Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« A Complete Breakdown In Rove's Operation | Main | Give War A Chance »

September 28, 2004

Comments

Pouncer

The military is "stretched thin" for speakers of Arabic (or Farsi, I hope...), for MPs, and a limited set of other specially skilled troops. It's not clear that a 1960's era lottery-based draft of random young people is more likely to fill those slots than targeted recruiting, backed by pay increases; and/or recruitment and retention bonuses. Common sense might suggest the reverse is clear -- the military is more likely to get who they need by advertising on Monster.Com and offering a good salary than via the draft.

Eric Lindholm

Those "Choose or Lose" spots on MTV are so transparently Dem-leaning/GOP-bashing, they cannot seriously call themselves unbiased. Too bad for them: the youth vote is trending towards Bush.

Somewhere, Russell Simmons is saying "WTF?!? - Don't these kids watch Def Poets?"

Lurking Observer

For those who are propounding the idea that W=draft, here's a question for you:

John Kerry, at his website, says that he will expand the US Army by 40,000 troops. But no one suggests that he would do so by reinstituting the draft. What makes people think that George Dubya will need a draft to meet military requirements?

kimsch

My stepdaughter instant messaged me the other day about the draft. She believed every word of it. I told her that democrats were the ones introducing the bills and that they knew there was no chance in h**l that it would ever pass. I told her again and again, in all caps, that there was no draft. She still didn't believe me. 17 years old, what can you say?

abb1

Of course there will be draft if the Bushies are re-elected. Who is going to invade and occupy Syria and Iran while continuing killing Iraqis until they get tired of it? That's exactly the point Charlie Rangel was trying to make. They'll need at least a half million more units of cannon fodder. Either all you fellas volunteer or it's your children and grandchildren. I don't see any of you volunteering, so it must be them.

Give some credit to your stepdaughter for having common sense, will ya?

Lurking Observer

abb1:

If the entire point is simply to go kill Syrians and Iranians, then there is little need for infantry. A thorough bombing campaign should achieve the equivalent of Hafez al-Assad's "example" of Homs in substantially less time.

IIRC, he required several weeks to systematically reduce his own city to pulverized rubble. With modern fuel-air explosives and bunker-busters, it would require far less time.

And since Syria doesn't even have oil, simply exterminating the population would be much simpler than trying to occupy it. As for the Iranians, it may require a little more effort, but then, we could simply "outsource" the effort to the likes of the Sunni Afghans (who had little love lost for the Iranians under any regime). Couple that with administration by the Shi'a of Iraq, and again a much more liberal application of FAEs and bunker-buster munitions, and it'll be much easier and neater than Iraq.

Having now seen how inefficient Iraq was, after all, and how little the rest of the world appreciates our efforts to limit casualties (such as from the likes of you), perhaps a little compare and contrast is in order? After all, the US chooses to fight a war which limits the level of destruction; it could just as easily look like Grozny. (Perhaps that's the solution: Invite the Russians in, and let them take care of business.)

But thanks for your concern.

abb1

It sure does look like Grozny. And the idea to keep killing them till they get tired and submit is not mine, it's Mr. Rumsfeld's.

You do have a point about Syria; I suppose it could be pulverized for the sake of freedom and world's peace. But you are certainly wrong about Iran. There are 60 million people there and they need to be methodically killed, a couple of hundred a day, until they get tired and give up. A lot of work for your stepdaughter. Only then we can give to those who are still alive our great gift of freedom and democracy and liberate their oil. And then - don't forget - someone will have to defend our oil's liberty against evil terrorist thugs. So much to do, so few soldiers.

Father of Two Boys

The Kerry campaign continues to try to scare young people with “The Draft”, and their parents with charged Vietnam-era words like “quagmire”. They assume that both groups will run to him, begging to be “saved”, without stopping to investigate any of his wild charges and nuanced innuendo. The polls would seem to indicate that many of them ARE stopping to investigate and turning AWAY.

Turning away because they find that the Democrats introduced the bills in congress just so they could point to them, and give their candidate a “boggieman” to scare people with.

Turning away because they find that “quagmire” doesn’t describe the situation in Iraq, and that Iraq and Vietnam are NOT analogous situations.

Turning away because they don’t like John Kerry insulting their intelligence and/or they really don’t like the taste of Kool-Aid.

There are lots of other reasons they are turning away...but the point is that they ARE!

Lurking Observer

abb1:

To compare anywhere in Iraq w/ Grozny simply magnifies your ignorance. Really, do some reading. Or even pull up some videotapes from Russian television, and compare the devastation of Grozny with just about any panorama shot of downtown Baghdad, Fallujah, or Najaf.

As for Iran, why in the world do you insist that we need to do the killing at a retail level? If the point is simply to liberate their oil, then why not kill them in the hundreds of thousands? A few decent firebombings of the cities should do that. This is quite achievable with conventional munitions.

The only reason to kill them at such a low level, when we have the ability to do more, is to suggest that we might be choosing to limit our destructiveness.

But that really wouldn't fit with your preconceptions, would it?

Oliver Willis

Hey abb1, like flypaper to stupid is my schtick. You can't keep acting like a poleaxed frenchman. That is taking the food from my kids, er my mouth.

I'm calling the union to lodge a grievance.

abb1

Sorry Oliver, I couldn't imagine anyone would want this gig. You can have them here if you want, I'll find another sect.

S.C.

What Charlie Rangel has proposed is worse than military conscription-he has proposed two years of "national service" for every young American-join the military or sweep the streets-your choice. The guy blows but what do you expect from a great admirer of Fidel Castro?

abb1

Yup, he is another one of those treasonous Democratic cowards:


Congressman Rangel served in the U.S. Army from 1948-52, during which time he fought in Korea and was awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star.

Thank God we now have our Brave Leaders Bush and Cheney to defend our freedom from the evil A-rabs.

S.C.

Hey abb1-Benedict Arnold was a war hero and Timothy McVeigh served with distinction killing A-rabs,not all of whom,I'm sure,were evil.

HowardDeanSupportersSentKerryAPairOfFlipFlopsLastChristmas(TheyKnow!)

(yawn) abb1 is a troll. The Lefties are desperate.

Angus Jung

"You can have them here if you want, I'll find another sect."

This seems to be the closest thing to sects you've ever had.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame