AntiyoungAmericansdyingfilter?
January 24, 2005 9:21 PM   Subscribe

Draftfreedom --a new group applying their marketing and communication expertise to help prevent the draft. Take a look--maybe this new approach can get thru?
posted by amberglow (40 comments total)

 
I really don't think GWB is going to institute a draft, even though he damn well should if he really believed any of the stuff he said about Iraq. I suspect we may be declaring victory and going home soon, leaving the place to degenerate into civil war.

On the other hand, if we do stay, and no miraculous turn-around happens in Iraq, we need a draft to avoid some permanent, long-term damage to our military. We are months away from having to send folks back on a third combat rotation. A lot of those folks are going to be broken by that, history indicates. You can only deploy someone into combat so many times.

So I'm mixed on things like this. I don't want a draft, but then again if Americans are going to vote for folks that like to start wars and then foul them up royally, we kind of deserve a draft. If only we could have one just for Bush voters...

Will something like this have much impact? I doubt it. GWB will be in deep shit if he does go the draft route, and I doubt PR campaigns are really needed. I can't imagine any draft supporters getting reelected, which pretty much kills it. Unless it can happen by fiat by an executive -- can it? I don't know how the law works, but I imagine it up to Congress.
posted by teece at 9:32 PM on January 24, 2005


I thought only the Republicans tried to scare people with the fear of another terrorist attack.
posted by smackfu at 9:33 PM on January 24, 2005


GWB will be in deep shit if he does go the draft route

But why would he care? His political career has climaxed and he's got 4 years left to make any changes he wants. A draft is still very likely, and I wouldn't be quick to dismiss it.
posted by banished at 9:51 PM on January 24, 2005


But why would he care?

Exactly.

But is he willing to try THIS
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2711


The Trust Funds, (four of them), fully invested in obligations of the U.S. Treasury, as of December 2004 stand at $1,686,985,126,000: Krugman is referring to Article 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which begins as follows:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

The buzz down the hall is that if confirmed as Attorney General, Judge Alberto R. Gonzales intends to write an opinion for George Bush, which would let his boss propose legislation to allow the Treasury to default on its obligations to retirees, and also let his boss off the hook, if, as a result, the central banks of the world dump their dollars.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:04 PM on January 24, 2005


But why would he [Bush] care? His political career has climaxed and he's got 4 years left to make any changes he wants. A draft is still very likely, and I wouldn't be quick to dismiss it.

Because, as I had guessed but did not remember, it is the job of the Congress to raise armies, and thus institute a draft. Bush can spearhead a campaign, but actual congress-critters subject to reelection would have to enact it. I seriously doubt Bush has that much political capital, as I get the feeling that a new draft would completely destroy the nascent Republican era.

Further, for Bush to actually admit that a draft was needed, he would have to admit that things aren't as he says they are in Iraq, and that he fucked up. Bush has not ever done that, as far as I can see. He seems to be constitutionally incapable of changing is mind on some things, and Iraq seems like one of them. He'll let the Armed forces disintegrate before he eats crow.

But I'm not dismissing it out of hand. It is something we should be talking about. We can not sustain the current casualty/deployment rate in Iraq. We should be deciding as a nation, what do we want to do about that? Sadly, the bozos in charge won't even admit to themselves that the Iraqi war is seriously understaffed, let alone the American people.
posted by teece at 10:17 PM on January 24, 2005


Who are the only people who have introduced legislation involving the draft?

Charlie Rangel (Democrat)
Ernest Hollings (Democrat)

Why do people think that Bush really wants a draft?
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 10:19 PM on January 24, 2005


Why do people think that Bush really wants a draft?

I don't think he does, thedevildancedlightly, but I can see why people might think he will be forced into it. Actually, any honest assessment of the situation in Iraq leads to one of two places: we get the hell out, or we get a lot more boots on the ground. How would we go about the latter without a draft? Answer, short of pulling almost all armed forces away from all other overseas posts, we have to start drafting people.
posted by teece at 10:23 PM on January 24, 2005


teece - Or hire true mercenaries, a la Blackwater. That has a lot of problems, but it seems that more and more of the military is being focused on the actual fighting and more of the support is being outsourced. For better or for worse. It gives a lot more flexibility and focuses the military on their "core comptenency" of blowing shit up, but it reduces control and increases cost.

