April 22, 2004

• "All Americans must sacrifice to defend the nation, he says" I am so sick of hearing this. Defend the nation from what? The invading Iraqi horde? Munchkins gone feral? Jesus christ, if the president hadn't dragged us into the Iraqi mess, we'd only have to defend the nation from idiot politicians.
• I 100% don't think we should have gone into Iraq, but I support the draft. I don't see why only the poor, those who joined for the free college, and the 'patriots' should have to die for this stuff. A draft ensures a better spread of death across the economic divides and steals the lives of the young from the wealthy as well as the poor. Naturally, I think it would be better to get ourselves out of there, and I don't want anybody to die for this stuff, but if we are going to do it, lets do it fairly. damnitkage - I agree. Iraq has nothing to do with patriotic duty, defense, or terrorism. But we are sending kids to die there anyway. Lets send a more representative sample.
• If we're sending our kids to die over there, we might as well send all of them?
• No way will they reinstitute the draft. For one, there'd be a huge outcry, and the proposer would be roundly ejected from office at roughly lightspeed. For another, the armed services don't need a draft - with the increasing outsourcing of non-military functions, there are plenty of soldiers, and recruiters are yet doing a pretty brisk business - immediately after 9/11, there was a HUGE upsurge in peopel signing up for military service, and while that has decreased somewhat, people are still joining up at rates in excess of prior to 9/11. Lastly, the military itself doesn't want thousands of new recruits who don't want to be there, getting in the way, acting stupid and creating internal logistical nightmares. Any talk of renewing the draft is political horseplay. A draft ensures a better spread of death across the economic divides and steals the lives of the young from the wealthy as well as the poor. Vietnam disproved that. The wealthy have always found ways to keep themselves out of the infantry, since caveman times, and any draft instituted now will almost certainly contain provisions for them to continue to do so.
• I tend to think you are right, Fes, about the wealthy getting their kids out, but I don't think that justifies not trying. I further agree that a draft seems rather unlikely. However, I don't think that the army's outsourcing operations is going very well and I think we will, in the long run, see the Pentagon pulling a lot of that work back into the fold. Out of curiosity, what would you folks do if you were drafted? Lets assume that we are all of draftable age and fit enough to serve. I don't know what I would do. I'd hate to die in a war I don't support, but I'd feel guilty about somebody else dying in my place. I think I would go, but I wouldn't be happy.
• If drafted, I would serve, hopefully with a modicum of honor. Thought I may or may not agree with the particular effort, I would not sully the memory of the service of my forebears - father and two uncles in Vietnam, one grandfather a D-Day vet, the other in Korea, a great grandfather who volunteered in WWI and a great-uncle who fought for the Kaiser in same before emigrating here - with my cowardice. That said, I would do my damnedest to get back in one piece to my family.
• Munchkins gone feral? Arrraagh! Save us! Whatever happened to fearless leaders going into battle ahead of the troops? I say we round 'em all up and prod them out there with pointed sticks instead of letting them go on "vacation."
• White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan says a draft has "not been under consideration." (link here). Got into a debate last year over whether or not women should be drafted. Any of you men have an opinion on that?
• In the unlikely event there was a draft, I don't see why women would or should automatically be exempt. Women volunteers have proved to be equal to their male counterparts in all branches of the military, including infantry line-soldiering, and superior is certain areas, like submarine crewmanship and fighter piloting (women tend to get along better in close quarters and are better able physically to accept high g-forces, iirc).
• Fes: Voice_of_reason I'd support a draft, and gladly go. I think it fair to say, Fes, that pretty much all soldiers, whether they support the war or not, try to return in one piece. It's sort of a natural instinct to want to remain mortally viable ;-) Jesus christ, if the president hadn't dragged us into the Iraqi mess, we'd only have to defend the nation from idiot politicians. And the occasional jet-bombing of a building, but those are so few and far between now -- hell, haven't had one since 9/11, if my memory serves me correctly.
• and the proposer would be roundly ejected from office at roughly lightspeed Let's get Bush on this pronto!
• Going into Iraq does nothing to prevent future jet-bombings. It may have even increased their likeliehood.
