Thinking Right

By Willx

July 10, 2006 08:06 AM | Link to this

It’s not because of the Democrats that we (1) won’t have the return of the draft and (2) that we won’t have the debate. It is because the Republicans don’t want their sons and daughters (they have other priorities, don’t they?) to die in the Bush wars.

If the draft were to re-instated, the students of this country would end the wars - not the Cindy Sheehans.

By robert

July 10, 2006 08:12 AM | Link to this

Jim your an idiot. Having an all volunteer army is what makes it the greatest fighting force in the world. Why bog it down with people that dont want to be there.

By gary Haynes

July 10, 2006 08:21 AM | Link to this

As a retired Soldier with many years experience as an Army Recruiter I tell you that a return to the draft would be a disas ter for the Army. Today, the Army has very high standards for it’s recruits, over 90% bonafide high school graduates (limited GED)when our schools at best graduate 67% of all students. Today 65% of Army recruits score in the upper half of the entrance exam, and pass a background investigation prior to enlistment. Even in tough recruiting times the Army has only slightly lowered its standards. All this would go out the window in the draft. Local draft boards would use the opportunity to get rid of their communities problems, while sparing their friends Sons from the draft. A volunteer makes a much better Soldier than someone dragged kicking and screaming off the front porch. Today over 70% of volunteers reenlist in the Army, even during awar. In the draft era only 10-15% of draftees reenlisted. While in a time of need such as a war with N. Korea or something similar we may be forced to return to the draft but it is not the way to go now. Oh by the way, from my experiences in the Army, the military most definitely leans to the right, over 75% voted for Dubya both times. The Dems are kinda anti military and the GI’s tend to view them that way. As for my Sons both are US Paratroopers with combat service and they view this issue the same as I do.

By Van

July 10, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this

It seems strange that all the posters think we have the greatest military, when just the other day they were complaining about only the poor, the dredges and those that can’t find work are in the service!

IMHO, every person upon graduating from high school, and before college, should enter federal service for at least two years. It could be the military, it could be one of a thousand opportunities. Everyone should give back something to this great nation.

By RWH

July 10, 2006 08:37 AM | Link to this

Men must register for “selective Service”, federal law. Draft….the number of soldiers within all of our Armed Forces; do we have enough? The condition of our Armed Forces, how is it; and we must look at the pay for those who are serving. Sadly, as powerful, rich and America is proud of this country, and yet, it is indeed ashame that we have our men and women with families struggling to make ends meet and some are on welfare. I would asked that all Congressmen look at the state-of-pay for soldiers and to step in because by all standards, they live below it. Then we want them to go off and fight, lose their lives and leave their children, wives behind with the small amount of insurance. Do we need a draft….and will the soldiers who are bing drafted and those who are still in?

By James

July 10, 2006 08:39 AM | Link to this

Gary Haynes,

Your numbers are a little skewed when you say 75% of the army voted for Bush. Its closer to 60%.

By kb

July 10, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this

An all volunteer army would be ideal, but if that, for some reason, would not be enough in the future, what about paying our men and women in uniform? Why don’t we stop paying all of the dead weight in society (those taking advantage of the system) and in government, and put our money where it matters most - into the defense of our freedom, our country and our very lives? This way, participation in our military would still be elective.

By John

July 10, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this

For the record let me say, if this country ever re-institutes the draft, there will be a backlash from the populous that will rival the protests we saw during Vietnam. When a government begins forcing its citizens to take up arms to foster their political agendas, the country’s most basic founding principle - FREEDOM - will be totally compromised. Remember the two Marines from “A Few Good Men”. All they did was follow orders and despite being aquitted of murder, they were still court martialed. Now, if re-instituting the draft is so important, then I suggest we round up all the felons in our prisons and make them take up arms. If they serve with honor and distinction, their sentances can be reduced or even expunged. But, to force innocent young men and women who have no desire to serve in that capacity is simply sinful and doesn’t fully represent what we truly stand for. - John (Alpharetta)

By Dave

July 10, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this

I think Republicans who see two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with a 500,000 man Army which they say won’t end for many more years and ask for more wars in Iran and North Korea don’t support our troops. We have taken reserves and made them regular Army with no retirement benefits. Many of our troops have now done three tours of a year each. I guess we want them to have no family life at all and want divorce rates which are usually much higher to continue to increase. Some of you don’t really support our troops and want to break up military families. I was a military brat and come from a family of military people. Some of you care nothing for those in the military you just want more and more from those who serve with little regard for the price they pay. I do support a draft I want some of you to have more invested in those you ask so much of.

By gary Haynes

July 10, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this

To John, As a career soldier I ask you why would you want to open up your prisons and put those folks in the military. A move like that would destroy the military. We (the Army) don’t want those types in uniforms. We have worked very hard to attract and retain highly qualified people. So why would you want to dump society’s rejects on the military. To James the numbers of military folks that voted fror Dubya were 73-75% in the last election, I got that info from an article in Army times right after election. A draft may benefit society, but it won’t benefit the Army. We don’t have time to babysit people that were dragged off the front porch kicking and screaming. The war we are fighting today requires volunteers. It’s not the kind of fight that a draftee would do us anygood in. Units train for months together as team bedore they deploy to Iraq or Afganistan. This builds temwork. A constant turn over of draftees would not help.

By Dusty

July 10, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this

Ah, Jim, the Cindy Sheehan Nation. That’s a good one. Chavez as president, Fidel as vice-prez and Cindy as Stately Secretary. Don’t tell Bookman and Tucker about this. They will be printing ballots before liberals can say “Bush did it.” Luckovich will draw Cindy as Joan of Arc killing the evil Uncle Sam.

As to the draft, I’ll wait until the military asks for it. No use to ruin a perfectly good military with people who don’t want to be there.

By Jim Wooten

July 10, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

John, a couple of paradigms on which you base your commentary are troubling. One is the assumption that political agendas, presumably partisan, as opposed to national interests, drive decisions to commit troops to combat. Any President, or any member of Congress, so motivated should surely rot in hell. I don’t find them that venal.

The other assumption is that, since killing’s involved, we can just go round up the thugs and murderers and send them to do democracy’s dirty work. That’s exactly why I think a broad cross-section of the country should be exposed to military service. If society ever grows so detatched from the experiences of men and women on the front line that we equate, even subconsciously, the acts they must perform with those of criminals, the nation is in deep trouble.