Of course, if the EU would stop laughing and pointing fingers at the mess that the US has gotten itself into ("I told you so!") then maybe that might be a viable way to solve the problem. Honestly, regardless of any political beliefs about the start of the war, the EU needs to recongize that this is a true humanitarian crisis and a good time to send military support. It doesn't matter how the situation got the way it is, but they need to recognize their duty to their neighbors to help fix it.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 10:27 PM on January 24, 2005


thedevildancedlightly... The EU doesn't owe us shit. We only formed our little "coalition" by pulling favors from countries that owed us from WWII, which is, in itself, sickening enough. For Bush to go into Iraq without any UN support and then come groveling back on his hands and knees after he realized the U.S. can't do everything by itself and beg for help... that's not only truly disgraceful, but it is embarrassing to me as an American. Bush should take all the responsibility for what happened in Iraq, but no... it's the CIA's fault for the bad intelligence, and it's the EU's fault for not helping, right? That's bullshit.
posted by banished at 10:37 PM on January 24, 2005


1. Whenever you mention the Rangel bill, God kills a kitten. You make the baby Jesus cry. You fail it. YHBT YHL HAND. That's all there is to it.

2. Staying in Iraq, the next invasion/occupation will need a draft, I would think. Fleeing Iraq (you know it would end up like those pictures of the last helicopters out of Viet Nam), maybe we can go one more in a couple of years without a draft.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 11:06 PM on January 24, 2005


Okay, a couple of things here...

First, the draft legislation by the democratic senators is a red herring. legislators from traditionally ethnic and low-income constituencies (places that would be hardest hit by a draft) often throw these bills out onto the floor, not because they want the draft, but because they want people to talk about the repercussions of one. By forcing people to confront the issue they hope to hell we can avoid it.

Second, you have to be a pretty big looney to think that GW is sitting around praying for a draft. He knows its political suicide and would tarnish his legacy.

That being said, the reason we need to talk about this is that the current state of affairs may force us into conscriptment. I know we are all used to thinking about wars as mercurial adventures of the neo-cons, but believe it or not we have an army for a reason.

Every once in a while there are people out there who genuinely want to do us harm and sometimes you need to loose the dogs of war to protect yourself. It should be a last ditch, no other options, action, but sometimes you have to hit back.

The problem is that since we are involved in this little ill-advisied criminal adventure of nation building, we have stretched our volunteer force as thin as can possibly be. These guys are tired, beat-up and unavailable. Now lets delve into the hypothetical and say suddenly China is taken over by a psychopath (No Florida 2000 references, please ;-] ) and decides that Taiwan, and maybe Korea and India are better as 'red states' instead of blue. Additionally, they have their eye on Hawaii and Guam since that worked so well for the Japanese in WWII.

Now this would really actually be a last ditch, we need the fucking army to protect us and our loves ones right now, situation. Except, some fuck tard has taken our awesome and mighty volunteer force and deployed them to secure a couple of oil wells outside Baghdad.

That might sound extreme and unrealistic, but the point being that we now have no redundancy in our self protection. If a truly bad (or maybe minorly bad) unexpected situation arises, we will have no choice but to conscript. This wouldn't be the case if we didn't have a couple hundred thousand kids playing war in Iraq.

This is why we need to talk about this. It's not that Bush would voluntarily start a draft. It's that through inept management, he has set us up were we may be forced to do it.
posted by PissOnYourParade at 11:24 PM on January 24, 2005


banished - I'm definitely not claiming that the EU owes us anything. Or even that GWB should go over there and beg. In fact, it'd probably be better if Bush didn't go over and say anything. This isn't about the US and the EU. This is about the people of Iraq and the cause of liberal democracy that the EU seems to support in word but not deed. Iraq is in a pretty fragile position. How it got there is pretty irrelevant at this point. What matters to the people is that they have an election in a week and the EU isn't monitoring it or providing security to it.

What EU member states should do is recognize that the EU has had a long history of involvement in the middle-East and that this is a legitimate crisis. Their choice to withold support for the elections is hurting the chances of the Iraqi people to enjoy peace and freedom. It doesn't matter that the whole process is f'd up becaues of Bush. Looking from today forward the EU can choose one of two paths. They can (1) choose to help the people of Iraq while reminding the US that this wasn't a cool decision to have made, or (2) decide that saying "F-U" to the US is more important than saving lives and spreading democracy in the middle east.

