I don't want to start a flame war and I truly hope this does not get one going.

I don't know if a draft is on the horizon or not.

I know those in power say there will not be a draft. I understand why some people would not take them at their word, but they might be telling the truth.

I took a look at the sources cited in this post and found their objectivity wanting. I understand why some people would not take them at their word, but they might be telling the truth.

This post illustrates something significant about human nature: those who want to believe it is all going to hell will have no problem finding examples to illustrate their point and those who want to believe everything is fine will have little trouble turning a blind eye.

That is the only thing this post manages to 'prove.' Stoploss is not the same thing as a draft. The presence of stoploss does not mean there will be a draft (although I understand why someone might see it as the first step towards one, I do). None of the data cited in this article definitively prove a draft is in our future.

excellent points DJR, your overall observaton is wise.

It is imperative to separate out such "stopgap" steps as Stopgap, which is absolutely within the context of a volunteer military, and a compulsory draft. As I ahve said elsewhere and at length, there will not be a draft because it is to no one's political advantage. When soemthing is to no one's political advantage, it tends not to happen.

It's not just that those in power don't want t draft, it's that they believe that a conscript army is inherently unworkable for the modern military. In addition, they are quite aware that the public is enormously anti-draft at any time other than a war in which our soil is directly threatened.

Before we even consider a draft they are going to try a variety of measures to increase recruitment, including raising salaries and sign-up incentives substantially, not to mention increased advertising.

Well, right now they aren't doing either, so I suspect that they aren't truly desperate yet. The truth is that if we cut back on our military commitments and focused on the key areas we'd have more than enough troops. The troops we have in Iraq right now are only 1/4 of our total troops. The rest are deployed in support areas or at bases many of which are increasingly unnecessary.

In addition, not only did all branches of the regular military meet their recruiting goals last year, but they exceeded those goals - in some cases by fairly large numbers - and those were expanded target numbers. We recruited more people into the regular military last year than are actually serving in Iraq right now.

The theory that recruiting is off is based on a small shortfall in army recruiting for ONE month this year, and on small shortfalls against expanded goals in the national guard. That's it.

If recruiting this year and next year are even close to recruiting from last year we will have substantially increased the overall size of the military. Combine that with closing a few superfluous bases in Europe to free up personnel and we ought to be able to reduce reliance on national guard and reservists substantially.

One thing that amused me about growpeace's earlier article is tha the complained that we were so desperate that we had forced 100 senior citizens to serve. Well, the truth is that most of those senior citizens were in the 55-60 year old range - not exactly doddering oldsters - and they were all extremely specialized officers, particularly doctors and none of them were sent anywhere near the front lines. In addition, they weren't forced to serve. They were offered the opportunity to serve and every single one of them volunteered. So it's nothing like the forcing of seniors to go fight that was described. IMO we should give more retirees this opportunity. They have less to tie them down, are usually very highly skilled, and their age is not as much of an issue as it was even 20 years ago. There are more than a few 60 year old retired marines who could still kick some ass in combat - and they could certainly still do some mean paperwork and wound stitching at that age. And unlike a lot of younger folks like growpeace they tend to understand that for the country to survive we have to be willing to actually shoulder some of the burdens like fighting for it.

So, basically, growpeace is manufacturing a crisis that doesn't exist for his own ends and it's hard to take him seriously when his facts are wrong and his conclusions are so farfetched.

Dave

Growpeace, if you keep this up I'm investing in Alcoa stock, quickly.

With the demand for tinfoil hats you are generating surely the stock will go thru the roof.

Take this to the bank from a 20 year Navy vet. One who started his career just after the all volunter military started.

The mostly conscripted Navy members (about 90% at that time) I dealt with the first 5 years were the worse bunch of malcontents, drug addicts and all round a**holes you can possibly imagine.
As you may be able to guess, they didn't want to be there.

The voluntary military changed that. And those that remember that time will never, I repeat, never allow a draft to be started unless nuc weapons start flying around the globe at some point in the future.

One question for you Growpeace. The so-called backdoor draft was also utilized in the 1991 Gulf War. A war conducted with a much, much larger military than the present one.

So were you also running around with your foilhat then as you are now?

Or is it a recent edition to your wardrobe?

I keep hearing that the public is against the draft and that they just wouldn't stand for it. Yeah, right! One more "terrorist" attck on American soil will be enough to sway public opinion. The public may not like it but they will agree to it.

Well another "Chicken Little." I've said it before and I'll say it again--don't be naive enough to assume that it is NOT in someone's political/financial interest to have U.S. troops throughout the Middle East for any particular reason. The greed and immorality of those in power knows no bounds, and having our guys control the oil supply has always been their ultimate goal. If you don't believe me, check out Greg Palast's site for documented proof from no less than the BBC...

so as for it benefiting no one, well that's not entirely true. these guys are willing to try anything. I wouldn't put it past them to do it regardless of the political fallout. the current situation cannot continue, the numbers are just not there.

The Center for American Progress is holding a forum next week on this subject, it is on a lot of people's minds here in DC, and deserves some serious thought.

And while we're at it, any thoughts on drafting women?

>>So were you also running around with your foilhat then as you are now?<<

I don't think he was old enough to wear a tin hat during the first gulf war unless he was issued one by his parents.

>>and having our guys control the oil supply has always been their ultimate goal. If you don't believe me, check out Greg Palast's site for documented proof from no less than the BBC<<

That's true, when it comes to news there isn't much that's less accurate than the BBC. Oh wait, Greg Palast is less accurate, because he supplements his innacurate reporting with outright partisan lies.

As for the control of the oil supply, that's a worn out leftist claim which I have to debunk almost every day, even though the truth about it is obvious. The big oil companies are American. No matter who controls the oil, they get to transport and process and sell it. This would have been easier if we'd kept Saddam in power. Right now complete control of the Iraqi oil is and is going to stay in the hands of Iraqis. But of course they're going to sell it to those same big oil companies. This is not a conspiracy, this is because they're the ones who buy oil. So companies which are US dominated will profit from the oil. Just like they do from all the other oil in the world. Man, I should just make a Macro of this.

>>And while we're at it, any thoughts on drafting women?<<

Well, since there will never be a draft, there will never be a draft of women either.

Dave

What amuses me about these two anti-draft threads is the way that 'growpeace' brought his own supporters with him from his little cult. All of a sudden right after he posts a bunch of yes-men/women who've never been seen here before start responding to support him. Rather amusing. Rather like Hitler planting supporters in the audiences in the beerhalls when he made speeches.

Dave

I agree this is a serious subject and it deserves serious, careful consideration. On some of these posts it has gotten very little of either. *eyeroll*

I realize a draft could occur. I have seen analysts use the published numbers to come to that conclusion. I have heard analysts use those same numbers and come to a different conclusion.

I have yet to see what I consider to be credible evidence that a draft is inevitable. That does not mean we should not have this conversation. But I am not going to get into a tizz as if the sky has already started to fall. I do not see where it has.

What I have seen is what *I* would consider a lot of scare tactics from opponents of the administration's policy (I am not going to use the term anti-war because I like to believe we are all anti-war).

Good comments DJR and Dave. I agree.

No offense to you Growpeace, but you strike me as someone who is young. Young people can get very passionate and very convinced about things, and whatever you are focused on can become a bit of an obsession. Been there, done that, so I don't fault you for your passion.

I just think you are wasting yourself on a silly cause. You are wasting your brainpower, your time, your energy, and all your talents for something that is, at best, a one in one million chance.

Actually, I probably have a much better chance of winning the Maryland Lottery.

Thanks,

David

It would have been better if you'd stuck with one thread instead of starting another one which basically repeats the first.

On senior citizens, I happen to personally know a National Guard soldier who turned 60 while serving in Iraq.

They haven't exactly been keeping him in the rear echelons, either. From what I hear, they've been using him as a convoy truck driver, one of the jobs most likely to draw attacks from the insurgent forces.

This might make one wonder about the factual accuracy of Dave's other claims.

