Another Shocker From The Allegedly Gay Patriot
Posted on December 18th, 2010 by Tintin
ABOVE: B. Daniel Blatt, the Allegedly Gay Patriot
B. Dan Blatt, The Gay Putztriot, December 17, 2010
Harry Reid’s Partisan Game-playing
- The reason that DADT won’t be repealed has nothing to do with the Republican party. It’s because of Harry Reid, who believes that repeal gives gays one less reason to vote for Democrats.
B. Dan Blatt, The Gay Putztriot, December 18, 2010
DADT Repeal Imminent
- Now that DADT is about to be repealed, please ignore completely everything I said about Harry Reid and DADT yesterday. My current position is that repeal of DADT might not be such a good thing because gays in the military could affect unit cohesion.
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™
[½ ht to Pupienus Maximus]
What a fucking tool.
Holy fucking shit. No fucking way. I got out of the boat on the second one, but if the first shorter is accurate…. Holy fucking shit. No way. It is.
Never getting out of the boat again.
(P.S. Hooray for America. For once.)
Anagram of “unit cohesion”
Touch one, I sin.
Having Dan Blatt in the armed forces would actually encourage unit cohesion. Because everyone serving with him –– gay and straight–– would agree that fragging him would be a good idea.
I expect everyone’s units will cohere just as much as they ever did.
Way to go, U.S. Senate!
Gays in the military have certainly affected the Gay PutridRot’s intellectual cohesion. Maybe he is just afraid that they will re-instate the draft and he will now be eligible.
Now that it’s passed the senate, Obama can veto it in the name of bipartisanship, right?
Policies I would like to see brought back, so that our national conversations on war would be less stupid:
1. Fairness Doctrine.
2. Military Draft.
Could I get half a hat tip*?
VCR
Or should I say Ahem?
but if the first shorter is accurate…
I’m not going to bother checking but I think that may not be a shorter at all, but verbatim.
@PM – I probably shouldn’t admit this, but I don’t always read every comment, so I didn’t see yours before I posted this. Further proof, of course, that great minds think alike. But because Sadly, No! Customer Service aims to please, I’ve added a half a hat tip and renewed your subscription for another year free of charge.
Tintin said,
December 19, 2010 at 0:28 (kill)
Best Xmas present EVAH!
renewed your subscription for another year free of charge.
Does this mean you’re paying PM’s ISP charges? ‘Cause I’d like to get in on that deal.
The new military will be FAAABULOUS!!!
Policies I would like to see brought back, so that our national conversations on war would be less stupid:
1. Fairness Doctrine.
2. Military Draft.
I’ll maybe spot you #1, but I don’t know about #2. You could just as easily say that the draft enables pointless wars because it guarantees endless cannon fodder.
Putzriot’s first sentence, from the 17 Dec. link:
Volunteer cannon fodder are more likely to go along, because they are inherently suckers. (And, as far as I’m concerned, deserve everything they get.)
When non-volunteers can be taken & shipped to the other side of the planet to kill & be killed/mutilated for peace, there is significantly more resistance.
Actual shorter:
And sometimes, even in the US Senate, sanity breaks out.
Congratulations to all who fought to make this happen.
Couldn’t every shorter B. Daniel Blatt be, “dear God, free me from the self-loathing that only the solace of death can provide”?
Looks like Danny forgot to buy lube for his memory hole.
Also, I propose putting the Senate on permanent lame-duck session, because it’s apparently the only time they’re able to do their fucking jobs.
American Gays made the President do the right thing. Now he’s getting all the credit. Huh.
Health professionals are gainfully employed. Therefore, rules requiring college degrees to result in gainful employment won’t endanger healthcare!
What’s with the creepy for-profit college ads?
Volunteer cannon fodder are more likely to go along, because they are inherently suckers. (And, as far as I’m concerned, deserve everything they get.)
When non-volunteers can be taken & shipped to the other side of the planet to kill & be killed/mutilated for peace, there is significantly more resistance.
I gotta come down sharply on the other side of this. (As a first-wave volunteer, I’ll pass on the insulting tone.) In previous posts, I’ve mentioned that I was history student; my speciality was European Military History. I dare say that I’ve read more military history and military theory than anyone else on this site. Let me tell you, volunteers fight better and have higher morale that draftees.
Actually, I pretty pissed off. I’m going to make some coffee. When I come back, I’ll be ready to mix it up, if you really want to.
And before I volunteered, I was also subject to the draft. So I know something about that, too.
Ignatius Reilly foresaw the repeal of DADT way back in the 60’s:
And there you have it, folks. The whole gay agenda just laid out for all to see. And – bonus – a clue to the 11th dimension chess President Obama is playing. With the passage of DADT, the SALT treaty becomes unnecessary.
Is wordpress broken again?
Apologies for many typos. I bashed away on the keyboard as fast I could and put it.
Motherfucker! I have the awesomest awesome comment to post, and fucking wordpress won’t let me!
Fxd.
OR
Alternate shorter Putzriot:
Hello! Faux News and various homophobic groups! I’m auditioning to be your spokeskw33r, what do you think? Give me a call, we can work out a deal. Must include a security detail.
Nope. Na gonn do it. I’m just going to bail and go read. G’night all.
Could affect unit cohesion?
Heck, some of my best friends are really sticky.
Ok, fuck it. WordPress is a bitch. Later.
Snidely Whiplash, the point isn’t that volunteers do a better job – no one is arguing – it’s that a non volunteer military affects a larger more heterogenous segment of the population, and therefore results in more negative feelings about adventurism.
Think about how many Senators actually have relatives in the military today vs forty years ago. You might be surprised to find that the ones that vote for the most adventures have the fewest volunteers among their friends and relatives.
Saddened, maybe, but not surprised.
Jennifer, wordpress sometimes gets like that. I’ve never been able to figure out what sets it off. You might have to post at your website and just link to it here.
Repeal of DADT is wrong because… look at Australia. Gays have been able to openly serve in their military since 1992, and Australia hasn’t won a single war against the USA since then!
Let me tell you, volunteers fight better and have higher morale that draftees.
I guess that’s why we lost World War 2, because the draftees wouldn’t/couldn’t fight.
Hurray! At last!! This lame-duck Congress has been more productive than any I recall in recent years. This is what a democracy needs in order to survive.
SW, as I’m sure you know, volunteer armies are more professional, but an army in a democracy might at least try to spread the burden around more evenly via a draft. I’m a pacific guy, but I’d prefer a fairer system for all, even in the event that people are being sent off to fight.
Thanks for your indulgence.
A compromise: only children of parents with a financial interest in the military-industrial complex will be subject to the draft.
I agree. After all the disappointments of the last four years, it’s nice to see this Congress retire with at least one unequivocal win under their belt. I’ll remember them better than I expected I would.
I guess that’s why we lost World War 2, because the draftees wouldn’t/couldn’t fight.
