John Re..The National Nitpicking Championship this year is being held in Denver. I think you have a shot at the title.
Why thank you, I work on it. I disagreed on your general characterization, that our soldiers are hiding in their camps, trying to figure out how to survive. If you want to be against the war fine; I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with your slurs, just to justify your opposition. Just as an African american would hate to be called a nigger, I am sure the troops, would hate your definition, of their life in Iraq.
You are contradicting yourself Mr. Nitpicker, which is it, "smarther" or "good attitude"?
I happen to believe that if you take an random sample of the US public, you will probably get a higher average IQ than you have in the all volunteer army. You disagree, no way to prove it one way or the other.
There you go with your nitpicking charges again. I said a professional soldier makes on average a better soldier than the average draftee, even with his supposed higher IQ. Youre the one who is claiming our soldiers would be better if we drafted them, because you claim they would be smarter.. Isn't that exactly the type of soldier we used in the world wars, and vietnam. How well did they do? Compare them to our current soldiers, and you will see that the soldiers we have right now are far better going into battles. While we can't prove which group was smarter, we do know our combat soldiers now are the best on earth. That was not true generally of our soldiers in WWII and Vietnam.
That doesn't mean we're not still responsible, as a citizen. Just because you make a cost / benefit analysis you are still responsible.
So, you are saying Saddam can murder and torture as many of his citizens as he wishes, but it is the US responsibility, for the deaths incurred stopping those murders. Did you bother to think that if Saddam hadn't murdered and tortured his citizens to begin with, the US wouldn't have had to expend 500 US lives to stop the killing. Wouldn't Saddam be mostly responsible, for the war deaths, and completely responsible for all of the murders he committed before the war? Oh wait, Rumsfeld went to see Saddam in 83, so we are responsible there also.
didn't say in "combat", I said in the soldier selection process. Can't you get anything right?
Here is what you said.
The most basic conservative dogma. You don't agree?
Participatory Democracy. It's the key to keeping things honest. If there is nothing to lose, you will always get your "chicken-hawks".
And I said participatory democracy is a bad idea in drafting people who don't want to be there, for combat. It is a bad idea because the draftees are poorer soldiers on average, and participatory democracy is aparticularily bad idea in combat. Sure, if you institute a process, which puts a lot of people in combat, who aren't trained to be there,and don't want to fight, so the US soldiers fight like we were French,with no victories, and massive losses, then you probably would have a higher proportion of the US population against the war. However, throughout history, our military always was drafted,up until the early 80's, and we were involved in a lot of wars then also. The major difference is that the US now suffers far fewer casualties. In fact, we won the last two wars, Iraq with a supposedly superior army to Vietnams, and Afghanistan, with a history of defeating both the British and Russians in the last century; with fewer casualties than we suffered in 2 months of the war in Vietman.
Yea, so?
The so is that people don't want weak, wussy leaders, who are looking for reasons not to do something. The West Wing had good ratings, as long as people saw Sheen as a decisive leader. Once Sheen showed his true colors, his acting like a decisive leader was seen as being a sham, and now nobody wants to watch the fake.
. |
