The Draft

[Griff]

I understand what you're saying about the initial invasion, but I think if we really go the nation building route it will breed contempt in our troops and resentment in their people. Of course I may be wrong, the people of the middle east could choose to ignore our history in the area and embrace us as liberators.

[Elspode]

Originally posted by dave


If we need to force people to fight for it, then it's not worth fighting for.

I understand where you're coming from, and I agree to a point, but if we fail to keep a certain level of strength, and to project that strength on an ongoing basis, we're inviting some uppity world power wannabe to kick sand in our face.

If our ability to maintain a deterrent level of military strength falls below a certain point (I don't know what that point is), then I feel that a draft is a viable means of maintaining that strength.

That being said, I agree that the volunteer military definitely brings higher quality, more motivated personnel to the table, and as long as there's sufficient incentive for quality people to sign up, that is the preferable way to go. Given a crisis of defensive ability, that would need to be changed until the problem is rectified.

I'll shut up now before I get more confusing.

[Griff]

William Saphires column rattles off the names of the jackels seeking influence in New Iraq, Iran Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and France. It seems America and Britain stand alone in seeking only to liberate the Iraqi people. Who has more contempt for the electorate, Saphire or Rangle? Dead heat IMHO.

[99 44/100% pure]

Originally posted by Elspode
. . . I agree that the volunteer military definitely brings higher quality, more motivated personnel to the table . . .

Does anyone have any real evidence of this? The counter-argument might be that during a volunteer period, those who are most likely to enlist are those with few other options, while during a draft, a wider segment of the population is reached. I have no idea; just wondering.

[Elspode]

Originally posted by Griff
William Saphires column rattles off the names of the jackels seeking influence in New Iraq, Iran Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and France.

Interesting how the Republicans are always citing the Liberal Media as being a mouthpiece for the Dems' policies, when they have their own mouthpieces in Safire and Limbaugh. I mean, here we have Safire attempting to lend a hand (by doing what Bush has repeatedly failed to do - presenting evidence...well, claims of evidence, anyway...of actual Iraqi nefariousness), sort of like a Conservative Republican mouthpiece.

On a couple of points, I do agree...the UN Blix-led weapons inspection team is a joke. The only thing the UN ever seems to set out to do is not piss anyone off, ever. And I have no difficulty imagining that Iran and other Arab nations are positioning themselves right now to derive advantage from the probability of war. However, Safire pointing out that "France is not France without Arab oil" seems sort of silly. I mean, we might squeak by here in the US without Arab oil, but there'd be some damn loud and expensive squeaks if our supply got cut off, just like in France. On the other hand, I do tend to agree with the oft-heard opinions that France usually cowers and hopes for the best on the world stage...

War in Iraq will serve several needs...oil and much needed military/industrial appropriations for the sagging economy, retribution for past and future terrorist support, revenge for Iraq's past nose-thumbing of George Sr., and yes, even some moral currency in the liberation of a people who are surely suffering under the bootheel of a classic despot living in the arms of unimaginable luxury while his "people" starve.

War is never a simple matter, and the justification thereof is one of the most difficult and trying things a leader of a nation must ever have to face. I just wish that someone, somewhere, would come up with unassailable proof (like a picture of Saddam standing next to a pile of chemical weapon cannisters or something) of a need to overthrow Iraq for the good of the rest of the world. It would make the whole thing a lot more palatable. All of this "axis of evil" crap is rhetoric. It may well be based in truth, but it is rhetoric designed to rally the homeland around the concept of kicking the ass of someone else's homeland halfway around the world.

The attempts to tie Iraq to 9-11 were a good try, but those ties cited were just too tenuous. We need something as direct as Pearl Harbor's ties to the Japanese before we go in and lay waste to Iraq; at least, we need something like that if this entire nation is to feel secure that war is the only answer.

[Elspode]

Originally posted by 99 44/100% pure
Does anyone have any real evidence of this? The counter-argument might be that during a volunteer period, those who are most likely to enlist are those with few other options, while during a draft, a wider segment of the population is reached. I have no idea; just wondering.