By kb

July 10, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

Dave,

I totally appreciate your position and understand your feelings. But I would say that just like on the topic of immigration, the way in which our military is being treated is not representative of what Americans believe or what they want. Washington is a runaway train elected by the people and powered predominantly by special interests. This is why we see politicians completely ignoring the concerns of the overwhelming majority of citizens.

Personally, I believe that our military men and women should earn a salary consistent with the value of risking their lives on a daily basis. And I also believe in paying veterans very generously upon their return - for life! Many of these individuals have incurred psychological damage so profound, that they cannot function day to day. These people ought to be taken care of - instead of forgotten as they are.

Unfortunately, since the majority of Americans vote knowing nothing about the candidates they choose, I think things will go on as usual - I know the politicians are hoping for that!

By deegee

July 10, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

So, the reason we can’t have a reasonable debate on the issue of a military draft is because liberal Democrats are talking about it in a cynical manner. The conservative Republicans would love to talk more about it but just can’t bring themselves to do so because the liberal Democrats are just too….what? Convincing?

By RetiredLTC

July 10, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

During my service to this country I had the opportunity to command both draftees and members of the all volunteer Army. The volunteers, bar none, were the best soldiers. There is absolutely no reason to even consider re-instituting the draft. During the Reagan years the number of active duty military personnel would have enabled us to fight wars on 3 major fronts simultaneously and handle multiple brushfire conflicts as they erupted. The unfortunate truth is that Secretary Rumsfeld has a philosophy that ensures that our forces have just enough to lose. Several key players in the present administration were the instigators of the reduction in force that put us in the predicament that we are in today. The reliance on the reserve forces and the National Guard is a direct result of these reductions in force. And in no way do I want to slight the service of these reserves and guardsmen, but the simple truth is that they are part time soldiers, never, ever intended to be relied upon as primaries in the wars of this country. Efficient national defense requires fulltime, professional soldiers that CHOOSE the profession. If this administration or any administration intends to remain on the course that they have presently set, it is imperative that we get back to an active duty military that is able to, as the “Powell Doctrine” dictates inflict the maximum amount of punishment in a minimal amount of time on the enemy and then get the hell back to the house. This reliance on the reserve and guard will prove in the long run to be unworkable. On the other hand, better choices when it comes to who and where to fight would render this argument moot. You reap what you sow. And we are definately paying a terrible price for doing things the Rumsfeld way. But by no means should this nation return to a draft. Volunteers make better soldiers and if this nation makes better choices in how to use its military, a draft should never hit the radar screen.

By time for the truth

July 10, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

THIS IS UNBELIEVABLY MORONIC!!!

Ask any senior US/UK military officer and if they’re honest and competent they’ll tell you they despise the draft. A volunteer army is the ONLY way to run an army in these modern politically correct times, except in exceptional ‘unique’ nation threatening emergencies like WW2.

The British military got rid of the draft well over fourty years ago and its a decision never regretted. The exact same reasons applied then, in peace time, as they do now with Iraq. Many of the western Eurotrash armies have the draft and their armies suffer the consequences. There is a very BIG distinction made in the services between the long haired hippy types forcibly dragged into the services and those who join the elite units filled with volunteer career soldiers. Many Eurotrash countries allow the draft to embrace national social service (Peace Corp type service) but with a longer statutory committment for those avoiding the military option.

The Israeli Army which for obvious reasons still has the draft has suffered badly from the liberalising of society, with increasing numbers of draftees emerging from the lefty dominated schools refusing to serve or picking and choosing their willingness to accept certain military deployment.

Its way too easy to just emotively suggest that the draft is a good morally stiffening experience that creates personal discipline etc. Not these days, not with the drug abuse levels as they are and all the lax self absorbed, self esteem junkies out there.

By Van

July 10, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

In 1967, i had just graduated from high school and dropped from the local 2 year college. I had just received notice that my student deferment was cancelled and I was now 1A. Knowing that if I was drafted, I would receive a rifle and pointed into the jungles of VietNam, I decided to enlist. Coming from a family that had a long history of being Marines, I enlisted in the USMC. That gave me choices. Without the draft, I probabily would not have achieved all that I have since 1967, it forced me to make a choice, to let it happen or make it happen, I decided to take control and make it happen. I also grew up in that environment, I learned discipline, responsibility and self confidence.

I scored high enough on the intelligences test to be able to pick my field, I choose avionics, for those in mid-town, that is electronics packages on aircraft. I became a fire control technician, airborne radar, on the F4-J Phantom.

As I said before, if I was drafted, my tools would consist of a rifle, a few canteens and lots of magazines, instead I learned electronics, something new back then, a very crude type of electronic computer called comparitors.

The draft did have a purpose and served it well. Those with their heads out of an orafice, enlisted and received a great education and something to build on when they were released from active duty. Those that did not have the motivation, skills or desire to make any difference in their own live, sat back and got drafted.

My hat is off to those that did get drafted, a draftee was looked down on and belittled by enlistees, but they did their job - most came back some didn’t, but that is what war is all about.

By concerned citizen

July 10, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

I like the idea of the draft, but I don’t think it works in practice. The problem we have now is that the people most likely to have an opportunity to serve in political office, i.e. the affluent and influential, are under no obligation to serve in the military and thereby have no idea the sacrifice involved. For example the hawks in the Bush administration. None of the key persons who wanted this war the most, ever served in combat. The one guy who had the most military experience, Colin Powell, and had a more calming and cautious voice, was for all intents and purposes dumped out on his a$$. Even the President, who was in the National Guard, never saw any action. The irony in that is, back then the NG were used in combat, unlike today where nearly all of them have rotated thru Iraq or Afghanistan. My point is that as fair as it would be to have a more diverse cross section of America represented in the military, we would still have the same fools deciding where and when these people would be put in harm’s way. Until the sitting President, VP, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, most of Congress, et al are combat veterans, we should not allow them to send people who aren’t voluteers into combat.

By Van

July 10, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

RetiredLTC,

If memory serves me well, Senior Bush wanted to do away with the two front war senario and Clinton did reduce the military to next to nothing.

By concerned citizen

July 10, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

That should have read “back then the NG were NOT used in comabat.” Sorry about the typo.