As for the draft, it would not surprise me to see one go into effect, much as I'd like to believe Eric's reasoning on the subject. Our populace is easy to distract with big media coverage of small events with very little impact on our everyday lives, like the Michael Jackson trial.

The current administration has a consistent history of overconfidence in its ability to do whatever it feels like doing. If they decide a draft is a good idea for whatever reason, they are not likely to worry too much about the unpopularity of it.

The Individual Ready Reserves is not only senior citizens, anyone who has served less than eight years of an enlistment is a member. They are just not required to drill with a unit like a member of a reserve unit would. It's in the contract when they enlist, and empahsized upon ending active duty.

The Guard soldier I know was regularly attending National Guard drills before his unit was called up and sent to Iraq.

I don't know how many years of active enlistment he has served, but he also served at least one full tour of active duty in Vietnam.

As he does not fit the description you posted, SFC Ski, he probably is not one of the Individual Ready Reserves.

In that case, no.
Someone else brought up Ready Reserves in one of these two threads, thought I'd address it. Yes there are more than a few Nam vets still on duty, both active and activated Reserve/ARNG, one of my colleagues is in that category. I lot of soldiers might do 20 years active and another 10 Reserve for a variety of reasons.

Stop worrying and debating about whether or not a draft is coming. Such arguments are distractions - exercises in futile speculation. Better to take action to prepare yourselves just in case. Decide whether or not you are willing to kill on command, and, if not, put together a concientious objector file now.

Get info at www.objector.org

That's right, because nothing is worth fighting for.

Again with the deliberate misrepresentations and the willful misunderstandings by Growpeace. And the name calling! "Koolaid drinkers." Tsk tsk.

Stop-loss and the IRR are clearly explained to recruits. IRR is something you can sign up for independent of your service. Given that some IRR were activated for the first Gulf War, it was a long-shot gamble but not a surprise that they'd be needed today.

I have many friends and acquaintances in the military and they all agree: they don't want conscripts. As the poster above noted, they are substandard. Most definitely far below the quality of folks in the National Guard, most of whom are securely middle class and well-educated. Figuring out how to mesh them with the all-volunteer army we have today is a headache no one wants right now. They are a motivated, results-oriented force; why screw that up?

Again, as I've already said, folks who have no concept of military planning, contingency planning, preparedness, supply, logistics, etc. don't need to inject their ignorance into serious discussions. I don't turn to a flat-earther for a cartographer, I don't turn to a creationist for a physicist, I don't turn to a spiritualist for a doctor, so why I would listen to these folks talk about the military?

If it's a case of "I don't want to die." or "I'm scared." or "I don't want my only child to die before me." just say so! That can be dealt with and discussed. Even "I was hoping to stay in college a few more years, to do more dope, get laid some more and download thousands of songs from the university's server, plus I really had a career track planned, man, and I don't want to f*ck that up, know what I mean?" is at least honest, if hopelessly selfish.

But "All killing is wrong!" is just ludicrous. Even the devoutly religious recognise concepts like self-defense and justifiable war.

Aggressive pacifism has a long and distinguished history even if it is a history of futility. Perhaps it is "ludicrus" to think it imperative that we figure out how to uphold basic human covenants including a prohibition on killing. We could invest our time and billions in developing non-violent conflict resolution techniques and declare 'war' on the causes of violence.

>>Stop worrying and debating about whether or not a draft is coming. Such arguments are distractions - exercises in futile speculation. Better to take action to prepare yourselves just in case. <<

By all means, and let's also prepare ourselves for the coming Apocalypse by going to church regularly, and let's prepare ourselves for the coming ice age by building ecodomes to live in, and let's prepare ourselves for a comet hitting the earth by digging 5 mile deep bunkers, and let's prepare for alien invasion by investing in tinfoil hat technology. Anything else we should prepare for, chicken little?

>>Decide whether or not you are willing to kill on command, and, if not, put together a concientious objector file now.<<

No problem. I'm ready to kill on command. Just like a trained dog.

Dave

>>Aggressive pacifism<<

Ah, so you're passive-aggressive? that explains much.

>> has a long and distinguished history even if it is a history of futility. <<

So, your efforts are made noble by the fact that virtually no one agrees with you and most people laugh at you? Perhaps you should consider that maybe they have a point.

>>Perhaps it is "ludicrus" to think it imperative that we figure out how to uphold basic human covenants including a prohibition on killing. <<

Last I checked the basic human covenant was against murder, not killing. Are you aware there's a difference?

>>We could invest our time and billions in developing non-violent conflict resolution techniques and declare 'war' on the causes of violence.<<

Maybe we could build a giant fairycake and invite everyone to a party?

Dave

Sorry, guys near the top, but you're dead wrong (as usual). The poster of the above material is 42 years old, a woman, and has lived through more than her share of chicken hawks like you making this world such a crappy place to live in. I know this beacuse she is my mother. Woopsy. Looks like someone forgot to get their facts straight (again). Dave, whoever you are, go back to your little military games, pop a few prozac and chill out. If you're so sure the draft isn't coming back, why don't you shove off and leave this place free for people who actually have something intelligent to say, instead of the same old rhetoric. If you're so gung ho for the military, why don't you go join them and leave us in peace? I'm willing to bet you'd be a little less cocky and annoying after you've seen combat. People like you make me laugh. I only have one word to describe you: PATHETIC
Peace,
Steve Sheen

Anna Lisa wrote: "Aggressive pacifism has a long and distinguished history even if it is a history of futility."

And there you go. The futile gesture is not a priori noble. The belief that it is comes from Romanticism, the realm of the swoony adolescent who is shocked & angry that the world is not a neat, Platonic ideal of principles but a messy, conflicted hubbub of imperfect people. The cleanliness and disengagement of idealism is preferred because it eliminates the need to make real-world consequential decisions that have ugly aftermaths requiring hands-on engagement.

People like the Friends Society (Quakers), who have a long history of pacifism and the principled reasoning that supports it, I can respect because they are willing to accept the societal consequences that flow from their decisions. But folks like Growpeace, who want to claim the mantle but not bear the weight of it, I don't.

>>What amuses me about these two anti-draft threads is the way that 'growpeace' brought his own supporters with him from his little cult. All of a sudden right after he posts a bunch of yes-men/women who've never been seen here before start responding to support him. Rather amusing. Rather like Hitler planting supporters in the audiences in the beerhalls when he made speeches.<<

Speaking of tinfoil hats, I think Dave here might need one. He seems to be getting paranoid. You know what's funny? How right after we post here, a bunch of chicken hawks like you start posting right-wing propaganda here. Rather like how the U.S. planted a few flower throwing Iraqis in the crowds so they could show it to viewers at home and avoid the issue of a peaceful population, suddenly converted to people who would like to see the U.S. and everyone in it dead. And yet people like you say that we're over there to make America "safe". Oh yes, I feel much safer now.

>>No problem. I'm ready to kill on command. Just like a trained dog.<<

Ahhh. This would explain a lot. I can just picture Dave sitting in his chair, sweating feverishly as he types utter drivel. If you're so ready to kill, go start murdering, yes, MURDERING, Iraqis, and leave us in peace.
Peace,
Steve Sheen

One man's killing is another man's murder. We'll just leave it up to self proclaimed elitist pigs to decide which is which.

flame on Dave

AAHHHHHHHHLLLLLLLRRRRighty then!

I've enjoyed this little foray into repetitious dogma, garbled phrasing, and a final degeneration into name calling.

What I want to know is: How many times a week are you going to warn us that a draft is coming?

The pacifist movement does not seek nobility. Rather, it seeks practical methods to stop the killing. Establishing concientious objector status and advising others to do the same are legal methods that can be employed. Shunning war profiteers by boycotting their goods is another. Finding jobs other than in weapons factories is another.

Mike Hollihan is absolutely correct. If you follow a pacifist road you must be ready for the consequences both personally and for society in general. But the same is true if you choose to accept the violence.

Bennett:

elitistpig.com is Dave's site. Check it out.

And don't forget that they have no sense of humor either - since I'm an egalitarian populist I call my blog the Elitist Pig. Get it? Never mind.

