embargos on any state that engaged in this industry, with no financial compensation to assist with the transition to the next technology and no re-education provisions for the workers. Chaos. - spinxter, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11**First, are you claiming our Civil War was not a civil war? Second, the US defeated the confederancy and you claim the US was on the side of that one - so you are a big fan of slavery and you wish it was available today?**
Who the hell told you the Civil War was about slavery? It was about taxes!
**Do you have the remotest clue as to what you are talking about?**
Do you? - shaggtastic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11As long as nobody could get out of service, it would be fine. The problem with previous drafts has been that you (or those with enough money) could always buy your (their) way out.
- phantom42, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14It should also be noted that the other intention of this bill which has been brought up a few times now, is to prove the hypocrisy in the call for a draft made by some republicans and other war-advocates. The assumption is that most of the people that are pro-draft are over the current drafting-limit age, or are the wrong gender, or automatically escape the draft through some other clause. By widening the draft-base, Rangel hopes to make people less inclined to start drafting non-voluntary citizens.
And when the Republicans start arguing against this bill, they come across, to some, in a negative light.
Of course, the repercussion of this bill is that the alarmists who don't read more about the bill and the political intentions behind it start freaking out. This is the the third or fourth time this bill has been brought up, and just like the other times, it won't go anywhere; it's being done simply to prove a point. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Usually when I'm in a position that might have lethal consequences it is because I chose to be there. Compulsory military service, especially during a "war", is akin to a death sentence for some of the population.
- blqysmg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11There are plent of people in the US who have been brainwashed into thinking that all soldiers (sailors, airmen, etc) are warmongerers or murders. This is NOT the case. I've heard it said (and I believe it) that no one hates war more than the soldiers who fight it. The thing is, there are people out there who hate America, and want Americans to die, and are willing to take action to see that this comes to pass. The question I have for those who hate our soldiers is, what do you do when they come calling?
Do you really, truely believe that you can smile at them and say "I'm non-threatening" and they will turn around and go home? Please take a minute and look at the history of the world. Read the definition of "invasion." Every country who was occupied by the Mongul Hordes or fell to Pax Romana will tell you that smiling and being nice isn't enough.
We might have been wrong in our invasion of Iraq. Personally, I'm not unhappy that the Butcher of Bagdad is out of power. If the more liberal amoung us out there wish the rape rooms and tortrue chambers were still in operation, or are sad that Saddam has not had the opportunity to gas whole cities to death lately, I feel sad for them. It's a strange world they live in.
Still, while you could blame the Bush administration for deciding to enforce the UN Resolutions to the letter of the law, after giving Saddam 17 chances to avoid his fate. You could, but you would be a hippacrit for not also blaming all of the Democrats in Washington, since they also voted to authorize the war. What's that? Bush lied? He lied when he said that Saddam had WMD's? But Hillory Clinton didn't lie when she said the exact same thing? Or Bill Clinton? Or John Kerry? They all said the same thing, but ONLY BUSH LIED? Pathetic.
Soldiers join the Army for two reasons, primarily. One, they see it as a way to make something of their lives, and Two, they see it as a way to serve and protect the country that they love. I have know a lot of soldiers (I'm also a veteran) and I never met a single one who joined or re-joined out of a love of killing. I'm not saying there are not any nutcases in the Army, but I am saying I've not met them.
I have met liberal pacifists who hated soldiers so passionately that they committed violent acts against them. Seems a contradiction, doesn't it? Violence perpatrated by pacifists in protest of people who are simply trying to protect them.
Let me ask all of the liberal pacifists out there a question. Let's say that you are in a subway station, and you see a young man drag a young lady off to the corner, and begin to beat her and tear her clothes off. She screams for help. There's a big guy standing next to you who could easily defeat the rapist. He looks helplessly at the scene.
"Why don't you stop this?" you ask him.
"I could," he replies. "since I am a soldier and have trained to do this kind of thing, but I don't know if I should. After all, I would have to commit violence to make him stop. Perhaps you should walk over to him before he finishes raping and killing the girl, smile at him, and ask him nicely if he would stop."
