Restoring the Draft: No Panacea

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 12:56 pm

What do you think about this??

By MARK THOMPSON/WASHINGTON Sat Jul 21, 12:00 PM ET

Even as there's talk inside the Pentagon of extending the troop surge in Iraq well into 2008, the U.S. military remains in a vise, crushed between the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have made recruiting more difficult. Right now, there are only two real ways to extend or even increase the surge: call up more reservists - always tough to do in an election year - or extend active-duty combat tours from the current morale-wrecking 15 months to an even more painful 18 months. But Marine General Peter Pace, outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs, reassured GIs in Afghanistan this week that 18-month combat tours are not, as has been rumored, in their future. "An 18-month tour has zero, zero, none, nada, squat, nothing, no validity, OK?" he said. "I want to make sure you got that."

So then what about the third, most controversial option - is it time to reinstitute the draft? That option has a certain appeal as the Army fell short of its active-duty recruiting goal for June by about 15%. It is the second consecutive month the service's enlistment effort has slipped as public discontent grows over the war in Iraq.

Bringing back mandatory service has been the refrain of many who want to put the brakes on the Iraq war; if every young man is suddenly a potential grunt on his way to Baghdad, the thinking goes, the war would end rather quickly. It's also an argument made by those who are uneasy that the burden of this war is being unfairly shouldered by the 1.4-million-strong U.S. military and no one else. But a new report from the Congressional Budget Office this week makes clear that resuming the draft would be no panacea.

The report, requested by Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, says that drafting people could make it easier for the Army to reach its 2012 goal of 547,000 soldiers. It might also save some money if Congress opted to pay draftees less than volunteers. But the downside, the report claims, would be a less effective fighting force, thanks to a sudden influx of draftees who would remain in uniform for much shorter spells than today's all-volunteer soldiers.

"Usually, greater accumulated knowledge and skills come with increased experience," the report notes. "Because most draftees leave after completing a two-year obligation, a draft might affect the services' ability to perform those functions efficiently." To maintain the same capability, the CBO suggests, the Army might have to grow, which could eliminate any savings. On the other hand, increased training costs for draftees - with less time in uniform, more have to be trained - could be offset by cuts in advertising and bonuses now used to entice volunteer recruits.

The report says that while 91% of last year's recruits were high school graduates, only 80% of U.S. residents aged 18 to 24 have attained that level of education. And high-school graduates, the military says, make better soldiers than dropouts. The CBO, which does not make recommendations but only charts options for lawmakers, estimates that somewhere between 27,000 and 165,000 would be drafted each year. That relative small slice - some 2 million males turn 18 each year - could resurrect the problems seen in the Vietnam era when deferments and friendly draft boards kept some well-connected young men out of uniform. Under current law, women could not be drafted.

If it doesn't make military or economic sense to launch the draft, what about the notion of fairness? Critics have claimed that minorities are over-represented in the all-volunteer military because they have fewer options in the civilian world. The CBO disputes that, saying that "members of the armed forces are racially and ethnically diverse." African Americans accounted for 13% of active-duty recruits in 2005, just under their 14% share of 17-to-49-year-olds in the overall U.S. population. And minorities are not being used as cannon fodder. "Data on fatalities indicate that minorities are not being killed [in Iraq and Afghanistan] at greater rates than their representation in the force," the study says. "Rather, fatalities of white service members have been higher than their representation in the force," in large part because whites are over-represented in the military's combat, as opposed to support, jobs.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:06 pm

Shall I tell you what they're doing instead, since the draft isn't an option? They're offering US citizenship to foreigners who'll sign up in the US armed services. No way, I hear you cry. Way, I tell you. I bet I'm going to have to dig out references before you believe me though.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:18 pm

No now, Spot. Still mad at my stubbornness in the immigration thread? :rolleyes:

Seriously, how do you know this and how come I don't? Please don't tell me it's because I'm an Ostrich-headed American, I'm being serious here.

Is this new or have they done this with other wars?

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:31 pm

RedGlitter;664976 wrote: No now, Spot. Still mad at my stubbornness in the immigration thread? :rolleyes:

Seriously, how do you know this and how come I don't? Please don't tell me it's because I'm an Ostrich-headed American, I'm being serious here.