Hell, I (America’s Premier America-Hater!) would’ve enlisted after Pearl Harbor.
But the 11 September attacks were not the same, & if I’d given a shit afterwards I would have learned a useful language & joined an intelligence or law-enforcement agency, not signed up for an attack on Iraq.
Ok, so I posted what wordpress didn’t like over at my joint. Click the linkee if you wanna readee.
I’ll maybe spot you #1, but I don’t know about #2. You could just as easily say that the draft enables pointless wars because it guarantees endless cannon fodder.
Yes, MB and others are making my point. If the pain of war is only felt by poor kids that want an education but can’t afford it (and their families and friends) then a significant section of the aristocracy will not be deterred from adventurism.
I’m not pro-draft because because I think it improves combat effectiveness. That doesn’t matter at all. I’m pro-draft because more of the congress’ children will die or be killed or be maimed along with the rest of us.
If there is to be cannon fodder, it must be all our children, not just those that volunteer or those that can’t afford college otherwise.
Maybe this is an argument for socialized education, like some of those fancy European countries. (Of course that would be fought against by the same pro-war parties for the reasons mentioned.)
If the pain of war is only felt by poor kids that want an education but can’t afford it
It’s not just people that want education, it’s people who need a job/income & have virtually no other option who are, essentially, forced to enlist. (NB: Another reason for militarists not to extend unemployment. Or am I being cynical?) That someone would volunteer life, limb, & sanity to defend (By aggression, yet.) a nation that can’t/won’t provide a livelihood for its citizens other than state-sanctioned killer is beyond my reasoning capabilities, probably because it’s unreasonable.
That’s my opinion too.
I might feel differently if I thought the draft really did impair combat effectiveness, but as WW2 (to pick the most obvious example) shows, that’s not the case. In Vietnam, I don’t think the fear of being drafted in and of itself had as much of an effect as the fact that no one could tell anyone 1) what they were fighting for and 2) how they were going to win it. (Mind you, this was before the bullshit Reagan-era narrative about how it was all about stopping communism and we could’ve won if only we’d bombed harder).
So that’s me on the draft in a nutshell. I don’t think it’ll impair combat effectiveness, but it will force a lot more people to think hard about whether or not this particular war is worth it. By “people,” I don’t mean the rich and powerful, who’ll always find ways to dodge the draft (and then find reasons to call those who didn’t “unpatriotic” and the like) – I mean the general public that by and large isn’t rich or powerful but also isn’t fighting.
I don’t see any hot gay sex going on here. Is it because the Gaytriot doesn’t inspire feelings of sexytime…down there?
Also, I remarked on someone’s liquor…habits…in the last thread before I realized the pub crawl had moved here.
“What a fucking tool.”
He is kind of a dildo.
bargal made me snort-chuckle, or “snuckle” in laymen’s terms.
I’m b-a-a-c-k!
Let me tell you, volunteers fight better and have higher morale that draftees.
I guess that’s why we lost World War 2, because the draftees wouldn’t/couldn’t fight.
(1) We won WW2. (2) I never asserted anything as preposterous as ‘draftees wouldn’t/couldn’t fight’. Surely you find a better refudiation than this tissue-thin stuff? It’s not even hi-quality snark.
(2) To all the Let’s-Bring-Back-the-Draft enthusiasts: How do you propose to administer it? I’m asking a serious question. So that rules out this sort of nonsense:
only children of parents with a financial interest in the military-industrial complex will be subject to the draft.
“I’ll be back.” *spoken like Ah-nold*
Snuckle is the sort of thing I expect to hear from Tina Fey — in my book that puts you in great company.
I’m b-a-a-c-k…
Let me tell you, volunteers fight better and have higher morale that draftees.
I guess that’s why we lost World War 2, because the draftees wouldn’t/couldn’t fight.
(1) We won WW2. (2) I never asserted anything a preposterous as ‘draftees wouldn’t/couldn’t fight. (Even evaluated as snark that’s a pretty lame comment.)
To all the Bring Back The Draft enthusiasts: Okay, how would you adminster it? I’m asking a dead-serious question. So that rules out such nonsense like
only children of parents with a financial interest in the military-industrial complex will be subject to the draft.
“I’ll be back.” *Ah-nold’s voice*
Bourbon is the New World’s gift to the drinking class. And look, La Slayer made it to the hideous event & back, unless she’s cheating by using her iPhone.
Sheesh, you’re too kind. I worship Tina.
M., I’m on my iPhone, but I’m home. Yay! The boredom did not claim me. I escaped from its vortex.
I think this is a sicker version of the “if it pisses off the liberals, do it” argument. In a practical sense it should be obvious given the example of the last president that important people get to avoid the draft and others don’t. In a world in which that doesn’t happen, putting everyone’s kid at risk of death in a relatively peaceful world is kind of bananas.
This isn’t good news for John McCain!
Congratulations on America’s army for entering the 20th Century!
As for teh draft = good versus teh draft = evil debate … it’s sort of academic: you already have a draft in force right now – a poverty-draft – & this economic context is enforcing it with an iron fist. I don’t recall the JCS making much noise about manpower issues lately – they’re stretched dangerously thin because of overreach, but they certainly aren’t strategically underpowered.
A draft with the pool being elected officials & their spawn? LULZ GOLDMINE.
Something is blocking my comments,
Tune in tomorrow.
Right; we both know the politicians and their kids will always be safe. But the rest of the country won’t, and that would mean more public pressure (of the kind we saw in Vietnam) to avoid stupid and pointless wars.
Of course like Jim says, it’s academic… first because we already have one, second because the American people want to be able to wreck anyone’s shit anywhere in the world, but don’t want to have to pay the slightest price for it (not even in terms of tax hikes anymore). Because, you know, God forbid the country have to pay the consequences for the wars it wages.
Well, ain’t that a crying fucking shame. POS should have listened to his predecessor; “you don’t have to be straight to be in the military, you just have to shoot straight.” And if memory serves, Goldwater was a veteran too.
I’m B-A-A-A-C-K!
I guess that’s why we lost World War 2, because the draftees wouldn’t/couldn’t fight.
(1) We won WW 2. (2) I never asserted anything as preposterous as ‘draftees wouldn’t/couldn’t fight. (Gee, that snark was easy to slap aside, wasn’t it?)
To all the Bring-Back-The-Draft enthusiasts: Okay, so how do you plan to administer it? I’m asking serious question here. So that rules out this sort of nonsense:
only children of parents with a financial interest in the military-industrial complex will be subject to the draft.
“I’ll be back.”
*use best Ah-nold voice*
[If I can get through, that is. I’ve been trying to post this for the last 45 minutes. It took the one-liners, but not this comment.]
Courtesy of facebook, one of the people I knew in ROTC (was in it for a couple semesters but never actually joined) and is now in the Navy has the following to say;
But that’s not all. His conservative friend who posts mountains of stupid drivel every time he puts up a political status, this time, has nothing to say but “for once, I agree with you.” And another guy I knew in ROTC posts “I’m very drunk tonight in honor of this historic legislation.”
Love it.
As one who was in the last bunch draftees for VietNam (the only lottery I ever won), serving in a mixed conscriptee/enlistee Army was very eye-opening. The guys who enlisted to go to ‘Nam were pissed when we had that big formation telling us that ‘contracts for VietNam service were not going to be valid’ and the ‘length of service would not change’. The draftees were all ‘hooray’. My experience with attending funerals of school chums and friend’s brothers and cousins galvanized my feelings about a war that had no obvious or plausible purpose. I believe the more diverse and widespread selection of soldiers, from a conscripted population, probably drove more to protest the VietNam war.
The three gay soldiers I served with (in my permanent party unit in Germany) were very competent and very closeted. They were all enlistees, and I have no doubt they retired, with a lot of commendations and promotions and proficiency raises. I wonder how much better the services will be without any foolish and prejudicial restrictions.
Right; we both know the politicians and their kids will always be safe. But the rest of the country won’t, and that would mean more public pressure (of the kind we saw in Vietnam) to avoid stupid and pointless wars.
Yes, this is what I meant when I said “the rest of us” and “national conversation”. The rich and powerful will never be at risk (that’s what being rich and powerful means). I certainly didn’t mean it in the bloodthirsty ‘piss off conservatives lol’ way that Subby McGee assigns. Just the fact that draft-dodgers existed and would exist makes the point I want to make.
People make more rational decisions when they have some skin in the game. Working assumption: government for the people, by the people.
Vietnam killed many thousands more Americans when there was some skin in the game.
I dunno. The whole “Let’s give politicians’ kids a higher chance of dying, that’ll teach ’em a lesson!” seems kinda bloodthirsty and Machiavellian to me. I’d rather no one die if they don’t have to.
I guess that’s why we lost World War 2, because the draftees wouldn’t/couldn’t fight.
(1) We won WW 2. (2) I never asserted anything as preposterous as ‘draftees wouldn’t/couldn’t fight. (Gee, that was easy to slap away, wasn’t it?)
To all the Bring-Back-The-Draft enthusiasts: Okay, so how are you to administer it? I’m asking a serious question. So that rules out such nonsense as:
only children of parents with a financial interest in the military-industrial complex will be subject to the draft
or
A draft with the pool being elected officials & their spawn
“I’ll be back.” (said in best Ah-nold voice)
——–
(I hope I’ll be back, that is. I’m experiencing some very weird problem that I’ve never encountered before. I’ve been trying to post this for nearly an hour. It accepted two earlier one-line comments, which were essentially test messages. As a Luddite, I’m thoroughly baffled….)
Hurrah! Comms are up. I’m five-by, again. I’ll check in later.
All chickenhawks under age 42 must be drafted. All chilckenhawks age 42-70, even if in a wheelchair, must serve as contractors in a warzone, even if it’s a Burger King at Bagram.
Hey, Craphammer, hurry up with those fries!
There should be a flat draft, like the “flat tax.” Everybody serves “their” nation, w/o any fucking exemptions.
Conscientious Objectors can work in hospitals, register poor people to vote, or join the New Civilian Conservation Corps.
Vietnam killed many thousands more Americans when there was some skin in the game.
Different kind of war (generalizing a bit here, but …): Actual armies fighting each other. Death from above then didn’t mean gamers at Nellis AFB murdering by joystick & going home to the family every night.
All wars are unique circumstances. I don’t think you’d have seen Iraq go much differently with a draft, but of course that’s my ass talking.
National service with a non-military option seems a lot more reasonable, but is it wrong to think there’d be a lotta Halliburton internships involved?
(1) We won WW 2.
All by ourselves?
America had to win it before Russia won it.
What a cesspool his comments section is. Just ick.
Cheers on the direction the thread took this eve! Hunchback; martinis all-around!
Whoops. Looks like Hunchback’s in the kitchen with Dinah. I’ll have to go after those martinis m’self.
(1) We won WW 2.
All by ourselves?
Heh. Read “Ivan’s War” if you want to learn more about some tough fuckers.
Most of my best friends are faggots. I doscourage them from joining. I also discourage them from being Uncle Tom homo-ass self-loathing douchepipes like teh ghey patreaoat.
Remember that time I got really drunk again? Yeah.
By the way, has anyone seen the hunchback? I’m out of olives.
Allowing gays to serve is a no-brainer. My kids will grow up and read about the days of DADT with the same puzzlement I, a child of the sixties experience when I read about Jim Crow. “Separate drinking fountains? That’s just crazy!”
Now, if only gay marriage were legal, gays and lesbians could legally do the two least desirable things in the world — join the army and get married.
I don’t think you’d have seen Iraq go much differently with a draft
Cheney & Halliburton probably would have gotten it going, draft or not, but if the offspring of the powerful were being drafted there might have been more calls to get out much sooner.
AlsoPlus which, whatweThe United Snakes are up to in Afghanistan & Iraq are really occupations now, not wars, so the casualty rate is never going to be like Vietnam.Can’t win for losing.
join the army and get married
Join the
Professionalsrejects, get yourself killed.This should help slow down the godbags’ takeover of the Air Force.
(1) We won WW 2.
All by ourselves?
Of course not. Have anything to contribute other than low-grade snark?
Read “Ivan’s War” if you want to learn more about some tough fuckers.
An excellent book.
Okay, I see I must provide some bona fides. I’m not blowing smoke up your ass:
(1) I was the Honor Graduate in the Intelligence Analyst course at the US Army Intelligence Center and School.
(2) I had an Top Secret clearance with access to Special Intelligence (TSSI) because…
(3) …My unit was part of the old Army Security Agency (ASA)–the military arm of NSA. (ASA was merged into INSCOM after I left the service.) We specialized in Signals Intelligence (SIGINT), which comprises both communications intelligence–intercepts of voice or Morse–and electronics intelligence (essentially radar signitures).
(4) I was the principal order-of-battle analyst in ASA’s Primary Control and Analysis Center, directly subordinate to US Army Europe; I was the PCAC’s principal briefer. I was the senior analyst–between the Alps and North Sea on my problem.
(5) My specialty was the five Soviet Armies stationed in East Germany. And this, in a roundabout way, ties in to D_B’s book recommendation. One of my targets was 8th Guards Army, poised to strike through the Fulda Gap….the re-named 62nd Army that defended the west bank at Stalingrad, inside the city itself. 8th Guards took Berlin in 1945. Tough mutha-fuckers? You better believe it.
I could add a shit-load more <bona fides, both prior to, and subsequent to, my service. But I’ve taken up a lot of space already. I’ll back in a few hours with observations about the Draft, and responses to comments.