So far it seems like #2 has won.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:49 PM on January 24, 2005


or (3) send Cap'n Euro and his squad to Iraq, where he can supplement British, Polish, Italian, and other EuroForces in the region. Then a brief "F-U" to China for pegging the Chinese Yuan to the American Dollar.
posted by romanb at 12:47 AM on January 25, 2005


thedevildancedlightly, I suspect that the reasons the Europeans are holding back (aside from the fact that Rummsfeld and Bush have told them to take a flying fuck in a rolling doughnut), is that at this point it is not clear that things can be brought under control.

We let things go past a certain point, and there is no longer any going back. I would say any leader should be rightfully reticent to deploy their troops when it is so uncertain that victory can be achieved by non-tyrannical means.

Couple that with the fact that Bush has given them nothing, absolutely nothing, and it is not at all surprising that they sit this one out. No obvious path to victory, no selfish reasons like rebuilding contracts, potential for dead soldiers. Yup, let the Americans handle the mess.

Sure it is cruel to the Iraqis, but then again, nations have to act with a certain amount of self interest in mind. I doubt America would help out if the tables were turned.
posted by teece at 1:24 AM on January 25, 2005


>This is about the people of Iraq and the cause of liberal democracy that the EU seems to support in word but not deed.

Excuse me, the EU doesn't support liberal democracy? How can that position be taken seriously?

Sorry, but to forget how Iraq arrived at this point is a little tedious. I know it's fashionable to say, "oh, let's forget about the past and think about the future", and all that jazz.

The countries you elude to warned the respective coalition of the consequences, maybe the onus is upon the U.S. administration to say, "you're right, we won't be idiotic fuck-ups again, please help us, we're sorry." Unlikely.

Instead, we have the Emperor proclaiming --without swallowing his own tongue in hypocrisy-- the cause of freedom and liberty.

Admit to the affliction to help the recovery, otherwise one is doomed. DOOMED, I say.
posted by gsb at 1:48 AM on January 25, 2005


I doubt America would help out if the tables were turned.

*cough* Marshall Plan *cough*

Okay, that was a little sarcastic. Who knows about today. You have some good points, but I hold by the fact that it's the EU's humanitarian duty to try and stabalize things, even if it's not clear that they'd get monetary compensation. I mean, isn't that a large part of a liberal democracy? That the welfare of one's fellow man is as important as one's own financial prosperity? Call me idealistic, but I think the situation is tainted by politics instead of true humanitarianism. See also the tsunami relief pissing match.

On preview

gsb - The EU talks about liberal democracy, but where are they in Iraq? The Congo? The Ivory Coast? There are plenty of places where the EU and UN have not gotten involved, at the price of thousands or millions of lives. And don't forget Rwanda.

Why does it matter that the US fucked up and got us to this point? If a people are truly committed to the cause of peace and freedom (as the EU claims to be) then they would overlook the actions of the US and try to help the people of Iraq. The people of Iraq didn't bring this upon themselves. They didn't ask for Bush. All they want at this point is security, which the moral leadership of the EU could provide. Nobody trusts the US, but the EU would provide legitimacy that the US can't.

FYI, you "allude" to an idea, you "elude" the authorities.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:54 AM on January 25, 2005


I think Bush has put the EU into a bad situation. They really cannot come help us, as much as they may now want to. Remember the whole "you're with us or against us" thing? If they came over now and started helping us, it would look like they realized they had made a huge mistake, and Bush was right the whole time.

But they made no mistake. The mistake was made by Bush & Blair & Co. and if they dont like what they have gotten into then get the f*ck out. If the American People get drafted and we dont like what we got ourselves into, then perhaps more people will think twice before endorsing a war president next time. Either that or they will all get drafted and die.
posted by sophist at 2:31 AM on January 25, 2005


Ah, but America got a hell of a lot out of the Marshall Plan, I suspect (although I am not a historian, but alliances and economic advantages come to mind. We weren't just being nice guys after WWII -- we were doing what benefited us the most. Europeans seem to remember that much more than Americans. Luckily, what was most beneficial to the US then was also the right thing to do).

We are not giving the Europeans any reason to come help. Couple that with what sophist said, that helping now without Bush saying mea culpa would be like saying that Bush was right. Which, from the European point of view, he was not only not right, he was spectacularly wrong, and he was a serious fucking prick about it, too.

The Europeans would have to be saints to help out under these conditions. As much as "making the world a better place" is noble ends, it rings kind of hollow to a European public who wants no part of it, and it would be little consolation for the casualties they would undoubtedly suffer.
posted by teece at 2:39 AM on January 25, 2005


devildancedlightly,

>The EU talks about liberal democracy, but where are they in Iraq? The Congo? The Ivory Coast? There are plenty of places where the EU and UN have not gotten involved, at the price of thousands or millions of lives. And don't forget Rwanda.

