« Lawmakers Looking For More Regulation Of Political Activity | Main | Bobby and Pooty-poot, up in a tree... »

Another nail in the coffin of the draft hoax

I've written at length here and here why there is no way in hell that there will ever be another draft in the United States, pending some huge, imminent threat to our national existence. But that hasn't kept some morons from repeatedly screaming about their terror of being "drafted away from their families and jobs, and sent off to fight some illegal war" (quoted loosely; I don't feel like re-reading that particular idiot's words yet again).

The biggest weapon in their arsenal has been to cite the shortcomings the military has faced in their recruiting quotas of late. That particular gun was little more than a cap gun -- the Navy, Air Force, and Marines have all been meeting or exceeding their goals. The Marines are an especially enlightening example -- they represent 11% of the forces in Iraq but have taken 30% of the casualties, so one would think they would have the most trouble getting recruits, but they've been turning people away.

And now there's news that the cap gun has no caps. The Army announced yesterday that, after several months of falling short, they had met their goals for June.

I was briefly worried about those who've been lying awake at night, dreading the knock on the door and the scary man in uniform telling them that "Uncle Sam wants YOU -- and he ain't taking 'no' for an answer!"

Then I realized that they'll just find something new to panic over. It's their best tactic to keep themselves from having to actually think.


Comments (37)

Jay Tea writes: A... (Below threshold)
s9:

Jay Tea writes: And now there's news that the cap gun has no caps. The Army announced yesterday that, after several months of falling short, they had met their goals for June.

Did they meet their goals by signing up more recruits, or did they meet them by lowering the objectives?

From this AP news story, "One number matters: 80,000," Hilferty said. "The Army's fiscal 2005 goal was, is and remains 80,000 recruits" . . . Recruiters would have to land more than 9,760 young men and women a month, on average, to reach the 80,000 target by the end of September." [emphasis added]

The question remains on the table, Jay. What are you doing to help the Army recruit more young men and women to fight your war for you? Or do you really think the Army really did set their objectives too high?

30% of the Senators that vo... (Below threshold)
Master of None:

30% of the Senators that voted for the Authorization to use Military Force, were Democrats (23 out of 77), yet, only 16% of enlisted troops, and only 9% of officers identify themselves as Democrats. Clearly S9, the onus is on the Democratic party to at least get their numbers up to 30%. Or if not the military, I'm sure the Iraqis could use some more of those human shields that so eargerly traveled to Iraq to help protect Sadam before the war.

s9, you made it abundantly ... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

s9, you made it abundantly clear that the ONLY reason you were opposed to the war was that you were afraid you'd be drafted and sent to fight it. As I point out, that is not gonna happen. Period. You can relax and go on with your life. You're perfectly safe from that.

So either spell out exactly why you oppose the war (as I've shown why I support it) or shut your piehole. You might be enough of a narcissistic, whiny little twit to reduce everything to "is it good for me, personally, and to hell with everyone else," but I don't play those games.

J.

Jay Tea writes: s... (Below threshold)
s9:

Jay Tea writes: s9, you made it abundantly clear that the ONLY reason you were opposed to the war was that you were afraid you'd be drafted and sent to fight it.

You must have me confused with someone else, Jay.

I have been consistent in my views that a draft is both unnecessary and highly unlikely to be politically viable. I am not afraid of the possibility of a draft.

I have also consistently explained that my opposition to the War™ in Iraq is grounded in moral, legal and pragmatic objections. Morally, the War™ is unjust. Legally, the War™ is a high crime (and an impeachable offense). Pragmatically, the War™ is just a huge waste of blood and treasure that can only end in disaster. I have been saying these things consistently since the summer of 2002, when anybody with two neurons to rub together knew that the War™ was unavoidable.

What I haven't said here, but I have said elsewhere, is that I see no good reason to volunteer for military service in this War™, and that the only way you will get me to fight it is to draft my civilian ass. Absent any compelling argument to volunteer, I won't be fighting your War™ for you. Unless you want to be a real dimwit and try to get a draft up and running.

I honestly don't understand how you managed to convince yourself that I was opposed to the War™ only because I was "afraid" of the draft. Sounds like you're projecting, to me...

