What is Digg?315 Comments
- ajveach, on 11/09/2007, -23/+110This is absolutely ridiculous. I don't agree with the policies in place that repeatedly extend tours of duty, but trying to compare the commitment made by a US soldier to knowingly and willingly give up these rights to slavery which made a person someone else's personal property is terrible. Not only is this degrading the struggles of generations of African Americans, but it's also lessening the commitment made by these soldiers that know full well what agreement they are entering into. I want these soldiers home as much as anyone else, but this isn't even a valid argument.
- lokee73, on 10/29/2007, -16/+77It's not Slavery!...It's indentured servitude.
- zeitgueist, on 11/09/2007, -2/+52Not likely. The war is incredibly unpopular and a draft would actually cause people to act, rather than complain about the war.
- airiox, on 10/26/2007, -13/+60When you sign up to be a soldier in the US military you know fully well what you are getting yourself involved in. Please stop with the alarmist headlines.
Yeah it sucks and that why people think long and hard before signing on the dotted line. They know the risks, they know they are giving up many of their freedoms. But they do it anyways and you should be grateful for it. - drofmij, on 10/25/2007, -1/+46The military is all voluntary, but like any other job, read the fine print before you sign.
- thespudmall, on 10/26/2007, -4/+37It's a legal binding contract. You can't exit out of a contract without consequences!
- Smiths, on 11/09/2007, -3/+32As a military member that was stop-lossed (because of Kosovo), you're 100% correct! Thank you. They can still make you show up, and they can still pay you, but they can't make you do more than that - that is most definitely not slavery. Yea, it sucks big time, but after 4 years in you're used to getting boned by the military pretty regularly.
- nblsavage, on 10/29/2007, -3/+27most likely scenario - the madness will end when the human race does.
- thebaron2, on 11/09/2007, -2/+25Read Guns, Germs, and Steel.
Humanity has been at war since the beginning of what could be described as "humanity." The myth that war will end when we revert back to some sort of hunter/gatherer, "at peace with nature" lifestyle is also absurd. There will always be conflict and violence in a world of finite resources. - trenchcoat, on 10/29/2007, -3/+24Volunteering for the US Armed Forces = Guess what Slappy. You may actually have to fight in a war.
- thecatcantalk, on 10/25/2007, -2/+23That's why you should actually READ the entire enlistment contract before signing it. There's (what attorneys refer to as) a "screw you" clause in there, which states that the party of the first part (Uncle Sam) is not bound by any terms of the contract, and may change any or all of them at will, whereas the party of the second part (the enlistee) is bound to those terms, without exception. By enlisting, you voluntarily sign away many of your civil rights; thus the term G.I. ("Government Issue" = meaning property of U.S. Army). It's all there in black-and-white.
There's no draft, dude. No one is forced to enlist. READ all contracts before signing them. Stupid hippies. It's like the female infantryman who threw a fit about dress code requirements during her posting in Saudi Arabia. If she didn't want to wear ugly clothes and eat *****, she shouldn't have joined the Army. - banq59, on 10/25/2007, -1/+22Comparing a voluntary military to slavery is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You volunteer to join. For this you sign a contract stating that you will serve for x number of year. In the contract there is a clause which explains that during war time your services maybe required longer than what you initially signed up for. This is not slavery. Now I know that the tours have been extended over and over, and that soldiers are not getting enough time at home, and that we shouldn't even be there in the first place. Seriously though, slavery?
- inactive, on 10/26/2007, -2/+21They SHOULD have known. I remember there was some idiot bitching about his son being sent to Afghanistan and saying that he only joined hte National Guard for the free college tuition. And since that was all he signed up for, then he shouldn't have to do any of hte actual duties that a National Guard member has to do.
- joebrender, on 11/09/2007, -13/+31The article looked like crazy liberal ranting at first glance, until the details were given. The stop-loss does totally suck. Especially if you are TRULY at the end of your term (no one signs up for 2 or 4 years, everyone has a "reserve" commitment tacked on at the end. So you might sign up for 4 years active duty, but you also get a 4 year reserve commitment). It seems like a basic breech of contract on the GOVT's part.
- whatthefu, on 10/25/2007, -2/+18Holy *****, you guys need to call this for what it is. It's bureaucracy. It's not "slavery." Bureaucracy is pretty much the root of everything people on digg complain about, but they always give it other names like slavery and fascism.
- inactive, on 10/29/2007, -3/+18Have to disagree. they have been talking about the draft since the 2004 presidential primaries.