Here’s a tweet from this tard:
Wow. it only took 18 months since formed (sic) that @GOPROUD secured DADT passage in Senate when Gay Left has been fighting it since 1993. Ahem.
Seriously. A. He means the LCR. B. He’s a fucking asshole who will hopefully be run ovr by my Pride Tank next summer.
So IceNine/Snidely/iSucker, I don’t think anybody is 1) disputing the fact that in this environment a volunteer military is better at warfighting than a bunch of draftees or 2) arguing you don’t know what you’re talking about.
The statement was made (when you strip away the hyperbole) that a military drawn more from the general population would perhaps be used more carefully than one drawn from (in general) the poorest and least powerful members of society.
Do you really see anything to argue with in that?
That, and tequila.
And on that note, Cheers to the queers! Good riddance dadt.
I say we go libertarian! Have a draft, but let me hire an Irishman at the docks in NYC to take my place. That way, he can “choose” to risk his ass at the fringes of the empire, so if he dies and his mom collects the life insurance, she can “choose” to live in a less-polluted neighborhood. Really, I don’t see an other solution to any of these problems but me throwing money about and other people doing the suffering. Only by applying glibertarian principles can we create heaven on earth, and any “social justice” types who want to clean up that polluted neighborhood are just dangerous utopians who want to create heaven on earth.
We gave him the night off after he asked for some free time. Said he had some pressing “personal affairs” that needed attending to.
That, and tequila.
NO! Drank a fifth of Old Crow once, & was offered a shot of tequila, which I’d never had prior.
Instant vomit, all over friends’ kitchen table.
Draft = Slavery!
Democrats: They loved slavery 150 yrs. ago, & they haven’t changed one bit!!
Bouffant, I like how the phrase “instant vomit” made you decide to link to a gateway dumbshit post. Must be one of those subliminal things.
And of course the draft is slavery. Everything is slavery. The entire teabag/born-again libertarian axis is rich white men who have never faced serious discrimination in their life but long for the cultural cachet that comes with being part of a historically oppressed group, so they spin these bullshit narratives about their “oppression” by the government, which basically consists of the revelation that you don’t get to have your own way every minute of your life. I learned this in kindergarten, myself.
Any laws creating a draft must contain a clause that any, “Authorizian of Military Force”, immediately conscripts the 18 to 42 year sons and daughters of every member of Congress.
Not quite, but there may be a connection. Had the idiot (it’s a commenter, not Hoft, to be clear) in mind as soon as I read the draft thing,& the tequila comment was just a chance to point out what a wild man I was 35 yrs. ago, & slightly embarrass myself.
Never had tequila again. I’ll eat/drink corn, but not cacti.
NO! Drank a fifth of Old Crow once, & was offered a shot of tequila, which I’d never had prior.
Instant vomit, all over friends’ kitchen table.
Although I also hate & fear tequila (and for a similar reason), isn’t this kinda like blaming Obama for the current budget deficit?
like blaming Obama for the current budget deficit?
Well, yes. I blame whoever offered me the shot. I should blame myself for drinking it?
Okay, I see I must provide some bona fides.
Ahem, here goes –
T-38 Instructor Pilot
B-52G Aircraft Commander
Desert Shield/Desert Storm
(Commendation Medal, Aerial Achievement Medal, Air Medal x 2, DFC)
KC-135 Aircraft Commander/Instructor
Operations Officer for Northern Watch (Iraqi No-Fly Zone)
Detachment Commander for Joint Forge (Bosnia/Kosovo)
4000 hours military flying time. 500 hours combat time.
Retired O-5
Persistent vegetable Cornfed Wanker decides Bryan Fischer may be going a bit too far. Not all of his commentariat agrees:
So where do the “homos” come from if they can’t have children? Another of the great mysteries that will never be solved.
Retired O-5
So you’re really LTC Kong?
Yep.
“Major Kong” was the Slim Pickens character in Dr. Strangelove.
The trick with tequila is to stick with good tequila.
Someone probably poured you a shot of Cuervo Gold or something similar, which is only half tequila cut with cheap rum. 100% agave tequilas are actually quite friendly, as long as you aren’t already full of something else, that is. Mixing yer boozes is generally bad form.
35 years ago, good tequila was hard to find and tequila got a bad rap because of it. It has come a long way since. I spent a long time shunning it myself, after waking up forty bucks lighter from a dollar-a-drink night of Cuervo and Bud cans. Sometimes I miss Molly’s on Toulouse.
I think he meant that downing a fifth of Old Crow is flirting with reverse peristalsis regardless. The shot was just the trigger.
M Bouffant’s quotes include a guy who is blaming Greece’s current financial trouble on the gay sex in classical Sparta. It’s no wonder they blame the current Democratic party for Jim crow. If 2500years isn’t enough to change a group, fifty years is nothing.
No, it’s responsibility. It’s saying, okay, fine, if you want to play Halo in real life in whatever third world country strikes your fancy this morning, we can do it, but you’re going to have to do it yourself and in real life, not by watching CNN from seven thousand miles away.
Right on! Expel all Republicans from the military!
Hmm. Wonder what profession he is…
Snark? Here?!?! IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!
Comment of the day on DADT, courtesy as so often of the Yahoo News comments section;
The saddest thing is that this is far from the first time I’ve read the “homosexuality is a plot to impose Sharia Law” argument.
From Bryan Fischer:
America – the guardian of hot fannies, the squasher of ugly heads.
So where do the “homos” come from if they can’t have children? Another of the great mysteries that will never be solved.
It all boils down to their conviction that gay is something that is transmissible. You ‘catch’ it by contact, exposure, or indoctrination. To them it’s a choice, not something innate. So for them there’s no biological connection to gay.
This explains their virulent anti-homosexuality. If they think that it is something transmissible then contact of any kind just increases the chances of succumbing and turning gay. Ever so fearful that it might just happen (I won’t go into possibilities of their subconscious being even a bit curious) they lash out at the (external) things that trigger their self-doubt.
we wouldn’t need to even consider a draft if the army/navy/nat’l guard weren’t broken.
bona fides: USN 1969-1972 Yay for Zumwalt
Note to vs, your mom also likes my style.
The trick with tequila is to stick with good tequila.
WTF type of comparison is that? Cuervo Gold is your idea of cheap liquor? He drank a fifth of Old Crow. Ugh, I loves me some bourbon but the idea of someone finishing a Traveler of Old Crow scares me.
I had some Old Crow once. It’s harsh like when your mistress dumps you for your more successful brother. Skanky like your mom. Tastes like someone snowballing your own POOP back into your mouth. IPU, a whole fifth!?! There are easier ways to go blind.
I think the other thing they’re afraid of is that hanging out with gay people for any prolonged period of time will cause a person to realize that they’re, well, normal people just like us. And from there on in, to support gay rights. There’s just a psychological refusal to accept that you could possibly be gay, or be okay with gay people, unless there was something wrong with you in the first place.