By concerned citizen

July 10, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

I agree with RetiredLTC, it is the policy that is the problem, not the troop levels. In the first Gulf War, we had something like 500,000 troops (not all U.S.) just to remove Saddam from Kuwait, without the intention of invading and occupying Iraq. Somehow we went from needing 500k for that smaller operation to only needing 130k to do the whole shebang. That was foolish. I realize that technology has advanced in the last 15 years, but technology is really only effective in FIGHTING a war, not OCCUPYING/SECURING a large area. Urban warfare and/or peacekeeping does, and always will, require the human element to be successful. Our military might be more capable of fighting than ever before, but we are totally unequipped for the situation that is ongoing in Iraq. I did not agree with the war in the first place, but let’s say for argument’s sake that we had 500k troops when we did invade. And let’s say that they did not totally disband the Iraqi army, only the top level Saddam loyalists. What would the situation be now? No way to say for sure, but I bet at least some of the violence would have been easier to quell and the Iraqi security forces would have been quicker to organize and re-train rather than starting from scratch.

By B.S.

July 10, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

Hmmm.

Let’s give violent felons who obviously don’t follow authority, training and access to weaponry. Then lets let them kill at will (probably civilians and other US soldiers)and then release them back into the U.S. populace. That sounds reasonable.

Has anyone seen these kids today and their helicopter parents? These kids would be lawyered up in a heartbeat, or on their way to Canada en masse. This isn’t our father’s generation.

I do agree with Jim, it would be nice if all the people who scream patriotism (Sean Hannity, Coultier, Limbaugh)would explain why they never volunteered, when they are obviously so patriotic! I guess this comes on after you’re too old to join the service.

And really, it doesn’t matter if politicians served or not. If you’re a democrat, challengers who never served will rip you anyway. Heck even McCain’s service was questioned by W’s campaign during the 2000 primary. Imagine that, a prep school cheerleader questioning and beating out a one-time POW.

That’s what military service gets you now a days.

By Janine

July 10, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

If all citizens of the USA were required to serve their country for a designated period at a designated age, our country would reap huge benefits. Among the most obvious… we would not engage in war without serious strategic planning and lengthy consideration because EVERYONE’S loved ones would be subject to service….Additioally, conflicts would be ended in a much shorter time….[At this point in WW II, we had already declared victory over Japan.]….How many members of the legislature who approved our current military engagement actually have loved ones on the front lines:? How many members of our President’s family are serving? How many loved ones of his advisors and cabinet are likely to be in a combat zone..or anywhere in the military service..!

By Janine

July 10, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

It’s just human nature to be more contemplative and more cautious when one’s own loved ones are involved.

By getalife

July 10, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

Well Jim,

They did vote for a draft and it got two yes votes. One of them was the great American patriot, Jack Murtha. As you know, he was right about Iraq and they are having their civil war. It is a waste of young American lives who enlisted after 9/11 thinking they had a leader who knew what he was doing.

BTW, while Americans are distracted and arguing with each other, here is what Bush is sneaking in.

By Rednecks - America's Al Qaeda

July 10, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

Greetings, decent people and Georgia rednecks from the Schipol Airport in Amsterdam - a nice clean modern airport, well run, organized, quiet - everything an American airport isn’t.

Foxholes in the phony war on terror? Hilarious Jim. Any idiot can ride around in an unarmored HUMVEE and get his/her butt blown to kingdom come - but I do agree with you on the draft - except gals get to go too. 18 months compulsory military service, or 30 months Peace Corp or something VISTA-like for the 20th century. Your service commitment can start any time from your 18th birthday to your 23rd, if you avoid the draft or service, you go to jail.

By kb

July 10, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this

Janine,

If your plan ever did go into place, those who are making decisions without equal consequnce would make sure that all of their loved ones serving would have desk jobs!

By Janine

July 10, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

Didn’t I read that Brent Scowcroft ,theNational Security Advisor to the senior Bush ,said they didn’t go into Iraq because he, Bush, and his other advisors were smart enough to see that an interminable civil war would follow?

By RetiredLTC

July 10, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

concerned citizen, you just nailed it. You obviously have a much greater understanding of the military than does private Van. And Janine, while your post on the surface seems logical and rational, the fact of the matter is that volunteers make better soldiers than draftees. The military is not a job training program nor is it a social laboratory. And Janine, it is naive to think that there will not always be ways for those with influence to avoid service for them and theirs. In any draft the enlisted ranks will always be filled from the same pool that it always was.

By rarringt

July 10, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this

I think we should take a hard look at compulsory service, like Israel, where every able-bodied person is required to do some form of public service. Men would primarily go to the military, and women could enlist or do “alternative” service e.g., something that doesn’t involve getting shot at.

The problem isn’t merely the wealthy and influential requiring the poor yet patriotic to cash the checks that others write (with their blood), but it’s also a more generalized notion that “other” people will solve this nation’s problems.

You see it where a person has flags all over their yard and Fox News blaring from their TV who then cringes at the notion of sending their kid to fight.

Service unites communities, and helps keep us from having “other priorities” that are not in the nation’s best interests.

By Tom

July 10, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this

Honest debate? Okay: This is another “bankrupt idea” from a bunch of “pathetic losers”. There. There’s your debate, using language as promulgated by your very own Newt “The Fornicator” Gingrich. There’s your G-damned debate. I’m not saying your underlying idea is good. Universal military service is a great thing. I’m sorry that my son won’t share the wonderful experiences that I know that military service is. BUT - Not for this crowd. Send the recruiters into the “Kook churches” and send those boys away. Then go to the “College Republican” chapters on our campuses.

By Janine

July 10, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this

kb….. There will always be some perquisites [isn’t that sometimes referred to as perks or perques, or ??/] associated with power….still, I think it would be better if everyone had to serve.

By steve

July 10, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

I was drafted in 1969, I had just received my B.S. degree and was 1A. I spend two years in the Army, one year in southeast Asia. I am a better person for it.

By Toad

July 10, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

I’m opposed to the draft because I agree with other posters that the privileged will either escape the draft or will be given desk jobs. Also, the armed forces should be comprised of persons who choose to be there. I’m not opposed to some sort of service — Peace Corps, etc. However, if there is a draft it should apply to men and women. With equal rights come equal responsiblity.

By Ty

July 10, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

Funny how you’re championing the potential diversity of the army when gays (even those who want to serve our country) aren’t even allowed in the military.

Also, irrelevant, but you come across as really mean and unhappy in all of your blogs.

By rarringt

July 10, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

I’ve had a chance to catch up and read RetiredLTC and Concerned Citizen’s post. I’m with them on this one.

By NParry

July 10, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

Raping and murdering young women and killing their families by US Soldiers - are these the people who are being honored as heroes by churches, governments, organizations and citizens? We must be ashamed of these brutes and not call them representative of our great American values.