Thinking this is a good idea, you do so. The rapist pauses in his brutal rape long enough to laugh in your face, before hitting the victim so hard he breaks all of her front teeth out.
The question is, would you, liberal soldier hating pacifist, ask the soldier to commit violence to stop the rape and killing of an innocent? - uttles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8As an aside, I'm glad this law includes women. It's about time they get treated equally.
- lebaige, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Very few people in the military including myself will support mandated military service. We don't want to serve with people who don't want to be there. We haven't had conscription for over two hundred years in this nation, there's no reason to start now.
As for the bill itself, I find it interesting that this keeps coming up and it's ALWAYS a Democrat that proposes it and then votes against it. Rangel did the exact same thing last time, he proposed the bll and then voted against it. Why would one do that?
Had a Republican pulled this stunt we'd have a fifty page long thread here complaining about dirty GOP tricks and war mongering. - BAJABOY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5
So, let me get this straight …certain ‘patriotic’ members of the same society that, per capita, imprisons 10 TIMES the number of its own citizens as does any other democratic nation (mostly for non-violent drug offenses), heavily taxes its citizenry via federal, state, local and excise taxes …yet, is still the only industrialized country on the planet that does not provide its people with some sort of national healthcare, and also feels that it has the right to shove its own brand of politics down the throat of any country that differs from it, now believe that we should also force every adult American citizen (or resident) up to 42 years of age into some sort of ‘national service’?
Time to wake up and smell the Starbucks, folks; the ‘America’ that we were taught about in high school during the 1950’s, 60’ and 70’s has been LONG GONE for decades! The real ‘backlash’, however, is yet to come. Over the past 20 years, a surprising number of my friends have emigrated from the U.S. to happily live in other countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, Mexico, Costa Rica, Thailand and the Netherlands …and, as a matter of fact, every one of them is now even MORE convinced that they made the right move after watching all of the ‘developments’ within the U.S. economy and political system that have transpired since they left the country.
“Let ‘em GO, then!!”, you curse while waving your American flag?
Well, you might be surprised to learn that most of the Americans who have chosen to live elsewhere are NOT radical anarchists or ex-hippies …they are most often bright, highly trained, degreed professionals, or successful artists, writers and musicians who can more easily find a demand for their abilities and talents abroad. Because these expatriates also tend to make valuable contributions within these venues once they have arrived, the new emigrants are generally made to feel quite welcome in their new countries of residence.
Ever hear of BRAIN DRAIN? It happens to nations when their most gifted, intelligent and well educated citizens come to the conclusion that they might be happier living somewhere else in the world …and they then begin voting with their feet!
Don’t kid yourself, the federal government is already WELL aware of this possibility, and continues to tighten the dollar amount of negotiable monetary vehicles that U.S. citizens may legally take with them when they leave the country for any reason. Under the guise of ‘Homeland Security’ the U.S. officers already set up occasional ‘check points’ and processes the license plate numbers of selected vehicles going into the Republic of Mexico, and they could easily turn it into a regular, ongoing procedure at both our northern and southern borders.
Got an outstanding warrant for an old traffic or parking ticket? A bit late on your child support payment? Sorry, then you may not be allowed to leave the country until it has been taken care of. Depending upon the ‘offense’, you might be immediately arrested. Sound paranoiac? Just remember that most large municipalities in this nation already do this sort of thing without need for the otherwise constitutionally required “probable cause”, by calling the random stop a “seat belt”, “sobriety” or “child seat” checkpoint. They then dutifully run a full computer check on each driver that passes through it for everything from outstanding child support payment, minor infractions and misdemeanors to monies allegedly owed to city, state or federal governments. If this seems O.K. to you, then why don’t we just have random checkpoints on all city streets as well as ‘door to door’ home checks to locate potential lawbreakers. The national crime rate would drop immediately …just as it did in Nazi Germany in the World War II era. But at least, they saw to it that all of the trains ran on time.
