Did The Chinese Violate Any Treaties?

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

:In article om,
: wrote:
: You start a draft when your country is under attack, not when you decide
: to invade another country.
:
:September 11, 2001.
:
:The Sept. 11th attacks were conducted by a small band of criminals,
:loosely backed by one government which no longer exists (the Taliban
:regime of Afghanistan). They can't reasonably be used as an excuse to
:impose conscription for any purpose you please, 5+ years later.
:
Of course, the secret motto of the Department of Fatherland Security is
:"we have to destroy freedom to save it" :-), but this seems a trifle
:excessive even so.)
:
:There might be some sense to it if the proposed draft were for the purpose
f pacifying *Afghanistan* and finally stamping the Taliban out once and
:for all -- and heaven knows, that could use doing. But Iraq is an
:unrelated side show.

The only people proposing a draft are left-wing Democrats.

:
: ...and if the
: President tries to start a draft, he's going to impeached inside of 48
: hours...and rightfully so.
:
:Why impeached? Doesn't Congress have to authorize conscription? Surely
:all they have to do is laugh at him, not impeach him.
:
:If he asked for something so stupid, they might feel that the process of
:regime change couldn't reasonably wait another two years.

Again, the only people proposing a draft are left-wing Democrats
(usually Rangel, D-NY).

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:37:01 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Belushi did some great stuff, but "Bluto" Blutarski was his crowning gem.

....In no particular order, Belushi's ten greatest roles were arguably:

* Joliet Jake Blues
* The Samurai
* Captain James Tiberius Kirk
* Joe Cocker
* Captain Ned of the Raging Queen
* The Future Sen. John "Bluto" Blutarsky
* Jor-El, who was reincarnated as Charlie Rich
* Capt. Wild Bill Kelso
* Ernie Souchak
* The Incredible Hulk taking a ****!

....But, of course, no list can go without mentioning his most ironic,
yet memorable role: himself, giving a decades-later eulogy for his
long-departed SNL comrades, with the irony being that -he- would be
the first to die, and not the last.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:23:52 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Sorry, answer the question.

....**** it. Rand, you're just jerking chains while you're jerking off.
I'm not going to play your sick little game. Begone.

PLONK

I just can't believe that Rand finally fell to the madness of the
trolls...

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article om,
wrote:
You start a draft when your country is under attack, not when you decide
to invade another country.
September 11, 2001.

The Sept. 11th attacks were conducted by a small band of criminals,
loosely backed by one government which no longer exists (the Taliban
regime of Afghanistan). They can't reasonably be used as an excuse to
impose conscription for any purpose you please, 5+ years later.

Generally, I would agree, but not here. The rationale isn't the
Taliban or even directly Iraq. The simple fact of the matter is that
the US is overcommitted and we do not have sufficient reserves to
handle any new threats or emergencies. We've been losing strength
for the past few years. We've already lost about a division's worth
of casualties as well as declining enlistments to backfill those
slots. We're losing a disproportionate amount of second term enlistees
who normally decide to re-enlist. (Generally, the people who complete
their second enlistment tend to retire in the military after 20. Leaving
at the end of 8 or 12 years is a huge red flag). The Army and Marines
have reduced standards to below that of the Carter Administration's
level of requirements. They have then also been publishing overly
optimistic re-enlistment news based upon meeting ever decreasing quotas
rather than hard requirements for maintaining combat effectiveness.

We've had peacetime drafts before. There is a solid requirement now
to maintain certain levels of force and there is no real expectation
of maintaining that level with the current situation and qualified
people are even more noticable in their absence than their volunteering.
(Doubly true of upper income war supporters).

The truth of the matter is quite simple. The Bush administration
has tried to do this on the cheap from day 1. They opposes increasing
the size of the military in the 2003 budget when this started and
Congress overrode that objection. They have consistently opposed any
other increase in military spending or budget since then[1].

When you push through tax cuts and fight a war on credit, you're
really not big on the whole sacrifice concept.


(Of course, the secret motto of the Department of Fatherland Security is
"we have to destroy freedom to save it" :-), but this seems a trifle
excessive even so.)

There might be some sense to it if the proposed draft were for the purpose
of pacifying *Afghanistan* and finally stamping the Taliban out once and
for all -- and heaven knows, that could use doing. But Iraq is an
unrelated side show.


We're likely to be in a shooting war with either Syria or Iran soon.
Side show, or not, that does not decrease the risk of having no reserves
and the potential loss of a lot of qualified military personnel.