Anna Lisa said:

>>The pacifist movement does not seek nobility. Rather, it seeks practical methods to stop the killing. Establishing concientious objector status and advising others to do the same are legal methods that can be employed. Shunning war profiteers by boycotting their goods is another. Finding jobs other than in weapons factories is another.<<

Well that's all fine. If you'd come on here talking about pacifism and ways to promote it I doubt you'd have taken much flack. That's a reasonable personal choice and one I doubt anyone here would not support.

It's the uninformed position on the never-to-happen draft that got you into trouble.

Dave

There is no draft right now. Don't waste time worrying about it. But there is mandatory registration with the selective service, and there are lots of armed Americans in Iraq. Look for practical ways to stop the killing. growpeace.org and others like them will watch your backs for signs of a draft. Don't discourage the young activists.

I'm all for young activists, but I sure wish they'd direct their efforts at something constructive. Time and resources are too precious to waste. They could even focus on getting rid of the SSS registration - it's unnecessary and they might be able to make some progress on that issue, rather than setting up straw men like the nonexistent draft to go after pointlessly.

Dave

is the public really against a draft?
I bet it would be popular in the dumber areas of the country (the south, the farm states)
that's why Hagel etc get re-elected despite being pro-draft

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen posted, rural areas and the South are two of the biggest areas where volunteers come from, why the hell would htey want a draft when they can just volunteer.

>>And don't forget that they have no sense of humor either - since I'm an egalitarian populist I call my blog the Elitist Pig. Get it? Never mind.<<
Hmmmm. Couldn't be a Freudian slip, could it? Never mind. But I think the name of Dave "FBI plant" Nalle's blog says it all in his case, intentionally or not.
Peace,
Steve Sheen

SFC ski "That's right, because nothing is worth fighting for."

Ah-huh, and we all hope you never have to protect your wife and children from some nut that has broken into your house. Honestly we all do!

Note to "Anna Lisa" Who obviously is in receipt of an Email from Growpeace
enlisting support in these two threads. Anna Lisa said:

"We could invest our time and billions in developing non-violent conflict resolution techniques and declare 'war' on the causes of violence."

Sorry Anna, Maxwell Smart has already been there and done that. It is called the "Nude Bomb," and its development makes about as much sense as the pollyanna nonesense you are spewing.

Steve Sheen Isn't that cute sticking up for mama. And BTW care to post any creditable source that claimed this bit of nonsense: U.S. planted a few flower throwing Iraqis in the crowds so they could show it to viewers at home

But never fear Growpeace, I'm here to help, REALLY!

In your mighty efforts to teach our precious teens to embrace CO status you might not want to advise them to cross the border into Canada as an option.

U.S. ARMY DESERTER LOSES REFUGEE BID

TORONTO -- An American soldier who fled the U.S. military because he believed the invasion of Iraq was criminal has lost his bid for refugee status in Canada in a case closely watched on both sides of the border.

In a written ruling released yesterday, the Immigration and Refugee Board said Jeremy Hinzman, 26, had not made a convincing argument that he faced persecution in the United States.

The board also denied asylum for Hinzman's wife and pre-school son.

"Removal to the U.S. would not subject them personally to a risk to their lives or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment," the board decided.

BTW, Dave, what is with your latest blog entry? With people like you shamelessly using their blog's for product promotion, maybe I should run out and buy stock in Rada.

And on an earlier entry you made about Vietnam:
>>So there's the difference. We didn't need to fight Vietnam, but chose to do it out of a mistaken policy of defending ourselves. That makes the situation in Iraq look a lot like Vietnam superficially, but while our fears about communist expansion may have been exaggerated, our fear of terrorism and radical Islam is not.>>

I doubt the Islam nation would hate us so much had we not spent a great amount of time trying to bomb them into small pieces. I think, frankly, that if someone invaded YOUR homeland on a false pretext, laid waste to your services, and then proceded to kill a few of YOUR loved ones, you'd also be a bit bitter, Dave. Gimme a break.
Peace,
Steve Sheen

>>And one final request of Steve, Growpeace and Anna. If the three of you had the chance to lecture a group, lets say 50 or so, jihadist cut throats that enjoy filming themselves sliting the throats of innocent people what would you say to them?

What words of wisdom could you possibly share that would change them into flowers in the hair, peace loving citizens of the world?<<

Frankly, at this point, I'm not sure there's much we can do. The U.S. does seem to have eliminated all possible chance of reconciliation. But continuing our senseless war is not helping matters at all. Do you really believe we could ever wipe all of the Jihadists out? All we are doing is inflaming them more. I'll say this: we all better hope they never get their hands on nuclear technology (for real, not like the non-existent nukes Saddam was supposedly developing), because, given this country's pathetic intelligence, they'd have gotten their revenge way before we ever got wind of it. In fact, the first wind we'd get would probably be fallout-laden.
Peace,
Steve Sheen

Yep, the Middle East didn't exist until 2001, and when we stumbled across it, we promptly bombed it, that's why they hate us.

Steve "Dave, are you being payed by the government to spout republican propaganda or something? Have you forgotten that we are in Iraq only because Bush lied to the American people about Saddam having WMD's? Have you forgotten that it is not just Americans who are being killed over there? Over 900,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, for no reason at all."

Please give us your definition of "lie." And isn't ironic you end this post with some nonsense about reading and getting facts straight.
Practice what you preach the 900,000 BS was debunked way back in October last year.
Geesh even the leftist supporting New York Times has stopped useing the 900,000 BS.

"frankly, that if someone invaded YOUR homeland on a false pretext, " Obviously you are refering to WMD's.
Question, have you ever read the authorization passed by congress? Are you aware in addition to WMD's there were 22 other reasons that were spelled out concerning Iraq? Not the least of which were repeated violations of the ceasefire agreement Saddam signed in 1991. That reason alone gave the US, UN and Bush all the legal cover under international law to do just what he did.

One other question on WMD's, what was Saddam doing with 5 tons of
Yellow cake urainium? Oh wait I know, somewhere in your cerebral cortex is the thought that it was planted by the evil Bushies.

If I were a betting man, I would put money on Steve or his pals not addressing your post but going off on a whole other tangent.

If you're so worried about being drafted, just twist one up the night before you head to the induction center...you'll fail the piss test and they'll kick yu out of the building...end of story!

I really used to enjoy this site until the mind-numbingly caustic views of Andy Marsh and Dave Nalle became so prevalent. Every one of their posts should just end with, "nyaah nyaah ne nyaah nyaah". That Dave can say, "I'm ready to kill on command." and then lecture people to get a better grip on reality is remarkable. He'll now accuse me of having no sense of humor, or being a tree hugger or something to divert attention away from what is a very telling comment. To be willing to kill someone without a moments thought, and even be proud of it, make jokes about it, and deride other people for not having that ability, paints a picture of a twisted and brain-washed mind.

I give you an easy out for the draft and you call my views mind numbingly caustic?

Insinuating the reinstitution of the draft is one of the most mindnumbingly caustic things I've read in a while!

When are you people gonna get it. The military doesn't want conscripts!

Actually that kool-aid you simpletons are drinking should make you pop positive anyway! So don't sweat it!

Er, I'm reasonably sure that Dave's statement was sarcastic. The 'trained dog" bit was a big clue in that regard.

SFC ski you are exactly correct, no effort will be made to address anything in my last post.

The far-leftist moonbats only obsess over WMD's because it's the only thing in the entire litiny of reasons given by Congress and by Powell and Bush in speech's before the UN they can point to as being near the truth.

Of course to do even that they must overlook 5 tons of yellow cake, numerious projectiles of mustard gas (yes I know they are old. They were also "declared" destroyed), and sarin gas (also old and "declared") And a whole buttload of evidence that Saddam had every intention to start all his WMD programs after sanctions were lifted.

Oh.. and one more thing that they all seem to be OK with: Saddams 25G payments to Palestinian suicide bombers.

Here is a question for the more sane among us, look at this list:

Democrat, moonbat, leftist, peacenik, pacifist, International ANSWER members.