After having said all of this, however, I suppose that there is STILL another solution to escape the continuing erosion of America’s civil liberties, economic and political stability without having to move somewhere else…
…SIMPLY GET OUT AND VOTE THIS NOVEMBER …IT’S YOUR BEST OPPORTUNITY TO LITERALLY “THROW THE RASCALS OUT!!”
REMEMBER: The best alternative to John Wilkes Booth is THE VOTING BOOTH! - dkm201, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Yeah, liberals aren't tough like internet keyboard jockeys!
- RaistlinMajere, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8This is all about semantics. If we automatically "induct" everyone of a certain age, then we don't have to call it a "draft"... I see how this works. No draft! Just "mandatory volunteer service."
Yeah...that's much different. - xfTwitch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This was sent to the house armed services committee in FEBRUARY!... since it hasn't moved, it's pretty safe to assume that it has died there.
If you're going to use govetrack, for Christs sake, please use it correctly and not ba a chicken little.
Again, there are thousands of bills introduced each session, and only a small handfull actually get passed. - jer2eydevil88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Lets start here huh? Lets force everyone to serve this country regardless of if we agree with the leaders? Where do we vote for our assignments? oh wait... It won't matter! Its people that think forcing citizens into a mold (the strict and disciplined armed forces mold) that will have lasting consequences in society. Imagine a generation of kids who grow up not knowing how to speak their mind, how to disagree with their leaders, how to be an American!
Call me foolhardy but I know when our leaders are trying to bamboozle us into thinking something is good for us when its really just good for them. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If you look at 90% of the 'laws' on the books, you would ask yourself if any even know what the Constitution is!
Should they wish to force people into slavery, they seem to forget they aren't the only ones with .50 caliber rifles. - Dirtyname, on 10/12/2007, -23/+27The question people should be asking is - WHY has a Democrat introduced this bill?
Answer: because Democrats, traditionally, rely on uninformed voters. Rangel is counting on this headline to drive turnout among the anti-war people. Hopefully, some of them will digg a little deeper.
It's as pathetic as rounding up the elderly, putting them on a bus, driving them to the polls, and then telling them who to vote for.
Pathetic. - TheApeCage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@LooterMcBeer
If your country needs you? Are you serious? The military has been missing enlistment goals left and right. Put your money where your mouth is and go sign up. Although I'm sure you'll have some excuse for not going. - asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That's honestly what I was hoping for myself. Most of our population have no idea what's going in the world, and a drastic measure like a draft or us getting bombed here at home would send a clear message to everyone that we're currently in deep *****.
- Billkamm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Unfortunately, the people of New York seem to think they represent him. And WHY is this flagged as inaccurate!? It is exact text from a congressional bill. How more accurate can you get? Stupid diggers.... stupid stupid stupid diggers.
- member57, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Slavery was a deplorable institution, and thank God it's gone now. The Confederacy was wrong about slavery, but was correct about state's rights, which have basically been removed.
The "Civil War" wasn't "just" about slavery, Lincoln himself even stated as such, even offering up slavery to put into the Constitution to save the union. It was about state's rights and the advent of big government that we have today.
Actually read history, the latest discoveries, and you will see exactly how much was rewritten after the war, only to be revealed now.
Now back to the comment, the USA has entered into "just" wars, WWI, WWII, I guess a forced German(WWI)/Nazi(WWII) rule of all of Europe wasn't a "just" fight? - jimbabb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Wow AliceLillie, -114 diggs for refusing to be a slave. We are so F'ed.
- bryanedds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Slavery - always a great idea!
- RH78, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4ciberwolf,
The military does not pay well. The majority of junior enlisted are well below the poverty line. I myself have seen soldiers buying food with foodstamps and VIC cards. Only officers make a decent living. The only thing you get for "free" are the medical benefits and there is a saying in regards to those "The military hires the best vetenarians for their soldiers."