By James

July 10, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

NParry,

I share your concern with the rapes and murders, but please do not generalize the entire military that way.

By AtlantaNative62

July 10, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

I find it truly comical that you expect any type of honest debates from the left. They don’t want debate because it exposes their “policies” and the weak (non-existent?) logic behind them. The left operates from a position that they are intellectually superior to the rest of us so why should they waste their time trying to communicate why their positions are the correct ones? If we don’t see it, then there obviously is something wrong with us. It certainly isn’t anything to do with them.

This inability to logically articulate their position is why I am no longer a Democrat. They expect you to “take it on faith” that their position is the correct one. (It is even funnier to me that they expect faith from anyone when they are generally without any faith!) I bought in to their messages for many years and time after time, their messages proved to be wrong and in many cases, bald face lies. I got tired of their intolerance while they screamed for “tolerance” of everyone. I got tired of them calling “the right” liars while they engaged in deceit and outright lies. I got tired of the fact that we can’t engage in genuine discussion to try to get to the answers that benefit us all. We can’t have a REAL discussion on the environment, evolution, stem cell research or of the major concerns of our “time” because if we question an issue – we don’t even have to disagree with them just question them! – we are screamed at and called names. They trot out the liberal playbook and quote all the same tired arguments that not only have no basis in fact, they have little to no logic to support them. Until the left truly wishes to seek compromise, the democratic party is doomed. While I recognize the republican party is not perfect either, I at least can engage in discussion there that expands my understanding of the issues. The left simply won’t allow that to happen for fear they will be exposed for the short-sightedness of their positions.

All of this would actually be funny except for the fact that they are genuinely hurting our country and its future.

By jajagal

July 10, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

Jim, before we bring the draft back let’s just work to get these young men and women paid a living wage! During my 20 1/2 years working in the military environment, there were too many times when I saw young airmen working one and two part time jobs in order to support their family and stay off welfare. To me that is the ultimate disgrace of this country when our military families qualify for welfare.

By Janine

July 10, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

Atlantanative62 Faith did you say…the Democrats asked you to have faith? I left the Republicans because they kept telling me to have faith..while they keep spending and spending more and more…They say don’t worry….everything is going to be alright…because GOD IS ON OUR SIDE…….uh-oh ..nothing good ever comes from that position

By Red

July 10, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

Interesting debate topic. I wonder how many young men and women might be suddenly struck ‘gay’ if there were compulsory service? This is exactly the reason that it will never happen.

By MrLiberty

July 10, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

Let’s begin with the 13th amendment to the constitutiton: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

Not that the Bush regime or any of its appologists like Jim Wooten give a damn about the Constitution, but it clearly bans involuntary servitude, and there is no other way to describe a draft then exactly that.

In addition to the law, Bush is in fact the best reason why a draft should never be implemented again. Further, he is the very reason why the founders of this nation deeply feared a standing army of any kind. Since Mr. Wooten is a fan of empire over republic it is easier for him to ignore this inconvenient fact as well. Our current standing army and the mindless ease at which these sheep follow orders has allowed the war criminal who occupies the white house to singlehandedly do more to reduce the safety of the United States than any other president in history. The presence of this standing army over the past 7-10 decades has further eroded the true patriotism liberty-loving spirit of this country and replaced it with a subservient attitude of unquestioning obedience to governmnet authority.

If Jim is so concerned about everyone contributing “service,” then he can explain what 40% of my working time gets counted for, since that’s how much of my income the government is already taking. They he can explain the remaining 10-15% of my income that is taken in property and other taxes. The best service everyone in this country could perform is to put down this horribe paper and get a sound political and economic history education about this nation and how we got to where we are today. Start at www.mises.org and then check out www.lewrockwell.com daily. There could be no greater service to america than to finally educate yourself enough that it becomes obvious that the real problem in this country is the government and its lap-dog media.

If anyone deserves to be drafted, its Jim Wooten. I think guarding the green zone or our Vatican City size embassy in Iraq would make a great place for him to serve.

By Nel

July 10, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this

AtlantaNative62:

Despite the party bashing, the fact remains that we are in a war that our children are not equipped to fight. How do you fight an enemy you can’t see? How do you fight car bombs? How long has Israel been fighting this kind of war? The “haves” will always find a way to protect their children from this regardless of party affiliation.

By MrLiberty

July 10, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

We are fighting a “war” that we started a long long time ago. Beginning with our support for the existence of a state of Israel within the occupied territories taken by the imperial powers of Britain, France, and the US after WWI, we have been directly or indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, the manipulation of numerous elections, the assassinations of numerous elected officials, and the military arming of most of our now supposed “enemies.”

If you are going to be ignorant as to the US history in the middle east (or everywhere else around the globe) then there is no point in having any real discussion regarding whose war this is, or how our children are unprepared to fight, or how Israel is some supposed victim in this, or anything.

A responsible foreign policy during the 20th century would have kept millions of kids out of harm’s way. If that kind of foreign policy is one you support, then get your kids ready to fight because our government has made and continues to make a whole lot of enemies in our name.

By Van

July 10, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

This is pitiful.

We have one group that thinks service is honorable, regardless of who the CIC is.

We have another group that brings up any old tired excuse not to serve this country, even to blame us for Israel - BTW, a jewish state and a palestinian state were created out of a portion of Trans-Jordan at the same time by the UN, can you guess who tried to make something of it?

I am ashamed to listen to all the wussies out there crying about how unfair the service, this administration, the pay or life in general is, poor babies.

Military service is open to any able male or female that has a bit of love of country left.

Am I idealistic, no, I am practical. I’ve served, I have encouraged my son and duaghter to serve, if they choose.

By JK

July 10, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

To ensure we have enough dedicated, loyal young people to die in our ongoing, no-end-in-sight occupation of foreign lands, let’s start signing up members of the College Republican and Young Republican organizations. After all, who wants soldiers who don’t REALLY REALLY believe in the cause of their Bush & Savior? The young people who were given the most by their families are of course the most willing to serve! Let the clean-cut, family-values, homo-hating, tax-loophole-loving specialists show the inferior dregs how it’s done. The ones who survive will be better for it! (Only lefties and wusses get maimed or psychologically damaged for life, right?) HOOOOO-ah!

OPERATION YELLOW ELEPHANT

By Amelia

July 10, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

They should move 5 deferment Dick’s office to the green zone in Baghdad. Maybe we’d get lucky.