• Dulce Et Decorum Est Always been one of my favorite poems. Dulce Et Decorum Est Pro Patri Mori is a phrase in latin (excuse me if i bungle this too badly, my latin is many years in the past) Sweet is the death for country. The poem goes on to describe exactly how sweet that death is. War sucks. There aren't two ways about it. Should we be "fair" and include more young men, or only those that are willing to do it (i.e all those that volunteered)? I don't think it can be honestly argued that the draft is fair. Those that have the means to get out of going will do that. Those that don't have the means will get shot and come back in a casket draped in a flag. But interestingly enough, no one is allowed to recognize that sacrifice anymore. Bush has canceled all arrival ceremonies and press coverage for those returning frombattle I personally think that we shouldn't be doing it in the first place. The proper role of the military is to keep other people with big sticks from invading us and trying to kill us. That idea certainly falls down on humanitarian causes though. Its a sticky wicket.
• As for women and the draft, I would burn my draft card, move back to Canada, declare myself a conscientious objector, etc. etc. to avoid it. No way in hell I'm going anywhere where someone expects me to shoot at people and be shot at in return.
• Mackerel: I didn't imply that Iraq has prevented us from terrorist attacks. Just that it's ludicrous to say that the only thing we would be in danger of, if it weren't for Iraq, is idiot politicians. But the fact that 9/11 happened before the war indicates that there are far worse things to fear than idiot politicians, war or no war. I hate having to explain these things...
• Out of curiosity, what would you folks do if you were drafted? I'm too old, unfit to serve, the primary caretaker of a six year old son, and bisexual, so there's quite a few obstacles in the way of me ever being subject to a draft. Also, I absolutely would not kill another healthy human being under any circumstances, even at grave risk to my own life, and I would make no secret of that to the draft board. Given all of the above, (and if I didn't have a child), I think there are plenty of moral uses to which the military could put my skill set (I'm a nurse), even in the midst of what I consider to be an immoral war. So I suppose, hypothetically, I would be willing to go, if the military was stupid enough to want me.
• military intelligent.
• So what is a "special skills" draft? I haven't heard of such a thing before? Could you be drafted if you, know some arabic dialect, but are, say, too old, unfit to serve, the primary caretaker of a child and bisexual?
• Here is a thread from the blue about those bodies coming home. The pictures are pretty moving.
• Some information on a special skills draft here: The [Selective Service] agency already has in place a special system to register and draft health care personnel ages 20 to 44 in more than 60 specialties if necessary in a crisis. According to Flahavan, the agency will expand this system to be able to rapidly register and draft computer specialists and linguists, should the need ever arise. But he stressed that the agency had received no request from the Pentagon to do so.
• And the occasional jet-bombing of a building, but those are so few and far between now -- hell, haven't had one since 9/11, if my memory serves me correctly. f8xmulder, I have been biting my tongue on your posts. If you are going to link 9/11 to Iraq then I want to see evidence that the two are related. Just because Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are brown men who live in the desert don't mean that they worked together on 9/11.

  LOS ANGELES: Weapons inspector David Kay warned the CIA last July that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but it took months before the US Congress and the American people were told , according to a special report in the May issue of Vanity Fair Magazine.

  Kay has also said that he found no links to al-Qaeda
• I can't say I support the military draft, but I know I'd go with hono(u)r if called upon to serve. If the draft became a serious issue, perhaps it would invoke a bit more political activeness amongst the draftable demographic. If they thought they might get sent off to get shot at if a certain politician were elected, maybe they'd make sure to be at the polls a little more often. I've long been a supporter of a service draft though. (mandatory year of community service after high school, in defined areas to choose from).