Is this new or have they done this with other wars?

No; I don't know; I wouldn't dream of being so impolite; and I'm not sure.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:05 pm

Oh I know you wouldn't do that Spot. I just said that because there are some on here who have and would say that.

So do you think this is a good or fair practice??

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:12 pm

RedGlitter;664976 wrote: No now, Spot. Still mad at my stubbornness in the immigration thread? :rolleyes:

Seriously, how do you know this and how come I don't? Please don't tell me it's because I'm an Ostrich-headed American, I'm being serious here.

Is this new or have they done this with other wars?

You only ended military conscription in 1973. One or two European countries still have national service-draft is a peculiarly American euphemism for military conscription.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscripti ... ted_States

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:22 pm

Thanks for that link, Gmc.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 pm

The draft will never happen, at least not for two years. To bring the draft back would require support from politicians, and with National Elections 18 months away, supporting a draft would be a kiss of death for a politician.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:11 pm

spot;664969 wrote: Shall I tell you what they're doing instead, since the draft isn't an option? They're offering US citizenship to foreigners who'll sign up in the US armed services. No way, I hear you cry. Way, I tell you. I bet I'm going to have to dig out references before you believe me though.
That's not new. Military service has always been a fast track to citizenship. It figures that if you're willing to die for the country, you're more deserving of citizenship than the average Joe.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:57 pm

Accountable;665150 wrote: That's not new. Military service has always been a fast track to citizenship. It figures that if you're willing to die for the country, you're more deserving of citizenship than the average Joe.

But, as you can see, new or not, it isn't common knowledge among some Americans.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:07 am

spot;665245 wrote: But, as you can see, new or not, it isn't common knowledge among some Americans.
Of course, I didn't find out about it until I met someonewhile in the Air Force. With us, it was "Wow, he's willing to do this even though he's not a citizen yet." We had more respect for him because of that. We certainly didn't think he was circumventing the system out of laziness or anything, and we didn't think less of the government for offering th incentive.

Your statement "Shall I tell you what they're doing instead, since the draft isn't an option? They're offering US citizenship to foreigners who'll sign up in the US armed services," implies that the gov't is just now starting to recruit foreigners because they can't find enough citizens to join. I disagree with that.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:10 am

Accountable;665390 wrote: Of course, I didn't find out about it until I met someonewhile in the Air Force. With us, it was "Wow, he's willing to do this even though he's not a citizen yet." We had more respect for him because of that. We certainly didn't think he was circumventing the system out of laziness or anything, and we didn't think less of the government for offering th incentive.

Your statement "Shall I tell you what they're doing instead, since the draft isn't an option? They're offering US citizenship to foreigners who'll sign up in the US armed services," implies that the gov't is just now starting to recruit foreigners because they can't find enough citizens to join. I disagree with that.

If I withdraw the implication of "just now starting to", does that make it work? I didn't have it in mind when I posted. I'd probably have agreed with "since they abandoned the draft" but that's not really an issue in my mind either.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:21 am

spot;665392 wrote: If I withdraw the implication of "just now starting to", does that make it work? I didn't have it in mind when I posted. I'd probably have agreed with "since they abandoned the draft" but that's not really an issue in my mind either.
I've already said that the incentive is there. The fact that it's not common knowlege indicates that it's not some jaded ploy to fill the ranks.

I don't question a soldier's motives for joining.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:37 am

HOWEVER, in looking for the origin of the incentive, I did find this pretty disgusting article of a Senator wanting to offer citizenship to illegal aliens. To me, that smacks of rewarding someone for getting away with a crime. I haven't read it completely yet, but I wanted it posted in the interest of fairness.

Bill would grant citizenship for service

By Rick Maze - Staff writer

Posted : Monday Jul 16, 2007 17:52:57 EDT

With the possible backing of the Pentagon, the Senate’s second-ranking Democrat will offer an amendment to the 2008 defense authorization bill that allows some undocumented immigrants to receive citizenship through military service.

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, or DREAM Act, would allow someone who was younger than 16 when they came to the U.S., has been in the country for at least five years and graduated from high school to become a legal immigrant by serving two years in the military.

“It turns out that many in the Department of Defense believe, as I do, that the DREAM Act is an important part of making certain we have talented young men and women ready to serve in our military,” said Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the Senate’s assistant Democratic leader and chief sponsor of the bipartisan proposal.

Durbin said he will offer his plan as an amendment to the defense bill, which is on the Senate floor this week for debate.

David S.C. Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, and Bill Carr, acting deputy undersecretary for military personnel policy, have spoken in favor of using the promise of legal status as a way to help fill the military’s ranks with quality people. Chu has spoken about the need to ensure that undocumented aliens, currently barred from enlisting, get a shot at serving in the military. Carr specifically endorsed the DREAM Act as a “very appealing” way of getting new recruits.

Durbin said his staff has “worked closely” with the Defense Department on the legislation.

Military recruiting would benefit, Durbin said. “Largely due to the war in Iraq, the Army is struggling to meets its recruitment goals,” he said. “Under the DREAM Act, tens of thousands of well-qualified potential recruits would become eligible for military service for the first time. They are eager to serve in the armed forces during a time of war.”

In addition to allowing immigrants to get legal status from military service, the DREAM Act also would grant legal status for attending two years of college. Durbin said one reason to do that is “it would be inconsistent with the spirit of our volunteer military to force young people to enlist as a condition for obtaining legal status.”

That poses a problem, because the Senate tried and failed to pass an immigration reform bill in late June, largely because of strong objections from conservative Republicans who were not swayed by the Bush administration’s support for a sweeping bill.

Still, he said, there is a “strong incentive for military service” and some evidence that as a demographic group, immigrants are “predisposed towards military service.”

“Immigrants have an outstanding tradition of service in the military,” he said, noting there are about 35,000 noncitizens serving in the military and about 8,000 enlist every year.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:41 am

Accountable;665397 wrote: I don't question a soldier's motives for joining.Why not? They have no allegiance to the USA before they sign up, they're foreigners.

The numbers in the last paragraph of your DREAM article are useful, I hadn't seen those before.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:00 am

spot;665401 wrote: Why not? They have no allegiance to the USA before they sign up, they're foreigners.
Many citizens join for reasons other than ideal reasons. Many others join for an idealism that isn't realistic. I'm not concerned with the motives of my fellow soldiers so much as their behavior. The reason they joined is not nearly so important as the reason they stay.

Hell, I joined because I couldn't pay my rent & a retired Air Force guy recommended it. I reenlisted the first time for a girl (my beloved). I can't pinpoint the moment I had the "correct" motives for staying in.

No, I don't question why a person is willing to put his/her life on the line in defense of my country. I'm only thankful he/she does.

My suspiscions are reserved for the politicians.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:02 am

Here's another article I like:

Citizenship through military service

By Emilio Gonzalez

August 22, 2006

Born in Mexico, Rafael Peralta came to the United States without speaking a word of English. He wanted to enlist in the Marine Corps right after his graduation from Morse High School in San Diego, but Peralta had to wait until he became a lawful permanent resident. Peralta enlisted the same day he received his green card and earned his citizenship while on active duty. On Nov. 15, 2004, the 25-year-old Marine sergeant was part of an assault team going door-to-door through the streets of Fallujah. As they searched a suspected insurgent hide-out, Peralta was shot in the face and chest and fell into the line of fire.

When four Marines maneuvered into the room where he lay wounded, one of the terrorists tossed a grenade landing close to Peralta. In his final moments, Peralta pulled the grenade close to him, smothered its blast with his body, and saved the lives of his fellow Marines. Sgt. Peralta has been recommended to receive the Medal of Honor for his heroic actions.

From the fields of Gettysburg, to the Argonne forest, on the beaches of Normandy, Iwo Jima and Inchon, on the streets of Hue and along sandy alleyways in Fallujah, heroes were born from men who came to the United States not as mercenaries, but as migrants. Men from Ireland who fought courageously alongside men from Indiana are buried together at Arlington, and each are equally regarded as Americans in memoriam.