Can anyone point to any member of the above named group that has in the past written or spoken the words:

"consistent and flagrant violations of the 1991 ceasfire agreement"

Come on, I only ask for one out of what must be thousands of people.

Just one.


BTW Andy "just twist one up the night before you head to the induction center...you'll fail the piss test"

You could also suck a BIG FAT.... never mind, this is a family blog.

Growpeace- Liar, liar, pants on fire. More of just making shit up out of the air. Do you think that if you simply repeat the same UTTERLY unsubstantiated statements often enough, we will start to believe them? Again, everyone gets to have their own opinions, but you don't get to make up your own facts.

This kind of FAKE nonsense reflects badly on Blogcritics.

Steve the Loon Posted:

>>BTW, Dave, what is with your latest blog entry? With people like you shamelessly using their blog's for product promotion, maybe I should run out and buy stock in Rada.<<

OMG, I use my blog for reviews of consumer interest. I'm an evil shill. Rada is actually a family owned company and not publicly traded, so I can't own stock in it. I briefly considered becoming a reseller, but I just don't have the time.

>>I doubt the Islam nation would hate us so much had we not spent a great amount of time trying to bomb them into small pieces. I think, frankly, that if someone invaded YOUR homeland on a false pretext, laid waste to your services, and then proceded to kill a few of YOUR loved ones, you'd also be a bit bitter, Dave. Gimme a break.<<

Unlike you, Steve, I was born in the Middle East and lived there for many years. Plus I'm openly pro-Arab. Bet that's a shocker for you. What I'm against is opportunists who take advantage of ignorant people, lie to them and make them do themselves harm. That doesn't just describe you, it also describes the terrorists in Iraq who are bringing in poor fools from Sudan and Yemen, strapping bombs on them and telling them to go kill innocent civilians for Allah and for $10,000 to their widows and kids. Strangely I think it's bad for the Arab people to be victimized and murdered in the name of religion, and if the US can stop that I'm all for it.

Dave

Steve the Passive Aggressivist:
>>The U.S. does seem to have eliminated all possible chance of reconciliation.<<

I'd be interested to know what kind of reconciliation you can have with people who murder women and children, have their own sisters raped for dressing improperly, carry out honor murders, blow up school busses, slit the throats of jounralists on video and crash planes into buildings. Do you tell them it's all okay and bare your throat for the knife?

In most civilized countries criminals are arrested, tried and then put in jail forever for this sort of crime, but you think we should try 'reconciliation'? So I guess that despite your pacifism all that murder is okay so long as the person doing it has dark skin and a beard? Wait, I have darker than average skin and a beard - can I murder and rape freely in your world?

Dave

Blogcritics:

Music - Books - Video - Culture - Namecalling

Marc wrote:

>>Please give us your definition of "lie." And isn't ironic you end this post with some nonsense about reading and getting facts straight.
Practice what you preach the 900,000 BS was debunked way back in October last year.
Geesh even the leftist supporting New York Times has stopped useing the 900,000 BS.<<

The number that was debunked was actually only 100,000. I think only these loons from Growpeace have ever used the extra-insane 900,000 figure.

Dave

Re comment # 41;
"If your so worried about being drafted, just twist one up the night before you head to the induction center...you'll fail the piss test and they'll kick yu out of the building... end of story!"

Here a few other techniques used by some of the more vociferous right-wing war wimps to dodge the draft during the Vietnam War...

Rush Limbaugh - student deferments until dropping out of college, and then a medical deferment, for an ingrown hair on his bummy. Limbaugh actually publicly lied in 1993 that his deferment was for a "football knee," but the truth about the pimple on Rush's rear-end was "exposed" in Paul Colford's book THE RUSH LIMBAUGH STORY, chapter 2, "Beating the Draft";

Ted Nugent - 30 days prior to his draft board physical, Nugent stopped all forms of personal hygiene. The last 10 days he ingested nothing but Pepsi and Vienna sausages, and one week before the physical he stopped using bathrooms altogether, virtually living inside pants caked with his own excrement and urine stain. Of course, this spectacle earned Nugent the deferment he so desparately coveted.

Dick Cheney - six separate student deferments and then a family deferment, due to "other priorities";

source: www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks

I sit on the draft board. When someone tells me to get ready for the draft, then I'll believe it.

It's good to know that Ted Nugent was just as crazy then as he is now, MCH.

BTW, you know that there were a lot of so called right-wingers who opposed the war in Vietnam on principle. The guys you mention might just be among them.

People who are liberals today aren't faulted for avoiding the draft, but for some reason conservatives are. But the truth is that ANY sensible person who knew what was going on in the world would have wanted to avoid the draft for Vietnam. Vietnam was a poorly conceived and executed war, and even if you believe in war as an instrument of policy that doesn't mean you have an obligation to slavishly run off an serve in a war you don't believe in.

Then, when a war you believe in comes along later, is it really fair to say that because you didn't serve in Vietnam your'e disqualified to support an entirely different kind of war fought for different purposes? Doesn't make any sense to me.

Shall we say that all of those who avoided service in Vietnam also have no right to have an opinion against the War in Iraq? That makes just about as much sense.

As for the student deferments, you know they existed for a reason, and I don't see how any sensible person can fault anyone who had a choice between Vietnam and college and went to college. It just shows good sense. I like the idea of having leaders with good sense, even if they don't have Vietnam-rea military experience. Both are valuable.

Dave

MCH - I got your draft dodger right here in my hot little hand. I did 20 years in the UNITED STATES NAVY! Dodge that asshole!

Let's not forget your hero...John Heinz Kerry. He attempted to get a deferment, couldn't get one, so he then tried to get what he believed was a nice easy job and then they changed the swiftboat mission!

That BULLSHIT chickenhawk argument is so worn out! If you're such a pacifist, move to fucking Canada!

Ah, but Andy, your service doesn't count because you were a) in the navy, which isn't a 'real' combat force and b) you weren't in Vietnam.

Believe me, MCH will find an excuse to discount everyone's opinion but his own.

Dave

Andy, I think MCH is aware of your veteran status, he was directing himself towards Dave. Throttle back, Chief, CAPS LOCK and insults don't do much for getting your point across.

Actually, Ski, MCH's last post was in direct response to Andy. He just lumps me in with all the other 'chickenhawks' because I was of military age when there were no wars to fight in and no draft or even registration for the draft. My mistake for not being born 5 years earlier or 5 years later.

Dave

Aye Aye Ski!

I'd say Dave and I must be about the same age.

I still say the chickenhawk argument is bullshit!

Andy, you called me an "asshole"(?) That's a hell of a thing for one old navy to call another old navy vet. In fact, I might even take it personal if not for already being called much worse than that before. Be careful, you're going to lose that "good natured" label that Eric gave you.

Sarge Ski got it right, Marsh, besides, you can't be that insecure that you thought I was referring to you.

Regarding the "chickenhawk argument," we're just going to have to disagree. And there are plenty of other vets who feel the same way I do, evidenced by the Veterans Against the Iraq War web site (www.vaiw.org, click on "Sound Off Board").

Re comment # 41;
"If your so worried about being drafted, just twist one up the night before you head to the induction center...you'll fail the piss test and they'll kick yu out of the building... end of story!"

This is actually very stupid advice in the current environment! If a draft becomes a reality, then draft records will exist and will likely become part of any future employment screening process. Certainly, they'll become part of any background checks.

If you show up as a drug user (even a single toke, as suggested), then you'll be barred from a whole lot of careers before you even get in the door.

I wouldn't advise it.

Wow, Dave "FBI plant" Nalle, you're really impressing me here. Too bad there's no way to check whether that's true or not. I admit, the Islam nation is not exactly the nicest group of people in the world. However, more violence won't help anything. I wish you all could stop being so abusive and ignorant and just chill out for once. I respect anyone who's been through the U.S. military's wringer, and I hope they all come home safely. But their chances go down as long as people like Dave refuse to see the light. I have better things to do than argue with you. Grow up.
Peace,
Steve Sheen

Ah, hello "MCH"

You forgot a couple.

Howard Dean who thought it more important to be a ski bum in Aspen.

