FIRST!

Ah, the old "stay off my side" syndrome. I've always felt precisely the same way about Ann Coulter, but for different reasons.

Fox news has a poll up about the draft. "No Draft" is winning, but not by as much as you'd expect. People need to read their Heinlein.

S

I'm in favor of it. If my nation needs me, I will answer the call gladly.

-The Real Conservative Carl

The question is whether the country needs you, Carl. And first, they should ask for volunteers.

Carl,

If you don't get the call, you're not needed. There's plenty of us who felt it was our DUTY, HONOR and PRIVILEGE to serve the country and we did so by VOLUNTEERING. And yes, I got PLENTY of flak from my family about it. You know what? It was far and away the BEST choice I ever made.

I'm not saying you don't love your country or won't bear arms to protect it. But, if you REALLY feel strongly and want to serve you'll make your way to the recruiters and apply. They'll be MORE than happy to oblige you. And you won't regret a second of it.

You are exactly right Frank, as usual. I saw a headline yesterday that read something like "Now Republicans Join the Call for Draft." What an asshat Hagel is.

Huh,huh... asshat. I love that word. I think the draft is great. When I'm watchin' my races, those cars go alot faster when they draft.

I saw that asshat Charlie Wrangler on Fox last night (can't remember if it was Factor or H&C). He was moaning and groaning about all the rural white kids who serve in the military, etc. etc.

I spit Diet Coke w/Lime and Maker's Mark through my nose laughing at this racist idiot trying to explain how rural white kids are being put down by the man.

Opposition to the draft usually has nothing to do with weather or not you love your country. It has much more to do with the knowledge that conscripts make poor soldiers; volunteer armies are more motivated, more professional, and have much higher morale. People who choose a military career fight harder, smarter, and better than those who are forced into it. History (and common sense) bear this out.

If it really came to the point that the military was undermanned, I (and swarms of other Americans, I suspect) would join the second they put out a call for troops. I was ready to join on September 12th, 2001, and the day the President says "The military is too small ... we need a million more soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines" is the day my employer will recieve my resignation (this also assumes they'd take a 34 year old - I'm in pretty good shape). I know there are many, many, many people who feel the same way. We've chosen non-military careers but we'd volunteer for service in a heartbeat if there was a genuine need.

I doubt there will be a need for the draft in the forseeable future. We already have over a million professional military people in service, and twice that number willing to volunteer if the need for more becomes serious. Right now "the draft" is just a polititcal football being tossed around by attention-seekers like Hagel.

S

Sandor,

HEAR HEAR! Couldn't agree with you more!

Very well said sandor!! That's exactly what I would have said were I more eloquent and genius-like.... Huzzah!... Kudos!... and all that :)

Exactly, Sandor. Soon as 9/11 happened, I was waiting for the call to sign up, and, if it still comes, I'm still ready.

I'm with Sandor. Except I'd be going even if there was a draft. Stupid age laws...

Oh well. Nothing to do but practice marksmanship. Lord knows it's useful no matter what.

Wait -- is Hagel just Charlie Rangel in disguise? The Rangler's been making lots of weird public appearances around here recently...

Sandor said it perfectly... what makes the US Military so effin' great is the fact that they are all VOLUNTEERS.

Ah..asshat. The proverbial Rachel Lucas word of choice. I miss her! Bring back Rachel! Bring back Rachel! Bring back Rachel!!!!!!

Hagle
Hangle
Rangle

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

Hey Chuckles! Since reenlistment rates are at or near all time highs and the services have met about 94% of their recruitment goals for this year already, where are you going to put these draftees, huh?

Asshat, indeed! (A twofer! Quoting Rachel and the Puppy Blender!)

sam

Ah, crap! It *is* Hagel not Hagle. OK, let's try it again:

Hagel
Hagle
Hangle
Rangle

Still pretty damn close. Bruthas from different Muthas?

sam

I think Arlen Specter ranks right up there.

Sandor is exactly right. People should read their Heinlein (O my beloved Starship Trooper - no, not the vile movie). And their Reagan. And their Rumsfeld.