- Gadren, on 10/28/2007, -14/+29Oh no! You used the word "fool" and "military" in the same sentence! Why do you hate our brave, fine, innocent troops? *sob*
- thewebguy, on 10/25/2007, -0/+15buried as inaccurate.
read everything you sign, twice, before you sign it. - GrodyChamp, on 10/25/2007, -4/+19Slavery my ass. When you sign up it's for 8 years. 4 active, 4 inactive reserve where you can be recalled at any time. EVERYONE who signs up for the military knows this. It's hardly slavery.
Why do idiots post stupid ***** articles like this 20 times a day now? Digg was much better without all the political propaganda. - lelio98, on 10/25/2007, -0/+14I was personally hit with stop-loss after 9/11, and kept in for an additional 9 months. I personally feel that the current situation in the Middle East is FUBAR. That being said, what this article fails to point out is that no matter how long you have been in, you have a reserve commitment at the end. By utilizing Stop-Loss, the military is simply engaging the enlisted member's reserve commitment. The military makes these decisions based on their requirement to execute the policies and directives of their elected officials. At any time during a reserve tenure, an enlisted member can be re-activated.
This is not a breech of contract, this is not illegal, this is not wrong, and this most certainly isn't slavery. Slavery is forcing someone to work without compensation. Every single person in the military volunteered for this, and they are paid (albeit nowhere near enough).
Stop Loss is meant to provide short-term, temporary stability to the Armed Forces. Perhaps there is an argument against the current use of Stop Loss in regards to the extended nature of it's use, but the only other solution would be a mass recall of all members with reserver commitments, and I don't think we are at that point... yet! - inactive, on 10/29/2007, -1/+15No, talk has not started to pick up. Wacko websites claiming that Bush is going to bring it back does not make it so.
- khatarnaak, on 11/09/2007, -10/+24I have to admit I didn't know this before. It was painful reading.
I can accept punishment for those who try and leave before their tour of duty is over. However, to me at least, it is morally repugnant that once a service personnel has served his/her time, the state can extend their duty and the person in question has no right to question this!
I find it ironic that a nation who runs their country like a business and a legal piss-pot can dishonour a covenant made to their own people. - Giovannizero, on 11/09/2007, -1/+14yeah it's crazy. I can't believe that Bush created stop loss, and all the way back around Vietnam.
The amazing thing about Bush is his ability to create policies in congress before he even took office!
What a bastard! - CourtesyFlush, on 10/25/2007, -2/+15Gawd, what pretentious horse *****.
Slavery is not voluntary, I don't care how many of these ridiculous opinion pieces try to paint it as such. - Pritchard, on 11/09/2007, -7/+19You enlist. You're paid. It's not slavery. It's servitude.
- Wargalas, on 10/28/2007, -5/+16Yep, remember when Kerry was threatening voters with "if you vote for Bush, there'll be a draft in the next few months" *****? He tried to scare people into voting for him and yet it never happened. Liar.
- alcimedes, on 10/25/2007, -1/+12That's all spelled out in what you sign up for initially though. As someone who's had family members hit with the stop loss option in the past, it sucks. It's not slavery though.
- Jedwards32, on 10/25/2007, -2/+12It's the fact that you mentioned those that join the military are "fools" no matter how you feel about Bush and the War, I have 4 cousins in the Marines who knew exactly what they were getting into and they are by no means "fools." You can hate Bush but don't disrespect those who choose to enlist and fight. Just not right.
- aliengoods, on 10/29/2007, -15/+25Not really. When you enlist, you're giving away quite a few rights. If they were drafted, I would agree, but these people volunteered to give the government the opportunity to ***** them over. And the sad part is you still have people enlisting.
- whorunbartertwn, on 10/25/2007, -0/+10The ones who are unsatisfied are overamplified simply because it's not newsworthy otherwise. Go look up reenlistment rates, including for those in combat zones.... I think you'll be surprised.
Military was one of the best things that every happend to me, and you'll find countless others who feel the same way. - Tiak, on 10/29/2007, -0/+10Indentured servitude was a common practice back in the day in which the employer could extend the contract for nearly arbitrary reasons, and yet it was never considered to be slavery.
- pudgyv, on 10/29/2007, -1/+11Don't know your history, eh? We did it in the past.
- mstrebe, on 10/25/2007, -1/+11There is no such thing as a two year enlistment, and there never was. _All_ initial enlistments are for eight years, which are then split between different mixes of Active Duty, Reserve Duty, and Inactive Reserve Duty. You may have signed up for two years of active duty and then six years of inactive duty that feels like civilian life, but that's the way the contract is written. It's spelled out very clearly, with the specific proviso that the military can keep you on active duty for the entire duration of your eight year enlistment if they decide to.