• Now, Sullivan, wait a sec. While there has not yet been found any WMD in Iraq since this war started, there is some bottom to that argument. Hussein did have WMD at one time (albeit several years ago, but still) - buttloads of anthrax and over two tons of VX, which in itself is one bitch-ass scary nerve agent. He gassed hundreds of Kurds and Iranian troops with, well, I'm not sure, but somethign that killed them pretty dead. He played lots of hide-and-seek games with inspectors (including Mr. Kay), flouted a bunch of UN efforts, and basically intimated that he had WMD and was willing to use it on Coalition troops in the immediate run-up to Iraq2. Using WMD to generate public support for invading Iraq might have been a marketing ploy, but it wasn't a *totally* unfounded premise - I believe that the Bush administration fully expected to find WMD in Iraq. They gambled on it, and ultimately lost. Second, while there are no proven direct links between top level al-Qaeda and Iraq, Baghdad is no stranger to harboring terrorists. Abu Nidal lived there for years; Hussein was a financial contributor to Hamas, Hezbollah and a host of other gangs; and as we see today, the Iraqi underground is suddenly incredibly adept at using terror tactics - I doubt they they learned these techniques from a paperback from Paladin Press. These guys, they don't wear team colors, you know - how does one tell an Iraqi al-Qaeda from, say, a Republican Guard officer? It's very possible that the Hezbollah fundraiser in a Basra mosque also raises funds for al-Qaeda. There's just no certain way to tell, and the gents in question aren't exactly printing resumes. Keep in mind also that, just after 9/11, Iraq wasn't on the radar screen (at least publicly): Afghanistan was. We invaded and defeated (sorta) the Afghani Taliban - who had lots of connections to al-Qaeda, still do, and are likely hiding bin Laden with help from Pakistani supporters - before we ever laid a hand on Iraq. I read a paper from Stratfor that outlined quite a few reason why an Iraq invasion *could* aid the War on Terror - the general thrust being that (a) Iraq is centrally located in the middle east, and a western military presence there could threaten surrounding countries (with closer ties to terror) into dropping their support for terrorists, while (b) the Iraqi people had suffered under Hussein and would welcome (ahem) a regime change - basically, that Iraq was most ready for a changeover to democracy. While in application that changeover has not panned out, I think the points Stratfor made remain valid. Especially the first, given the example of Syria and Pakistan. But even for the second, I try to keep in mind (though I've come around to favor pullout) that the Marshall Plan took decades to repair Europe. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither was Berlin or Tokyo - should we expect more from Baghdad? I don't disagree that there were and are some serious problems and issues with the way this war was fomented and is being handled, but I don't feel that the situation is as cut-and-dried against the Bush administration as their opponents would like to portray. *ducks*
• Bob Woodward's new book goes into how Bush and Rumsfeld talked about how they could use 9/11 as a way to sell the Iraq war to the American people. I don't think those guys truly believe their bs. Bush is still telling the press that we are still looking for WMD when the inspectors have a) gone home b) been given other duties to perform in Iraq.
• I haven't read the book, but point taken. And yet (to devil's advocate a bit), is it inconceivable that this could have been an effort on their part to do the right thing, but using the wrong methods to do it? Developing a stable democracy in a region where it desperately needs it, defanging a psycho with (ostensibly) a condiment rack full of aerosolable toxins, and being able to exert a little iron-hand-in-velvet-glove pressure against some significantly bad people nearby... and get a few juicy infrastructure contracts and ensure oil exports in the bargain? I can see this early on being painted pretty thickly as win-win. The shame of it here is that planning and follow-through were gradeschool-issue.. and now American soldiers are dying in dozen-lots.
• Fes, democrasy in Iraq would be a good thing. I think it would take (at least) 20 years. The question is do we want to tie up our soldiers and tax dollars there for that amount of time. Anyone that thinks that all the problems will be solved after the June 30 handover (to who?) is kidding themselves.
• I agree - June 30 will come and go, I think, and not much will change, save perhaps the pitch of condemnation will rise. As for tying up soldiers and tax money for 20 years? It was worth it for Germany and Japan; it was worth the 50 years of outspending the Soviets to bring about the fall of the Union. If things are as many say they are - that the majority of Iraqis are people just like us, who want nothing else but to be given a chance to live their lives in peace with a bit of freedom, to reach mutual understanding and respect with the west and to show the world that "Islamic" and "democracy" aren't mutually exclusive? I say it IS worth it, and gladly sign my tax check in support.
• exert a little iron-hand-in-velvet-glove pressure against some significantly bad people nearby You mean the Saudis? ;-)
• But, as my comments in the Fallujah thread indicate, I personally don't think the Iraqis, or any other middle eastern citizenry (save for Turkey), want those things. I think they're too invested in violent fundamentalism, bloodletting, pseudo-historical grievance and demonizing the west to care about something as silly as voting and freedom. That's only my personal opinion, though. I sincerely hope I am wrong. You mean the Saudis? ;-) damn straight. It was no coincidence that the majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals.
• Since we discussed Woodward's book, I thought I not that the Pentagon took off it's web site some up the answers Rumsfeld gave on the Iraq war relating to Saudi Arabia.
• The shame of the Saudi-America relationship, in my opinion, is not that it exists at all, but that Saudi Arabia is not more influential in the region, and we are not more influential over Saudi Arabia.
