Sunday, January 14, 2007

Slapping The Bitch

If you didn't catch Chuck Hagel bitchslappin' Holy Joe Lieberman this morning on Meet The Press after Lieberman claimed any critic of the preznut's troop surge plan was advocating "defeat" and retreat" to the same terrorists who hit us on 9/11, you ought to.

It's that good.

You'll notice in the clip that Lieberman claimed the consequences of not following the preznut's troop surge policy in Iraq "would be disastrous" for his "children and grandchildren."

All right, Senator - if that's true, then why not put your fucking money where your fucking loud mouth is and ask your children and grandchildren to ante up and join the service.

It's the least you can do if the consequences of not following your preznut's war policy "would be disastrous."

The Army needs bodies for the war. Start sending some of the Liebermans.

reality, you wrote:

"The Army needs bodies for the war. Start sending some of the Liebermans."

In other words, you want to restore the military draft.

However, even if the draft were revived, the Liebermans would either be too young or too old to be drafted.
i am hoping the draft starts soon so we can quickly identify those who run for the Canadian border.
I'm hoping they start it too so the general public thinks twice before they get all gung-ho about going to war.
praguetwin, you wrote:

"I'm hoping THEY start it too so the general public thinks twice before they get all gung-ho about going to war."

THEY? THEY would be the people the voters elected.

So far, the Democrats have most actively supported a revival of the draft. With their Congressional majority, not much stands in the way of its come-back.

So it seems that re-instating the draft is some form of petulant payback that Democrats intend to legislate, as though Democrats are saying "okay, if you Republicans are going to support this war, we're going to do what we can to see that your kids are killed in it. How do you like them apples?"

Democrats seem to think the passage of draft legislation would be viewed by voters as some clever trap aimed at Republicans rather than what it is: a suicidal partisan drive by Democrats to re-instate the draft.

The day draft legislation is passed would probably go down in history as the worst day in the history of the Democratic Party. Why? Because it would take the efforts of every Democratic legislator to get a draft bill passed. Thus, every combat death of a draftee would be on the hands of the Democratic Party.

Democratic Party mass political suicide. I'm sure that's what you and your fellow party members want.

Would any Democrat have a shot at the White House after that? I don't think so.

Meanwhile, the citizens who most fully support the US military have volunteered to serve. They've already identified themselves.

Moreover, a re-instated draft -- a draft with no deferments is probably what you have in mind -- would conscript young Democrats as well as young Republicans, wouldn't it?

History suggests we would include all men from the ages of 18 to 26 in the draft pool.

I don't know how you feel about drafting women, but to be fair about this, they too should become part of the pool. I'm sure you want to be fair to the American public.

Even if they're single mothers, they probably shouldn't receive a deferment, if we're being fair.
Pt, I'm w/ you on that.

Steve, I bet there will be so runners for the border when the draft comes - and I have sinking feeling that some of those runners will be former war supporters.

But I doubt either party will try and institute a draft - it's political suicide.

Still, if Bush were being honest with the American people, he would say "My fellow Americans, this war in iraq MUST be won and we currently do not have nearly enough troops to complete the mission now that sectarian violence, backed by Iran on one side and Saudi Arabia on the other, has broken out so broadly in Iraq. Therefore we must institute a draft and send 350,000 Americans over to Iraq to ensure that we win this war."

But Bush isn't being honest - he's trying to make it look like he's doing something when he really isn't.
steve harkonnen wrote:

"i am hoping the draft starts soon so we can quickly identify those who run for the Canadian border."

What would you learn?

Would you ask people 18 to 26 who are crossing the border which political party they identify with?

By the way, how would you identify the draft dodgers among people who are legally allowed to visit Canada?

What would Canada do in response to an influx of illegal aliens from the US?

I have no idea what laws exist today in Canada regarding this issue, but as far as I can recall, no Vietnam draft dodgers were shipped back to the US for skipping out on the draft.

The Selective Service Bureau may have had the power to seek extradition of those whose draft number had been called, but I don't think Canada assisted the US in repatriating draft dodgers. Meanwhile, others went to Sweden.

In other words, anyone who receives his induction notice but doesn't want to serve can find an accomodating country somewhere in the world if he'd rather sit out the war.

Like I care if the Democrats take the fall out. You know nothing about me so quit pretending you do.

Yes, They, the Democrats, the Republicans, whoever, so long as THEY are members of congress.

I don't think women should be drafted: call me old fashioned. I don't like deferments because they are scewed towards the rich.

I am perfectly happy to see the Democrats and Republicans go in equal numbers.

I don't know what you are so wound up about man.

I tentatively support the draft being reinstated, without the deferments. Although C.O.s should be able to serve non-combat.
praguetwin, you wrote:

"I don't think women should be drafted: call me old fashioned."

Oh. Okay. So your call for a no-deferment draft begins with a deferment for 50% of all citizens who are considered fit to serve if they volunteer. A gender deferment. Yeah. That will go over big with the feminists-- if they can avoid their usual hypocrisy.

You wrongly stated:

"I don't like deferments because they are scewed towards the rich."

During the Vietnam War deferments were first offered to college students. When more troops were needed, a deferral required that a student be married. When the draft reached its peak, students needed to be married and have a child.

But anyone who was out of school and no more than 26 was draft bait. Wealth made no difference.

Meanwhile, many young men discovered the reserves. They also discovered the National Guard. Volunteering for either was almost, but not quite a guarantee of staying out of Vietnam.

You wrote:

"I tentatively support the draft being reinstated, without the deferments."

Apparently you can't keep your thoughts straight from the beginning of a post to its end.

You already exempted half the potential conscripts from consideration. Now you want to give a de facto deferment to conscientious objectors when you state:

"Although C.O.s should be able to serve non-combat."

How would you determine if someone were truly a C.O.?

Would you just ask him and accept whatever he says? Or would you limit this deferment to people with a lifetime history to support their claim -- like the Quakers in Pennsylvania, or some similar religious sect?
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?