He may be out of shape, ... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

He may be out of shape, and medically unfit for most of the glamorous billets where he would have the chance to be a hero, but many of his readers— readers like me— are prime A-1 draft bait. If he wants me to quit my job, leave my family, join the corps, and go fight his IraqWar™ for him, he needs to offer up more than a cheap legal theory for why he thinks it isn't a war crime. He needs to tell me why it's worth my time when it clearly isn't worth his.

--s9, two days ago.

Res ipsa loquitur.

J.

Hopefully everybody will be... (Below threshold)
gordon:

Hopefully everybody will be standing behind these words of the President and the General today and be actively supporting it by spreading the word throughout the community and this website.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-945785.php

America's parents should not stand in the way of sons and daughters who want to join the military, but should let them follow their patriotic instincts, the nation's No. 2 general said Wednesday.

"Those who are looking to serve this country should be encouraged to do so," said Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

A Marine whose son also is in the Marine Corps, Pace said the key is "to encourage our young people ... to come forward to help defend this nation ... and to encourage the families of those young folks to let them follow their instincts."

Coming amid Pentagon recruiting problems, his comments followed a direct appeal just hours earlier by President Bush for more people to enlist in the armed forces.

Jay Tea writes: R... (Below threshold)
s9:

Jay Tea writes: Res ipsa loquitur.

You're right. It does speak for itself. What part of "If he wants me to quit my job, leave my family, join the corps" is consistent with how a draft works?

I keep telling you that you need to explain to me why I should VOLUNTEER to fight your war for you, and— unlike you— I'm not hiding behind my draft eligibility status as reason not to sign up. You may prefer to use your supposed unfitness for combat duty as an excuse not to have to think about being a VOLUNTEER, but I'm not playing that game.

Feel free to address the substance of my remarks rather than what the voices in your head are telling you my remarks mean.

...and a bit more...<... (Below threshold)
s9:

...and a bit more...

I continue to be appalled by what Jay Tea offers as his best arguments in favor of my volunteering to fight his War™ for him: Saddam illegally diverted money from the U.N. "oil for food" program, and his regime's air defense systems returned fire at American and British warplanes in the air over Iraq. He wants me (and a whole lot of people like me) to volunteer to risk our lives and fight a War™ over this? What kind of idiots does he want joining up?

Interesting little troll ar... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

Interesting little troll aren't you.

Considering that the article you refer to is close to a month old, what bearing does it have in the current situation?

I, as well as many others, were wondering when Jay took possession of the war? I don't recall reading that here so I was wondering, could you provide the reference, or are you just a wee bit delusional?

As for you declarations regarding the war in Iraq, what is the basis for your statement? Can you provide references for you contention that it is illegal, morally wrong and pragmatically that it will end in disaster? You makes these statements as if you are the clearing house of knowledge, so please share and enlighten. Otherwise, this is just your opinion and without citing examples to back up your opinion, it is useless.

Thus the troll statement. Interesting though, I can imagine you typing furiously at your keyboard, in righteous indignity, thinking you have a valid point.

I enjoy the entertainment value . . .

Oh, for God's sake, s9:... (Below threshold)

Oh, for God's sake, s9:

"Morally, the War is unjust."
Either you see war for any reason as "morally unjust," or you blindly poo-poo all accounts of Saddam's reign of terror as propaganda. I won't even delve into the difficulty involved in defining "morality" in a mind rendered so impotent by the anti-logic of postmodernity.

"Legally, the War is a high crime (and an impeachable offense)."
To which "legal" authority should our nation answer? If not our own, then you are suggesting we severely compromise our sovereignty. If you are referring to our own legal system, instead of the One World Government vision of utopia you likely yearn for, please give evidence of true crime. Maybe you've heard the story: How many legs does a dog have? Four. If you call his tail a leg, how many legs does he have? Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. Calling something you don't like a crime doesn't make it so. Either enumerate actions that constitute "high crimes," or shut up about the "illegality" of the war.

