If they want more soldiers quickly, a pay increase or "signing bonus" would provide them faster than anything, and that could be rolled into wartime debt.

The military takes a full percent less of the GNP than it did during Iraq 1.

Good point UT. With a signing bonus I could get *another* shit job but potentially kill someone that really pisses me off, instead of kissing their asses. :)

Saturday I was in a shopping center that has an Army/ Marines recruiting office. As I walked by with my bag of crap, I looked in. No one in the Marines office except the guy at the desk. In the Army office a Mom and Dad sat, on the couches by the front window, looking nervously away from each other. In the back of the office the man at the desk was interviewing their daughter. I could just see the back of her blond ponytailed head. I wish I'd had a camera 'cause it was an interesting group.

No draft. Due to the globalized economy destroying the middle class in this country there will be plenty of people that think the army is preferable to flippin' burgers and making freedom fries.

Oh, by the way, Radar is right. We have no moral or legal right to attack Iraq. But, since the current Iraqi regime doesn't know what either of those words mean, it's OK. I ain't gonna tell 'em.

I don't understand why intelligent people would wast their time responding to Radars utopian bullshit. As lovely as it sounds in the drawing room over brandy and cigars, it doesn't work. Never has, never will.

Never hesitate to destroy totalitarianism.
 

I won't agree there, Bruce -- for it seems self-evident to me that there is no wrong time nor wrong way to dismantle a totalitarian regime. They are constructed upon tissues of lies and villainous oppression.

While I am under no illusions as to the inherent goodness of the State, a representative republic (a genuine one, not a well-concealed fraud) makes a much better government than any autocracy, enough so that quite a few denizens of republics end up thinking governments really can be nice guys, and that that is the normal outcome. Even the most casual reading of world history will bring that idea into doubt. The pool of political talent in a small, poor nation is often shallow enough that a highly motivated sociopath can rise very high, even unto head of state. Large republics are fairly efficient at selecting against such -- William Jefferson Clinton and wife being an example of failing to weed them out, probably due to their sociopathy -- and they both have it -- being mild. The problem with a highly motivated sociopath becoming a head of state is that then you get the kind of state a sociopath would run -- complete with corruption, poverty, elevated death rates, torture, disappearings, and government-employed rapists. And a totalitarian regime -- always, the sociopath head of state is out for his own freedom and absolutely no one else's, a particularly rank sort of selfishness.

If my neighbor is beating his dog, I don't think I have any right to interfere beyond reporting him. Of course I'll go right over and cold cock him, but I would expect to take a lot of heat for it. Wow, did Clinton do all that? I figured if he was busy screwing interns, he was too busy to screw me.:D

Re: Never hesitate to destroy totalitarianism.
 

Unfortunately, when we give our State the power to dismantle the other guys State we run the risk of closing out the final days of the our "Republic". I'd hate to have to rely on the Peoples Republic of Iraq to come and save us from ourselves. Its the booze talkin'.

You have to put the right spin on it. If they don't find any WOMD, then that puts the rest on notice. We (USA) are your mom. If we even SUSPECT you're up to something, we'll smack you up side the head.:rattat:

I agree with the majority of Radars train of thought. I differ in that I think that we do - as humans - have a vested interest in trying to prevent dictatorial regimes from slaughtering their people. However, I do not think that the Iraq war has anything at all to do with humanitarian defense. We certainly didn't care for the Kurds in Halabja in '88.

I don't think we have a right to prevent other naitons from awakening the nuclear Genie. Espacially when we apply glaring double standards about who can and cannot have nuclear weapons.

Isreal has a massive nuclear weapons program. I think Iraq had good reason to develop a NBC program. I think that using those NBCs to kill massive numbers of civilians to keep under control is horrible, but I do not think that a war is the best way to solve that problem. This war has opened up a can of worms that may haunt us 20 years from now.

The same situation goes for North Korea. COntrary to what the media tell you, North Korea has not violated the nuclear non-proliferation treaty by announcing it is going to restart its nuclear weapons program. The treaty specifically allows signators to redress themselves as long as they provide prior notice of intent to develop nuclear weapons. They informed us of their intent a year ago - and we now see the result.

I think that Bush's preemptive strategy may very well lead to disaster if he pursues that strategy with North Korea.

I don't think he'll feel he has to. NK has neighbors, who have a larger stake than we do, that can bitch slap them.

Kim Jong Il is not easily influenced. I do no think he is going to back down simply because China expresses reservations. The nuclear issue is the only thing that separates them from the Iraqs of the world. BushCo is pretty reacionary, too. Half of the administration considers any sort of negotiation to be appeasement, the other half is getting lambasted by the right wing extremists. NK does not look like it is going well.