And, ahemm, Bill "I didn't inhale" Clinton.

And about that "Cheney 6" For the record it was only 5. And that is 5 in the strictist sense. Two of the 5 were extensions to ones he already had.

And while on the subject I might as well bring up John "WAR HERO" Kerry.
Who never had any intentions of going to Vietnam. And only joined the navy to avoid the army and a certin place onshore in the jungles of Vietnam.

Givin all that MCH what's your point? What did it add to the discussion of possibilities of a new draft?

So Mike "If you show up as a drug user (even a single toke, as suggested), then you'll be barred from a whole lot of careers before you even get in the door.

I wouldn't advise it.

They should just "smoke a pole" as I suggested earlier. They would have the added benefit of being able to file a lawsuit for descrimination if denied a job or housing.

>>Howard Dean who thought it more important to be a ski bum in Aspen.<<

Given the choice of going to Vietnam and being a ski bum in Aspen, which would any sensible person choose? Which choice shows better decision making skill?

>>And while on the subject I might as well bring up John "WAR HERO" Kerry.
Who never had any intentions of going to Vietnam. And only joined the navy to avoid the army and a certin place onshore in the jungles of Vietnam.<<

What sweet irony that he ended up there anyway.

Dave

Looking for a thread...

Has this ol boys club decided that discussion of pacifism is for the birds and that the likes of me should seek discussion elsewhere? You seem to have overwhelmed the antiwar thread effectively.

It would be extremely unwise to do anything il or extra legal when you interact with SSS.

900,000 Iraqi dead? Claims like that do no one any good. Watch your exuberance.

Best guess numbers will have to be extrapolated from survey data in some fashion similar to the Lancet/Johns Hopkins study which came up with a excess 100,000 estimate a while back. (The study concluded that most of these civilian deaths were caused by US bombs and artillery.) While right-wing appologists consider this to be a flawed study, it is hard to imagine a fundamentally different design that would deal with officially reported and unreported civilian deaths. As I understand it, the body count sites make no attempt to go beyond officially reported deaths.

In any case, a lot of innocent non-combatant Iraqis have died. If you ask their family members if the new 'freedom' is worth their losses, what do you think they'd say?

>>Best guess numbers will have to be extrapolated from survey data in some fashion similar to the Lancet/Johns Hopkins study which came up with a excess 100,000 estimate a while back. (The study concluded that most of these civilian deaths were caused by US bombs and artillery.) While right-wing appologists consider this to be a flawed study,<<

No, everyone including the authors consider this not to be an accurate representation of civilian deaths. Have you actually READ the study? No, of course not. I have. It doesn't even estimate 100,000 deaths. What it comes up with is that the deaths are somewhere between 4,000 and 193,000. some clever person just averaged those numbers to come up with 100,000, but there's no actual reason why an average is any more accurate than the high or low number in that range. In addition, the calculation is based on the number of civilian deaths with no consideration of cause, so a portion of those deaths are almost certainly from natural causes. The study is a joke, and has been refuted in the Lancet itself and minimized repeatedly by the people who did the study as well.

>> it is hard to imagine a fundamentally different design that would deal with officially reported and unreported civilian deaths. <<

Then you lack vision.

>>As I understand it, the body count sites make no attempt to go beyond officially reported deaths.<<

Actually, Iraqbodycount.com goes quite a bit beyond that to factor in reports of the missing and to inflate their numbers by counting all violent deaths as part of the civilian casualties, regardless of cause. And even with that methodology they can't get more than 30K deaths.

>>In any case, a lot of innocent non-combatant Iraqis have died. If you ask their family members if the new 'freedom' is worth their losses, what do you think they'd say?<<

Why don't you ask some Iraqis. Try checking out freeiraqi.com or iraqthemodel.com

Dave

Dear Dave...

i will be more than happy to look at some "numbers" once this is all over..and the Iraqui's themselves can go over it all a bit more Objectively..or some ooutside agency with no axe to grind can go over it all

until then, everyone seem to have their own dog in the fight..and truly accurate Facts are difficult to come by

Anna Lisa...don't you DARE go away...EVERY voice fo Reason, no matter which "side" they are on..is NEEDED for these types of discussions..

otherwise only the Extremests and those with vested and selfish Interests get heard..

and that type of shyte is what gets U.S. into problems like this in the first place..

take it all with a grain fo salt and a healthy dose of Skepticism, kiddies..

always look at the Motives behind the slant..

get the Facts...regardless of anything else...i tend to Trust not in Idealogues form either side...but i'm funny like that

but ALWAYS keep honest,earnest Discussion flowing...it is the River of Life to those of Reason..

nuff said?

Excelsior!

>>Anna Lisa...don't you DARE go away...EVERY voice fo Reason, no matter which "side" they are on..is NEEDED for these types of discussions..<<

Admirable sentiment, Gonzo - but I don't think you read closely enough. The growpeacers aren't voices of reason, they're nutty extremists with a very loose grip on reality.

Dave

heh..oh...i read closely...

i'm a "cereal" kind of guy..

i appreciate the "fruits"..the "nuts" AND the "flakes"

Excelsior!

I say start a draft. Why not? Way to many people in this country. Lets give the illegals a chance to earn citizenship by serving in the armed forces. There are 11 million of them. And don't say its racist we did the same thing with the Irish coming off the boats during the civil war.

The guys who misuse "to" and "too" need to be called to arms first.

There have already been quite a few veterans who have gained US citizenship since this conflict began.
They earn it, and probably treasure it a bit more than some born with it.

To all the people who apparently haven't the brains or the eyesight to notice my above retraction about the actual casualty number, whoopsy-daisy. I made a typo. Funny, though, how Dave "FBI plant" Nalle and others seem to latch onto it, being completely devoid of any other intelligent point to bring up (although I've seen plenty of non-intelligent ones by them.)

>>In any case, a lot of innocent non-combatant Iraqis have died. If you ask their family members if the new 'freedom' is worth their losses, what do you think they'd say?<<

Thank you for bringing up an intelligent point for once, rather than the usual drivel I've seen here. This board needs more people like you (IE with brains and the ability to actually use them)
Peace,
Steve

Anna Lisa said:
>>As I understand it, the body count sites make no attempt to go beyond officially reported deaths.<<

Dave responded:
Actually, Iraqbodycount.com goes quite a bit beyond that to factor in reports of the missing and to inflate their numbers by counting all violent deaths as part of the civilian casualties, regardless of cause. And even with that methodology they can't get more than 30K deaths.

From Iraqbodycount.com:

"Casualty figures are derived solely from a comprehensive survey of online media reports."

"Iraq Body Count does not include casualty estimates or projections in its database. It only includes individual or cumulative deaths as directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals, morgues and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media. In other words, each entry in the Iraq Body Count data base represents deaths which have actually been recorded by appropriate witnesses - not "possible" or even "probable" deaths."

Dave, you lie. Or have I misunderstood your presentation? Why should I believe that you have read the study as you say rather than a talking point list?

I would be interested in anyone's ideas about how unreported deaths could be counted.

How did "Draft vs. No Draft" become "Iraq War vs. No Iraq War"? These are separate topics, no?

All we want(the majority of the respondants to this post), are clear and believable posts, backed up by real data or believable references.

No one is anti-discussion, but we ARE very anti-propaganda! I am probably more in line with GrowPeace's take on the Iraq conflict and GWB, but I'm not willing to stand on their side of the room in a debate that starts out as nonsense, and degenerates from there.

If you want to make an impact on the policies and direction of our country, do your homework first, and then make your argument in a way that doesn't drive people away from your cause.

Just a suggestion...

Bennett:
The fear of the draft expressed in the original post was shouted down early on. And the CO movement was dismissed as pansey-ass nonsense. We could have gone on to debate the shoulds and shouldn'ts but didn't. We've moved into some interesting areas that might desrve their own posts, but hey

Marc wrote:
"And one final request of Steve, Growpeace and Anna. If the three of you had the chance to lecture a group, lets say 50 or so, jihadist cut throats that enjoy filming themselves sliting the throats of innocent people what would you say to them?"