By Cane

July 10, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

“Fortunate is the government, in whom the people who they administer don’t think”

Perfect quote for those who just vote their party affiliation without thinking. Back in 2000, I knew we were going to war with somebody as soon Bush was forced into the White House. I did not know who, but I knew it was with somebody. I should have known it was going to be about oil once again. Call me a coward but I would never die for a president. Afganistan is justified, but Irag is fueled by Cheneys energy policy. I support the troops but it is unfortunate most of them don’t think. I guess troops are brainwashed not to think.

By ART

July 10, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

Would anyone else like to wager that if the details of Cheney’s infamous energy policy meeting with Kennyboy and the gang were ever released to the public that impeachment would be right around the corner? That meeting is the key to the invasion of Iraq.

By Cane

July 10, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

First, America voted no for drilling in the Alaska oil reserves. The Administration voted no for joining the Kyoto protocol or whatever you call it. Solution for Bush, Cheney, Rice, and their oil buddies, Hey Sadamm is a tyrant, lets say he has nuclear weapons and is on the verge of attacking the US (Colin Powell the puppet did a lot of convincing). Defend Freedom by defending the US within its borders, and not by invading countries that are not a threat. Think back people. Bush mentioned IRaq in his State of the Union address long before 9/11.

By Pompano

July 10, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

In order to create more Economic diversity within the Military ranks (PC for recruit more middle-to-upper class white kids), we need to implement the appropriate perks to encourage enlistment for these types of kids.

With admissions being so competitive to the top Colleges & Universities in the country, we should require them to reserve a certain number of spots each year for those that have completed their military service. If you barely miss admission to the school of your choice, a two year committment in the Military gets you in when you complete your enlistment. We could also provide additional consideration for acceptance for those who enroll in the Military Reserves while in school.

By ART

July 10, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, find out what went on at that energy policy meeting and the cat is out of the bag. Why do you think Dickydoo fought so hard to keep that info from the public? It would have been the end of the Bush administration and probably the end of his tenure as VP.

By RetiredLTC

July 10, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this

Anything under a 4 year commitment is a total waste of the military’s time and your tax dollars Pompano. But I do agree with you on the set asides for vets.

By Toad

July 10, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

ART, your broken record won’t help. I agree with you, but the Supreme Court (including duckhunting buddy Scalia) decided the public didn’t have a right to know what happened at the secret Energy meeting. Scalia didn’t want to end up full of buckshot!

By Pompano

July 10, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

RetiredLTC - I’ll defer to your wisdom on the 4 year hitch (just threw out 2 as a point of discussion).

We might want to consider waiving registration fees for Political candidates if they have completed Military Service as well.

By I think with a drawl

July 10, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

Military service is a very honorable undertaking. It should not be required at this point however. Young people, like myself, will sign up to fight for causes we agree with and believe in. After 9/11, we all were ready to go to Afghanistan and hunt down UBL. Then came the diversion.

“No nation, ours or any other, is well served by illusions of rightousness. All nations make decisions based on self-interest and then defend them in the name of morality” -Rev. William Sloan Coffin

By MClark

July 10, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

A missing dynamic in this debate is any concern whatsoever from either side over the estimated 200,000 homeless vets in this country. We cheer and cry for those who serve, but when their service is done we toss them aside waiting for the next rally, yellow ribbon magnet, or photo op.

Those that have read my infrequent posts know that I try very hard to stay in the middle on things but there are times when the facts make that difficult. Case in point:

This administration is directly responsible for: •Cuts in “imminent danger” pay for the troops under fire. •A 2003 White House budget for Veterans Affairs that cut $3 billion from VA hospitals. The VA spends an average of $2,800 less per patient than nine years ago. •Rejecting a bipartisan attempt in Congress to add $1.3 billion for VA hospitals to Bush’s request of $87 billion for war and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And I’m not the only military vet noticing this. In a June 20, 2003 editorial entitled “Nothing but Lip-Service” the Army Times opined that “President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap and getting cheaper by the day, judging by the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.”

Also, Ronald Conley, commander of the conservative American Legion, referring to VA budget cuts, surcharges, (for food and services), the closing of on-base schools, and the closing of military commissaries, saying: “This is a raw deal for veterans no matter how you cut it. The administration is sending a message that these vets are not a priority at all.”

I know that there are those here that will accuse me of offering nothing more than a partisan screed, but the fact is that the Republicans have held the power of the purse for a pretty good while now and their actions have not matched their words as it relates to those who have returned from their service. And I can tell you first hand, returning to “normal” society from a war-zone is very difficult and it is there where true “support for the troops” begins.

Until we can truly take care of those who voluntarily lay down their lives for the freedoms we enjoy, any talk of a draft is not only premature, but irresponsible. A missing dynamic in this debate is any concern whatsoever from either side over the estimated 200,000 homeless vets in this country. We cheer and cry for those who serve, but when their service is done we toss them aside waiting for the next rally, yellow ribbon magnet, or photo op.

Those that have read my infrequent posts know that I try very hard to stay in the middle on things but there are times when the facts make that difficult. Case in point:

This administration is directly responsible for: •Cuts in “imminent danger” pay for the troops under fire. •A 2003 White House budget for Veterans Affairs that cut $3 billion from VA hospitals. The VA spends an average of $2,800 less per patient than nine years ago. •Rejecting a bipartisan attempt in Congress to add $1.3 billion for VA hospitals to Bush’s request of $87 billion for war and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And I’m not the only military vet noticing this. In a June 20, 2003 editorial entitled “Nothing but Lip-Service” the Army Times opined that “President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap and getting cheaper by the day, judging by the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.”

Also, Ronald Conley, commander of the conservative American Legion, referring to VA budget cuts, surcharges, (for food and services), the closing of on-base schools, and the closing of military commissaries, saying: “This is a raw deal for veterans no matter how you cut it. The administration is sending a message that these vets are not a priority at all.”

I know that there are those here that will accuse me of offering nothing more than a partisan screed, but the fact is that the Republicans have held the power of the purse for a pretty good while now and their actions have not matched their words as it relates to those who have returned from their service. And I can tell you first hand, returning to “normal” society from a war-zone is very difficult and it is there where true “support for the troops” begins.

Until we can truly take care of those who voluntarily lay down their lives for the freedoms we enjoy, any talk of a draft is not only premature, but irresponsible.