I have no evidence whatsoever...I only have opinions!

[slang]

Originally posted by Elspode
The attempts to tie Iraq to 9-11 were a good try, but those ties cited were just too tenuous.

I agree, but were just not going to find the (slang braces himself) "smoking gun". The circumstancial eveidence is just that, circumstancial. I do believe that Iraq is tied to Al-Qaeda. What leads me to this belief? Intuition.....and the long list of less than conclusive evidence.

Only time (and an G. Edward Griffin book) will tell.

[Elspode]

Originally posted by Elspode
I just wish that someone, somewhere, would come up with unassailable proof (like a picture of Saddam standing next to a pile of chemical weapon cannisters or something)

Yes, I know, I'm quoting myself, but I just thought of something...couldn't one of you Photoshop gurus out there make a couple of convincing pictures of Hussein in incriminating situations for us to distribute? Not your pedestrian shots of Hussein with hookers...I think we all assume that he has as many of those as he can handle, and don't think the worse of him for it. No, what we need is Saddam Hussein with Albert Einstein, standing next to Fat Man or Little Boy...something people can really grab onto and be comfortable with. Maybe a picture of Hussein viewing bestiality porn on his computer while caressing a thermonuclear warhead at his side, that sort of thing.

[slang]

Originally posted by Elspode
that sort of thing.

Or, maybe a picture of Bush Sr. giving Saddam instructions on how to make chemical weapons. Would that do it?


Oh, wait. Yes it would but the wrong "it" would be done.

[Elspode]

Originally posted by slang
Or, maybe a picture of Bush Sr. giving Saddam instructions on how to make chemical weapons. Would that do it?

No, no...you're missing the point! Sure, we provided Saddam with much of the technology that we now want to punish him for, but the point is that we said to stop and he didn't. I mean, didn't your dad kick your ass for not stopping doing something when he said to?

Maybe if we just bill this whole thing as a parental disciplinary situation?

[slang]

Originally posted by Elspode
Maybe if we just bill this whole thing as a parental disciplinary situation?

Yah, like that time I was out too late and Dad shot me in the head and ran me over with a tank.

[Elspode]

Anybody else read the comic strip "Boondocks"? Today's strip articulated something which I had been pondering for awhile now. Namely, why is it imperative that we kick the ass of Iraq, where we cannot seem to find any nuclear weapons, yet we feel no such pressing need to do the same to N. Korea, who not only admits to having nuclear weapons and says it is making more, but is also a member of the same 'Axis of Evil' as Iraq, as indentified by GW Bush?

At first blush, it would seem like it is safer to kick the ass of a country who we claim has such weapons, but does not, than it would be to attempt to kick the ass of a country who we know has nuclear weapons and could easily blow up Japan and South Korea (and even the US, with a little more effort).

Am I just being cynical, or is the US acting like a playground bully picking on the weaker of two kids because that's the way to ensure a victory? Or am I overlooking some deeper political/economic/sociological issue, here?

[vsp]

Iraq: has oil, and lots of it
North Korea: has no oil

Iraq: an uncomfortable topic for Shrub's daddy
North Korea: did not interact with Shrub's daddy, challenge his manhood, or cause him subsequent embarrassment

Iraq: leader easily reduced to an evil cartoon character by the American media
North Korea: even with the nation being in the news lately, could 1 out of 5 Americans name the leader of North Korea?

[Undertoad]

Iraq 2003 is what you do to N Korea in 1994 instead of negotiate in order to guarantee that they don't develop nukes and therefore become ten times as dangerous and resistant to both carrots and sticks. N Korea 2003 is what happens when you negotiate with power-hungry tinpot dictators. Because they love to negotiate; they merely lie to you to get your buy-in, then do whatever they want anyway, very simple.

[russotto]

Originally posted by vsp

Iraq: leader easily reduced to an evil cartoon character by the American media
North Korea: even with the nation being in the news lately, could 1 out of 5 Americans name the leader of North Korea?

It's Kim. (always a good guess with Koreans, and happens to be right this time)