No offense, Frank, but the question is not whether the country needs you. Your fellow citizens are never entitled to confiscate you, no matter how much they need you.

People are not property of the government. The draft is slavery. Period.

Anyhoo, the attitude of the fightin' studs I know is, "Conscript you? You've got to prove you're good enough to be one of us!"

God bless you and your mates, Jefe!!

In the Vietnam era we had a draft. The highest good for many Americans was to either evade the Draft or get out of service early, after having done nothing at all involving risk; the worst possible thing was to have your term extended or to be placed in the line of fire. Today we have an all-volunteer force: The greatest good is to SERVE, no matter how hazardous; the 'sharp-end' soldiers get the respect they deserve; the worst punishment is to get kicked out. The sort of people who used to be drafted were the kind who couldn't figure out an angle to escape. The sort who serve now are those who WANT to be there.

Keep the Draft. Take the money that would fund it and apply it to the Pentagon's personnel budget: make room in the payroll for another few thousand soldiers or increase the pay on the ones we already have.

There is a coffee shop near the county courthouse where both the deputies I worked with before I retired that the Armed Forces recuiters also visit. I go there to keep up with departmental gossip and sometimes visit with the recruiters. There's no shortage of volunteers, as a matter of fact some of the guys they reject would have qualified for OCS when I was wearing Uncle's suit some forty years ago.
The all volunteer Army had eight more active duty divisions during Reagan and Bush 41 than it does now, the other Services were also bigger at the same ratio.
These Congresscritters should shut up about the Draft and authorise a half dozen or so more divisions with comeasurate increases in the other Services. These Congresscritters are dead from the neck up.

Though I'm usually all in favor of removing the young men with whom I compete for jobs and women, I have a better plan than the draft.
It's important that soldiers everywhere point and laugh at extreme sports guys and skate boarders and other "cool" kids. They must laugh at these kids and call them pansies. They must say that if they toughen up they might someday be good enough to start training to be soldiers. Then the GI's must tell the kids to pull their damned pants up.
We should also pass a law allowing soldiers to smack punks on the back of the head for sassin' back.

I got an application for the local draft board that I never completed. My idea was that if I'm on the board, I could at least filter out shit-heads, hippies and reds.

I'd probably get fired real quick, though.

I personally would rather re-up in the Army, then to send of nancy boys who didn't feel the need to serve their country anyway over to any war zone.

Here you go LIBERTYBOB - this is from the Baton Rouge Daily Report:

"Rep. Derrick Shepherd of Marrero has an aversion to exposed cracks. He's filed a bill to make it illegal in Louisiana to wear pants below the waist. People wearing the popular low-riding pants could be fined up to $500 and have to spend up to six months in jail. The bill, HB 1626, is likely to go nowhere."

Since Rangle and Hagel say we need to get more "privileged" people into the military to balance out with those poor ing'nant schmoes that cain't do nuttin' else perhaps we should do something else before we start an active draft.

According to Frick and Frack these losers join the military because they have no other opportunities for jobs or school. Does that mean we should do whatever it takes to get those people with opportunites to instead consider the military? Fine...instead of the draft, pass a law to force ALLLLLL colleges and universites to allow full ROTC programs on campus and to all recruiters full access to campus' and let DoD purchase advertising in school papers.

How 'bout that Charley?

Ok, no one likes the draft, now look at the facts.
Yep, the military is meeting 94% of there goals. Anyone know what the goals are? How many full divisions can the US put on the field of battle? Oh, well some wonder boy will tell me that one of todays modern divisions is worth 10 divisions during WW2. Yep I will agree, so why all the fuss. Here is the problem, almost all of the US Armys support elements are in the Guard and Reserve. Do you want Ammo moved, call the guard, Want to have a medical unit look after your soldiers, call the Guard. I agree we might be able to live without a draft for the active army, but the Guard and Reserve are hurting badly. In the past this was not important but with the down sizing of the Army, where an active division will have one of its combat brigades in the guard, then something has to give. The other half of the picture is something else, how many are eligible to join the armed forces, the age group that is available is not large. The baby boomers are gone and the population available to fill the Army is getting smaller. Is the draft a solution, not if it is the same draft that was used in the VietNam era. Oh, just in case anyone gives a crap, I am a retired Army veteran with 30 years of service, I served from 65- 95 and I have seen both sides of the street.