I am sure the media will do it's duty and whip up public support for a war against Korea - since North Korea may actually be a credible threat. Our administration will insist of pushing the issue of regime change and North Korea will get Iraq'd. Seoul will be a smoking pile of ash - which really sucks because I have a few good friends there. Tokyo will be destroyed and possibly Los Angeles ( which might appeal to the neocons ). Most of North Korea will be destroyed, the humanitarian disaster will be immense. Bush, the God King, will use every disaster as fuel to feed the war machine. China and Russia will be blamed for North Korea. The showdown between the superpowers will finally come. And then all the fundamentalist Christians will have their armageddon.

I know this sounds pessimistic, but I figure, if you expect the worst possible outcome, anything better will be a pleasant surprise.

Careful with that credible threat business. That is an angle some Dems/journalists were playing as a last ditch effort to prevent the Iraq invasion. China and Japan can take care of business on the peninsula. This is an example of the danger that comes from separating ones ideals and politics. By playing politics with the Korea question some Dems have locked themselves out of that debate. Seriously though, even Bush isn't nuts enough to go into Korea again. He may nuke a Nuk-U-lar power plant or two though.

North Korea has a ballistic missile that most credible sources concede - is able to reach North America. They have several nuclear wepons thus far, and are manufacturing more, now. They are much more of a threat than Iraq was, and their leader is just as ruthless as Hussein. They have a real hatred for Japan - since Japan has been the jumping off point for all of the American military agression in Asia, and I think that they would love to nuke Tokyo.

I think Bush should have handled this issue with respect and realistic expectations a year ago - instead of ignoring North Korea while they grew more anxious.

Except that China and Japan have diametrically opposed interests. China would love to see Japan fall. There is still a lot of residual hate for the atrocities commited by the Japanese army in WW2. Japan will go along with whatever the U.S. recommends in the region - since we are effectively - their military. the Japanese leadership kowtows to Americna interests in most issues, so I have a hard time thinking that Japan will be driving any negotiations.

Good, you accepted that program. You are now to think that the Dems are appeasers for wanting to maintain diplomatic efforst instead of resorting to military beligerance.

Sometimes groups are playing politics, sometimes there are legitimate concerns in a region. North Korea is an order of magnitude more threatening than Iraq. They would still be no match of us, but they could stick a few good punches before they went down.

The media punditocracy love to say that anyone that is voicing dissent or raising an issue of concern must automatically be playing partisan games, but this is simply a way of limiting the debate and avoiding the issue. I am sure that the dems will be locked out of any debate, but not because of their views. This is just the way this administration works.

If an administration can claim that the largest mass demonstration in the history of the earth - was a focus group - he can claim that the Dems are playing politics and he can blame any blowback on them.

The media - who used to actually question elected officials - are happy to sell the official line to everybody.

If you are wary of North Korea you are either Chicken Little, or you are a partisan trying to play games - both characterizations dispel any validity of criticism.

We agree that Bush blew it playing the cowboy and not simply talking to North Korea.

The Democrats rhetoric was militarily beligerent as well. As I remember it, we were not supposed to go to Iraq because we needed the military for a confrontation in Asia. We don't need ground capabilities to dissuade NK, unfortunately that was the implication. Thats why we have to stop voting for ficca plants, they make arguments based in conveniece not in principle. A little outfit called the Soviet Union, ruled by its fair share of nuts, was kept at bay for many years by the simple knowlege that we would respond from the air if they launched. Unfortunately, Bush has opened the pre-emptive can o' worms making the situation more dangerous but not IMHO untenable.

You make a good point Griff.

When I refer to democrats, I feel like I am talking about to halves of a party - in a "Dark Crystal" sort of way.

The Republican lite Democrats - like Gephardt - seem to have the loudest voices and the weekest backbone.

The other democratic party - is made up of the liberal core of people. Most of them were opposed to the war in Iraq and most of them wanted to maintain a diplomatic relationship with North Korea.

I agree. But if it is choice between Bush and the plant, I gotta pick the plant. I would rather have arguments based in conveniece than arguments based on sky buddy fantasies and arrogant militarism.

I have a different take on that - I think that they kept us at bay for many years. At the beginning of the cold war, many, many generals wanted to go nuking their way to peace. It was the threat of MAD that brought a little reality into the room.

But that is a debate for another thread.

Preemption is not exactly a new initiative, but they way in which Bush has boondoggled the ramp up for this war is certainly a shock. Basing the whole thing on fabrications is what really disturbs me.