- explnx, on 04/27/2009, -2/+12What commernie said sounds bad, but it sure as hell worked during Vietnam. People complained about the war ever since it started, but once the draft kicked in we started having riots.
- JohnReb, on 10/24/2007, -0/+9Yeah, when I enlisted. It was both sides of an 8 1/2 X 11 sheet. And that was with a bunch of white space. The stop loss paragraph is on the back, just over where you have to sign.
- trenchcoat, on 11/09/2007, -2/+11You should have thought of that before you signed up. Personally I don't even think you're in the military.
- Spoomeister, on 11/09/2007, -3/+12It's a volunteer army. They want to do this. They want to serve their country. They follow orders and do what they're told, because they're patriots and professionals. It's all spelled out in the paperwork when they join, so no sympathy here. If you're enlisted and you're surprised that a) they have the legal means to do this to you or b) that they'd do it anyway, legal means or no, cause "there's a war on!"... you deserve what you get.
Get back to me when they're pulling this ***** on people who're drafted, who truly don't want to be over there.
Cue redneck yahoos digging me down for not "supporting the troops" in 3...2...1... - JoeVet, on 10/28/2007, -1/+10The military does not want draftees, thank you very much. Whiny draftees can turn several good soldiers into babysitters. We would rather have one dedicated soldier than 10 draftees.
- boxybrzown, on 10/24/2007, -0/+9What in god's name are you smoking? Blackwater press-gangs? Riiiiiight.
- thecatcantalk, on 11/09/2007, -0/+8I take back the "stupid hippie" comment. Sorry. I have friends on active duty abroad, and yeah, it stinks. A major part of the Iraq mess is due to ***** civilians like Rumsfeld telling generals with 30 years' experience how to do their jobs. I've heard a lot of scuttlebutt from my friends (both are officers) to the effect that, even though most soldiers vote Republican, most G.I.'s have lost all faith in their civilian leadership, and deeply regret having voted for that son-of-a-bitch in the White House.
It's a damned shame; because ***** rolls downhill, and a lot of guys who were just doing their jobs are getting in terrible trouble for command decisions (re: torturing prisoners, etc.) made by politicians in Washington.
An awful lot of usmil absentee ballots got "lost" in the 2004 Presidential election ballot-counting. And the inured/killed stats from Iraq are padded down, by virtue of the policy which states that soldiers who die of injuries AFTER being flown out of Iraq (usually to a MASH unit in Germany), or evacuated to USN hospital ships offshore, are NOT counted as Iraq combat casualties. Basically, if you're not snuffed out on the spot by an IED, they don't count you. The real numbers, however, are closer to what we had during the Vietnam War, after a similar length of time. - WhiskeyLemur, on 06/30/2009, -1/+9Perhaps, but as people keep saying, you KNOW it's a possibility when you sign up for this stuff. Signing up for the National Guard and then being pissed that you are sent to fight is like going to Vegas and then being pissed that you lost some cash. In both cases, you know you're taking a risk, and you gamble on the hope that you will beat the odds. The fact that odds in Vegas are longer than in the Guard is immaterial.
- Pritchard, on 10/28/2007, -5/+13Thank You. You're paid. It's voluntary. You're signing up for a pretty serious job, and you sign a pretty hardcore contract giving up these rights.
- banq59, on 10/29/2007, -3/+11Just like in Vietnam, oh wai...
- JoeVet, on 10/28/2007, -2/+9The vast majority of soldiers are honorable and do not desert and do not hide. You confuse draftees from the past with current dedicated soldiers.
- knomevol, on 10/29/2007, -0/+7but was outlawed none-the-less.
- shakajumbo, on 10/25/2007, -1/+8""the army will continue to utilize the stop-loss policy in order to provide sufficient human cannon fodder for President Bush's immoral and unnecessary wars.""
Buried for pompous grandiose pre chewed BS that I hear every night. Hey here's a thought, try letting me make up my OWN mind about a subject, and don't coerce me into trying to defend your inaccurate inflammatory adjectives. Slavery is bad, I support our troops. I do NOT however support slavery !
Get It?? - neeyo, on 10/24/2007, -0/+7Well well well well well well said. People would be surprised what they would learn by simply reading what they're signing. Same goes for this whole subprime mortgage junk. If you don't like what you read on the contract, put the damn pen down on the table and walk away.
- dshPls, on 10/24/2007, -4/+11They could always I don't know...find a job or be unemployed.
- inactive, on 11/09/2007, -1/+8Wow...Love it when people destroy their own credibility like you just did, syro
- nblsavage, on 10/25/2007, -3/+10the death of one is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 296 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is