By MClark

July 10, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

Sorry about the double wording there folks. Computers aren’t often kind to me. Just stop reading when it starts to repeat.

By MClark

July 10, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

Here’s the actual post

A missing dynamic in this debate is any concern whatsoever from either side over the estimated 200,000 homeless vets in this country. We cheer and cry for those who serve, but when their service is done we toss them aside waiting for the next rally, yellow ribbon magnet, or photo op.

Those that have read my infrequent posts know that I try very hard to stay in the middle on things but there are times when the facts make that difficult. Case in point:

This administration is directly responsible for: •Cuts in “imminent danger” pay for the troops under fire. •A 2003 White House budget for Veterans Affairs that cut $3 billion from VA hospitals. The VA spends an average of $2,800 less per patient than nine years ago. •Rejecting a bipartisan attempt in Congress to add $1.3 billion for VA hospitals to Bush’s request of $87 billion for war and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And I’m not the only military vet noticing this. In a June 20, 2003 editorial entitled “Nothing but Lip-Service” the Army Times opined that “President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap and getting cheaper by the day, judging by the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.”

Also, Ronald Conley, commander of the conservative American Legion, referring to VA budget cuts, surcharges, (for food and services), the closing of on-base schools, and the closing of military commissaries, saying: “This is a raw deal for veterans no matter how you cut it. The administration is sending a message that these vets are not a priority at all.”

I know that there are those here that will accuse me of offering nothing more than a partisan screed, but the fact is that the Republicans have held the power of the purse for a pretty good while now and their actions have not matched their words as it relates to those who have returned from their service. And I can tell you first hand, returning to “normal” society from a war-zone is very difficult and it is there where true “support for the troops” begins.

Until we can truly take care of those who voluntarily lay down their lives for the freedoms we enjoy, any talk of a draft is not only premature, but irresponsible.

By JK

July 10, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

MClark,

Well stated. Well stated. Well stated. Too bad the right-wing drum pounders pounders pounders continue to support the military industrial machine that makes money for Cheney’s buddies while screwing honorable veterans honorable veterans honorable veterans. Yet they somehow find, in their tiny little minds, the gumption to blame blame blame those of us who disagree with the war for every problem that faces an American soldier or veteran. Sad… Sad… Sad…

By B.

July 10, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

This is in some ways a debate on the role of government, and how much service to the “greater good” a free nation should require.

A draft lessens freedom in an important way. At best it requires years of the citizen’s time. At worst it requires the sacrifice of his very life. Jim would like to cast the draft as a casual exercise in patriotism and diversity. But it is not - a draft is one of the most severe restraints on freedom a nation can impose.

If a country were facing invasion and enslavement, then the value to the nation would be worth the loss to the individuals. In WWII, a draft was worth it. But it gets much murkier when the threat is indirect or possibly non-existent. What value did Vietnam provide? Was the greater good to the country worth forcing citizens to lay down their lives? It depends on how you saw the war - and it depends in large part on politics.

The problem with talking about the draft is that you have to talk about politics. If there is a draft, someone will decide when the “greater good” is worth forcing citizens to lay down their lives. Someone will decide whether the current action is more like WWII or more like Vietnam. If you don’t trust that “decider,” then you don’t want to put your life in the hands of the government.

Which brings me around to my point. Jim is completely wrong to blame Democrats for politicizing this discussion. The draft is a political question. When Democrats talk about the draft, they are talking about the limitations of the politicians in power -and they are right to. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have shown the capability to put the good of Americans ahead of political gain, and neither should be trusted with the power of the draft.

So it is hardly “bad faith” for Democrats to talk about the draft in connection with politics. The draft debate is an illustration of the basic differences between an overreaching Republican party that belives itself infallible and an underreaching Democratic party that lacks the ability to govern. When the Democrats warn of a draft, they are simply saying “pick us, we’re the lesser of two evils. We may be incompetent, but at least we will not force Americans to waste their lives on foreign ground for barely comprehensible reasons.”

Jim would argue that the draft is not about politics but about what the citizen owes the nation. But no one owes their country any more than the country needs from them. A nation is a collection of individuals - they must serve it only to the extent that it needs their service. This is the same as with taxation - no one thinks the government should turn a profit. It should tax to the extent needed, and give the rest back.

By Pompano

July 10, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

“A missing dynamic in this debate is any concern whatsoever from either side over the estimated 200,000 homeless vets in this country”

Sorry… but serving in the Military (even in a war zone) doesn’t earn you a free pass for the rest of your life from being responsible. Having served in the military has nothing to do with the living situations of the people you mention (other than providing them with a blanket excuse to justify not putting forth any effort to improve their situation).

By Larry

July 10, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

I spent nearly 20 years on or around military bases and it was a great way to grow up – especially the three years spent on Clark AFB in the Philippines. Almost all the servicemen and women I was acquainted with were top-notch people, including my father, who in later years was in charge of financing Air Force One. All in all a great life but I would not want myself or anyone else to be forced into it

By Nick

July 10, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

It’s easy to “welcome” a draft, Jim, when one is too old to participate in it.

By MClark

July 10, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

Pompano,

It is the responsibility of the ones who send these soldiers to fight for us to help them in their transition back to civilized society. Coping is often beyond the grasp of those that serve. I’d posit, admittedly with nothing more than my own experiences to back it up, that very few of these honorable men and women are looking for a free pass for the rest of their lives. They are looking to the ones who live and breath based on their sacrifice for help that they so richly deserve.

Once you have seen the horrors of war you are never the same. Some of us have been able to get closer to “the same” than others, but we all carry that service with us daily. Some can deal, some can’t. But if our government can send us there for you then by god you can bet we’ll hold that same government, and by extension you, responsible to take care of those great men and women who are damaged, physically and mentally, based on nothing more than their willingness to fight for others, for others freedoms, and to give their lives, either in death or disability, for their country.

If you want to support the troops then do it. Go beyond the magnets and empty words and realize it is not our option; it is our responsibility to do so.

By Jim Wooten

July 10, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

To those posting today: Thanks. I think this is the best, most thoughtful conversation here yet. You have obviously thought a great deal about this — and some of your posts do prompt me to rethink some aspects. This actually is a great example in both tone and content of the debate the country should have. Thanks again for participating.

By Rednecks - America's Al Qaeda

July 10, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this

Well, boys, girls and rednecks - back in London tonite, a cool cloudy summer’s eve here.