Qoute Mohammed: "To overcome evil with good is good, to resist evil by evil is evil."

Would this stop anything? Of course not. We live in a time when its hard to appeal to the 'golden mean' that underlies religions.

Ana Lista: "Dave, you lie. Or have I misunderstood your presentation? Why should I believe that you have read the study as you say rather than a talking point list?"

Before you call me a liar, perhaps you should go back and read my statement and your statement. I said that they went beyond the offical reported deaths and compiled information from other source. The official civilian death count in Iraq is about 4700 based on DoD numbers. The media, hospital body counts, etc. ARE other sources. Their figure is a compiled, combined figure which draws on multiple sources to come up with a higher total than the offiicial count. That's a fact, and your quote confirms it.

Dave

Anna Lisa: "The fear of the draft expressed in the original post was shouted down early on."

Not shouted down, proven to be completely unfounded.

Anna Lisa:" And the CO movement was dismissed as pansey-ass nonsense. "

No, we all agreed that CO status was a desirable thing if you wanted to avoid fighting. There was no discussion because no one disagreed.

Anna Lisa: "We could have gone on to debate the shoulds and shouldn'ts but didn't. "

We didn't because aside from disagreeing about the war itself and the likelihood of a draft we all agree. I don't think that aside from one recent post there's been a single person on here who supports a draft.

Dave

I reread our entries as you suggested:

Anna Lisa said:
>>As I understand it, the body count sites make no attempt to go beyond officially reported deaths.<<

Dave responded:
"Actually, Iraqbodycount.com goes quite a bit beyond that to factor in reports of the missing"

A bit of spin here? You imply that the site is using questionable data to inflate its tally.

Iraqbodycount.com denies this:

"each entry in the Iraq Body Count data base represents deaths which have actually been recorded by appropriate witnesses - not "possible" or even "probable" deaths."

So let me restate: Dave, you are willing to post claims of questionable verasity to bolster your arguments and belittle others.

>>A bit of spin here? You imply that the site is using questionable data to inflate its tally.<<

I realize your reading comprehension is low, so I'll go over this again. As I clearly stated previously their method of inflating data is to count ALL violent deaths as civilian 'casualties', not just those caused by coalition soldiers. They count suicide bomb victims as war casualties caused by the coalition, for example. That roughly triples the number of real casualties.

Dave

So that readers can check it out

Here's a link to the Study estimating Iraqi deaths:
http://pdf.thelancet.com/pdfdownload?uid=llan.364.9448.primary_research.31264.1&x=x.pdf

Here's one to the discussion of the study's problems that Dave refers to:
http://pdf.thelancet.com/pdfdownload?uid=llan.365.9465.analysis_and_interpretation.32631.1&x=x.pdf

Dave: Gee - seems to me that you wrote that iraqbodycount.com went beyond reported deaths and somehow factored in reports of the missing. What were you trying to communicate?

Do we agree that the missing and unreported dead Iraqis civilians have not been counted? Can you think of a way to guestimate a number?

>>Do we agree that the missing and unreported dead Iraqis civilians have not been counted? Can you think of a way to guestimate a number?<<

I wouldn't begin to try. I'm sure the various body counts are imperfect, but inflating the number through bad methodology doesn't seem like the solution.

Dave

then you agree that under reporting also deflates the impact of the Conflict?

if so , then we might just have some ground for forming Consensus here

can we Agree that spinning numbers based on incomplete data and conjecture for the sole purpose of Propaganda hinders efforts to accurately determine the total Impact and thus, impedes progress on conflict Resolution?

or is it too much Fun to bicker over what cannot be Proven?

cuz it appears that neither "side" has enought raw data to extrapolate in an accurate fashion, and instead cherry picks to suit their own political Agenda

so , what else is new?

/sigh

Excelsior!

That sounds about right to me, Gonzo. Pretty much what I was saying.

I wouldn't begin to guess what an accurate count is, but I do know that the 100,000 claim is spurious, and that it's really not accurate to represent casualties caused by terrorists as the fault of the coalition just because they are there the way that iraqbodycount.com does. On the otherhand the pentagon figure of 4700 is clearly way too low.

My ultimate conclusion is that any civilian casualties are undesirable, but that they're a natural consequence of war and that I'm confidence that our troops do everything they can to avoid hurting innocent civilians.

Dave

Yea what gonzo said

Anna Lisa do I recall you calling someone thick headed? Or something similar?

Yet after being given the link that debunks the Lancet study in it's entirety you still insist on using a version of it to support something, God knows what.

For possible cranial penetration here it is again, read it and weep.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/

"I wouldn't begin to try. I'm sure the various body counts are imperfect, but inflating the number through bad methodology doesn't seem like the solution."

Somebody's going to have to try. It's not clear to everyone that "Shock and Awe" didn't invove violations of the Laws of War as regaurds the protection of civilian populations, and more accurate numbers will go a long way to settle the issue. Deflating the number won't help, either. It will only come across as a 'cover-up'.

Marc said:
"Anna Lisa do I recall you calling someone thick headed"

Nope, I was saying someone played fast and loose with the facts.

So we all agree that an accurate count will be hard to get. We also seem to agree that the number has a life as a political football.

>>Somebody's going to have to try. It's not clear to everyone that "Shock and Awe" didn't invove violations of the Laws of War as regaurds the protection of civilian populations,<<

Spinny spinny spin spin. How about citing these 'laws of war' for us. It's been 2 years now. Do you see any international courts investigating it. Do you mean to suggest that the US military doesn't go out of its way to avoid civilian casualties, frequently at the risk of the lives of its own soldiers?

Dave

Where the hell where you in 1978 when the "draft registration" started after the draft itself was ended in 1974? Too little FAR too late, folks?

>>Where the hell where you in 1978 when the "draft registration" started after the draft itself was ended in 1974? Too little FAR too late, folks?<<

I was organizing anti-registration protests in Washington DC, actually. Where were you?

Dave

guys, here's the bottom line to this entire discussion: some people don't believe war is ever justified (other than perhaps response to territorial invasion) and will view every aspect and ramification of war through these glasses - it's just all bad. There are no unfortunate but unavoidable consequences, "collateral damage" is an unspeakable euphemism, there are no shades. It's just all bad and anyone who wages war is a bloodthirsty warmonger.

Realizing all of this, it is rather pointless to debate specific niceties, much like debating deck chair placement on the Titanic. It is arguing past each other from the position of philosophies that have no intersection at all.

Eric - are you suggesting that this thread should end due to terminal pointlessness?

Anna Lisa, I read Eric as saying to the rest of us that folks such as yourself have an absolutist ideology not amenable to discussions of relativism. YMMV.

Mike said:
"Anna Lisa, I read Eric as saying to the rest of us that folks such as yourself have an absolutist ideology not amenable to discussions of relativism."

Just trying to be consistent.

When a young person enlists (or is drafted), is given a gun and orders, is put in a position where people are trying to shoot him, then he is faced with "an absolutist ideology not amenable to discussions of relativism." The ideology of kill or be killed, kill or lose a friend.

I, on the other hand, am free to adopt your reasonable relativist position.
War: maybe good, maybe bad. A basic reality of the 'humane condition'. Tut tut, Can't do anything about that. Tilting at windmills, how absurd.

well then I have misread your position Anna Lisa if it's, "war: maybe good, maybe bad," and I apologize

Ack, give it a rest, wouldja? :-P

I think Anna Lisa was being sarcastic, Eric.

Please read my comments about Stupid People that Support War on Growpeace

I am happy to see that some people are intelligent here and see past the great big pile of shit they have been served up on a fancy platter.

Who wins in a world gone mad for war?

What do we loose as a species?

Is there any chance for peace?

I have worked for peace most of my life and I will do so till I die. What do you work for?

Aloha, Joy

P,S. Being gay will not get you out of the coming draft and smoking cannabis will not either.