It all boils down to their conviction that gay is something that is transmissible. You ‘catch’ it by contact, exposure, or indoctrination. To them it’s a choice, not something innate.
Those are the two coexisting, yet incompatible, conceptions of gayness that drive homophobia. Either it is a choice or a virus (or neither) – it can’t be both. If it is a choice, then there is no threat to people of other persuasions. If it is not a choice, then gay people can’t really be blamed, can they? It can’t simultaneously be so vile and repulsive and unnatural that no straight person could comprehend it, yet so seductive that heterosexual marriage can’t compete with it.
It reminds me of all of the red scare hysteria. Communism is so horrible that it will destroy civilization, yet so alluring that people can’t even be allowed to talk about it or they might become Communists. The only choice for a free society is to carefully censor everything that everyone says and lock up any dissenters.
America – the guardian of hot fannies, the squasher of ugly heads.
Don’t let the little head get squashed for the big head!
But, but, but, but, but!
Thoughtcrime is a dreadful thing, old chap! It’s insidious! It can grab a hold of you without your even knowing it!
This doesn’t make sense. The decision-maker is far less likely to be personally affected than the draftee, and certainly unlikely to fight himself.
Marco has a pride tank! Dare I say it’s a pink Panzer?
I switched from Woodford to Bulleit, so I’m not opposed to harshness or “character” in whiskey but Old Crow? OMG, it earns the worst condemnation I could possibly think of for whisky – between Old Crow or no drink at all, I will opt for being sober.
There’s a tendency among conservatives to look on their fellow Americans (or if you prefer Real Americans) as absolute sheep, and themselves as the sheepdogs (yes, I’ve seen the analogy put out in those exact terms). They’re kind, gentle, sweet, lovely people, who just don’t understand how nasty and vile the Outside World is, and therefore have to be protected and shielded from it for their own good.
Usually, it’s something that comes out in national security issues. But it turns up in cultural arguments too, re protecting the sheep from alien practices that they might just not have the strength to reject.
Review for Old Crow, and possibly a reference to vacuumslayer there at the end.
Minus the mean and uncaring part.
Still, I have an almost untouched bottle of Old Crow left that I can’t bring myself to drinking…
Again, it’s not the decision-maker. It’s the majority of the general public which is not making the decisions but also doesn’t have any skin in the game – and for that reason, either doesn’t care very much about the war, or simply sees it as noisy entertainment.
Again, it might be nice to see the usually-relatively-small cabal of warmongers get tweaked, but not at the risk of death of, say, people in my family.
Or mine, or anyone else’s. Then again, the possibility of death in your or my or anyone else’s family might cause a lot more political pressure on the government to pick their wars carefully than there is right now. Which might decrease the risk of death in a hell of a lot of other families.
Again, it might be nice to see the usually-relatively-small cabal of warmongers get tweaked, but not at the risk of death of, say, people in my family.
You’re not willing to suffer the death of a child to embarrass a politician? What kind of man are you?
The real tragedy is that Corporal Klinger is now irrelevant. When we throw away these morsels of Americana, we throw out a little bit of ourselves. Where will it stop?
Yes, maybe. But maybe not. It’s really hostage politics, and I reiterate: it’s kinda sick.
“Old Crow or no drink at all, I will opt for being sober”
Sobriety is never the answer. That’s kooky talk.
OK….I’ve never had Old Crow. And I admit there are limits to what I will pour down my gullet.
From the moment you’re talking about war, you’re talking about a bunch of really, very, extremely, more than just kinda sick choices.
My view is that the popularity of militarism since the Reagan years is directly tied to the end of the draft – we can now afford to support wars (and not just “small cabals of warmongers,” but regular citizens too) without paying any price for them. That makes it tremendously easier for the military to be used, and unlike many I don’t think the memory of the Iraq fiasco will put the brakes on that for too long.
Very few of the people involved in war ever choose to be. If your family or mine (or you or me) were drafted, sure we wouldn’t have asked for it. But neither do the urban kids who get poverty-drafted, and neither do the literally millions of people overseas who pay the price for Iraq-style idiocy, right now. What we’re playing right now is plain old murder politics, not just hostage politics.
And I admit there are limits to what I will pour down my gullet.
Already my heart is starting to break. But you’re going to have to do better than that to make me take the cap off the Old Crow again.
M Bouffant’s quotes include a guy who is blaming Greece’s current financial trouble on the gay sex in classical Sparta.
Ignoring the millennium plus of Jesusism.
And obviously the homo is transmissible: you catch it by having sex exclusively with folks who have the same bits as you.
Hostage politics? I’m not just for drafting the children of congressmen, they’re going to wind up with a REMF/Fobbit job just based on education and literacy. Strap ’em to the front of the armored vehicles!
”
Review for Old Crow, and possibly a reference to vacuumslayer there at the end.”
Ha! Look at that a shout out to manipulative witches.
And I’m oddly touched by your caveat.
Oh, the stories I’ve heard about that…
Apparently, back in WW2, having a college degree guaranteed that if you were drafted, it’d automatically be as an officer. WTF? I’ve got a college degree and I’m sure as hell not officer material – teach me to use a gun and point me at the enemy maybe, but leadership skills, me no gottum. Story of all too many draftee officers’ lives, from what I’m told.
The only Old Crow that interests me: Sheryl.
b. 1962.
I hope she leaves the CF bulbs on…
“Already my heart is starting to break. But you’re going to have to do better than that to make me take the cap off the Old Crow again.”
What if…I visited you at your abode…and the ONLY thing you had to drink was Old Crow….and I was very very parched. Would you just let me thirst to death?!
Er, Chris, it’s not much different today. If you have a college degree, you can sign up for OCS (Officers Candidate School.) You have to make it through, of course. And if there’s a real shooting match going on and lieutenants are vanishing at a high rate of speed ,why they might even start bending the standards to let the duds squeak through. Really not a problem, except for a few hundred residents of My Lai.
Read “One Bullet Away” to see how an earnest Ivy League grad entered the USMC and became an officer, and how hard he worked at Marince Corps OCS. OTOH, read “Generation Kill”, to see how a few knuckleheads make it into their officer corps anyways.
That old English dude Adam Smith once wrote:
“The ordinary expense of the greater part of modern governments in time of peace being equal or nearly equal to their ordinary revenue, when war comes they are both unwilling and unable to increase their revenue in proportion to the increase of their expense. They are unwilling for fear of offending the people, who, by so great and so sudden an increase of taxes, would soon be disgusted with the war; and they are unable from not well knowing what taxes would be sufficient to produce the revenue wanted.
The facility of borrowing delivers them from the embarrassment which this fear and inability would otherwise occasion. By means of borrowing they are enabled, with a very moderate increase of taxes, to raise, from year to year, money sufficient for carrying on the war, and by the practice of perpetually funding they are enabled, with the smallest possible increase of taxes, to raise annually the largest possible sum of money.
