Comments on: Support The Troops?

By: Bryan

Bryan — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 01:38:44 +0000

I’d be more worried about the mortars and rockets than the swimming pool. Al Sadr isn’t going to let them stay in Baghdad and he has the supporters in the city to make that stick.

By: Cookie Jill

Cookie Jill — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 01:09:52 +0000

No, I agree with you Bryan. We need to get the hell outta there first, however, I doubt that the folks in DC want to do that. They just finished that grand spanking new Embassy complete with swimming pool and working electricity.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:01:52 +0000

I’m not saying you have to agree with me, all I’m saying is that the only nine opinions that matter are finally being forced to make a decision. The interpretation is whatever five of them agree on, no matter what history and the 1753 Johnson dictionary says.

The pending case is on a DC law, so it affects them where they live. No one knows what they’ll do because there is no prior Supreme Court decision to work from.

By: whig

whig — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 05:33:52 +0000

How about I won’t argue, but that doesn’t mean I agree with your interpretation.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 04:19:11 +0000

Sorry, Whig, but it is a personal, not a collective right, and the history of responding to the call is clear – every able bodied man was expected to respond. At the time, “well regulated” meant efficient, and had nothing to do with rules of conduct, and still doesn’t in the military. The meaning of “regulated” has evolved to mean other things, but all it meant at the time was efficient.

No point in talking about it because the Supreme Court will probably take on a Second Amendment case this term, and issue a binding ruling, something that has never been done, despite what some may claim.

By: whig

whig — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 03:54:04 +0000

Bryan, the right to keep and bear arms is contingent on the militia being well regulated. Anyone who does not wish to bear arms cannot be drafted into a militia.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 03:40:05 +0000

There’s an 8 year Reserve commitment. If the guys working for Blackwater have finished the 8 years, they can’t be called up.

If there had been a call to recruit after 9/11 we wouldn’t have these problems, but the Hedgemony didn’t want to take all of those potential shoppers out of the population. Rummy told him we didn’t need any more people, it was going to be a cakewalk.

Actually, my preferred solution is to get the hell out of Iraq, and go win Afghanistan.

By: Cookie Jill

Cookie Jill — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 03:10:20 +0000

When the Army starts heavy ad rotation on the Spanish speaking stations and promising citizenship for those who sign up for military duty, I think we have a serious problem.

I don’t like the thought of it, but a draft is going to have to be necessary. When the army is taking non citizens, felons, folks with mental illnesses, folks with mental challenges, it means we have to start doing something different.

A caller on Randi Rhodes show had a great point. Most of the folks in Blackwater are former US Military personnel. There is a certain period of time in which, if ordered to, they MUST report back to the armed forces. No if’s, and’s or but’s. I’m not quite sure of the time frame, but start recalling those making $50,000 tax free a month doing mercinary work and put them back serving the country.

I want this war/occupation ended. Quick.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:57:59 +0000

Considering what they have done with recruitment standards, I don’t see any way of reducing the quality of military. They are accepting people who would have been rejected when there was a draft in full swing for our last quagmire. Exactly because it is involuntary servitude it should be a requirement before going to war to ensure the sacrifice is shared. If Congress and the President are willing to send their children and grandchildren, they shouldn’t be allowed to send other people’s. Nothing else, including common sense seems to work with these idiots. the draft also makes going to war very expensive.

Whig, every adult male was part of the militia when the Constitution was created. It was the police force as well as the army, and you were expected to respond to the “hue and cry” of the sheriff for assistance. My ancestors were tavern keepers and small farmers. they either didn’t own weapons [they were expensive], or owned them but were no good with them, but they responded when called.

Universal service is the key, Steve, no exemptions. It would seem to be the only way of convincing these people that wars are bad.

By: Steve Bates

Steve Bates — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:23:51 +0000

Could we arrange for the Shrubbery to come “home” from one of his Iraq escapades to Washington only to find that he had lost his job in the interim?

I cannot support a draft either, but I have to admit it is possible that it would have the effect you intend. If it didn’t, though… if Jenna and not-Jenna and the rest of the presumably draft-aged children of the elite in fact found ways to game the system, and I believe that is more likely than not… the poor and lower-middle-class would serve as disproportionately as they do now, under conditions arguably worse than they endure now, and the armed forces would suffer a decline in quality as surely as they always do in times of a draft. While I tend to agree with whig’s assertion that people should not be compelled to become soldiers, there are many other good reasons for not having a draft.