• There is already one example of a Middle Eastern (kinda) country with a secular democracy and a predominantly Muslim population: Turkey. Granted, their military probably has an undue influence on the political process... but to much less of an extent than, say, Pakistan (where the military runs the country outright and the pretenses at "democracy" are something of a sham). In the interest of intellectual honesty, I'd be relieved if we just went ahead and made Iraq the 51st state, since that seems to be the goal anyway. And while we're in the neighborhood, we should reimplement Manifest Destiny and take over Iran as well. We can call them "Texas II" and "Texas III." [/sarcasm]
• f8xmulder, I have been biting my tongue on your posts. If you are going to link 9/11 to Iraq then I want to see evidence that the two are related. Just because Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are brown men who live in the desert don't mean that they worked together on 9/11. Sully, please see my followup to Mackerel.
• How quickly a thread derails.
• A draft should be reserved for wars that were declared on us by nations attacking without provocation. If drafted under such conditions, I would serve proudly. However, wars that we essentially started should be fought and financed by the industries that stand to benefit, not by involuntary draftees or taxpayers. I say conscript the corporations and free those of us who feel we're paying protection money against an enemy created by the ruling class!
• Monkity: However, wars that we essentially started should be fought and financed by the industries that stand to benefit. As much as I don't like the idea of wars, the idea of rubber-stamping corporate armies makes me even more nervous. Hey, what was the name of that Robert Asprin book this scenario's heading towards? Anyone remember?
• Hmm, when I said "fought and financed" I think I was leaning toward the financed side... and then let's draft the CEO's and their kids to fight in the trenches. If they want their war profits so badly, they should be glad to get their hands really dirty!
• If drafted, I would serve, hopefully with a modicum of honor. Indeed. Though I would be proud to answer the call if drafted, the children of the so-called elites better damn well be fighting along with me.
• And the occasional jet-bombing of a building, but those are so few and far between now -- hell, haven't had one since 9/11, if my memory serves me correctly. And before that we went, what? Since the country was founded? Let's hear it for all those people that prevented the attacks before 9/11! Oh wait, that's a pretty assinine assertion, isn't it?
• 9/11 was kind of a new paradigm, don't you think surlyboi?
• boo_radley: Are you refering to the Phule's Saga? I haven't read any of the books, though, so I'm not sure.
• New paradigm? Sure. A reason for 90% of the stuff that's gone on for "our safety" in the days since? Hell. No. Bottom line, most of the crap done in the name of "national security" since that day has done jack to make me or anyone else I know feel safer. All we've done since dropping the ball in Afghanistan has been stirring up hornets' nests best left undisturbed or at the very least, more carefully handled. I lost four friends that day, and the use of their lives and the lives of all the others lost to forward bullshit agendas sickens me, regardless of who's pushing the buttons.
• A draft is, quite simply, immoral. It is involuntary servitude - slavery, if you will - in that it proclaims that a person's life literally belongs to the state. And besides the immorality, there's the practical issues: frankly, I don't want to train/lead/discipline any fellow airman/soldier/seaman/etc that didn't VOLUNTARILY raise his or hand and take The Oath.
• Thank you, davidmsc - I will choose those issues that I am willing to kill or die for, not the state. Let's not even discuss my daughter, my son-in-law and their friends, all of whom are draft age.
• 9/11 was kind of a new paradigm, don't you think surlyboi? Wait, I thought we weren't linking 9/11 to the war in Iraq? Flip-flop flippity-floppity, indeed.
• Mackerel, did you even read my comments? I'm not going to explain it again, so whatever...
• Bottom line, most of the crap done in the name of "national security" since that day has done jack to make me or anyone else I know feel safer. Whether you feel safer isn't exactly the issue, or at least not the only issue. Since 9/11, there've been bombings in Madrid and Syria, Jordan and Britain have been threatened, and numerous little plots foiled. And how many terrorist encounters has the US had since 9/11? I'm sorry you lost friends in 9/11. Obviously nothing can take that away, but to lash out against a government that is at least trying to protect you seems bitter. The way some people make it sound, it was George Bush himself who financed the 9/11 terrorists, armed them from his own home arsenal, and gave them the coordinates. Let's remember just for a moment that it was terrorists who committed 9/11. Okay, so this thread's totally gone, I'm tired, and tired of all the arguing. I need a Guinness.
• Guinness will give you the strength to argue like ten men! Although you may later find out that you were talking drivel.
• Monkeyfilter: Proudly defending our nation from feral munchkins.