And the draft will not come back unless US soil becomes a battleground (and we lose ALOT). And if that happens, I would like to think that the draft wouldn't be needed then because every able bodied person will be picking up a weapon in defense of their country. - warmonger48, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I'm not for a draft AT ALL....but they do it in Isreal and look how good they fight...
- Conundrum28, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's sort of depressing that so many people value the the unquestionable support of their country. I think I've read numerous times within this section that mandatory service and undeniable support for your country is what's needed to rally everyone together. With that comment in mind, a question rings inside my head as to whether any of you understand what you're saying. If, hypothetically, a draft requiring mandatory military service was to exist, and it was to happen in the country often billed 'the leader of the free world' (the United States of America, for those who don't follow), would we actually be free? Is the sacrifice of our personal lives, our safety, and our opinions what it takes to 'defend' the 'free world'?
If we were to sacrifice those freedoms, we wouldn't be protecting freedom at all. It concerns me as a member of the younger generation of the United States that anyone would actually consider that defending freedom. That's not defending freedom, that's destroying it.
In any case, war is a disturbing part of humanity. We initiate in war on a daily basis with fellow man - we fight for jobs, money, what we believe to be necessities to life, the ultimate goal we're setting out to achieve as people. It's in our animalistic nature that we're caught up in the theory of survival and fighting for what we can in order to make ends meat. It's far more surprising to me that anyone believes peace can be achieved. Since I've been alive I've fought with people, family members, loved ones, friends, you name it. It's only a given that, when factioned, the populations of cultures, societies, or whatever serves as the tool of gathering turns us against each other.
I'm not an advocate for ending religion, contrary, I'm a person of faith. But no peace can be achieved so long as factions on a mass scale exist. There will always be a difference in opinions, there will always be a difference in culture, belief, politics, whatever it may be. These differences lead to chaos, fighting, and war. If we look back, wars on mass scale according to history destroyed the boundaries of regions as the inventions of mass media tools came into existence. The more we became connected the more we became enemies or friends. Our technology has increased our chances of war exponentially in the last hundred years. Our technology has brought us closer to the brink of destruction than anything of the past, and at the present pace of things, there's no way that anything aside from individualism and isolationism can bring peace, because as long as we're interconnected, there will be those who hate what they see because of the fact that they disagree.
By uniting to form a blind support of a country, we decide that we're willing to support war on a much larger scale. That's the realist way of looking at it, but inside, I hope that there is a way outside of breaking down factions that can bring peace. I just don't see it happening so long as two or more factions decide they want to force themselves on each other, be it the United States, political extremists, anarchists, democrats, republicans, whoever. - bryanedds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Will a Draft Put an End to the Iraq War?
Maybe it would. But does the end justify the means?
I do not think so.
Often I hear people, especially on the left, advocate conscription as a way to end America's imperialist adventures. But conscription is a form of public slavery. I wonder which is the worse of these two evils - imperialism, or public slavery? I should think public slavery. Public slavery is the worst kind of slavery because, unlike private slavery, no one takes personal ownership of you. If no one directly owns you, but rather you are owned only in an abstract sense, then noone has any vested interest in maintaining or preserving you. In other words, with public slavery, those who enslave you don't own you personally, and thus have nothing to lose no matter what comes of your poor soul. This is of course not to say that either is good, but to say that one is worse than the other. I would venture to say public slavery is the worst thing there is in this world.
To end the war in Iraq, I think a better thing to advocate is for people to be allowed to exempt themselves from paying for the war if they don't support it. Almost all of these pro-war activists are full of nothing but hot air. In my estimation, the day they actually put their money where their mouths are to support this war is the day hell freezes over, if not sometime after.
It's easy to advocate atrocious, expensive projects like these when it's someone else's money. But when people have to put their OWN money where there mouths are, projects like these seem to dissipate into the thinnest of air.
Let the democracy of the market work for once - let us vote with our dollars at least in this one instance. If anything, it's one way to get rid of the Iraq war and those like it. I think anti-war people of all sides can agree to this. -
Show 51 - 100 of 215 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is