>>Admirable sentiment, Gonzo - but I don't think you read closely enough. The growpeacers aren't voices of reason, they're nutty extremists with a very loose grip on reality.<<

Hmmm. Dave "FBI plant" Nalle, just where would you get the idea that Anna Lisa is a member of GrowPeace? More paranoia? Or could we be on the verge of a new trend, that of refering to peaceworkers as "growpeacer's"? If so, bully for you. I only wish the calm, level-headed and quite intelligent Anna Lisa were a part of our group. But we are all working for the same thing, so it matters little.

By the way, Dave, do you really think people will take you seriously if you keep quoting DoD figures? Anybody with half a brain knows that most of what comes out of today's administration is a steaming load of crap. QED, some part of your brain must be missing or at least offline.

>>Spinny spinny spin spin. How about citing these 'laws of war' for us. It's been 2 years now. Do you see any international courts investigating it. Do you mean to suggest that the US military doesn't go out of its way to avoid civilian casualties, frequently at the risk of the lives of its own soldiers?<<

Nah, if the civilians run fast enough, our soldiers usually won't just gun them down like they did in Vietnam. The way I understand it, it's mainly indiscriminate things like plane, artillery and battery firing that kill the majority of civilians. But if you're an "insurgent", better watch out! The soldiers won't kill you, they just want to have a bit of fun!
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/powabuse.html

>>We didn't because aside from disagreeing about the war itself and the likelihood of a draft we all agree. I don't think that aside from one recent post there's been a single person on here who supports a draft.<<

Except you, "FBI plant". Trying to keep people uninformed about the draft when it's on it's way, and even going so far as to spread disinformation that the draft is never coming back and anyone who says it might be is automatically a paranoid delusional, is, in my book, supporting the draft. Why? Because for every person you convince that there's no chance the draft will come back, that's another person who might get drafted when it does, and that's just what the government wants: uninformed people to use as cannon fodder.
Peace,
Steve Sheen

as for the whole "laws of war" comment...

funny that just beofore military Operations began in Iraq the President opted out of the World Court's jurisdiction...

funny just who has "prosecuted" the Investigation of prisoner abuse at Abu Grahib as well as Guantanamo...

funny who is "investigating" the overcharging of our Military by the civilian contractors (*cough* Haliburton *cough)

funny that there is currently NO investigation into the GAO's assertations that 9 BILLION dollars in OUR tax money has just gone missing

and so on and so forth...

me?...Jester that i am...even i ain't laughing

Excelsior!

Steve - unlike you I've stood and marched on the front lines of the fight against draft registration, had the FBI tail me and keep a file on me, and even helped hide registration resisters while they were filing suit against the government over the implementation of registration. So when you've actually done something USEFUL rather than just trying to set up a never-to-happen draft as a straw man come and talk to me. Until then as far as I'm concerned you're not qualified.

Ack, I think I just used the chickenhawk argument against Steve. Ignore that last part. Rant on freely in your traditional uninformed way.

Dave

heh...busted Dave...
Dave sez...
*Ack, I think I just used the chickenhawk argument against Steve.*

hoisted by yer own petard...

but ya did get a smile outta me..

/golfclap

Excelsior!

Dave - Was it 9/11 (times of war, and all that)that flipped you from a protector of the individual, to ...

Got any tactical notions to pass on from your experiences? Perhaps some contacts for people interested in registration resistance?

>>Dave - Was it 9/11 (times of war, and all that)that flipped you from a protector of the individual, to ... <<

I haven't been flipped. Read my articles on blogcritics - you'll find that individual rights is still my first priority. But it's also protecting the individual to protect him from opportunistic political predators, is it not? At least to the extent that informing people with the truth is protecting them.

>>Got any tactical notions to pass on from your experiences? Perhaps some contacts for people interested in registration resistance?<<

Frankly, our efforts totally sucked - typical Libertarian Party ineffectiveness. We had a small march down Pennsylvania avenue and picketed a post office and wrote a bunch of articles and then tried to assist three guys who were 'resisting' the registration - not that anyone really seemed to care. But the FBI did tail us and keep records on us. And our offices did burn down, though the building was old and the wiring sucked, so conspiracy theories didn't have much basis. And then we ran out of money and it looked like a good time for me to head to grad school.

What I'd do - and maybe I'll at least do my part writing about it - is take all these statements from the administration and the military about how there's never going to be a draft, and make them put their money where their mouths are. Start a write in campaign with a letter or a petition that includes all these quotes about how a draft is unnecessary and obsolete. Make it sound really positive about the all-volunteer army with nothing that would tip your hand and make them suspect you're an 'aggressive pacifist' as Steve Sheen puts it - and then send it to the member of the Joint Chiefs and the president and all the representatives. Ask them why, if we don't need a draft, we have draft registration? Maybe figure out how much money and paperwork we're wasting on draft boards and record keeping. I bet you can get someone to introduce a bill to suspend draft registration and disband the draft boards.

If no one on capitol hill steps forward from the mass write in campaign, then write a personal letter to Congressman Ron Paul and lay out your reasoning and ask him to introduce a bill to end registration. It would be even better if you got a legislative attorney to write up a bill for you that you could send on to him. I haven't checked - he may have introduced a bill like this before. If you make an argument that's at all decent I'm pretty sure Ron Paul will introduce the legislation for you even if it's only symbolic.

The problem with this campaign, of course, is that basically no one gives a rats ass about draft registration. Since it's not being used for a draft it has no impact at all on peoples day to day lives so they never think about it or what it potentially means. It's not a sexy issue. The upside of this is that someone like Ron Paul might be able to sneak an anti-registration bill through Congress without anyone noticing. The downside is that if people in Congress actually notice it they'll vote against it reflexively. Plus it will presumably have to go to the Armed Forces committee before going to the full house and they're not likely to be terribly supportive.

That's all I've got.

Dave

Dave - now yer cookin'

So basically your "I was part of the anti-registration movement" boils down to one week, maybe, of ineffectiveness and drinking.

Oh yeah, you're solid. I imagine many of your claims end up that way, as I demonstrated yesterday.

>>you'll find that individual rights is still my first priority. But it's also protecting the individual to protect him from opportunistic political predators, is it not? At least to the extent that informing people with the truth is protecting them.


That is some serious brainwash talk. "It won't hurt., Ok, but it will hurt me more than it will hurt you. You don't need anyone else. I'm all you've got."

>>So basically oyur "I was part of the anti-registration movement boils down to one week, maybe, of ineffectiveness and drinking.<<

Actually, I worked with SLS and then the LP for about 3 years as a volunteer and then for a year as a paid employee, and draft registration resistence was one of the issues we worked on among others. Then as now I don't drink. And I wasn't running the show, just doing what I was told, so I take only limited responsibility for the ineffectiveness. All-told our work on registration resistence lasted 3 or 4 months. I'd have worked on it longer if there had been a need, but by that point the momentum was gone and what little could be accomplished had been. I don't know how old you were then or how much you remember, but the whole draft registration issue got brushed under the rug in the furor over the hostage crisis in Iran.

Dave

Might I add, Temple - nice personal attack, accusing me of being a drunk - I expect better from someone who's an editor here on bc.

Dave

I drink. I'm not a drunk. Don't be a dope.

So you pursued three years of ineffectiveness? How long have you been at BC now?

>>So you pursued three years of ineffectiveness? How long have you been at BC now?<<

Oh no, my ineffective political career has been WAY more than three years. Counting my time with Al Gore back in the late 70s, going through my campaign for State Rep in 2002 I'd say I was actively politically ineffective for at least 24 years.

Thankfully I'm now getting over it.

Dave

>>Steve - unlike you I've stood and marched on the front lines of the fight against draft registration, had the FBI tail me and keep a file on me, and even helped hide registration resisters while they were filing suit against the government over the implementation of registration.<<

>>Oh no, my ineffective political career has been WAY more than three years. Counting my time with Al Gore back in the late 70s, going through my campaign for State Rep in 2002 I'd say I was actively politically ineffective for at least 24 years.<<

Wow, Dave, that's really impressive. Too bad there's no way to check your story. So basically, we've got a guy who spouts right-wing propaganda, yet claims to have helped with the anti-draft movement back during Vietnam, campaigned for State Rep, done something with Al Gore, and yet was born in the Middle East, and (according to your latest blog entry) currently resides in France.