• If I was of age and there was a draft, I would head my happy ass off to some other land. However, if we became involved in a war that I felt was justified, I would likely go. Otherwise, no fucking way. And, while I am at it, Bush is the most catastrophic president we've had in many a year. And another thing, go read homunculus' post 'extinction' and find out a whole list of other reasons why it's a big, fat fucking waste of time. (Not trying to take away your fire here, boo, just need to seriously vent at this point). (I feel much better now)
• I'm sorry you lost friends in 9/11. Obviously nothing can take that away, but to lash out against a government that is at least trying to protect you seems bitter. The government's been trying to protect me since long before 9/11. I'm not lashing out at them, I'm lashing out at the tools who have continually used their one catastrophic failure for their own gain, be it political, emotional, or otherwise. Bitter? Not bloody likely. Just realistic. Being a New Yorker has always meant being a potential target, whether it was of Soviet bombs during the cold war, today's so-called "evildoers" or any random wacko off the street. I've dealt with that for most of my 32 years with no problem. Lately, however, your president has been going out of his way to piss people off and make us more of a target while squandering the goodwill that we had from a world that was truly horrified by the events that happened on that paradigm changing day. I'm not bitter, but I sure as hell don't appreciate having that crosshairs on my back made bigger because some poseur cowboy's feelin' squirrely. The way some people make it sound, it was George Bush himself who financed the 9/11 terrorists, armed them from his own home arsenal, and gave them the coordinates. Let's remember just for a moment that it was terrorists who committed 9/11. No doubt, I don't think the shrub financed it. I don't think he's competant enough to do anything of the sort personally. But hell, I don't think they should let him near anything more powerful than safety scissors... but that's just me. Any realistic person knows it was the terrorists who pulled off 9/11, but to think that BushCo and several others haven't cashed in on the bedlam in its wake is naive at best.
• Total Derail: Alnedra & (possibly) boo_radley The Phule's Company stuff is essentially space marines. Regular chain of command etc. Commander is rich playboy who uses money for good/heart of gold dreck. Short, fairly tolerable. Not as good as the Myth series imo As far as the draft goes, if it happens, then as others have said I'd hope to serve with honor. If it came to a vote, then I'd vote against it. If the government gets desperate enough to draft me though, then we're probably at one of those "fighting for our very way of life" points in history, and it probably isn't going all that well.
• MonkeyFilter: Will Give You the Strength to Argue Like Ten Men! Although you may later find out that you were talking drivel.
• I argue like a brownie-scout and it's STILL drivel.
• Surlyboi: I don't think the shrub financed it. Oh, I dunno 'bout that. Stop and think how the money goes 'round and 'round. Yesterday's support money to one piss-ant government very likely ends up in today's terrorists' pockets. ... to think that BushCo and several others haven't cashed in on the bedlam in its wake is naive at best It amazes me that we're all so complacent about BushCo getting rich(er) coffers in this "war" while AverageJoe gets ... coffins.
• Oh, I'm far from complacent about that. It was just the easiest target in a target-rich environment. The, lowest of the "low-hanging fruit', as it were. I'm totally pissed that our boys are dying because 9/11 gave Dubya an excuse to go brodie in Iraq.
• BlueHorse, Bush's taxes didn't reveal any substantial financial gains. But I suppose we're actually talking about any company that has a stake in the war who's remotely related to EvilBushCorp (despite the fact that war has always been, sadly, a profitable enterprise).
• Whoa! F8x, Bush sent you a copy of his taxes for ought three?? I'm absolutely POSITIVE that Mr. B's *PERSONAL* income tax records don't reflect certain profitable investments. However, given his daddy and grandaddy's specific bizness interests, I imagine the family purse isn't weighing light. Thank DOGS they'll be able to buy Christmas presents this year! /sarcasm I guess I shouldn't be such a wench. I just flat don't LIKE the guy. (And what's NOT to like?) /with the sarcasm already
• An analysis of Bush/Cheney taxes is available here. An interesting tax site, but without specific info regarding our leaders' taxes, is here. My point is, just because they're rich doesn't make him a war profiteer.
• Not all profits are monetary.
• You can damn well bet that Bush has profited in every way off this. Monetarily and otherwise. And it's not going to be so obvious as to show up in taxes. That would be assuming he's honest, F8xmulder, and if you truly believe that then your being painfully naive. Nice of you to have his back, though.
• The proof is in the pudding, Darshon. Show me evidence of Bush's profits. If your proof is that there is no proof, then you've got a hard sell, and I'm not buying.