Interesting idea but complete violation of individual rights.

i don't think it is a too bad violation of individual rights, if the people vote for a government that pursue wars, then the people that voted for the war should be the ones to fight it. if the people don't want the war, then they can vote for someone else. I am pretty sure your american right to have weapons comes from the assumption that you will fight for your country when needed (i.e. drafted for the wars you are fighting).

the norwegian army is still conscription, and the ones that are in afghanistan are the people that volentared to go there, BUT at times, if you were an officer, you had no choise (that is you did have to accept becoming an officer)

No one wants to hear that hippie shit dead

Nice Boner. You should run for president, I would vote for you.

To bad they got rid of don't ask don't tell. Now even if I tell they will keep me :(

MrK: "i don't think it is a too bad violation of individual rights"

God help us if you are ever president.

Mrk: "I am pretty sure your american right to have weapons comes from the assumption that you will fight for your country when needed (i.e. drafted for the wars you are fighting)."

Wrong... go read a book...

Conscription is a violation of peoples rights as human beings. And trust me if BO ever got drafted for Iraq; he would be in Canada the very next day; so this argument is totally baseless and dare I say; hypocritical.

Ya, but he probably would, like most guys, but BO isn't saying that he would run to Canada if he would have to go to war, he is saying that if you were possibly going to have to fight for your country you are probably more likely to become more liberal/independent politically and are probably going to be a opposed to war (because you don't want to die ofc).

I mean, the only war that was truly to fight "evil" was WW2, but its not like that now, a lot of the problems can be solved without causalities and through proper diplomatic exercise. Unfortunately we have been fucking shit up for the past 50 years, so it will be a while until we can talk diplomatically with these nations that we have fucked up (Iran, etc...).

I mean, to be honest, who really wants to fight for their country? I would only fight to defend it (say an intruder), but this is not the case (except for the rarity of 9/11 unfortunately, which had a large out pour of support (people giving blood, etc...) since it was an intrusion of the kind I talk about that I would defend).

Et al, put yourself in a situation and think, "what if I had to go to war, would I find myself forthright for this cause?": Even if we were fighting someone as evil as Hitler and his army, the answer would probably no. You would try to find a better answer to this, instead of using force, which I am sure there is.

That's how are leader should think: What if I was going to fight, would it be worth it to lay down my life?

Unfortunately, everyone is a fucktard and selfish/(try to be manipulative) and I can see through all that bullshit they put out. Put yourself in the other man shoe and I think we can start solving these social, domestic, and international issues that are occurring.

You shouldn't even try to categorize politics, its all bullshit, when you look at a problem and possible solutions, you have to look at the solutions you choose to your issue and see if its correct, not "believe" that its right according to pious literature or fallaciously articulate statements.

____
tl;dr: Put yourself in the other man's shoe, helps you downgrade the option of war. Also, everyone is a fucktard.

Ok, maybe you would fight against Hitler's Army, but that is extreme, most other wars would probably take no thought not to get into.

So Vietnam was fine?

I never said that, that isn't the point ( and no it wasn't fine), the point is that chickenhawkism wouldn't exist if everyone were subject to go to war. This war machine needs to die. (Honestly, sometimes I don't know if you even read the whole that someone writes)