You'll have to excuse me if I make the following comment: horseshit. Not exactly the most believable background, Dave, even if there was any proof of it whatsoever. Maybe the FBI should have given you a better one. People might be more inclined to believe you then.

BTW, I noticed that you have changed your blog's name from The Elitist Pig to DIABLOG since I posted my comment about it's title representing a possible Freudian Slip on your part. I guess I hit the nail on the head, eh? Why the name change?

>>you'll find that individual rights is still my first priority. But it's also protecting the individual to protect him from opportunistic political predators, is it not?<<

Indeed, "FBI plant". You are so preotective you have to protect people TO peotect them, huh? Ever think that maybe people don't want your damn protection and that you should maybe just shut up? Give it some thought. And I'd appreciate if you could address the points I have brought up, rather than looping off into some ridiculous tangent that's completely unrelated, as you are wont to do.

>>make them suspect you're an 'aggressive pacifist' as Steve Sheen puts it<<

Actually, if you'll look though my posts, I never once said that. But I guess I should be coming to expect incorrect information from you.
Peace,
Steve Sheen

whoops, looks like I messed up on your name change, "FBI plant". Sorry about that. But you do seem to have changed your link so it brings up your blog in a diablog frame, with no mention of your previous title. You should probably change your link back; or don't you want people to see the name of your blog?
Peace,
Steve Sheen

Growpeace a few words on your comment #100.

"Who wins in a world gone mad for war?"

WOW, the whole world, I didn't know. Was it in the papers.

Just using the UN as a gage, with it's 191 members, I suspect your are being more than a little overwraught with that statement. How many on that 191 are "at war?" Not many, 10-12% at best.

"I have worked for peace most of my life and I will do so till I die. What do you work for?"

Hey have at it, but considering man has been in conflict with each other since the days of "honeymoon by club" you may as well go push a chain up Mt Everest.
It may be an easier task.

A piece of advice. If you truly desire to work for world peace you need to drop the overblown rhetoric, your reliance on published article that have long since been found to be less the true.

And finally... you need to stop calling people that disagree with you as something other than human. What you say you have never done that?

I followed your link in comment #100. Question why is it when you make a referance to those that oppose you in this and other threads as "people?"
Why the scare quotes? Do you mean to say we are something less than human? Or just less human than you are? Pretty dammed childish I would say and not the best way to promote peace, here or in the world.

I also challenge you to back this statement up found over there.

"Yes, Bush lied about Iraq's WMDs. He used fraudulent and manufactured evidence to support those lies.

What were the lies and what was manufactured?

And also this from the above comment.

P,S. Being gay will not get you out of the coming draft and smoking cannabis will not either.

Show us the proof. Come on, somewhere in all the resources you use to indoctrinate yourself with your peaceful coexsistence mantra there must be proof of that statement.

Show it to us "people."

Dave, et al - sorry that it took so long to get back on this

You said: Spinny spinny spin spin. How about citing these 'laws of war' for us

Here's a link to a report by Amnesty International that reviews
Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, relating
to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I):

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/kosovo/docs/nato_all.pdf

Of course, the US is one of the few countries that have not signed the protocol; so another question is what the US military code has to say about protecting non-combatants and indiscriminate killing.

Hey, Mike, are you taking up "FBI plant's" standard now? Well, follow this link. It will tell you everything you ever wanted to know about the whole rotten history of George Bush. (Although if you still haven't heard about Bush's lies, you are either un-informed or just WAY behind times. Or both.)
http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm

>>Hey have at it, but considering man has been in conflict with each other since the days of "honeymoon by club" you may as well go push a chain up Mt Everest.<<

I'd probably pull a chain up Everest. Or did you mean something else?

>>Question why is it when you make a referance to those that oppose you in this and other threads as "people?"
Why the scare quotes? Do you mean to say we are something less than human? Or just less human than you are? Pretty dammed childish I would say<<

Actually, you got my interest with this one, Mike, so I went back and checked. And nowhere could I find the alleged "people" in quote marks. If you want me to take you seriously, how about a quote showing it? You want to know what's childish? Presenting incorrect information with no proof. And, of course, expecting us to take your word at face value when you can't even be bothered to use a spelling and grammar checker on your comment.

gage?
referance?
dammed?

Give us a break.
Peace,
Steve Sheen

Steve, nice way to avoid answering a question.

MCH - I guess I did call you an asshole, but it was only because I thought you were calling me a draft dodger. I apologize.

I missed the draft by a couple of years, but my number would never have been called anyway. You can look in my senior year book. I knew then that I was going in the navy.

>>Wow, Dave, that's really impressive. Too bad there's no way to check your story. <<

Why wouldn't there be a way to check my story? You can go to the Library of Congress and check out issues of Liberty magazine which I edited for the LP in 1981 and 1982 - they have my name in them under editor. You can also find issues of What's Next magazine which I edited for Al Gore's Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future in 1979. You can check on my 2002 state rep campaign by just doing a search on google.

>>So basically, we've got a guy who spouts right-wing propaganda,<<

Right wing? What gives you that idea? Are people who prefer truth over lies automatically right wing to you?

>> yet claims to have helped with the anti-draft movement back during Vietnam, <<

No, I didn't claim that. I campaigned against draft registration in the early 80s. I'm not old enough to have campaigned against the draft itself.

>>campaigned for State Rep, done something with Al Gore, and yet was born in the Middle East,<<

Why is any of this improbable? I don't understand how you think there's anything to be gained in disputing my documented personal biography.

>> and (according to your latest blog entry) currently resides in France.<<

Did you even READ that article? I don't live in France. I've been there and am planning a vacation there next year, but I never claimed to live there. If you read my bio as you seem to think you have, you'd know that I live just outside Austin Texas.

>>You'll have to excuse me if I make the following comment: horseshit. Not exactly the most believable background, Dave, even if there was any proof of it whatsoever. Maybe the FBI should have given you a better one. People might be more inclined to believe you then.<<

What kind of weird, isolated world did you grow up in? There are lots of people with backgrounds like mine - including my wife and a lot of the folks I went to high school with. Maybe your isolated background and extreme youth explain some of your confusion.

>>BTW, I noticed that you have changed your blog's name from The Elitist Pig to DIABLOG since I posted my comment about it's title representing a possible Freudian Slip on your part. I guess I hit the nail on the head, eh? Why the name change?<<

No, dumbass. I've got at least 8 different URLs for my blog.

Try technobarbarian.com, psychopundit,com, torchofliberty.com, freenation.us, diablog,us, elitistpig.com, commonsenseaustin.com, wakeupzombies.com - they all take you to the same basic place and they've all been registered for various periods of time up to a couple of years.

Dave

Glad you saw fit to provide us with some evidence to back up your claims, Dave. I'd do the same, but you understand, I'd rather not have the FBI building a file on me. Oh yes. Earlier you said that the FBI had a file on you. Might I ask, how would you know that? I doubt they would volunteer the information. Unless, of course, you have access to it already...

You did pique my curiousity, though, so I did a search on your name and found a bio from a font site. What exactly does it mean your family did "two tours of duty" in Washington? It almost sounds like you were fighting a war with the U.S. government.

I see that you are 46, and that you have your PhD and a Master's Degree. Might I ask, then, why you are bothering yourself to flog a dead horse like the draft issue when most of your other opinions are spot on? Shouldn't a middle-aged man like yourself be spending time with your two kids, rather than attempting to convince people that there will be no draft, when there most likely will be one? Have you started their CO file? Or are you so secure in your illogical rhetoric that you don't feel the need to?

>>No, dumbass.<<
Now, now, "FBI plant". No need to lower yourself further by stooping to petty insults. Obviously you didn't notice my retraction. Someone with your impressive credentials should really try acting more mature. What would your better half think? Anyway, I still love you, even when you peronally insult me and my mother. If I were petty, like you, I might have responded in kind. After all, you'd expect that more from a teenager than a grown man, right? But I like to stay above such things. After all, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."
Peace, man.
Steve Sheen