One second, forget Iraq from your list and you'll find that some EU countries are involved in the DRC and Ivory Coast, though not very well -- i'ts not a democracy building exercise. And concerning Rwanda, who said there was no fault there? Me? Nope.

>Why does it matter that the US fucked up and got us to this point?

Well, if you truly think that *recent* actions on their part have nothing to do with intentions for the future... mmm.

And I don't see any guarantees for the other EU players, no exploitation of resources for them, not yet. Realpolitik, I think they would help if they thought the US were willing to share the pie.

>FYI, you "allude" to an idea, you "elude" the authorities.

Thanks! You see, that's what happens when one rushes to comment. Or maybe it was a Freudian slip, mind boggling!

I think your rush to condemn the Europeans is a little skewed. If one were to apply your rhetoric to, let's say, Russia, India, Brazil.... etc. One would find the list of democracy's enemies a bit large and unwieldy. Maybe they're all greedy, maybe they're all wrong. Who knows.
posted by gsb at 3:03 AM on January 25, 2005


"Ah, but America got a hell of a lot out of the Marshall Plan" -- teece

Well, the West did. The real winner of WW2 was the USSR - one has only to see how rapidly their influence spread in the following exhausted years. The Marshall Plan helped to limit the damage - just as well too.

I'm not convinced by your arguments, thedevildancedlightly. Essentially you're saying the current situation is the Europeans' fault - in my opinion a colossal misdirection of blame.

There is no evidence that the EU forces could do any better containing the Iraqi insurgency than the US forces have, reducing any involvement there to a mere PR exercise designed to present the illusion of unity. I doubt the man on the street would be so easily fooled.

And that's the crux of it. If you believe that this insurgency is a simple numbers game, then I suppose you can accuse the EU (or anyone else) of prolonging the situation by denying help. You could also blame the British and Australians for not providing more troops while you're at it.

But war is not a numbers game, and it really doesn't make any difference whether the EU is there or not. Your arguments merely muddy the waters.
posted by Ritchie at 3:31 AM on January 25, 2005


Why do people think that Bush really wants a draft?

Short answer: He has broken the US Army and the actions of his Administration have fueled rumors of a draft.
posted by mlis at 5:20 AM on January 25, 2005


Why draft fat Americans when you can rent skinny brown-skinned foreigners to do your murdering for you? Mercenaries...the past is the future again.
posted by rushmc at 8:17 AM on January 25, 2005


thedevil, you have a good point, but you're failing to recognise a crucial point: Europeans cannot help in Iraq until we stop occupying it, building military bases, and blowing shit up. It's hard enough as it is without Americans running around shooting at whatever moves. It's an extremely dangerous situation that Bush has created, one he still fails to recognise. If he were to admit that it isn't going so well, then perhaps some European countries would feel that it was safe to help out. At this point, they can't even trust the Americans, since Bush's view is so diametrically opposed to reality. You can't help someone if you don't trust them.

Really, though, if you watch Bush on TV, you'd think our army didn't need any help in Iraq - after all, the mission was accomplished, and everything is moving along splendidly. So, Bush puts the leaders of European countries in a tough spot: Either they pledge support to a situation that the U.S. is "already winning," or they pledge support and call Bush out on his lies. Neither of these is very appealing, politically. It would be much better if the U.S. would own up to the horrid mistakes, and ask for help. That is usually the process, isn't it? Countries that need assistance actually ask for it, don't they?

Usually countries who need assistance don't ignore that very basic fact while telling other countries that their help isn't needed. That shouldn't be forgotten.



As for the draft, with respect to Iraq only, the military may be stretched thin, and I wouldn't be surprised by a draft, but I don't think it's necessary at this particular point. It seems we're in a new type of war, here. It's being fought by an extraordinary amount of mercenaries (civilian contractors, whatever), more than any other country's troop level. If this trend continues, we'll see an entirely privatized, completely lawless force backed by the heavy artillery of a traditional military. It's a very scary thought.
posted by odinsdream at 8:27 AM on January 25, 2005


People who think a draft is likely are math impaired.

The troop shortfalls we might face would be in the range of 100,000 to 200,000 personnel, a small fraction of one percent of the total pool of age-eligible men and women, say, 17 to 35. (Slightly more men than women would be needed to fill combat arms vacancies.)