We need to demystify military service - and we will do that by having everyone serve - have a one year hitch for real combat troops like Marines and Army combat units, longer hitches for military wannabes like most Navy and Air Force units, say 2-3 years. Compulsory national service for people who don’t want to join the military - Peace Corps to a dangerous area gets you a shorter hitch than one to a place not so dangerous. Or VISTA to a Texas trailer park would count almost the same as the front lines in Fallujah. And a new national service program to rebuild America’s filthy trailer parks and internment camps for rednecks.

Let’s face it, we need more smart people in the service, not less, then they would be able to figure out unwinnable wars before they start them. Can-do morons like Dumbya and Tommy Franks would find themselves laughed out of jobs.

By Rednecks - America's Al Qaeda

July 10, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

What filthy hypocrites these so-called military supporters are - most of them show their support by riding around in SUVs with those silly yellow ribbons on them - and that’s the total complete extent of their true commitment.

In a few years, they’ll be stepping over homeless and crippled vets on their way back and forth from their gated communities. Animals all.

By Pompano

July 10, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

MClark - the inability to adjust for the segment you are speaking of has likely less to do with being affected by being in a war zone than it does to their inability to survive in an unstructured world. For many people, once they are no longer told what to do everyday and shelter is no longer provided they cannot cope in the real world.

For these people, the Military is what kept them functioning - not what created their plight.

Sorry, but I don’t buy the woe-is-me line. Physical scars are one thing - the rest is just a cop-out.

By MClark

July 10, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

Pompano,

Structure does help some but your attitude that it is just “woe is me” is hard hearted, unconcerned and just plain ignorant. (I use ignorant in the traditional sense, meaning someone who speaks about that which they have no knowledge. It is not meant as an assessment of intelligence.) Emotionally scarring is no cop out. Ever had someone standing next to you one minute, dead the next? Ever spent days, weeks, months on end wondering what is around the next corner? Ever had to walk past the dead and dying on a daily basis? There are no “days-off” in a war zone. Just more of the same. And you come out never the same. Ask anyone who’s been there. You might learn something.

You have no idea what you are talking about, friend. To doubt that war scars men and women in ways other than physical is just to bury your head in the sand and pretend reality is just fantasy.

To send soldiers to fight for you and then say to everyone without a physical scar to “get over it” is cruel and quite frankly so uninformed as to make you look quite foolish. To take such a position proves the point of those that say that the supporters of this war support just that, the war. Not the heroes that fight it.

By MClark

July 10, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this

Are my nightmares, some so vivid and debilitating that they prevent me from ing doing much of anything the day after, a cop out. My experiences were over 35 years ago and they are still here. Are they a cop out. Or are you so hard hearted as to make yourself blind?

By Pompano

July 10, 2006 05:18 PM | Link to this

Sorry MClark - but being weak minded does not earn you a lifetime debt from Society. I can name two-dozen relatives, friends, etc who participated in wars ranging from WWII to Iraq - and none of them mope around complaining how Society owes them (and half of them were drafted and not volunteers).

While I will readily conceed that there are those who encounter such horrible experiences that they are indeed scarred, there is the much larger group (and it sounds like you fall into this category)who simply use their Military service as an excuse for covering all their later failures in life.

I’m perfectly willing to support the “heroes” - but simply serving in the military doesn’t automatically earn one the title.

By MClark

July 10, 2006 05:24 PM | Link to this

Pompano,

I’m glad you are so free to toss around such words as weak minded. It rings especially true from someone whose family members are as close to war time service as they will get. I refuse to waste anymore time on you and your ingnorance. (That time it was an assessment of your intelligence.) It is your ilk (a word I do not use lightly) that give conservatism a black eye.

May God have more mercy on you than you are willing to give to others. If the God I serve is the right one, you’re going to need it pal.

By Pompano

July 10, 2006 05:32 PM | Link to this

MClark - I get such a kick when Judgmental Hypocrites throw God around. Good to know that you’re the one deciding who God needs to pass mercy upon. Might want to take that made-up war experience you fabricated and get his pulse on that as well.

Perhaps I should have said “Simple minded” instead of “weak minded”. The Military is generally reknowned for turning boys into men - guess you missed that part of the training.

But I do enjoy your whining.

By JK

July 10, 2006 05:39 PM | Link to this

Pompano, you sound like you’re among the many Americans who have plenty, yet spend most of their time in abject paranoia that somewhere, somebody else will get something for free, thereby, through seventeen degrees of separation, making you a “victim” of being cheated by the system. Get over yourself. Just today you’re causing pain to an honorable veteran with your arrogant words, and what exactly have you accomplished? A—h—-.

By MClark

July 10, 2006 05:42 PM | Link to this

I know I said I’d waste no more of my time on you but….

My comments of God are not for all, just for you. As I said, if my conception of God is right then someone without mercy will get no mercy. I’m not judging you…my conception of God is. If I’m wrong then I’m wrong. I stand by that.

As for judgemental hypocrites, see your above posts. You have judged those who are scarred as a result of war as weak-minded or as you revise simple minded. All this from one without the intestinal fortitude to serve. Nice.

Finally, typical of those on the extremes (right or left. I’ll suspect right for you) to question the military service of those who dissent. I served. I am proud of my service. I am even prouder that I served for a jack-a*s like you. Makes me sleep better at night to know that your kind owe me a debt, whether you’re man enough to admit it or not. Beyond that, your questions regarding my service are not even worthy of a comment.

You have more than exhibited your ignorance. No more from me is needed.

By Crackey!

July 10, 2006 05:42 PM | Link to this

Trolls who post to themselves always give themselves away by posting and replying to themselves in identical syntax and rhythyms.

The funniest part of this is that these Rhodes Scholars thinks anyone is fooled. He probably goes as far as to post from a PC and a laptop so that the email address is different.

Suddenly, I’m all for the draft.

By Pompano

July 10, 2006 05:49 PM | Link to this

What “honorable veteran” are you referring to (cause I believe MClark is a fake)?

And if you will refer to my original posts in this blog, you will see that I proposed implementing more perks for those that serve in the military (so much for your victim argument).

For those that serve honorably, I do believe we are in their debt (once again - go back and read my first entry in this blog). However, I do not believe that “debt” extends for the duration of ones life. And for every person who was truly scarred by their military experiences I contend there are another 100 either using it as an excuse.

Well… I’ve grown bored with the likes of JK & MClark. You can’t discuss a point you disagree with without attacking the blogger. It makes you seem oh so grown up.