Through their military service, immigrants gain valuable insight into the purest forms of our democracy and learn an appreciation for the truly American values that allow any man or woman, regardless of social class or family pedigree, to achieve whatever heights they set for themselves.

Immigrants such as Jose Luis Betancourt, who came here from Mexico with nothing but opportunity in his pocket, and later retired after 33 years of service as a rear admiral and the commander of the U.S. Navy Region Southwest. A true example of the American dream in action, Betancourt encouraged Navy command to work within the San Diego immigrant community and helped countless other sailors and Marines achieve the benefits of citizenship though a partnership with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Record numbers of lawful permanent residents continue to enlist every day, eager to earn their place in their new communities. Under the direction of the president, USCIS is taking steps to ensure that the citizenship process for immigrant service members is convenient, quick and secure. To expedite these applications, a specialized unit of experienced immigration officers has been established for military naturalization cases. Also, recent collaboration with the FBI and the Department of Defense allowed for a change in our fingerprint process to assist service members applying for naturalization and the requisite background checks.

When deployments don't allow for stateside naturalization, citizenship ceremonies are conducted for men and women serving at U.S. installations abroad. Over the past year, USCIS officials have volunteered to travel to Camp Anaconda in Afghanistan and Camp Victory in Iraq, visited the DMZ in South Korea and have gone from Iceland to Nairobi to naturalize service members who have earned the right to share in the liberties and freedoms they help to preserve.

Today, I will stand on the deck of the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan in San Diego Harbor to welcome 87 service members as new citizens. In total, more than 26,000 immigrants serving in our military have been naturalized since Sept. 11, 2001.

We are committed to exhausting every effort to ensure that all military naturalization applications are processed expeditiously so that service members receive this honor on behalf of a grateful nation. These brave individuals are just but a few of the more than 40,000 immigrants serving today in our nation's military and the most recent in a long line of hundreds of thousands of immigrants, including Sgt. Peralta, Rear Adm. Betancourt and more than 700 Medal of Honor recipients who have served under the Stars and Stripes throughout our history.

Gonzalez is director of the Bureau of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a federal agency.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:12 am

As for illegal immigrants joining, DREAM presumably involves a pardon for the misdemeanor of illegal residence in the USA since it offers "the promise of legal status". That would be a radical step in law-making, manumitting a pre-existing unconvicted offence.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:13 am

Okay this is getting frustrating. I'm trying to find when expediting citizenship for legal residents serving in the military first started but can't. Google's waters are muddied by the current illegal immigrant debate.

I found this on the INS website, but they didn't cite anything.

If a person has been a permanent resident or green card holder and has been serving, or has served, in the U.S. Military for three years or longer, s/he may be eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship. In addition, some of the other requirements for citizenship could be waived. Also, if one has fought for the U.S. during a period of active hostilities, such s/he may be able to file for citizenship directly without even having been a permanent resident of the U.S.! It is advisable to discuss these issues with an immigration attorney if you believe that you fall into one of these categories and could be eligible for expedited citizenship processing.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:18 am

spot;665405 wrote: As for illegal immigrants joining, DREAM presumably involves a pardon for the misdemeanor of illegal residence in the USA since it offers "the promise of legal status". That would be a radical step in law-making, manumitting a pre-existing unconvicted offence.
There's a new word, 'manumit'. I'll toss that one out when I want to impress collegues, now that I've looked it up.

I guess precedence is in the long-practiced tradition of offering immunity in exchange for something of value, but that value is usually information leading to the conviction of a bigger criminal.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 7:33 am

So much for my idealistic views of rewarding service for service's sake.

From http://www.ndu.edu/nwc/writing/AY04/awa ... sh--04.pdf

Public Law 597, more commonly known as the "Lodge Act," which was passed on 30 June 1950 and named after Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., the billâ€™s sponsor. The Lodge Act provided for the enlistment of 2,500 male aliens in the U.S. Army.1 It authorized U.S. citizenship in return for five years of military service and helped harness the language and cultural skills of displaced Europeans in the Cold War against the Soviet Union.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 10:05 am

Accountable;665150 wrote: That's not new. Military service has always been a fast track to citizenship. It figures that if you're willing to die for the country, you're more deserving of citizenship than the average Joe.