A draft would be a terribly inefficient way to fill such a statistically small requirement. A nice way to fill the gap, without coercion and actually correcting any socioeconomic bias in the current "economic draft" would be to ban government-funded universities (i.e., all of them) from enrolling able-bodied people who haven't agreed to volunteer for service.

Actual inductions are done at random solely from the list of those who volunteered. If you want the big benefits that society offers with higher education, you have to agree to support society's defense.

A conscientious objector appeals process could be put in place, but no school until after you've gone through the whole process (and any appeals) successfully, i.e., money where your mouth is for the pacifists.
posted by MattD at 8:32 AM on January 25, 2005


A nice way to fill the gap, without coercion and actually correcting any socioeconomic bias in the current "economic draft" would be to ban government-funded universities (i.e., all of them) from enrolling able-bodied people who haven't agreed to volunteer for service.

I really like this idea. With a few investors, I could have a bare-bones "university" up & running in less than a year--charge a hefty (but not exorbitant) admission fee, and the children of the middle class will be breaking down my doors to wait out this little Iraqi misadventure in the collegial comfort they're accustomed to. Sure, it will shift the economic draft parameters a little, but, given enough time and a little healthy competition (say 500-1000 "private, low cost universities" spread throughout the country), nobody with even the most basic of means would have to register for service. And if enough evade, I'm sure a little political pressure (Mom & Dad will be right pissed off if Junior is somehow stigmatized by this neat little trick) a few years down the road, and everybody can use old Dick Cheney's excuse ("I had other priorities") and be none the worse for wear...

Yeah. Nice idea.
posted by Chrischris at 8:49 AM on January 25, 2005


A nice way to fill the gap ... you have to agree to support society's defense.

I'm a bit uncomfortable with how you're tying education to military participation. What you're suggesting doesn't sound practicable at all, for the reasons Chrischris mentioned, but the more disturbing part is the way you link the ideas together. First of all, as Iraq has demonstrated, there is no burden of proof on the Commander in Chief to demonstrate that a war is being fought to defend us from anything. So, you cannot say that all wars are for the defense of society. This doesn't even get into the issue of personal disagreements with wars that might actually be defensive in nature, I'm just pointing out the actual fact that war is not always defensive.

That's just one of the problems. The other problem is your plan simply hijacks what's increasingly a necessary part of life for those wishing to pursue a successful career and using it as the basis for filling the military. You're tying "successful career" to "fight in the military" when they have nothing to do with one another.

I'm sure you realise this, though. You picked something purposefully sought-after in order to lessen the chance of people simply avoiding that particular service. In fact, I would expect at least some people to give up on going to college as a resulf of your plan, simply to avoid being pulled into a conflict they disagree with and murdered. This would be a draft in everything but name.
posted by odinsdream at 9:05 AM on January 25, 2005


Why do people think that Bush really wants a draft?

Bush doesn't want a draft, and neither does the military.

The United States Military views themselves as professionals, and does not want forced conscripts who do not want to be there, and are not motivated.

The only people who want a a draft are people on the Left who think a draft will recreate the dreamy Vietnam era they so fondly remember.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:26 AM on January 25, 2005


Wow, this Draftfreedom project is working great already! They've only just started, and already there's no draft. I can only imagine how much of a draft there won't be once they really start getting some traction.
posted by kindall at 9:33 AM on January 25, 2005


Bush doesn't want a draft, and neither does the military.

Aside from your complete bullshit about the Left and Vietnam, one of these days Steve_at_Linnwood, you and your ilk are going to have to come to the very simple conclusion:

The goal of staying the course in Iraq and avoiding the draft are incompatible. Period.

It doesn't matter what you, Bush, or the military want. We can not sustain current troop levels.

Again, we are getting ready to send troops on a third, multi-month, active combat rotation. Our experience from other wars tells us this is going to start incurring a hell of a lot of mental casualties, and overall destroy troop moral. If you keep up the ostrich approach along with Bush, those same soldiers will be looking at a fourth combat deployment, and a fifth...

Never mind that we are one world crisis away from a serious military problem, due to the fact that all of our military ability is tied up.

Stroke your ego all you want, that problem isn't going away.

That's why people are talking about a draft -- they don't have their head in the sand.
posted by teece at 11:03 AM on January 25, 2005


Funny how almost every single tin-foil hat thing, and thing that's been denied by the powers that be, has come true these past 4 years (secret ops inside the US, mercenaries in Afghanistan and elsewhere, torture in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and elsewhere, etc), yet people are still poo-pooing this.

