Well, well, well -- so Darth Cheney declares we have to stay in Iraq and continue this war. I have a couple of questions about that:
1. I still don't know why we went there and why we continue to stay there. I still don't know what the "end-game" is -- there have been so many false reasons why we HAD to wage war on Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
2. Why does this administration insist on supporting or waging war wherever they feel like -- despite the fact that our military interference isn't appreciated in most places? I remember Reagan had a fondness for red -- but usually it was Nancy wearing a designer dress. These murderers in the White House only seem to like Blood Red.
3. Why did we enter Iraq when the leaders of the Arab countries surrounding warned the Bushistas not to? They said something about it destablizing the region further. They didn't view Saddam as a military threat to them -- if they had, they'd have done what they did when Hussein invaded Kuwait during Gulf One, also coincidentally engineered by another Bush (at least the old man did serve his country honorably).
A lot of people at "our" level of the totem pole want us out and the sooner the better. In fact, almost two-thirds of us, if the polls can be trusted, don't like the road the Bushistas are on. Curiously, Bush further slaps all of us in the face when he says he doesn't care what WE think. After all, we're the ones who will end up indentured to pay for this catastrophe. Bush, with the tacit approval and the "wink-wink, nod-nod" from his ideological sychophants in Congress are nothing but a bunch of enablers for a slightly crazy bully dressed up in a President's suit and mask.
Rep. Conyers was right to introduce a bill months ago in favor of reinstituting the draft. Of course, it was disapproved because one of the things that Conyers called for was a draft with NO exceptions and NO exemptions. Of course, our so-called "fearless" leaders didn't like that because most of those dissing us who have served our country honorably and proudly, did nothing but turn and run when it was their time to serve.
Well, it's obvious from Bush's bang-up foreign policy that we're going to be in a perpetual state of war as long as they and their bloody accomplices remain in office.
Conyers is pretty shrewd. It's a good bet that if the Chickenhawks little pampered darlings would have to serve in the Middle East this "war" on whatever it is went there for would be over with pretty damned fast. Murderers, that's all they are.
www.60sflowerchildredux.blogspot.com
Nutshell: I am a babyboomer, 60s hippie/flowerchild, Army veteran, and defender of truth and justice for all. Also a political and religious independent.
My blog: www.60sflowerchildredux.blogger.com
Our govt wages an unlawful war. It also abuses power. It also kills people. It has come to power unlawfully. It consists of vampires.
And now you want to give all our children to it as hostages. No exemptions.
I am sorry for what I am going to say here but I thnk that whoever suggests such thing is mad. It can be an innocent madness but madness nonetheselless. And I can't read this anymore.
by
Mark Sashine (46 articles, 19 quicklinks, 235 diaries, 3359 comments)
on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 at 7:47:28 PM
I have great respect and admiration for Rep. Conyers; but this strikes me as an idea with some merit that would be a disaster if implemented.
"No exemptions, no exceptions?" Look: there is no way the government can draft everybody. The military can't use 300,000,000 troops. Is the government going to nationalize all aspects of society; assign citizens to jobs?
Loopholes will spring up like mushrooms, for those with the right connections - safe billets, deferments, etc... Inevitable.
Furthermore, the comment by 'panurg' is dead right: this means we "give all our children to the government as hostages. No exemptions." The government would have a free hand to open up and staff more invasions - Cuba, Venezuela, ...
Maybe if we cut the funds for occupation, materials for more pre-emptive strikes...
by
abacus (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 57 comments)
on Thursday, July 27, 2006 at 8:27:20 PM
I thank both of you for your excellent comments. Please understand that I am speaking somewhat tongue-in-cheek here. However, if Bush continues on his present course of deliberately destablizing the Middle East all hell will break lose, as is evidenced by the chaos we see in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Lebanon. We also still have Iran and North Korea, and to a lesser extent Pakistan to worry about.
I still believe that if there were a "no exemptions, no exceptions" threat of a draft these ideological, illegal wars would be ended very soon. It was radicalism that helped bring Vietnam to an end and drove LBJ to not run for President again.
I realize Bush is unable to run for President again (if he even won those elections legally), however, most of those who have supported his imperialistic agenda are still in office and will likely be reelected.
by
LMJohnson (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 22 comments)
on Friday, July 28, 2006 at 2:28:45 AM