"Pragmatically, the War is just a huge waste of blood and treasure that can only end in disaster."
This is a doozie. I doubt that you even have a nominal grasp of what "pragmatism" means. Otherwise, you wouldn't cite "blood and treasure" as a cost. Pragmatism is a compassion-free philosophy, devoid of any moral, legal, or ethical concerns. However, if you wish to jump into that pool, the ultimate pragmatic reaction to the attack of September 11 would have been genocide against all Muslims. The result would have been certain--no more Muslim terrorists.

BTW--Although I am impressed that you learned enough about your computer to find the character map and insert all those cute little "TM's" into your rants, I deleted them when I quoted you. I find they look utterly stupid, and although your intent probably is to draw attention to yourself, you reek of enough sheer lunacy to take care of that without the text embellishments.

...and a bit more...... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

...and a bit more...

Can you tell us why you felt the need to make it a personal attack? Jay did not address his remarks to any one person in particular, yet you felt the need to address him directly. Sounds a little insecure to me. That whole thing about not being able to respond to the argument, so redirect the argument and make it personal.

Enjoy . . .

DavidB writes: Co... (Below threshold)
s9:

DavidB writes: Considering that the article you refer to is close to a month old, what bearing does it have in the current situation?

Do you want to dispute the accuracy of the Hilferty quote it contains? Do you want to dispute the conclusion in the article about what rate would be required to make the fiscal 2005 recruiting goal in September?

The article was from a month ago, but the fiscal year still has three months to go. The numbers are telling a different story than what the Army is telling you. Who are you going to believe? The Army or your lying eyes?

DavidB writes: Ca... (Below threshold)
s9:

DavidB writes: Can you tell us why you felt the need to make it a personal attack?

I have not personally attacked Jay Tea, and I see no reason to do so. What are you talking about?

Somebody murder s9 please.<... (Below threshold)
Foppa:

Somebody murder s9 please.

Ok, point by point.<p... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

Ok, point by point.

The statement made by Hilferty was not as you quoted it. You mixed statements from the article to try and make a point. The second part of the statement, with the emphasis added, was not made by Hilferty and there was no source provided. Without the source to verify the statement, the contention is invalid, it is rumor. The way in which you restructured the article quotes appears to be a little disingenuous though.

The Army is not telling a different story. Hilferty is an Army source, so they are one in the same. The numbers are not published yet, so my "lying eyes" haven't seen anything to draw a complete conclusion on yet. What is your excuse?

By referring to the war as Jay's you are indirectly attempting to insult him. Did you think this was fooling anyone?

Foppa, why? He is kinda interesting to watch . . .

This is getting ridiculous.... (Below threshold)
fatman:

This is getting ridiculous.

Would someone PLEASE post a "Please Don't Feed The Trolls" sign? (And yes, Foppa, I'm talking about you too.)
Jeez.

s9 (and to Jay Tea as ammo ... (Below threshold)
Peter:

s9 (and to Jay Tea as ammo for his cannon):

This article is from the Brookings Institute, a largely Democratic/liberal think tank on why the war wasn't illegal. It spells it out pretty concisely and simply.

http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20040926.htm

DavidB writes: B... (Below threshold)
s9:

DavidB writes: By referring to the war as Jay's you are indirectly attempting to insult him. Did you think this was fooling anyone?

Look. He's a contributing editor here. He frequently writes in the first person verb tense. Back in May, he wrote a silly little exegesis (yes, in the first person) called They Also Serve, They Who Only Sit And Type, in which he decided to explain his personal reasons for not volunteering to serve in the military he was busy glorifying. I've been taking him task for it, and his subsequent reactions to my comments, ever since.

He solicited the comments in the first place. He's an apologist for the U.S. Iraq War™ policy. It seems to me that means he's calling for people— people like me— to volunteer for military service to fight this War™ he supports, but won't lift a finger himself to help fight (except to sit and type). I'm sure he would like to think he's helping the fight by sitting and typing— because he's said so in as many words— but I think that's crap.

It's a really simple set of questions, people. Anybody here want to try them on? Because it doesn't look like Jay wants to face up to them honestly: 1) Why should I quit my job, sell my house, leave my family alone for a year or more, to go fight in Iraq? 2) Why should I do this now?