...and if the
President tries to start a draft, he's going to impeached inside of 48
hours...and rightfully so.
Why impeached? Doesn't Congress have to authorize conscription? Surely
all they have to do is laugh at him, not impeach him.

If he asked for something so stupid, they might feel that the process of
regime change couldn't reasonably wait another two years.

I am not sure about that. The democrats have been the ones who have
been pushing for the increase in the size of the military and they
have been the ones who have pushed draft legislation. Personally,
I would be shocked and pleasantly surprised if anyone near the
administration actually did *any* contingency planning[2],
much less took any steps towards meeting the possible requirements.

Now, if Bush's current hostile stance towards Iran leads to a
shooting war, then there will be some serious doubts as to
the provocation of such a war. His current rules of engagement
are almost designed to lead to an escalation incident. An outright
bombing of Iranian oil platforms or other targets would be very
questionable.


[1] http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1203/121003cdpm1.htm



[2]
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/election...ity_of_failure

"It's bad policy to speculate on what you'll do if a plan fails
when you're trying to make a plan work."

-- Condoleezza Rice, quoted in The Washington Post speaking at today's
hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (special thanks
to TPM Reader SW for the tip)

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 01:56:04 -0700, in a place far, far away, Charles
Buckley made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Now, if Bush's current hostile stance towards Iran

What planet are you posting this from, and what color is the sky
there?

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 04:26:42 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J.
McCall made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

:In article om,
: wrote:
: You start a draft when your country is under attack, not when you decide
: to invade another country.
:
:September 11, 2001.
:
:The Sept. 11th attacks were conducted by a small band of criminals,
:loosely backed by one government which no longer exists (the Taliban
:regime of Afghanistan).

That "gang of criminals" still exists, and continues to be funded in
the same manner as it was on 911, from a lot of Saudi oil money, and
protected by tribal leaders in the anarchy of Waziristan.

OM wrote:
...In no particular order, Belushi's ten greatest roles were arguably:

* Joliet Jake Blues

Great character, and you would've had to have gone to a Catholic primary
school, like I did, to realize the full and terrible power of "The
Penguin".
Christ, she was of the same order of nuns that I was instructed by as a
kid.
* The Samurai
Facial expressions just did it, didn't it?
That and a razor-sharp Katana sword to help divide sandwiches.
* Captain James Tiberius Kirk
* Joe Cocker
* Captain Ned of the Raging Queen
* The Future Sen. John "Bluto" Blutarsky

Again, facial expressions without a word were perfect.
He just balled the living hell out of her, and she's sitting there
looking at a very force of nature.
Jor-El, who was reincarnated as Charlie Rich
Perfect ending for "Seinfeld":
They all really go down in the plane, and wake up in their new lives,
decided by their karma.
Jerry wakes up as he's crawling out of a meteorite that fell near
Smallville, with his impervious swaddling clothes around him.
As the two Kents approach him in the crater, a close friend of their's
also approaches the desperate child.
The bald-headed Lex Newman approaches the Kryptonian child as seen
through Jerry's eyes.
"Why look, what a lovely little baby! Look, I've brought a little gift
for him....
Hello... KAL-EL."
Newman holds up a glowing piece of green Kryponite...the baby Jerry
starts screaming.

* Capt. Wild Bill Kelso

Perfect realization of a character... stick your finger through the hole
on the inside of your P-40's canopy.
Reach outside your P-40's canopy, and stick your finger through the same
hole from the outside.
"THIS IS ****ING IT! THE GODDAMN JAPS HAVE JUST SHOT A HOLE IN *MY*
AIRPLANE!" :-D

Pat

Rand Simberg wrote:
That "gang of criminals" still exists, and continues to be funded in
the same manner as it was on 911, from a lot of Saudi oil money, and
protected by tribal leaders in the anarchy of Waziristan.


Okay.. what the **** is "Waziristan"?

Pat

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 08:17:04 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



Rand Simberg wrote:
That "gang of criminals" still exists, and continues to be funded in
the same manner as it was on 911, from a lot of Saudi oil money, and
protected by tribal leaders in the anarchy of Waziristan.


Okay.. what the **** is "Waziristan"?

You want to argue about Bush's evil war, and be taken seriously, and
don't know what Waziristan is?

Rand Simberg wrote:

no minority is being exterminated in Iraq. Even if all the Sunnis or
Shia there were killed (unlikely), there'd be millions of others
elsewhere.

So because there were Jews elsewhere, the Holocaust doesn't count as
genocide?


No. The intent was to wipe out the Jews. If Hitler had achieved his
ultimate ambition of world domination he would have done so.

So those killing Sunnis are restricting their efforts to Iraqi Sunnis?