The entire military is comprised of the average American Joe.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 10:45 am

Nomad;665508 wrote: The entire military is comprised of the average American Joe.

It might have been when the average American Joe knew a pressup wasn't just something that happened against a back wall on a Saturday night if you played your cards right and stayed sufficiently sober.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:22 pm

Nomad;665508 wrote: The entire military is comprised of the average American Joe.

Of course not. The military is comprised of GI Joe. God!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:30 am

I posted this in an older thread but it didn't get any play. Perhaps here?

I found some real meat for this debate:

The All-Volunteer Military: Issues and Performance

This is a study just published by the Congressional Budges Office (CBO). I just got it in the email, so I haven't read it yet.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:57 am

Why would we want to restore the daft ?

What does that even mean ?

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:03 pm

It means you get a lottery draw to top up the military from a preset age group of your own citizens, with a subsequent fitness selection and a concientious objection clause. You can guarantee your recruitment and retention numbers with great flexibility by doing this. You additionally add moral fiber and a sense of robotic duty to your population at large. It amazes me that the US can even think of operating without it.

It's the alternative to paying the market rate to recruit mercenary volunteers from any source prepared to sign up for money, some of whom will turn out to be your own citizens.

The extra rate of pay that attracts the volunteers is offset against the fact that you keep them at least twice times as long as you keep conscripts. Since it takes a year to make any of them fit for deployment that gives you at least three times the effective troop strength for the extra cash, so it's worth paying three times the price each so you can choose the best who step forward.

Numbers may vary depending on the warzone of your choice.

Patrick · Post by **Patrick** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:43 am

One thing is for sure... a draft would encourage young males to get politically active. There is nothing like the prospect of having the next few years of your life interrupted with the possibility of being shot at to light a fire under you.

Now where did put the lighter fluid and that draft card... :yh_peace

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:08 pm

What happened to all those that refused to be drafted rather than go to Vietnam? Did they ever get pardoned or are they still classed as criminals?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:40 pm

gmc;671266 wrote: What happened to all those that refused to be drafted rather than go to Vietnam? Did they ever get pardoned or are they still classed as criminals?
Pardoned long ago, I think.

Patrick · Post by **Patrick** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:42 pm

Yep, Jimmy Carter pardoned all of them the day after he took office. I miss Jimmy. :-4

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 8:53 pm

Patrick;671475 wrote: Yep, Jimmy Carter pardoned all of them the day after he took office. I miss Jimmy. :-4

Mee misses the ol pee-nut pusher Jimmeee 2 too bad he turned me into the man-0-black:

The world has not been the same since the Ayatollahs spread their terror and hatred for America. Gee, thank you Jimmy. With hindsight, after suffering Jimmyâ€™s presidency for four long years while the U.S. economy collapsed under record unemployment, slipped into double digit inflation, suffered embarrassing international defeats and loss of prestige galore, I think I did the right thing by dressing in black.

With hindsight, after suffering Jimmyâ€™s presidency for four long years while the U.S. economy collapsed under record unemployment, slipped into double digit inflation, suffered embarrassing international defeats and loss of prestige galore, I think I did the right thing by dressing in black.

Fortunately for America and the rest of the world, the American people resoundingly voted him out of office. What a relief! After he left the White House (thank GOD!) I said, "He was an incompetent President and he is now an incompetent citizen."

But, as the smell of fish that never left the kitchen, Jimmy keeps meddling in foreign affairs, trying to act "Presidential" and even gives advice! He is clueless. So forgive him, he just doesnâ€™t know.

My only humble advice to Jimmy is to stick to what I assume he knows best: to build houses for the Human Habitat Project. Hammering and cutting wood is good, Jimmy. And raising them peanuts. And now, the latest installment of Jimmyâ€™s follies is his trip to Castroland, where the clever tyrant can dance a million circles around his gullibility. How can Jimmy and his entourage wine and dine, laugh, tell jokes, play baseball, etc., with a man that has caused the deaths of 105,000 citizens (including 30 U.S. citizens)?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:06 pm

pffft.