And if you don't want to explain why *I* should do this, then pretend you're talking about my brother. Or my sister. Or any of my several nieces and nephews. Please. Tell me why they should fight this War™ for you.

p.s. I'll stop using the ™ symbol on the word War™ when there is an actual Declaration of War, which would mean the war exclusion clauses in all our insurance policies will be clearly and explicitly in play.

No, you look.It's ... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

No, you look.

It's quite obvous that you have never looked deeply into the requirements for service in the military. Many people who are willing to serve are not accepted every year for a number of reasons not limited to prior felony conviction, physical limitation, medical limitation, or mental health issues. I was in the military and I have seen and know of those who never made it in or were thrown out after the fact when some issue came to light. Jay may have a valid excuse/issue that keeps him from serving, where as you just seem to have an issue. Whether you think his reason is valid or not is of no matter, you have no evidence from which to base you opinion on other then "but I think it's crap."

As for your use of the trademark symbol, your link provides an overly simplistic war exclusion clause and if you had any real knowledge of insurance you would have realized that insurance companies would nver use such a simplistic clause. To much grey in that clause and an insurance saying is, "If it's grey we pay." You could have searched a little better to come up with one closer to an actual war exclusion clause. Something closer to an actual war exclusion clause looks like this "exclude from coverage claims rising from warlike action by a military force, including action in hindering or defending against an actual or expected attack, by any government, sovereign, or other authority using military personnel or other agents." So, since you have now been shown the door on that one, you can stop with the silly trademark symbol.

I do see that you carefully avoided my disputing your "facts" though. Care to take that one up?

I have said it before, and ... (Below threshold)
s9:

I have said it before, and I'll say it again: just because you aren't medically fit for combat duty— or even fit for military service at all— is no excuse.

There are many fine sutlerage and other non-military positions available in Iraq for Americans who want to help the war effort. Those positions have been known to be filled by people who would otherwise be turned away by the military. Has Jay ever looked into that option? He won't say. Moreover, he won't say why he hasn't taken such a position. Gee, I wonder why.

DavidB writes: So... (Below threshold)
s9:

DavidB writes: So, since you have now been shown the door on that one, you can stop with the silly trademark symbol.

Oh, piss off. There's a reason Congress opted not to pass a full Declaration of War and instead chose to pass an Authorization for the Use of Military Force. You know it as well as I do. Until Congress passes a declaration, this isn't a war. It's a War™. Sorry the little ™ symbol bugs you. Maybe you ought to say something to your congresscritter about the problem.

DavidB writes: d... (Below threshold)
s9:

DavidB writes: do see that you carefully avoided my disputing your "facts" though. Care to take that one up?

Would that dispute be on topic? I didn't think so.

How petty and puerile does ... (Below threshold)
Peter:

How petty and puerile does one have to be when they essentially base an argument around a trademark on the word "war", as if it holds deep symbolic meaning, when in fact is better left to the confines of a junior high school art class. Where the teacher would most certainly brandish it with a D grade at best for lack of imagination, originality and just plain triteness.

OK, it's time for a confess... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

OK, it's time for a confession. I've been lying about myself all along.

I'm a Viet Nam veteran. Green Beret and Seal. Double amputee, seven Purple Hearts, three-time winner of the Medal Of Honor. I currently have nine children serving in the military, and another set of twins about to turn 18 and sign up themselves. My oldest girl is a Colonel in the Navy, second in command of a battleship. I've been keeping this back out of an immense sense of modesty, but s9 has shamed me into making this confession.

Now that I've admitted all this, s9, NOW will stop trying to make the argument about me and look at WHAT I say? Or, to remain consistent, will you just shut up and admit that everything I've ever said before about the war is perfectly sensible and logical and correct, because I have what you consider the "proper" credentials?

Christ, the lengths some assholes will go to to avoid dealing with actual issues...

J.

Jay Tea confesses hi... (Below threshold)
s9:

Jay Tea confesses his hidden identity, then writes: Now that I've admitted all this, s9, NOW will stop trying to make the argument about me and look at WHAT I say?

