Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
news:vneta3dgs09k46@news.supernews.com:

Woden wrote:

"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:5vKcnRHEXp2HqeqiXTWJkQ@comcast.com:

"William Boutwell" <dale-b@cfl.rrr.com> wrote

It's sick because of the inherent contradiction of conscript
soldiers fighting for "freedom", that's why.

If you need the differences between a miliatary draft and the
social-economic institution of slavery explained to you, if you
honestly do, the less you spoke on the subject the better.

In other words, you don't really have any good arguments why
conscription is any different than slavery. Fine, we'll leave it at
that.

I can think of a few, depending on which institution of slavery you
want to compare to. Roman economic slavery was quite different from
American chattel slavery.

1. Conscripts are paid a wage.

Some slaves were also allowed certain moneys, wages and earnings.

Low
wages to conscripts has traditionally be an excuse to avoid paying a fair
wage to attract sufficient volunteer military people. So paying someone a
low wage while forcing them into life threatening situations makes this
different than slavery?

2. Conscription is generally for a limited term.

So limiting slavery to a specific time period makes it ok?

3. Conscripts do not forfeit other rights of citizens, such as the
right to own property or to vote in elections.

Conscripts forfeit their right to not go and die at the whim of
politicians. Conscripts forfeit their right to speak out against wars they
consider unjust, evil or unnecessary. Conscripts forfeit their right to
speak out against the politicians who force them to join the military and
sent them off to war and to die while the politicians sit home. You are
aware of military policy and regulations and traditions concerning troops
speaking out against their military and political "superiors" aren't you?

How does owning property alleviate the slavery of being forced into a job
against the individual's desires.

4. Conscripts are given choices as to their "employment"
(conscientious objector status, for example).

In most cases, they are still required to perform some service to avoid
direct conflict. Actually gaining "conscientious objector" status often
requires long legal and bureaucratic battles and then the government often
rules against this status. If the gov't is having trouble gaining enough
volunteers and too many people try to claim "conscientious objector"
status, how long before such status is no longer accepted? This remains a
choice at the will of the government and can be changed at any time.

Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote in
news:Xns940483FFBD958wodennet@216.168.3.44:

"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:ZSidnfI1-_TN9euiXTWJkA@comcast.com:

"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote

Good, because it's really pretty sick to compare the institution
of slavery to a draft.

Really? It seems that [---nonsense snipped---]

Yes. Really.

It really is sick.

Why?

It's sick because the government can't use force to make someone else
do his bidding, that's why.

It's sick because it prevents an unpopular war from being fought by
those who lack privilege or position that enables them to avoid said
involuntary servitude, that's why.

It's sick because of the inherent contradiction of conscript soldiers
fighting for "freedom", that's why.

It's sick because he disagrees with the notion but can't intelligently
articulate his objections, that's why.

Most of all, it's sick because it means each person is sovereign over
their own bodies and lives and not subject to the whim and ambition of
those in power.

If there comes a time when a war is necessary, vital, to the survival
of the nation and there are not enough volunteers to fight it, then
the nation is not worth defending.

"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote

"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote

"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote

Can someone explain to me how a draft is different
from slavery?

That's not funny.

It wasn't meant to be.

Good, because it's really pretty sick to compare the institution
of slavery to a draft.

unionyesman@netscape.net (Mr.) wrote in
news:52188356.0309262031.28ac8009@posting.google.com:

Pentagon Officials Quietly Whisper About Reinstating the Draft

(snip article for space)

Can someone explain to me how a draft is different from slavery?

--

Woden

"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."

Don't know what you mean by the above but, it must be important
to you.
Anyway, Bush knows exactly what he's saying and doing:

Al Klein wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:12:06 -0700, "Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and
Balanced Conservatives, AKA Spike, currently brunching on extra juicy
ortolans, where do you put the beaks again?" <stderr2@backpacker.com>
posted in alt.atheism:

He doesn't say that Saddam hasn't been involved with al Qaeda,
which he has been.

I think that if we had access
to all information, we'd find some connection beyond coincidence. There
is no conflict there.

Sure there is - between your assertions and reality.

You are so desperate to cling to your idea that Saddam hasn't done
anything wrong. He has.

Apparently 70% of Americans think that Saddam had something to do with
9/11.

Even if it were on left-wing radio, it's STILL not evidence. What
part of "evidence" don't you understand?

Read this: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

I read it the first time you posted it. It's still not evidence.

If we had Mohammed Atta on tape saying that Saddam put him up to it,
you'd say that isn't evidence because Atta is dead.

US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam
Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.

Yes, but I think you realize that that doesn't prove that Saddam didn't
have something to do with 9/11.

I think it shows, all things considered, that it would be irrational
to maintain that he did.

Apparently 70% of Americans think that Saddam had something to do with
9/11. We have him tied to the first attack on the WTC. We have him
endlessly making threats to kill Americans. We have him supporting
international terrorism. We aren't trying convict him in a court of law.
We are trying to protect ourselves from a future attack that certainly
could come from a guy like that.

Therion Ware wrote:

Shrill Bondufus <stderr@backpacker.com> made the usual specious claims about:

Al Klein wrote:

Shrill Bondufus <stderr@backpacker.com> continued to babble about:

Al Klein wrote:

Even if it were on left-wing radio, it's STILL not evidence.
What part of "evidence" don't you understand?

Read this: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

I read it the first time you posted it. It's still not evidence.

If we had Mohammed Atta on tape saying that Saddam put him up to it,
you'd say that isn't evidence because Atta is dead.

US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam
Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.

Yes, but I think you realize that that doesn't prove that Saddam
didn't have something to do with 9/11.

Al Klein wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 19:38:27 -0700, "Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and
Balanced Conservatives, AKA Spike, currently brunching on extra juicy
ortolans, where do you put the beaks again?" <stderr2@backpacker.com>
posted in alt.atheism:

Al Klein wrote:

Even if it were on left-wing radio, it's STILL not evidence. What
part of "evidence" don't you understand?

Read this: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

I read it the first time you posted it. It's still not evidence.

If we had Mohammed Atta on tape saying that Saddam put him up to it,
you'd say that isn't evidence because Atta is dead.