In great empires the people who live in the capital, and in the provinces remote from the scene of action, feel, many of them, scarce any inconveniency from the war; but enjoy, at their ease, the amusement of reading in the newspapers the exploits of their own fleets and armies. To them this amusement compensates the small difference between the taxes which they pay on account of the war, and those which they had been accustomed to pay in time of peace. They are commonly dissatisfied with the return of peace, which puts an end to their amusement, and to a thousand visionary hopes of conquest and national glory from a longer continuance of the war.
Also, manroot.”
Look, GLBTetc. rights is my main issue in life, so this thread is of great interest. But I’m also considerably overhung due to an accident involving a couple of bottles of wine and a quantity of Taj Mahal, which only comes in those large bottles. So if you could all please stop talking abut Old fucking Crow, that would be salutary. That stuff has one possible use: it is superb for removing old polish from shoes and boots, and leaves behind a pleasant smell. It is not for drinking, and it never has been.
I’ll come back later, when this craze for Sterno has passed.
I guess the notion of getting to volunteer for OCS is different in my mind from drafting somebody and just assuming he has the necessary skills… then again I’m basing this off the story of a friend’s grandfather, who worked in engineering on a ship under the command of a former paleontology student who didn’t know beans about engineering.
Hopefully, they match people with their area of expertise these days, or at least bother to give them the proper training.
Also great quote from Adam Smith. Sad, but true.
Is Old Crow worse than Evan Williams?
At least it has a bottle instead of a plastic jug…
~
You people are snobs. What’s wrong with drinking cheap whiskey out of a jug…or even just hooking up an IV and mainlining it right into the old system? This hoity-toity attitude of yours is a real turn-off.
Putting everyone’s families at risk in the hope that people will make fewer silly choices is sick, yes. Quite a political winner too.
Well, the other question about the WWII/draft era is, what did they do with the duds? Fuck up big enough, and you could lose your commission, but I don’t know what happened to you then. I’m got a strong hunch you wound up enlisted, maybe. If they went that far.
Seen or read “Band of Brothers”? That was a semi-elite unit (well, about as elite as it got back then) and they had some dud officers, too. I suspect that their way of dealing with goofballs was similar to the way the Catholic church dealt with molesterers — a stern transferring to some other unit!
And if you are familiar with the details of BoB, keep in mind what while Sobel the Jackass was successfully shed by Easy Co., he still wound up in combat in France, where, IIRC, he wound up shot in the ass. Which makes me wonder if it was the Germans who did it. It wasn’t just Vietnam where enlisted combat soldiers started exercising veto authority, with extreme prejudice.
Speaking of SLAVERY!, I knew a man who was in med school during WWII. Automatic draft into military doctordom, every single one of ’em. For obvious reasons. Glibertarians today just don’t grasp that citizenship and patriotism used to involve more than Toby Keith issuing faty’alls to the Dixie Chicks and Kris Kristofferson.
Between OCS and ROTC, it’s rare for a fancy lad to wind up in the military as an enlisted man unless he wants to be. Except for the kid who sits next to me at work, who was lied to by his recruiter…
Oh, and one sad fact of life, some of this is based on literacy and the ability to write droning reports. Me, I’ve got not much against the idea of making everybody start out as enlisted and winnowing/sorting from there, heck, some armies have even had the ranks elect their own officers, I think I’ve heard.
One of the concepts I actually loved from Heinlein’s militaryocracy was that you couldn’t be an officer unless you’d been in enlisted ranks first for X amounts of time. When you think about it, it seems only normal.
Hey SubMcG,
Again, it might be nice to see the usually-relatively-small cabal of warmongers get tweaked, but not at the risk of death of, say, people in my family.
So you’re saying government by the people has already vanished, essentially. You understand us to mean the only threat of suffering that is effective at averting war is to the ‘small cabal’ that acts unconstrained by the republic.
But no, we’re talking about Adam Smith’s provincial readers suffering their mild taxes and hoping not to be disappointed by the coming of peace. They might look forward to the coming of peace if there was more justice in burden of war fighting.
War isn’t real in America. We’ve already been normalized to perpetual war and we’re only 10 years in. I am an opponent of perpetual war.
Snark: All politics is hostage politics. All politics is sick — insofar as actual people suffer every single time some stupid shit happens in Washington, e.g., the battle we just had over the tax-compromise/unemployment. Strangely or not, sociopaths are so effective at politics.
I don’t think you can read upthread and claim everybody’s making the same argument on the same basis.
Then why not advocate abolishing the military instead of enhancing it?
“Major Kong” was the Slim Pickens character in Dr. Strangelove.
Missed (for a couple yrs. now) a pop cult ref I’m more than old enough to get. The end is near.
I BEAT BOUFFANT.
Homersexhulality: Gore Vidal thought (well, thinks, I guess, he’s not dead yet) that sexuality is fluid, and if people choose to do x, y, or z, so the fuck what? And that would make conservatives jut as angry and irate.
If sherry enemas are wrong, I don’t want to be right.
I can’t speak for everyone upthread, but I was making the exact same argument (sounded more straightforward in my head) – that I’m not trying to affect the “small cabal” so much as their many, many armchair supporters in the general public who can afford to cheer for or ignore all the wars waged in their name because they’ll never have to pay a price for them.
In re: Old Crow. It (& tequila) have never touched my lips again. Did go through a Bacardi 151 period before settling on Wild Turkey.
Now I hardly drink, & pay the price when I have a few.
Then why not advocate abolishing the military instead of enhancing it?
Is that realistic? More realistic than a draft?
We just now got around to letting open gays volunteer to fight wars, and we’re going to abolish the military? Baby steps.
I BEAT BOUFFANT.
Like hell! I’m still older than you.
Not at all. But you can choose your pipe dreams.
Dare I say it’s a pink Panzer?
Fer gawd’s sake, Blake Edwards isn’t even cold yet. Too soon Spengler, too soon.
More O.C.: Fer gawds sake, I may not even have been 22 at the time I slugged down the fifth. I’m really a
better differentmore sophisticated person now.I think justice is within our grasp, so I’d rather advocate for that rather than a warless utopia.
Is justice a pipe dream?
Look. Wars suck. So if we’re going to keep fighting them forever I’d rather everyone suffer equally for them. Keeping an underclass to fight wars is the alternative, right?
I’ll concede this though — maybe we could find a way to do it without the draft, perhaps with absolutely onerous progressive taxation. Something like “during war all income beyond $30,000 will be taxed at 60%; all wealth beyond $250,000 will be taxed at a rate necessary to make up any shortfall in the military budget.” Is that a better way to spread the pain compared to threat of life and limb?
Ho, P.M. didn’t even see your “Fer gawd’s sake.”
Two minds, one fifth. (No martoonis for me, though.)