A draft DEFINITELY wouldn't be needed if all of the money that's put into the back end of a serviceman's career (20 year retirement, health care for life, etc.), were paid up front. You could pay an E-1 four times what they make now and let them fund their own 401K (if they want) for what the eventual bill is going to be in the long run.

I serve on the board of a national veterans group - the 70+ members of the board (I'm the only one under 50), think it's a terrible idea and I respect their virews, but it's highly outdated. I've seen too many guys just hanging around to make their 20, while young, motivated troops quit after their first enlistment not because they don't love the military but because they're tired of trying to raise a family on $19,000 a year. Many of them use their training to do their same job in the civilian world for many times over the pay, rather than wait two decades for their retirement to finally earn what has been allocated to them.

The military needs to get over this government pension for life/20 year retirement nonsense and pay the guys what they're worth up front.

Again, if we genuinely run into the need for a lot more troops - to double the size of the military, let's say - all the President needs to do is ask. He will have twice the amount he needs within a week ... I gaurantee it.

I am morally opposed to the draft because it turns citizens into property. But I'm also opposed to it for the very practical reason that conscript armies are less effective than volunteer armies. It's about more than "not liking the draft"; if I do end up in a foxhole I want to be damn sure the soldier next to me is motivated, smart, and courageous. I do not want my life to depend on some dope-addled hippie who was too slow to make it across the Canadian border before his draft officer got him.

Regardless, I maintain my position that the question is moot. There is no need for a draft because millions of willing and able volunteers are here for the asking. All president Bush needs to do is put out a call and the military will have more volunteers than it can train.

S

And for the record there is no disrespect intended to James Old Guy in my previous post. On the contrary, I am most grateful for his service.

If our supply and logistics units from the reserves are really so severely strained then maybe the President should call for volunteers to round out their ranks. I'm completely seroius when I say that I'm ready to leave tomorrow morning.

My position is not that we don't need more troops. If a 30-year veteran says we do, then we probably do. But we don't need a draft to get them. Not when there are about 2 million men and women between 18 and 40 who are prefectly healthy and eager to serve should they be asked.

S

Personally, I think that saying that only the "unpriveleged" join the military is an insult to everyone serving. For many I know, including my brother, it was a calling and a duty and had nothing to do with economics.

Agree totally with the last post. It may bewilder Democrats, but a good many of the troops serve in the military because they love it. The Marines in Iraq I'm sure are grateful for the opportunity to put into practice what they've trained for and what they've dreamed of doing all their lives. You don't enlist in the Marines for the college benefits or to sit in an air conditioned office shuffling paper and attending lectures on sexual harrassment (which is what Democrats think the military is for - a social engineering/jobs program), you do it to train for and perhaps fight in combat.

What's also being overlooked is that the combat experience the NCOs and Junior Officers are receiving in Iraq is going to pay huge dividends for years into the future. You don't get that on training exercises at 29 Palms.

To think that the best Republican senator form Nebraska is actually Democrat Ben Nelson.

You could probably get some of the people that left in the 90s to come back, with the proper incentives (bribes).

How can you not like Ann Coulter, Sandor? :P Next you'll be telling us you don't like Patton!

Miranda,
That's it! Ann Coulter is Patton reincarnated!

Nope, I like Patton just fine. But I think he was reincarnated as Chomps.

I don't like Ann Coulter because she's a cartoon conservative. Her venom and intolerance sell books, but they cost the Republican and Libertarian parties the trust of the moderates. Personally, I work pretty hard to sway center-leaning Democrats to vote for Rebublican candidates and initiatives ... it's not impossible, and I've gotten fairly good at it.