Of course not. I don't care what you did or didn't do in Viet Nam, nor do I give a fsck what any of your nine children are doing. Why? 1) The Viet Nam War™ is over now; and 2) none of those other people are trying to tell me why I should be fighting in the Iraq War™. It's you, Jay. You're the one telling me that I should volunteer to fight in Iraq. You want me to make a sacrifice, but you don't think it's worth any sacrifice of your own. Do you?

To get back on topic, the U.S. armed forces have a huge recruiting problem right now. Despite their appearance of success obtained by lowering their recruiting goals for the month, the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are terribly short-handed, and we aren't recruiting their reinforcements at nearly the rate required if we are to win your splendid little war. If you can't lead by example, can't you at least start articulating a good reason for people to join the fight?

I mean, really... "Saddam violated the cease fire!" is not a particularly interesting reason to want to— sing it with me, 'cause I know you know the words by now— quit our jobs, sell our houses, leave our families, join the army and go risk our lives for it. "Saddam flipped off the United Nations! He can't do that! Only we can get away with that!" Sorry, buddy— I am not picking up a gun and following anybody for that. You've got to have a better reason.

s9 barked:<... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

s9 barked:

Oh, piss off.

Snappy reply there s9. It would appear that your word is as useless as your argument.

s9 further stated:

Would that dispute be on topic? I didn't think so.

Correction, you didn't think or read. This is what you blathered to begin with;

Did they meet their goals by signing up more recruits, or did they meet them by lowering the objectives?

From this AP news story, "One number matters: 80,000," Hilferty said. "The Army's fiscal 2005 goal was, is and remains 80,000 recruits" . . . Recruiters would have to land more than 9,760 young men and women a month, on average, to reach the 80,000 target by the end of September." [emphasis added]

The question remains on the table, Jay. What are you doing to help the Army recruit more young men and women to fight your war for you? Or do you really think the Army really did set their objectives too high?

Some responded, including me and you asked this of me:

Do you want to dispute the accuracy of the Hilferty quote it contains? Do you want to dispute the conclusion in the article about what rate would be required to make the fiscal 2005 recruiting goal in September?

The article was from a month ago, but the fiscal year still has three months to go. The numbers are telling a different story than what the Army is telling you. Who are you going to believe? The Army or your lying eyes?

I responded:

Ok, point by point.

The statement made by Hilferty was not as you quoted it. You mixed statements from the article to try and make a point. The second part of the statement, with the emphasis added, was not made by Hilferty and there was no source provided. Without the source to verify the statement, the contention is invalid, it is rumor. The way in which you restructured the article quotes appears to be a little disingenuous though.

The Army is not telling a different story. Hilferty is an Army source, so they are one in the same. The numbers are not published yet, so my "lying eyes" haven't seen anything to draw a complete conclusion on yet. What is your excuse?

Your "facts" are in dispute. You carefully edited the wording in the article to suit your needs. You misquoted and tried to use unsubstantiated information to prove a point.

You also failed to mention, or just chose to ignore, that the Army is currently in an expansion mode. Trying to increase the numbers in the ranks by 30,00 people. So it would not be to hard to imagine that the slow down in recruiting, while it is a bitch for the expansion, would not have an overall affect on troop strength in the Iraq theater of operations. It may slow down or delay the expansion effort though.

What would be a true indication of a numbers problem is if this years target numbers were the same as last year or the year before. I doubt that since the Army is expanding it's ranks though.

Jay Tea writes: M... (Below threshold)
s9:

Jay Tea writes: My oldest girl is a Colonel in the Navy, second in command of a battleship.

Yes, I realize that Jay is lying for effect here. Now can we please get back on topic?

s9 said:... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

s9 said:

It's you, Jay. You're the one telling me that I should volunteer to fight in Iraq.

Do you have reading comprehension problems as well? Where, in this posting, did he tell you, or anybody else for that matter, to volunteer?

You fit the bill, moonbat!

DavidB writes: Yo... (Below threshold)
s9:

DavidB writes: You carefully edited the wording in the article to suit your needs.

Oh. Now I'm being accused of careful editing. Good grief. What's next? Syntactic precision? Semantic clarity? OMG... somebody stop me before I edit again.

DavidB continues: You misquoted and tried to use unsubstantiated information to prove a point.

I did no such thing. I quoted the article and I properly marked what were Hilferty's words and what was the conclusion of the AP reporter. I asked if you wanted to dispute the accuracy of the quote or the conclusion in the article. You haven't opted to dispute either of those yet. Instead, what have you said?

DavidB writes: You also failed to mention, or just chose to ignore, that the Army is currently in an expansion mode.

Gee. I wonder why the Army might feel the need to expand. Maybe, it would have something to do with the draw-down that happened after the "end of the Cold War" while Clinton was President.

I wonder what it would mean for the War™ in Iraq if the reëxpansion the Army is trying to accomplish were to be wrecked on the shoals of plunging recruitment numbers because the utter incompetence with which the Iraq War™ has been executed.

DavidB writes: Wh... (Below threshold)
s9:

DavidB writes: Where, in this posting, did he tell you, or anybody else for that matter, to volunteer?

An interesting question. On the one hand, he isn't advocating that anyone volunteer their service. I think it's safe to say that Jay, if pressed on the matter, would not admit that he believes nobody should volunteer. He's actually made an effort to glorify the sacrifices made by people who have already volunteered, so it's hard to believe he would say that nobody else should volunteer now.

So, it's pretty clear that Jay thinks somebody should volunteer— as long as it isn't him. It's not at all clear, from his postings, that he thinks any particular people should or shouldn't volunteer. He's just got this vague notion that somebody ought to do it, and when one of those somebodies, e.g. me, comes out and asks to know why Jay thinks it's worth our time and not his, he gets all defensive... and refuses to answer the question.

You obviously did not read ... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

You obviously did not read the entire article, you did note that it was two pages?

Oh, and I see you are a military expert now as well. Interesting.

Your continued use ad hominem tu quoque attacks against Jay are worthless.

s9, I've gone back over eve... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

s9, I've gone back over everything I've ever written, and I don't recall EVER calling on you specifically or anyone in general to serve in the military. In these days of an all-volunteer service, it's become a vocation. Either you "hear the call" or you don't.

In fact, I'll go one step further. Under no circumstances would I want you to volunteer for the military. Asking them to accept you would be too great an insult.

Oh, hell, let's go even further. I FORBID you from ever volunteering to serve in the military. I'll even get that notarized and made into a decorative certificate, suitable for framing.

J.

(Correction -- under one circumstance would I allow you to serve. I just checked with my oldest boy -- Lt. Commander, USMC -- and they're still not recruiting for "bayonet practice dummy." Should that change, though, you have my permission to volunteer for that.)

Jay Tea writes: O... (Below threshold)
s9:

Jay Tea writes: Oh, hell, let's go even further. I FORBID you from ever volunteering to serve in the military. I'll even get that notarized and made into a decorative certificate, suitable for framing.

Well, isn't that interesting? I was wondering whether I could sucker Jay Tea into saying something stupid like that.

This article has tailed off the main page now, so I don't expect to see any more followups on this thread, but it should come as no surprise that I'm going to start banging on what criteria Jay Tea is using to decide who he believes should volunteer for service and who should be forbidden from serving.

The only thing you've "suck... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

The only thing you've "suckered" me into is in refusing to take you seriously about anything any more. The only "power" I have is what you have granted me. I figured if you're going to make me the arbiter of who should and who should not serve, as well as who would be called up in a draft, it was only a short hop to where I could just outright ban you from military service.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to give some oats to my sea horse.

Commodore Jay Tea
(Naval Cavalry, retired)

So, you honestly don't care... (Below threshold)
s9:

So, you honestly don't care who fights your war for you, as long as it doesn't have to be you— and as long as it isn't me either.

So, okay... what's so damned special about the two of us that we should be excused from having to consider volunteering for military service?

s9 spits out, What are y... (Below threshold)

s9 spits out, What are you doing to help the Army recruit more young men and women to fight your war for you?

"Your war"? Jay Tea,...this is your war? Well I'll be damned.

Morally, the War™ is unjust.

Only to a moral relativist. What's up with the little "TM"? You think you're being cute? Pathetic.

Legally, the War™ is a high crime (and an impeachable offense).