Funny--in a tragically sad way.
posted by amberglow at 11:05 AM on January 25, 2005


"How it got there is pretty irrelevant at this point"

ROFLMAO
posted by garfield at 1:19 PM on January 25, 2005


The goal of staying the course in Iraq and avoiding the draft are incompatible. Period.

Don't forget Iran and Syria and Venezuela and...Poland. Damn interventionist policemen-of-the-world Republicans.
posted by rushmc at 2:19 PM on January 25, 2005


That's why people are talking about a draft

Me and my ilk? Who was it again that introduced legislation to bring back the draft? Rangel & Hollings, two partisan Democrats. Who side was it that was sending bogus draft cards to college students to scare them in to voting for Kerry? The Left.

The goal of staying the course in Iraq and avoiding the draft are incompatible. Period.

Well, I guess since you say so it must be the truth!

It doesn't matter what you, Bush, or the military want.

Did you even read what you wrote?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:31 PM on January 25, 2005


That's why people are talking about a draft -- they don't have their head in the sand.
One brother of mine in the military has talked about a draft happening for about 5 + years now. Have concluded he does it to see people expressing fear.
posted by thomcatspike at 3:31 PM on January 25, 2005


The military has been lying to us for the past 4 years, from Rumsfeld on down. It's only the retired or forced-out ones that have been speaking the truth. We don't have enough troops for even Iraq (we're there at least til the end of 06, according to today's news), let alone anywhere else, and god forbid, something happens (or bush does something else insane a la iraq) and we have to go elsewhere.
posted by amberglow at 3:34 PM on January 25, 2005


The troop shortfalls we might face would be in the range of 100,000 to 200,000....

Unless something happens with North Korea, Taiwan, or Iran. U.S. military reserves are overstretched as it is: incapable of responding to another conflict. For the foreseeable future (as long as hundreds of thousands of American troops are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan), any additional conflicts anywhere in the world would threaten a draft. Rumsfeld and Bush have sacrificed the flexibility of the U.S. military (and 1,500 American lives, and $280 billion) in exchange for...something, I suppose...it's still not clear to me what the pros of our involvement in Iraq are.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:44 PM on January 25, 2005


Oh, and in case you don't get the implications of that: along with the flexibility of our military, we've lost a good bit of our deterrent threat. I attribute no small part of the recent intransigence from Iran and North Korea to this.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:49 PM on January 25, 2005


thedevildancedlightly: Of course, if the EU would stop laughing and pointing fingers at the mess that the US has gotten itself into ("I told you so!") then maybe that might be a viable way to solve the problem. Honestly, regardless of any political beliefs about the start of the war, the EU needs to recongize that this is a true humanitarian crisis and a good time to send military support. It doesn't matter how the situation got the way it is, but they need to recognize their duty to their neighbors to help fix it.

You mean something like this?

EU to US: We don't sign on. No way! You break it you own it.

Some time later...US to EU: We broke it. Come help us fix it. What's a few thousand of your young lives and a ton of your cash? Umm, no, as a matter of fact, we can't guarantee the whole thing won't devolve into an Iran-style theocracy or a bloody civil war but we are pretty sure that if you send troops you'll be thrown out of office in the next election.

EU thinks to self for one second and responds: Or, how about this? Why don't you drop dead and go to hell instead?
posted by a_day_late at 5:48 PM on January 25, 2005


Me and my ilk? Who was it again that introduced legislation to bring back the draft? Rangel & Hollings, two partisan Democrats. Who side was it that was sending bogus draft cards to college students to scare them in to voting for Kerry? The Left.

You really do love to play the fool, Steve. Well, I hope you're playing. 'Your ilk,' meaning Bush supporters and the those that think Iraq is going swimingly, need to realize they are living in fantasy land when it comes to wanting to simultaneously pretend that a) current troop strengths are fine, and b) we're going to resolve things in Iraq. That's why the left keeps bringing the draft up -- because you and your ilk refuse to see the crisis that Bush is creating in our military and world affairs. Try to understand, it isn't that hard.

Did you even read what you wrote?

Why yes, I did, and it would be nice if you would! You have done nothing to challenge anything that I said. Care to give it a try, or are you incapable? Or is it all just some liberal media, leftist conspiracy?
posted by teece at 7:31 PM on January 25, 2005


Screw the draft, I think we should go straight back to required conscription, two years for Unca Sam.
posted by nanojath at 8:54 PM on February 23, 2005


« Older Jorg Schniedmayer and Armin Scrinzi's road trip ph...  |  Google video search.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments