tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post268988719276066795..comments2023-10-26T01:59:40.483-07:00Comments on The Dividist Papers: Carnival of Divided Government Undêtrîgintâ (XXIX) Special Bad Attitude Editionmwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11181222537529037359noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-68223587843726660102009-03-10T17:29:00.000-07:002009-03-10T17:29:00.000-07:00Conn Man, Can I call you that? I mostly agree, wit...Conn Man, <BR/>Can I call you that? <BR/><BR/>I mostly agree, with a little modification. Most Americans are going to give the President the benefit of the doubt and support a military action if he says there is a threat - regardless of whether we have a volunteer or conscription military. After all, that is the primary responsibility of the Commander in Chief, and exactly what we expect from the man or woman we vote into that office. Tht is why Bush had 70% support at the time we went in to Iraq. <BR/><BR/>I think the difference between a conscription or all volunteer force is in how long Americans are willing to tolerate an occupation and participation in a quagmire like Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam. If we had a draft like Vietnam we would have massive protests in the street as we had in that era. It is only because the burden falls so heavily on just the relatively small minority of volunteer servicemen/women and their families, that our participation in these conflicts have been able to continue for this long. <BR/><BR/>That said, I could never support universal mandatory service, even if (especially if) it includes a civilian service option. I simply consider mandatory government service anathema to the principles our country was founded on, our way of life, and the ideal of freedom that your service helped make possible. Thanks for that service, thanks for stopping by and thanks for the comment. <BR/><BR/>BTW - I also enjoy your blog - well - at least the drinking part.mwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11181222537529037359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-57279888349342064812009-03-10T15:17:00.000-07:002009-03-10T15:17:00.000-07:00On the one hand, if we had compulsory time in the ...On the one hand, if we had compulsory time in the military I can guarantee that we would never, ever, see illegal invasions and occupations like Iraq and Afghanistan would have been over in a year or two (if we had ever bothered to go in - more likely they would have used selective strikes by air). <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, having served I can tell you straight up that nobody wants a battle buddy that does not want to be there because they do bring down the moral of the unit, and too many are unfit to serve. And I don't mean out of shape.<BR/><BR/>Just my two cents on that last diary.Connecticut Man1https://www.blogger.com/profile/08923884330387123010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-36457579248258010292008-12-04T22:30:00.000-08:002008-12-04T22:30:00.000-08:00Heh. Your logo's pretty decent too.Yeah, the Repub...Heh. Your logo's pretty decent too.<BR/><BR/>Yeah, the Republican party has been pretty incompetent at cleaning corruption for the past several years. There was a period there when the corrupt vs. clean elements were infighting, and unfortunately did not succeed, letting Pelosi and the Dems run on a "Culture of Corruption" platform. That the Democrats, more corrupt by every quantifiable measure you could apply, could actually get away with employing such a charge says many things in and of itself, regarding both the heights of corruption the Republicans reached, and our media.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com