 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:37
|
|
women have more fat than men. FACT.
Anyway, one good thing about conscription is, while you lazy babies cry it being unfair and stupid, well..
.. well when you have it, your statistics on opinions, support or not are reliable. Support it? FINE, everyone rumbles.
It forces you to think it through. Do you really want to support it. If it goes through, it's your swinging dick in the field. It's like when president orders attack here and there, he goes first. Clears the path and throws the first frags. This would affect their decision making. Some say well UMHUEM THIS BAD! And who said decision on making war should be taken lightly?
If you are not ready to accept the possibility of torture, capture, death, and the mutilation of your family, then I guess one shouldn't call or bluff but fold.
This said.. I supported the action and still do. Including that the amount of troops is RAISED to at least 500 000. If not.. oh well what do I care. Screw everyone. I need ice cream.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Ted - you just aren't looking in the right places. My wife is 35, has had a baby 2.5 years ago, and is at 100 pounds. And I, umm, did hit it.   Can you say MILF - very much so, actually. 
When it comes to the draft, there is a very easy way to avoid it. The US Civilian security contractors are paying in the $100,000 range. What we want is a CHEAP military. I am all for having the hazard pay for deployed military units in combat double or triple their standard pay, with substantial death benefits that would replace the deceased soldier's earning potential.
Of course you would need to :whisper: raise taxes. As I've stated from the get go, you pay for what you get. Just like I support the "shiny new thingies" from another thread, to protect our troops, I also think our compensation in combat zones, and death benefits, are pathetic. Or is it that what they really want is a cheap military that can be deployed on the President's whim?
Reinstate the draft, and the next time this happens, expect riots. Because, as in the case on the Sheehan thread - I may be pissed my sister's husband is dead, but the kid (even though he was thirty) made his choice. I didn't agree, but then it was his (and my sister's) to make. If he had been killed after being drafted - then I would be REALLY pissed, and extremely bitter. Especially if the wealthy were still getting out of serving.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Whaleboy - I enjoy your posts. I've made a serious point, and unlike the pro-Bush auto-response, I am curious as to what you think about my point.
Whether we stay in Iraq or not, Sistani (or al-Sadr) or someone of that ilk will essentially end up running the country. It is going to be Theocratic, the freedom within that theocracy is to me the only issue up for debate.
The Shia are already engaging in their own irregular death squad activity, can you say Paras (as in the paramilitaries organized by the Protestants in Northern Ireland during the troubles). Even with Sistani asking them not to, retaliatory killings have been going on for months. The Shia will NOT let the Sunni win via atrocity, if the Sunni try that you will end up with genocide lite (better known as ethnic cleansing).
So whether we stay there, or not, we end up with a Shia-dominated Arab state that is to a large degree based on Islam, if not totally. So what's the point of us staying? The only one I can see is that having Sistani as the background ruler will mean their is more freedom in Iraq, as he appears to truly be a man of Allah. Which means woman and non-Muslims, as well as Sunni, will be second class citizens, and he only vets the most important candidates - as well as all the judges.
If there is a Civil War/bloodbath, someone lik al-Sadr, who is also power hungry as well as fanatical almost may well come to power. This guarantees an Iran-esque theocracy. Do you honestly believe that is worth the sacrifice of more American boys - and now girls - over there? I personally don't, but I am interested in your different, and I am quite sure, reasoned perspective .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
So whether we stay there, or not, we end up with a Shia-dominated Arab state that is to a large degree based on Islam, if not totally. So what's the point of us staying?
|
It's a very good point. I suppose it's all a question of degree... a theocratic, fundamentalist Muslim state, as opposed to Western-style democracy (a system, let's not forget, that has numerous problems of its own), is perhaps inevitable. Could it be a system like that in, say, Lebanon, which we don't hear about on the news too often so it can't be inhumane... or something a whole lot more despotic?
Premise 1 is that the presence of US/UK troops can help prevent the latter. As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out there for numerous reasons but I digress.
Premise 2 is that US/UK extended presence will require more troops, hence the present discussion on the draft. WRT your earlier point, I think it's a good one. The draft can't be cheap of course but there's no way to avoid higher taxes unless the US treasury deficit becomes more insane. I know nothing about the military but I presume that a highly trained, professional soldier is a better bet in Iraq than a civilian with a carbine. I would imagine the draft would only be effective militarily speaking when what is required are large numbers of people on the ground. This returns to premise one, whereby we should discuss whether that would helpful here.
Assuming the US/UK can help, we can expect more of our boys lives to be lost... that's a given. You asked whether any benefit in Iraq would be worth the cost? From the point of view of the soldiers and their families, most certainly not... after all some abstract c0ck-up several time-zones away doesn't matter so much to a mother who's just lost her son.
Historically speaking on the other hand, and with the benefit of not personally knowing anyone out in Iraq, it would be perfect if we could pull out and everything would be fine and dandy but that's not going to happen. I'm a firm believer in nations and governments cleaning up their own mess... be it social breakdown at home, environmental damage, or silly wars. It may sound brutal but history would probably not be so harsh on the US and UK if they cleared up their own mess in Iraq... after all, it would be silly to deny that it was their own doing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Thanks Whaleboy. I think I see your point, and the critical disagreement I have with it. I do not consider myself or family members responsible for what Bush and the misguided, or greedy (he'll cut my taxes whining), or stupid voters (Changing horses analogy types) who put him in have achieved.
It's bad enough that I will end up paying a hefty surcharge on way or another to pay for his little adventure. I consider it part and parcel of living in a mostly democratic Republic. But to then be forced to serve, or to have those I love compelled to serve for something they are opposed to, and have opposed from the start - that would be intolerable.
I think Dis posted either here or in another thread - I am staying up way to late to post here - about riots and 'Nam. Now I understand why Vthe US had them during the Vietnam conflict, and here we don't. Those in opposition are not being forced to serve.
I think the protests would be violent if Bush was using his Secret Service screen and local law enforcment to marginalize protestors as he has consistantly done, and they had been burying coerced family members. The money gets people irritated, the dead family member gets them enraged - and bitter, which can even be more dangerous. Those are the people who can walk up out of a crowd with no warning and assassinate a politician.
BTW, I used to have a similar opinion to yours, but once I realized no matter what we did, we end up with another religious Muslim pseudo-theocarcy - in the best case! - that's when my opinion changed. Thanks for the reply.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-08-2005 13:12
girls are not more fit. women are just as fat as men now days.
|