Ok, a few things:
1) Am I the only one that remembers someone else proposing exactly the same bill about a year or two ago, as nothing more than a scare-tactic designed to raise opposition to the war by making it seem a real threat to everyone and their kids? Am I the only one who remembers it failing, as this assuredly will? It's a cheap political ploy, nothing more. $10 says it dies in committee and never even sees a vote. It's politics, not policy.
2) IIRC, top members of the military are opposed to the draft, and say it would do no good. Gone are the days you can just put someone through 90 days of bootcamps and hand them a rifle; modern soliders take years to train due to the incredible level of technology they work with daily. A draft would mean huge numbers of unmotivated people swamping the training infrastructure, preventing any of them from getting adequate training and actually *reducing* military effectiveness because they can't use our own technology. Quality, not quantity. Why do we need 2000 troops with M-16s when we can achieve the same goal with 20 troops and a few autonomous combat vehicles? The draft is a relic of the low-tech war, and makes as much sense as trying raise a class's GPA by adding more students rather than teaching them better.
Now, as for specific posts:
I actually agree; if I believed a military action was necessary for the safety of the country and the preservation of freedom, I'd go (though, with my background, I'd likely just wind up as a weapons designer).
However, this war does *not* fit into that rubric. We haven't been attacked by Iraq, or even forces related to them (remember, the Iraq - alQaueda link has been disproved).
Yes, because murdering innocent civilians is always a good idea.
As I said above, I doubt he'll get the chance. It'll die in committee assuredly. Bills that everyone hates never make it far.
But then why use the old solution, war? Why not step back and say "hey, this terrorism thing is a totally novel form of war, so we need a novel solution"?
I think the issue is balance: we can't ignore other countries and just seal ourselves off, but neither can we go around poking our noses into everyone's business and acting as the world's policeman. We need to find a nice medium, and stick to it.
The former, easily. The ends do not justify the means, and furthermore, torture doesn't work! It has been repeatedly shown that confessions and information extracted under torture are so unreliable that you might as well just throw darts at a wall of random names, places and acts. People will say anything to stop pain, and that includes lying like crazy.
It's not about 'doing what it takes to keep the US safe', it's about using a method that's not only inhumane, but ineffective. Why even bother?
And yet we've done none of these. Iraq's war crimes pale in comparison to Sudan, which this adminstration has pointedly ignored. If we spent even 1% of what we spent on Iraq on food for other nations, world hunger would end. Ditto for disease and HIV.
But that was a small minority, a fringe group. Now the general world opinion is against us, and we've alienated badly-needed allies.
And the USA historically and rightfully belongs to the Native Americans. ALL of it. I don't see anyone arguing to give it back, though.
The only reason Israel was even created was because, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, some Christians decided to try to fulfill a Biblical prophecy and to hell with the consequences. We've been paying for that hubris ever since.
So, you'll be going back to Europe along with me when the United States of Native Americans forms?
Yes, what happened in the past was bad, but two wrongs do not make a right. Or will you be joining the Cherokee nation soon, or whichever one is the *rightful* owner of wherever you live?
Mokele
1) Am I the only one that remembers someone else proposing exactly the same bill about a year or two ago, as nothing more than a scare-tactic designed to raise opposition to the war by making it seem a real threat to everyone and their kids? Am I the only one who remembers it failing, as this assuredly will? It's a cheap political ploy, nothing more. $10 says it dies in committee and never even sees a vote. It's politics, not policy.
2) IIRC, top members of the military are opposed to the draft, and say it would do no good. Gone are the days you can just put someone through 90 days of bootcamps and hand them a rifle; modern soliders take years to train due to the incredible level of technology they work with daily. A draft would mean huge numbers of unmotivated people swamping the training infrastructure, preventing any of them from getting adequate training and actually *reducing* military effectiveness because they can't use our own technology. Quality, not quantity. Why do we need 2000 troops with M-16s when we can achieve the same goal with 20 troops and a few autonomous combat vehicles? The draft is a relic of the low-tech war, and makes as much sense as trying raise a class's GPA by adding more students rather than teaching them better.
Now, as for specific posts:
[b said:
I actually agree; if I believed a military action was necessary for the safety of the country and the preservation of freedom, I'd go (though, with my background, I'd likely just wind up as a weapons designer).
However, this war does *not* fit into that rubric. We haven't been attacked by Iraq, or even forces related to them (remember, the Iraq - alQaueda link has been disproved).
[b said:
Yes, because murdering innocent civilians is always a good idea.
[b said:
As I said above, I doubt he'll get the chance. It'll die in committee assuredly. Bills that everyone hates never make it far.
[b said:
But then why use the old solution, war? Why not step back and say "hey, this terrorism thing is a totally novel form of war, so we need a novel solution"?
[b said:
I think the issue is balance: we can't ignore other countries and just seal ourselves off, but neither can we go around poking our noses into everyone's business and acting as the world's policeman. We need to find a nice medium, and stick to it.
[b said:
The former, easily. The ends do not justify the means, and furthermore, torture doesn't work! It has been repeatedly shown that confessions and information extracted under torture are so unreliable that you might as well just throw darts at a wall of random names, places and acts. People will say anything to stop pain, and that includes lying like crazy.
It's not about 'doing what it takes to keep the US safe', it's about using a method that's not only inhumane, but ineffective. Why even bother?
[b said:
And yet we've done none of these. Iraq's war crimes pale in comparison to Sudan, which this adminstration has pointedly ignored. If we spent even 1% of what we spent on Iraq on food for other nations, world hunger would end. Ditto for disease and HIV.
[b said:
But that was a small minority, a fringe group. Now the general world opinion is against us, and we've alienated badly-needed allies.
[b said:
And the USA historically and rightfully belongs to the Native Americans. ALL of it. I don't see anyone arguing to give it back, though.
The only reason Israel was even created was because, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, some Christians decided to try to fulfill a Biblical prophecy and to hell with the consequences. We've been paying for that hubris ever since.
[b said:
So, you'll be going back to Europe along with me when the United States of Native Americans forms?
Yes, what happened in the past was bad, but two wrongs do not make a right. Or will you be joining the Cherokee nation soon, or whichever one is the *rightful* owner of wherever you live?
Mokele