Patrick · Post by **Patrick** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:34 pm

BTS;676024 wrote: Mee misses the ol pee-nut pusher Jimmeee 2 too bad he turned me into the man-0-black:

The world has not been the same since the Ayatollahs spread their terror and hatred for America. Gee, thank you Jimmy. With hindsight, after suffering Jimmyâ€™s presidency for four long years while the U.S. economy collapsed under record unemployment, slipped into double digit inflation, suffered embarrassing international defeats and loss of prestige galore, I think I did the right thing by dressing in black.

With hindsight, after suffering Jimmyâ€™s presidency for four long years while the U.S. economy collapsed under record unemployment, slipped into double digit inflation, suffered embarrassing international defeats and loss of prestige galore, I think I did the right thing by dressing in black.

Fortunately for America and the rest of the world, the American people resoundingly voted him out of office. What a relief! After he left the White House (thank GOD!) I said, "He was an incompetent President and he is now an incompetent citizen."

But, as the smell of fish that never left the kitchen, Jimmy keeps meddling in foreign affairs, trying to act "Presidential" and even gives advice! He is clueless. So forgive him, he just doesnâ€™t know.

My only humble advice to Jimmy is to stick to what I assume he knows best: to build houses for the Human Habitat Project. Hammering and cutting wood is good, Jimmy. And raising them peanuts. And now, the latest installment of Jimmyâ€™s follies is his trip to Castroland, where the clever tyrant can dance a million circles around his gullibility. How can Jimmy and his entourage wine and dine, laugh, tell jokes, play baseball, etc., with a man that has caused the deaths of 105,000 citizens (including 30 U.S. citizens)?

Jimmy's one fault is that he's a decent human being. He won the election against Ford on a platform of "I won't lie to youâ€ and after Nixon that's all America needed to hear.

Also part of Jimmy's ailment of humanity was the naive notion that all people are generally good, and while this may be true on some level it makes it hard to pick out the bastards. In the end it never occurred to Jimmy that world leaders could be disingenuous and conniving. We all know the P.T. Barnum quip about a sucker being born every minute. Jimmy just happened to be one of those suckers.

James Earl Carter, Jr... A humanitarian, and an honest man, but a terrible President. Two out of three isn't bad considering how few of us will be President, or even honest humanitarians.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 1:38 pm

BTS;676024 wrote:

And now, the latest installment of Jimmyâ€™s follies is his trip to Castroland, where the clever tyrant can dance a million circles around his gullibility. How can Jimmy and his entourage wine and dine, laugh, tell jokes, play baseball, etc., with a man that has caused the deaths of 105,000 citizens (including 30 U.S. citizens)?

Care to give us a breakdown of those 105,000 citizens? (Given how specific the number is I presume that you have some basis for it)

Whilst your at it would you care to enumerate the number killed by Batista that led to the Castro takeover, or the number killed during Operation Mongoose?

Patrick · Post by **Patrick** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 2:17 pm

Bryn Mawr;676442 wrote: Care to give us a breakdown of those 105,000 citizens? (Given how specific the number is I presume that you have some basis for it)

Whilst your at it would you care to enumerate the number killed by Batista that led to the Castro takeover, or the number killed during Operation Mongoose?

But that's different (not really) because Batista was our monster, just like the Shaw of Iran was before being deposed, Noriega was before he got too big for his britches, and Saddam was before he invaded Kuwait.

Our monsters our allowed to do whatever is required to protect U.S. interests and defeat MarxistIslamicwhatever insurgents.

If youâ€™re going to be a despot, remember be a despot friendly with the U.S.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 2:20 pm

Patrick;676493 wrote: But that's different (not really) because Batista was our monster, just like the Shaw of Iran was before being deposed, Noriega was before he got too big for his britches, and Saddam was before he invaded Kuwait.

Our monsters our allowed to do whatever is required to protect U.S. interests and defeat MarxistIslamicwhatever insurgents.

If youâ€™re going to be a despot, remember be a despot friendly with the U.S.

You make the point so well, thank you.