Too effing early to discuss boozing anyway. Back to Morpheus’ arms. (Please, no more nightmares.)
Is it? Why spend time talking about a draft when you could be talking about strengthening the social safety net? That’s way more sane than draft advocacy as a political position.
Tequila (proper pronunciation: te kill ya) is among the most vile concoctions in the history of the universe.
Bona fides:
Scene: Winter intersession, sophomore year, Erie PA.
Staff: Myself and one other housemate
Supplies: Two cases of Tequila, four cartons Camel unfiltered, a lid or two and a box of twinkies.
Goal: Complete play through Dunkirk, Tobruk, and Drang nach Osten board games
Ever since, even smelling Tequila turns my stomach.
I watched “All Quiet on the Western Front” last week. Every anti-war message you have ever seen in a war movie was covered in 1930. Seems a large part of every generation falls for the same schtick and people have to learn the hard way.
That, and outsourcing war more and more to the PMCs. At some point in the next twenty or thirty years, my theory is we’ll have a Vietnam or Afghanistan or Yemen type situation – something so murky and unclear we won’t want to touch it directly with a twenty-foot pole – so we’ll hire a PMC to actually do our work for us (not just support roles as they do right now).
Heck, Executive Outcomes already pionneered the mercenary army concept in Africa during the 1990s. There’s just too much money in it for the idea to stay dead, especially with all the trends right now going towards privatization and outsourcing.
Heh. I had a hankering for Schadenfreude tea for this morning. So I went over to Freeperville to read the comments. HI-larious.
LeoWindhorse said:
Stepan12 (Palin & Bolton in 2012) [real nym! – PM]
traderrob6:
Sweet, sweet Schadenfreude tea.
So Bubba,
I’m off to my baby shower, but while I’m gone maybe you can articulate a stopgap to perpetual war that doesn’t boil down to “abolish the military” or “don’t talk about staffing wars”.
Perhaps universally guaranteed national income? That strengthens the safety net while at the same time starving off the poverty-draft. (Exacerbates Chris’s PMC timeline though.)
Old news. They said the same thing after HCR passed. They always want a Pinochet to “straighten out” the Democrat who had the audacity to be popularly elected.
I hate it when people exacerbate my PMC timeline.
One would be not having everybody in the US be trained to be a killbot, but what do I know.
One would be not having everybody in the US be trained to be a killbot
Second this.
While I get why people suggest reinstating the draft, I don’t consider myself qualified to make that argument. I’m too old for the draft, and I can’t in good conscience wish it on anyone who is eligible.
And another one might not be giving the majority of the U.S. a blank check to endorse every war that catches the GOP’s fancy without having to pay even the slightest consequence for it, but what do I know.
I wonder if America needs a Pinochet to straighten things out?
We need a Pinochet because everything Democrats do is an unconstitutional impingement of our rights.
Look, you learn the lesson AFTER your kid is killed. It leads me to think that ideas like this are just a sick attempt at poking someone else in the eye rather than a policy prescription that is just or realistic.
This is wrong:
Some people seem to think a conscription system will be more equitable. It won’t be, not for the foreseeable future.
The guys who run this country have traditionally felt that keeping their sons out of combat is a prerogative of power that they’re entitled to. You can be absolutely certain that any new draft laws will be written with ample loop-holes to protect the children of the privileged and will be as inequitable as or worse than the draft laws I had to deal with back in the day. Like back then, the main burden of conscription will fall on the people who are the most powerless to do anything about it. And since conscription is by definition coercive, the injustice will seem even sharper.
There might be reasons to favor a draft. Social justice is not one of them, not with our present system.
And the contrast between Vietnam and Iraq, in terms of the degree of opposition people had to it, leads me to think otherwise. Though I already pointed out that this discussion is indeed pretty academic now that so much of the public’s become wedded to both the militarism and the consequence-free environment surrounding it.
As for “you learn the lesson AFTER your kid was killed”… The flip side being that as long as it’s someone else’s kid, you don’t really care and as likely as not are cheering for it?
Kids are ALREADY getting killed left and right. And it’s possible in no small part because of the support of people, and not just politicians, who have the luxury of knowing it’ll never be their kid. (And yes, I said “luxury;” if something’s worth going to war for, it’s damn well something that should involve the entire nation and not just a minority of poverty-draftees).
How long did that conflict go on?
Here’s a reason to favor a draft:
To avoid a Pinochet situation.
You don’t want a military too heavy with right wing authoritarians who sit around resenting the soft, corrupt, decadent civilian world who they know they’re so much better than, etc etc, and whose control they resent, and the boo hoo hoo we’re so underappreciated*, etc etc. Jamming a goodly % of folks from all walks of life into there can water down that shit a bunch.
* OK, I’m thinking of cops there, too.
SMG, Vietnam went on a while, but we did eventually get out, and popular pressure had a lot to do with it.
I think everybody can see what’s going on with our current state of war – it’s never-ending and the little peoples’ opinions on the subject is not relevant. Expect another 10 years. Thanks to the same fuckers who were upset about ten years in Vietnam not being enough funtime.
Good question (between the post-WW2 era and 1975, so roughly thirty years, at least the U.S. part of it).
Over all those years, how strong was the opposition to the war before the draft became a serious risk for the average joe?
Did the war not start because there was a draft?
Here’s an article from the 1990s that makes essentially the same point. Doesn’t say much about the draft, but it does point out the risks inherent in what it calls “postmodern militarism,” e.g. the current “we love war but don’t want to fight in it” attitude of so much of the public.
To be fair, I don’t think there’s much chance of a Pinochet coup ever coming from the U.S. military, though.
Combat troops were first sent to Viet Nam in 1965. We withdrew in 1975. The Afghanistan war has been going on nearly as long. There are far fewer troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and far fewer combat deaths. I think the draft made a huge difference in public opinion, but also in the troops’ opinion. The Soldiers’ Revolt and the fact that the North Viet Namese won the war was likely far more influential than public opinion in ending our involvement.
The most dangerous right-wing American general I’ve ever seen was Curtis LeMay. The fact that there was a draft didn’t seem to make him any less crazy.
I’m also skeptical that a draft would curb American militarism. The most enthusiastically militarist era I’ve ever experienced was the early Cold War, 1950s and early 1960s, when a peacetime draft was fully operative.
Well, if you’re comparing it to Afghanistan, also the fact that we didn’t have any vital interests involved. Catching the guys who launched the 9/11 attacks, that’s a vital interest, and agree or disagree most people see the Afghanistan war as doing that. I think we’d put up with a lot more casualties before calling that one quits, but that’s just my opinion.
IMHO back in those days, things were more militarized, but less militarist in some ways. Now we have a bunch of manly chest-thumping wingnuts running around with all sorts of extreme, far-right ideas — and they’ve never had many chances in the real world to find out that their ideology may be a big bucket of hot shit, and that most ideologies are. I think a lot of Republicans in the military back in those days were a little more pragmatic. Things have gotten more ideological — and resentful — and angry.
Somebody commented here the other day that today’s officer corps are less likely to go for the full Beck/Limbaugh bucket-of-shit-theories-that-explain-everything-evar, than some of the enlisted. That fits in with my perspective, working with lots of ex-military folks.
“The world’s greatest intellectual, Thomas Sowell’
made me spit coffee
Chris, the answer to your puzzlement can be found in Howard Zinn’s memoirs. Basically the WWII era officer/enlisted divide was based on the traditional situation of officers being aristocrats and enlisted men being peasants. Having a degree meant you were from the upper class and therefore suited to command the lower orders.
Modern armed forces are less stupid on this point AIUI.
I come home last night, full a fifth of Old Crow
You said you goin’ to your Ma’s, but where the hell did you go
You went and slipped out nights, you didn’t think that I’d know
With some gin-soaked boyyyyy that you don’t know
How about this:
Every time there’s a question of does the US go to war, we have a national referendum. But (a) only people who would be eligible for military service can participate, and (b) it’s not a secret ballot; voting in favor automatically registers you. If the majority votes in favor, the US goes to war. Anyone who voted in favor now has a chance, based on the number of “yes” votes and the manpower needs, of being conscripted.
On the draft argument, it’s also important to remember that the children of the rich and powerful will never ever be in harm’s way. Back when we had a draft, the children of politicians and rich power-brokers in government always were “volunteered” into special squadrons like Bush’s cowboy squadron in Texas, carefully sequestered from the front lines.
If we had a draft, the same things would occur. Worse yet, many of those who have voted for the perpetual war managed to have those sort of fake combat backgrounds where they assumed they were macho war-mongers who proved themselves on the battlefield simply because they technically were part of the military.
Not to mention the social fall-out. The draft and WWII left a shit-ton of GIs coming home with untreated PTSD and the rampant alcoholic parenting environments of the 50s and 60s is something we’re still recovering from socially. Not to mention the massive untreated issues from Vietnam.
Yeah, it’s unfortunate that war has become something fictional and a projection screen for the masculinity insecurities of wingnuts, but that’s mostly related to the fact that America hasn’t actually witnessed anything on their own shores in a long long time.
It’s always easy to support a war as long as it’s over there. Doesn’t matter if you send people’s kids and they come home in body bags. As long as American cities aren’t burning, people aren’t fleeing collapsing buildings and dodging mortar fire just ahead of the advancing tanks, you’ll always get at least a simple majority of the population to support it.
Vietnam was a fluke and the military-industrial complex has fully mastered the techniques of completing defusing popular opinion on matters of war. Pretty much no one wants us in Iraq any more and Afghanistan lost its lustre a long time ago. But it doesn’t really matter because the political operatives are too scared to end it (doesn’t help that we’re also letting people continue to die in perpetual war because we really really don’t want to deal with the addition of tweaked-out untreated PTSD cases with heavy paramilitary training to this trainwreck of an economy and the massive upswing in domestic terrorism that is sure to cause).
Not to mention that most of the chickenhawks I know or have heard about are fucking old as fuck and seem to have estranged most of their younger family members.
Take that and consider the general attitude around Vietnam was that the gutter scum college kids deserved to die in a quagmire to teach them a lesson for thinking women, blacks, and jews were human beings and well…
Yeah, I remain strongly unconvinced that the reintroduction of the draft would in any way blunt the vile hard-on Americans have for war.
And I’m oddly touched by your caveat.
Please point out on this doll just exactly where you were “oddly touched” by D-K W.
DKW is pretty handsy with me. It’d be quicker to show you where he didn’t.
Question: who’s blowing Dann Blatt for him to change his mind so quickly?
I decided there’s really no point in getting into an extended discussion about reinsitution of the draft, much less detailed point-by-point argumentation. There was a considerable amount of half-baked nonsense in the thread. Commenters were all over the map in their rationales for why the draft Would Be Nifty.
No one seriously addressed how the Draft might be adminstered; the few attempts were extremely simplistic, evidently generated with about 90 seconds of thought. (A particularly egregious example called for “No Exceptions!!!!”…then in the next sentence carved out an exemption for C.O.s.)
No mention of the length of service anywhere in the thread. (And that’s a very big issue: Do you expect the military to invest 52 weeks training a Russian linguist at Monterey…and discharge him/her a year later?) Some people seemed to imagine the Draft as part of a grandiose National Service scheme….which becomes far more complex in terms of fairness and administration.
One of the recurring themes, however, was that the Draft would impose restraint on American adventurism because children, relatives, and friends of BigWigs would be at risk. Even if the powerful aren’t able to carve enough exemption loopholes–and you must admit they are loophole experts–then you must establish some mechanisms to ensure equable risk. Or else you’ll have George W. Bush flying around stateside in the Champagne Squadron of the Texas AF National Guard.. (Or–for the National Service enthusiasts–to prevent the Our Glorious Rulers from using such non-military outlet to protect their kids.)
Jeebus, no one even ventured forth about the length of service time, which is a very big issue in the game. Or about instuting a draft that extends to 100% of the population. (Think fast: Will it be permissable to draft a pregnant woman? Gee, I guess it’s a little more complex, than No Exceptions, huh?)
Most notably, the thread was shot through with anecdotal second-hand ‘evidence’ from People You Know….and some extremely simplistic ‘interpretations’ of the failures in Vietnam. Example: No one even mentioned Johnson’s refusal to call up the Reserves (except some small service-support units).
So believe what you wantever you to believe about the draft. Sparkleponies, unicorns, whatever. I’m done on this subject.
In closing, however, I’m going to call out M. Bouffant for posting this particularly noxious comment:
Volunteer cannon fodder are more likely to go along, because they are inherently suckers. (And, as far as I’m concerned, deserve everything they get.)
Malignant, indeed.
YAAAAAWN… Who cares.
As long as you americans keep dying in ever greater numbers, fine.
It just shouldn’t be the poorest and most desperate; draft the lot of you.
I’m sick of fake squeamish attitudes. Particularly when presented by those who hold all the power, and you know that their song-and-dance: “I’m SO sorry to kill you and your children, but, hey, I’m noble underneath, so butchering you will serve as a moral lesson for me in the 2nd act… That IS, after all, what you primitives are here for”.
rationales for why the draft Would Be Nifty.
For the record, I made no rationale for a draft being nifty, or even desirable, only that the status quo is unjust. That doesn’t mean training every American to be a killbot — obvious strawman — it means that the war-machine ought not to be the employer or college fund of last-resort. A poor, brown army the majority doesn’t care about toiling in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran for the next 20 years is what I want to avoid. A draft was the scariest thing I could think of.
I’ll admit, I couldn’t think of better ways to get white America to give a shit about endless war, or hell to even consider endless war undesirable. That’s why I asked for alternatives.