By Pompano

July 10, 2006 05:57 PM | Link to this

Well… since this blog has deteriorated might as well keep in the spirit of things:

MClark - I think you’re confused your stint in the Girl Scouts with Military service.

By WFC

July 11, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this

The draft is simply not politically viable in the USA of 2006 and most politicians know this. I teach in a fine upper middle class public school in an overwhelmingly Republican district. 80% of our families would bail on their political loyalties if the administration reinstituted the draft. Some realities:

By Amelia

July 11, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this

They know exactly what they are doing WFC. It is the motivation behind their actions that has to be deciphered.

By MClark

July 11, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

In my life I have had my military service questioned 4 times. The first was in 1967, when I decided to enlist. My father, who had fought for freedom himself, was not happy. He knew the horrors that I possibly faced and had hoped I would never have to go. The second time was after I returned home and started college. My father had every right to question my decision. He loved me and was simply trying to protect me. He was proud of me, but feared what may happen. The students spoke out of fear and were caught up in a fervor that can scarcely be understood today.

The third and fourth times have remarkably happened just in the last month. First I was told that my service didn’t matter and that I should “get over it”. Second, yesterday, a person named Pompano took it upon himself (or herself) to proclaim that I never served, that I made it all up. That I was confusing my time in Southeast Asia with service in the Girl Scouts.

What possibly did I do to bring this on myself? I disagreed with their right leaning opinions. I had the audacity to say things that didn’t fit their orthodoxy and therefore I was fair game to ridicule and in the latest case doubt I even served. I didn’t sleep much last night I was so upset and angry. My son said to ignore it. My wife said let it pass. I said hell no.

Enough is enough.

Those that know me from previous posts know I try not to call names or take sides, but I’ve got to know something. Is this the way the right does things. Since 1969 no one on the left has questioned my service. But two on the extreme right have done so in one month. To my right leaning friends I want to know, is this how things are done? Are you OK with your side being represented by shameful people like Pompano. Like it or not many Americans see you guys as bullies, a claim that I know is by and large not true. But it is folks like this who make you seem like you are.

I came to this blog a skeptic. I became convinced over time that it was a great place to discuss ideas and learn from people who have opinions different from me. I have no problem with debate and no problem with someone who disagrees with me. I am beginning, however to believe that the bullies rule the day. I am too old, too tired, and too damn proud to have my service to this country ridiculed and doubted based on my view of the issues. This is too much. It’s just too unsettling.

Call me a whiner, call me a cry-baby, call me whatever names you want. You’ll just prove that I am right. My posts are usually well thought out and carefully written. This is a vent. I know it and I’m sorry. I’m sorry for its tone and I’m sorry if it is a bit incoherent. But I’m angry and I want to know if the Right thinks this is OK. If so, then this moderate is gone.

By Pompano

July 11, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

Geez MClark grow some stones. Sorry but I don’t believe an ex-soldier could formulate such a wimpy diatribe.

However, since you initiated the name calling and then retreated so quickly when you got what you gave, perhaps I am wrong. Maybe you served in the French army.

You took issue with my first response to your posts and immediately went into a personal attack with your responses. Now you turn into a crybaby when someone plays the same game and fabricate your little pity story.

By Brian Curtis

July 11, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this

I think McClark is partially right—in that military service truly does damage people. But Pompano is also right—military service doesn’t make you a hero.

Rather, it makes you a victim… a victim of a brutalizing, violent, brainwashing experience “for the public good.” Veterans who’ve been scarred by the experience, physically or mentally, should not be ignored; they suffered that damage in the service of our government, and they should be treated and healed at our expense.

But we should quit idolizing and worshipping these poor bastards and pretending their experience is something to be envied or shared through some mandated military service for all citizens. Soldiers sacrifice a good chunk of their lives, health, and sanity so the rest of us don’t have to. To assume that this makes the meat-grinder a positive experience is insane.

By MClark

July 11, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

Pompano,

Keep trying to justify yourself. You’re wasting your breath. I simply don’t care.

BTW they have upped the enlistment age to 42. Still time to join up.

By Pompano

July 11, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

Brian - I agree with you in that there is a segment of people who are broken by their military experiences and to that group we should expend all resources possible to help fix them.

Unfortunately, the earlier point I had tried to make that was lost upon feeble-minded (and fake Veteran) MClark is that there is a far greater number of individuals who are broken before they ever enter military service. These are people destined to fail in life regardless of whether they served or not - and I contend that for these individuals the military actually delayed their eventual plight as opposed to contributing towards it by porviding them with a structured environment. No different than ex-cons failing once they hit the outside again.

By MClark

July 11, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

I served under Captain Garret Cowsert in B Company, 1st Battalion of the 14th Infantry. The last action I saw was on Chu Pa Mountain in a sweep operation that began on February 8, 1969. We took heavy fire from automatic weapons, rockets and mortars from the north for the next 4 days ending in an NVA ambush on the 11th. We were pinned in position for the better part of the next 4 days. We held out position but were unable to move. It was not until the 15th that other companies were able to secure the area to the north to the point that we could consider ourselves secure. I spent 4 days in that hell. I never thought I’d see home or make it out alive.

That’s all the proof you’ll get. What proof do you have that I’m fake. Oh wait, that’s right. Guys like you don’t need proof. Its just smear and accuse. No facts, no reality, just smears with nothing to back it up. I’d invite you over to see my purple heart and my Combat Action Medal but a coward like you wouldn’t want to face any facts.

In my book, you’re just the kind of coward that hid behind Daddy and Mommy at home and let the truly patriotic and brave do the fighting for you. Your lack of service is proof of that. Keep smearing my name. No one is listening.

I’m done.

By Pompano

July 11, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

Sorry MClark but you probably got that off of the history channel this morning. And now we have the Purple Heart claim - I betcha never even been outside the state of Georgia before. Sorry, but your posts are way to effeminate to have been written by a real veteran.

Let’s face it - I’m in your head. I own you MClark.

Who’s your Daddy?

By Larry

July 13, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

Hey “Redneck” - referring to Air Force anbd Navy as military wannabe’s - you’re lucky I can’t find you!

By holdingAJC"accountable"

July 14, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this

The simple commitment to a mindset would solve both the problems is the Middle East and the problems in our public schools: Simply put, you can’t negotiate with terrorists, be they eight years old or eighty.

Both the disruptive child and the terrorist respond to only one thing: COMPELLING consequences. The only question is, do we have the will to enforce them?