Then along comes someone like Coulter saying dumbass shit like "All liberals are traitors!" and "We should kill the leaders of the Islamic world and convert its people to Christianity!" And there goes all the headway I've made with real people who cast real votes. Ann Coulter and the far authoritarian right are the reason - and I'm completely serious - that the upcoming election is even contested. They give the real leftists far too much ammunition to shoot at us.

We need the moderates. Neither side can win this election without them. And cartoonish right-wing grandstanding of the sort Coulter thrives on is exactly what will drive them to vote for Kerry.

S

sandor, I don't think the election is going to be close. I understand what you are saying but I see no reason to pander to liberals for votes... I think most people are right-minded (a double entendre for you there) and can figure out that the Democratic platform is pretty lame (shit, even that cracker Zell Miller puzzled that out).

Consider this: How far has Kerry, a Mass. liberal, moved center - and even right - on just about every issue? They know they can't win on liberal issues, and as an added bonus, the fanatic far left will vote with Lord Nader, robbing Kerry of even more votes.

Besides, I don't think Ann Coulter is a blip on the liberal radar screen.

Sorry, forgot...

In accordance with the prophecy. (Skippy's 7th Thing)

Well, I wouldn't characterize it as "pandering to liberals". My aim is really to sway as many moderates as possible to vote for Bush. But no one - least of all me - is expecting the leftmost two-thirds of the Democratic Party to do so. The point that I try to make is that the Republican Party in general and the Bush Administration in particular are not the crusading right-wing nutcases that Al Franken and Michael Moore make us out to be.

And because the leftist platform is so weak I usually have some success at it. Until a genuine crusading right-wing nutcase like Coulter happens along and renforces the stereotype. And trust me, the moderates do pay attention to what is being said by the far right.

Lastly, supporting Coulter is - to use your term - pandering to the religious right. She formulates no worthwhile policy nor does she grant us any useful insight. She's just a pretty face that annoys the liberals. I know it is unpopular in our part of the blogosphere to criticize any member of the right; you'll never see Whittle or den Beste go after Coulter the way they go after Moore, even though both are socially liberal and probably find her antics just as counter-productive as I do. But I have no such compunctions. I hate the authoritarian right every bit as much as I hate the authoritarian left, and Coulter's "convert'em with bombs" crowd are the worst of the lot.

But I do hope you're right, rockynogin. I hope the moderates are not fooled by Kerry's shift to the middle. I hope the far left does throw 5 million votes at Nader. And I hope that "Silent America" gets out there in droves and votes for Bush.

We'll see.

S

Good points all sandor at the zoo. However, having read some of the 'far right' popular authors, I wouldn't say Coulter is the darling of the far RELIGOUS right as much as someone like Hannity. Coulter is certainly flamboyant, but I've found her books to be well documented and lucid.

Some folks just can't take a joke, though. I've introduced some moderates and liberals to IMAO - they recoil in horror at Nuke the Moon. As if anyone were serious.

Come to think of it, that's the problem with the world. Tight-asses that don't know how to laugh.

An excellent point. Anyone who knows me will tell you that I have a grossly hyperactive sense of humor (probably why I find Frank so darned amusing) but even I sometimes have to remind myself not to take politics so seriously.

It's always more difficult to stay lighthearted in an election year, especially when you're worried about the outcome.

S

Seems to me that we are missing a potential solution provided by - of all things- the good ol' Constitution of the United States. Section 8, which outlines the powers of Congress, states that they can "grant letters of marque and reprisal." If Charlie and his ilk would just issue out a few of these babies, with some hefter cash tied to them, the U.S. would probable get all sorts of "priveledged" volunteers - as money is all they are about anyway - right. The cool part of this is it might actually work. Given the authority to do so - what could Richard Marchenko (SP) and some of his boys come up with to collect on the 50 -100 million in rewards out there already. A few million invested in the right places could bring in a tidy profit (and also be lots of fun).

Buy www.i-directv.net this it is a wonderful addition to anyones home entertainment system.