Ah hahahaha! That's a good one! Tell us another Mr. Jokemaster!

Pragmatically, the War™ is just a huge waste of blood and treasure that can only end in disaster.

Oh. Now you can tell the future. Can you give me the lottery numbers?

What I haven't said here, but I have said elsewhere, is that I see no good reason to volunteer for military service in this War™, and that the only way you will get me to fight it is to draft my civilian ass.

Egh...don't worry about it. They don't want you.

Absent any compelling argument to volunteer, I won't be fighting your War™ for you.

There you go with that "for you" bit again. You're really annoying, you know that?

Unless you want to be a real dimwit and try to get a draft up and running.

Naw. Only Democrats are dumb enough to do that. Jay Tea - you're not a Democrat, are you? Didn't think so...

I keep telling you that you need to explain to me why I should VOLUNTEER to fight your war for you

There's that "your war" bit again. This gets old.

and— unlike you— I'm not hiding behind my draft eligibility status as reason not to sign up.

Hey s9...you support the police? Go join! You support the fire department? Go join! Great logic there dingbat.

You may prefer to use your supposed unfitness for combat duty as an excuse not to have to think about being a VOLUNTEER, but I'm not playing that game.

Naw...you're playing a stupider game.

Feel free to address the substance of my remarks rather than what the voices in your head are telling you my remarks mean.

...says the guy who lacks a coherent argument. Heh.

I continue to be appalled by what Jay Tea offers as his best arguments in favor of my volunteering to fight his War™ for him...

There's that "for him" again. You're like a broken record s9. You're like a broken record s9. You're like a broken record s9.

He wants me (and a whole lot of people like me) to volunteer to risk our lives and fight a War™ over this? What kind of idiots does he want joining up?

Don't speak ill of our Armed Forces you worm.

I have not personally attacked Jay Tea, and I see no reason to do so. What are you talking about?

Actually you did.

Tell me why they should fight this War™ for you.

Yet another instance of the "for you" meme. (Documenting them in the far away hope that s9 will come to his senses and see how stupid he looks.)

p.s. I'll stop using the ™ symbol on the word War™ when there is an actual Declaration of War...

Nice excuse for assholery.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again: just because you aren't medically fit for combat duty— or even fit for military service at all— is no excuse.

Can't become a cop? Join or create a neighborhood watch program! What's your excuse s9?

Oh, piss off.

You have a lot of balls there s9. Which is kind of ironic for someone lacking balls,..but whatever.

Until Congress passes a declaration, this isn't a war. It's a War™. Sorry the little ™ symbol bugs you. Maybe you ought to say something to your congresscritter about the problem.

What am I going to say to my "congresscritter"? "Uh...sir, we have a troll problem at Wizbang. Could you please pass a formal declaration of war so that we can take care of one of his annoying habits? Thanks Mr. Congressman." Haha...that would be a stupid phone call.

...none of those other people are trying to tell me why I should be fighting in the Iraq War™.

That's because nobody wants you in there. You're too stupid and would be a liability.

...we aren't recruiting their reinforcements at nearly the rate required if we are to win your splendid little war.

There's that "your war" bit again. How old are you s9? 17 and angry?

I wonder what it would mean for the War™ in Iraq if the reëxpansion the Army is trying to accomplish were to be wrecked on the shoals of plunging recruitment numbers because the utter incompetence with which the Iraq War™ has been executed.

You live in a fantasy world. Your own little fantasy world.

So, you honestly don't care who fights your war for you...

You should probably stop with the "your war" bit if you want normal people to actually take you seriously. As it is right now, you look like a barking moonbat.

So, okay... what's so damned special about the two of us that we should be excused from having to consider volunteering for military service?

Well I can't speak for Jay Tea here (I'm sure you'll ignore his answer anyways, seems to be your style), but I'm pretty sure that you have to have some level of mental capacity to join the military s9. You would be disqualified for that reason. You wouldn't be an asset to the military, you would be a problem.

Now get a new argument. You're a one trick pony with no following act.

likwidshoe writes: <... (Below threshold)
s9:

likwidshoe writes: You wouldn't be an asset to the military, you would be a problem.

You still haven't answered the question.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy