Mild Bill,
Speaking for myself, the emotional inflammation and offense is from the personal attacks. The FDR thing sounded like a compairison, if not, sorry. The German thing, You are 100% right, they did everything wrong! I was just saying that FDR’s speech must have seemed a lot more credible ( compaired to Bush’s) after seeing all the gee-wizz gadgets the Germans had. I don’t know about everyone else, but I can appreciate your perspective. It was your insults and belittling approach that invited backlash.

Les, Sorry for the brawl. Next time I promise to keep it a little more toned down. By the way, ya got any buckets?(LOL)

Not a problem, Jay. I wasn’t upset about the brawl, I was just amazed it wasn’t directed at me for a change.

All things considered I think this one went pretty well. Sure it got a little personal, but at least folks were still trying to get their points across instead of just mud-flinging. All in all it was quite edifying to read.

Questions:  Would people who have used chemical weapons on their own people be caught flatfooted & without protection from simple “knock-out” gas?

How long would you have had them prolong the firefight in order to take them alive? 

How many casualties of our own men was it worth to take them alive?

Do you think that if they DID run out of food & water, they would have actually surrendered?

Dammit, I�m back in this fight!

First, Brock�I�m gonna call Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and tell them to pray up a tornado or flood to take you out, because you refuse to let the Gilda thing go .  Oh� the reason �The Boys� weren�t taken alive is because they were killed�seems pretty simple.  That�s using Occam�s Razor!

Rouver, I commend you on your observation.  Clearly it would have been more desirable to take �The Boys� alive, but perhaps there are a couple of American G.I.s who will now be alive to watch the Superbowl.

Brock may be right, but I can�t really accept that his vast array of intelligence sources (CNN and MSNBC), give him any credibility to form an opinion.  You will note that I never pretended to know what happened with �The Boys� in that house, because there is no way for me to know.  So Emily, continue on with your argument that Bush is sitting in the White House, directing troop deployments in Iraq, since this is obviously a fact to you.  I do not care for this Iraqi action, but from my observations, Bush is performing well as Commander in Chief.  He leaves military decisions to the military, unlike LBJ who had to give personal approval for certain attacks during Vietnam (that method was a stunning success�NOT).

Rouver and Mild Bill,

As for the question of being caught flat-footed, I believe the Hussein Bros & Co. were equipped with AK’s and a matress to hide behind.  As for keeping American soldiers alive - valuable information that might have facilitated a shortening of our post-war war died with the brothers.

Mild Bill,

In your last message, Bill, you finally admit that it would have been better to catch the two alive.  You also correctly reiterate that a frontal assault might have cost American lives.  One more time: WHY NOT A SIEGE?  You previously countered this proposition with the observation that this would be hot and uncomfortable for those waiting it out.  NEWS FLASH - its hot and uncomfortable across the whole country!  Not only that, but we’re losing people at a pretty depressing clip over there - it hasn’t yet slowed down since the brothers were killed (one more Rummy prediction down the shitter).  Follow my logic here:  Maybe the Old Man is behind at least some of the resistance? Maybe his two sons could have provided some info regarding his location, or at least the nature of what organization remains? => Result: shorter time for our people in the Sunni Triangle.

My remark from Emily Latella was a parting joke on the absurdity of the comparison in the first place and a final chance to ask the question that pissed Mild Bill of to begin with (why weren�t they taken alive?) He had such a problem with it being asked that I couldn�t resist asking it one last time.

Rouver argues that knock-out gas likely would have been futile if they had gas masks. The operative word being if. As far as I know it wasn’t even attempted and there would have been no harm in trying it first. Then as I suggested, perhaps they could have tried a concussion bomb. Then they could have tried smoke bombs, stink bombs and could have even dropped anti-Hussein leaflets down the chimney.  (I�ve got to watch my humor. Some just don�t recognize when it�s present) They could have taken tanks and knocked down all the walls till there was little left to hide behind. These bad guys weren’t going anywhere.
We’ve been told that it lasted 6 hours. We may never know if it really lasted 45 minutes.

It�s odd how a discussion on this event has turned into what it has, but sometimes people (and subjects) just have to be addressed.

Mild Bill you have insulted nearly everyone who dared to speak on this issue, but you have to understand that the underlying suspicions were focused more on the administration that wields the military might. Since you are a proud ex-service man you apparently can’t separate your personal feelings from the issue we’ve been discussing. You even had to show off your knowledge of past wars and presidents as though it had relevance to the discussion at hand.

I have as much right to form an opinion as anyone does and believe me I never watch CNN and CSNBC. After seeing how they represent fair and impartial reporting I am left to my own devices and get most of my information from various sources on the web. I don’t read “The American Military Daily Blah Blah” as Mild Bill must, as I feel it is likely to be even more biased than the previously mentioned cable sources.

To postulate that the White House, the president or Rumsfeld in particular has no effect on this ongoing war is ridiculous. Our foreign policy experts and their intelligence gatherers (FBI, CIA) are doing poorly to say the least. We are in this war because we were misled or poorly informed. As soon as Mild Bill accepts that little fact, he’ll be much closer to realizing evil sits in the White House. This war is costing lives (and far and away more money than I, for one, agreed to) and I�ve had enough of the don�t ask, don�t criticize crap. We are in deep shit people and we have a very corrupt bunch of politicians to thank for it.

I’m still pissed at you, Mild Bill, for comparing our statements to �fundamentalist Christian’s reactions to evolution statements �. You seem a lot like Bush in that you take a situation and twist it for your own betterment and attempt to convince others that something is the opposite of what it actually is. And like Bush, you seem to have a hard time accepting that questions will be asked whether you want them to be or not. You have insulted our intelligence as well as our patriotism over and over again. You resort to name calling at the drop of a hat and your attempts to appear more intelligent (or better informed on military matters and such) have succeeded in suggesting the opposite. You were the first and most consistent at deriding others here. Plus your analogies are pathetic.

Ken, discussing this event with Mild Bill is frustrating at best. To illustrate his vast array of intelligence he offered that chemical weapons are �limited by atmospheric conditions, the wind, and even rain.� We know that already, thank you, but the conditions on that day were nearly perfect for that type of attack.

I think, without much help from you, Mild Bill, there has some been some intelligent conversation going on, and in spite of you, intelligent questions have been asked. In consideration of your need to make fun of others here, and to avenge JayG (Sheriff Jay!!!) Ken and myself (Emily!!!), I suggest we change your name from Mild Bill to Child Bill. Hey, if you can do it, I can too and �Mild Bill� as a name poorly describes your character.

I’m not even going to answer Hilary...er...I mean Brock just yet

Ken

When did I suggest that it wouldn’t have been better to capture them?  I don’t recall doing that.  All I said was we don�t know what was done, but I can assume if they say it was a six-hour firefight, they tried to capture them.  I don�t even know if the troops knew who was in the building.  Wouldn�t you think that our guys, who are stuck in that shit hole, want to get home more than we want them to come home? I thought it was clear that the guys there �in country� want to come home and wouldn�t do anything to prolong their stay.  I�ve been stuck in �marginally desirable� places for extended periods of time and I generally liked the idea of getting home.  All I meant in my previous messages was that it serves no purpose to debate a point where you have no facts.  They could have tried to use non-lethal means to capture these guys�I don�t know.  To go off on a rant like it is a fact that they didn�t, serves little purpose.

I think the problem here is that there are things that I take for granted as everyone knowing.  I thought it was obvious that it would have been better to take them alive.  All I said was they apparently tried to and they did not succeed.  Things often don�t go as planned.  That our guys killed them to further some nefarious conspiracy doesn�t make sense to me.  I think those guys over there would prefer not to be there and be attacked daily.  With your reasoning, they purposefully killed two people who could have shortened their time in �Hell�. 

I think Rumsfeld said �they hope� the attacks on US troops lessen after this, well I hope so too�don�t you?  If Rumsfeld did say that they will lessen, he is an idiot.  I�ve watched a lot of his briefings and he�s a politician from way back, so I think he would have said something that he could cover himself with.  Regardless of what Ted Kennedy...er..I mean�Brock thinks, I can look objectively at this thing, though I do know many people involved in the fighting there.  Interesting how I have to suspend all my knowledge of the military to dialog with �ad hominem Brock�.  Because I know something that he doesn�t, I�m �showing off�.  Well, I shall attempt to unlearn everything I know so as not to offend him. 

And as for Howard Dean..er�I mean�Brock, lighten up!  You come off sounding mean-spirited like Bob Dole (oh my God�a Republican!!!).

Les�can you critique the last few messages?  Especially the comments made by Nancy Pelosi..er..I mean..Brock and �Child� Bill?

Sure, they should have tried.  I just thought it wasn’t likely that gas-based weapons would have worked.  I thought pretty much EVERYONE was posting “if” sort of statements.  With the information we’ve been given, we don’t know what sort of equipment they had...high tech or feathers, as you suggest. 

As far as laying seige to these people, you make it sound as if they were in an isolated area, where civilian casualties would be minimal (we have to keep in mind the image we project).  Here’s something to chew on with that in mind:

“But not all Iraqis are pleased about the raid, which wounded a number of civilians. At least 1,000 people gathered outside the house in Mosul where Odai and Qusai died. Some were shouting in delight, some were cursing in anger. Others stood silently in mourning. “

Likely a large scale attack on the house would have led to more civilian deaths.  In my opinion, they did the best with the information they were given.  I don’t know what standard equipment would have been brought into that scenario.  I doubt they bring “a little of everything”.  hehe

Do any of us actually KNOW any marines?  (so we could ask what was the likely objective & orders) Do we KNOW the attitude of the surrounding area?  It would be more helpful in our criticism of their tactics.  Perhaps a siege wasn’t feasable in that area the same way a siege wasn’t feasable in Somalia.  Would our men have to watch constantly for sniper fire from surrounding houses?  Suicide bombers?  There CAN be confusion on the battlefield, and it would have been worse if the brothers had managed to get away.  Why should we wait while THEIR reinforcements arrive?  It sounds like we caught them with relatively few supporters.  “Let’s wait ‘em out while sympathizers rally to them” ?

Ack, this got long, sorry.  I was going for short & simple. 

...did Bill really start up a fight with the fundamentalist Christians on this one, too?

Mild Bill,

First, your denial of the landmark concession you made is spurious - your previous message said: “Rouver,...clearly it would have been more desirable to take The Boys alive, but...”

As for your other points, and those subsequently made by Rouver, you are right.  None of us were there, and the “fog of war” promotes the unpredictable.  Of course the troops want to get home more than I want them home, but I suspect that someone up the chain of command is making decisions that do not seem conducive to these ends.

In support of one of Brock’s assertions, I think its entirely feasible that the administration preferred to have Uday and Qusay dead so that their singing would not contradict our leaders’ unsophisticated smokescreens.  Rumsfeld is not only a vicious idiot, he is renowned as a micro-manager.  Similarly, Cheney is reported to have kept his fingers in the works to unprecedented degrees with the military under Bush Senior, and more recently with the CIA under June-bug.  Agents at CIA headquarters said it was spooky how much he was in their shit - and the result was the official White House promulgation of a pack of lies, when they knew it was a pack of lies!  Why should we think that they would change their ways at a time like this when their house of cards is so precariously balanced?

Finally, I am hurt that you never equate me with honorable, capable and rational statesmen and women as you do for Brock.  Could you call me “Kucinich” once? Please?

Seriously...is everyone who thinks that taking them alive was the ONLY route to go ALSO think this equates to hostilities ending earlier over there, and that now it is guaranteed to be longer, since we killed ‘em?  Just wanting clarification.

...blech, run-on sentence...heh, but I’m not correcting it

Yep.

Rouver, can you spell MARTYRS? Well sure you can since I already spelled it for ya!

Hey Al Sharpton..er�I mean Ken, OK, I am an idiot�I didn�t know that it would have been better to take them alive and I said so, right?  OK, I revised my thinking, though I do not comprehend what you mean by:

�denial of the landmark concession you made is spurious�

What concession did I deny? I do not not not understand what you mean

You did not address the other part of my statement.  Do you think the guys in country did not think that taking �The Boys� alive could have shortened the operation in Iraq?  Or are everyone one of them idiots like me?  Where in any of my statements did you read I thought Uday and Qusay were of no intelligence value?  Arguably �any� enemy prisoner could be of intelligence value.  I said they tried to take them, it didn�t happen, oh well.  Very few things happen the way they are planned in military operations.  The challenge is adapting to the change, not dwelling on what should have happened.  So, Congressman Charles Rangel�er�I mean�Ken, put that in your pipe and smoke it fella

By the way Rouver, I am retired from the USAF and worked on fighter planes and weapons for 20+ years.  I have never seen a �concussion� bomb in the USAF arsenal; I�ve never seen any �physical� non-lethal weapons.  Psychological warfare and electronic jamming are considered non-lethal methods of warfare.  I�ve seen on TV where the Army and Marines are experimenting with non-lethal gadgets.  I do not pretend to know the methods ground forces use to enter hostile buildings.  Some people on this page not only know their methods, but have detailed knowledge of what did and did not occur during the incident.

The only time I ever saw a �non-lethal weapon� used was when tear gas was used on me during chemical warfare training (good incentive to put your mask on correctly).  It wasn�t actually a weapon (like you see cops use).  The instructors put some crap in a coffee can and burned it; high tech!  The statements I made above are based on my training and observations.  I spent over half of my career in Europe waiting for the Russians to come, so we trained a lot in chemical environments.  Apparently, my military experience means little to folks, who would rather �invent� incapacitating weapons and methods to employ them.  Actually there is a type of gas they call �incapacitating agent�, but it could very well incapacitate you into a grave.  The gas the Russians used a few months ago in that movie theater (where 100+ people died) was incapacitating agent.

Cool, I’ll take Sharpton!  He’s had a dodgey past, but now he’s speaking more truth than anyone out there (largely because he doesn’t have a chance).

Bill, we’ve gone round on this one long enough and I grow weary.  This entire issue was, after all, only a small blip on the radar screen of corruption and oppression that we face with this crowd of Jesus-crazy (Bush and Ashcroft) and money-hungry (the rest of them) fascists we have in power. 

PS - Rangel’s OK too.  He knows how to get more peace than you know what to do with...Draft the rich!!

I’m all for that Ken. If they want to suck the life blood out of this country maybe they should have to shed a little too!

I was just taking a poll.  We truly have NO idea if having killed them will extend or shorten hostilities over there.  I certainly don’t claim to know.  It *could* turn them into marters...mayoters...dang...what you said
OR it could dishearten the enemy.  We really won’t know until the whole thing is over.  I can’t find the source, but I know I read where they had interviewed someone from the area, and he said he was disappointed they had killed them.  He felt they should have been tortured to a long, slow death, and had wanted a crack at them himself.  There IS great hatred for them, but as I showed before, there was also mourning for their deaths.

Yep, good old Charlie Rangel is the man�draft the rich!!!  In case you guys didn�t notice, everyone currently in the military is a volunteer.  Let me see, who would I want next to me in combat, someone who volunteered to be there or someone forced to be there?  Why do we have such a capable military�could it be that people who volunteer are more motivated to serve?

I absolutely agree�start drafting the rich and there will be no more war, whatever your definition of �rich� is.  You will of course have to start up a cabinet-level Department of Defining Who the Rich Guys Are.  The secretary of this crucial department would of course be augmented by the Under Secretary of Puttin� It To Rich Dudes and the Deputy Secretary of Maligning Rich Dudes.  This program will make poor guys feel better because though they are poor, at least they can avoid the draft.

There may be serious degradation in military readiness, because rich, poor, or in the middle, the all-volunteer force has proven to be much more effective than the conscripted force.  But military readiness is just a peripheral issue as long as we are puttin� it to them rich guys!  I just want a guy next to me that I can depend on�I don�t believe I�ll be asking for his investment portfolio.

It�s interesting how when Republicans send people to war, it�s only to enrich their own personal wealth, but when Democrats do it, it�s for some righteous cause.  I must say I don�t understand the current bunch of far-left Democrats and their �enlightened and progressive� approach to solving our nation�s problems.  I thought going back to a system that once existed (conscription) was by definition �regressive� not progressive.  I guess I�d better read Webster�s again.

I think we should extend this �clearly well thought out program� to our local and state police agencies.  The more rich guys who are cops, means less crime�right?  Much better to play the envy game than to deal with the real issues.  Charlie�s argument would have made sense 30 years ago, when there was a draft and there was bias towards the poor in that system.  Today, it just sounds ludicrous.

You presume that every “volunteer” had a wealth of other options Mild Bill, did you ever stop to consider that they maybe DON’T want to be there but their other options are even more unpalatable? Ever stop to think that maybe they are just gambling that the current commander and chief won’t ship their sorry asses over seas to die in some god forsaken shit hole to protect the interests of his campaign contributors? Do you really think that I went into the military because I had a swell of patriotism that could only be quenched by fighting for the glory of my country? Fuck that noise! I had a dead end job with no health coverage and was sick of eating ramen noodles every other night supplemented with daily vitamins to stave off scurvy or rickets or whatever the hell else you get with vitamin deficiencies.

Maybe the draft isn’t the best idea but letting the rich parcel out the country like it is their own private fiefdom is suicidally insane. let their kids die to protect our oil, let their kids die to increase our global influence, let their kids die in the name of patriotism because they sure as hell get more than their fair share of the spoils. Who are the rich? That’s just pathetic. Do you need to have someone run a study to tell you if you are wet when it is raining? Are you moist, damp, or perhaps there is a degree of wet that is still dry? When 5% of the population owns 95% of the wealth that is fucking rich!

You want to keep the status quo? Fine. All that shows me is that you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. Don’t worry, your precious money and status is safe, didn’t mean to scare you with any socialist rambling about inequity, put down the guns because the huns aren’t camped out on your lawn. But don’t sit there and tell me that the game isn’t rigged and that everyone has the same chances as everyone else in this country because it is a lie. And I am sick and tired of hearing it.

Oh, and if you are going to attempt to cleverly belittle me by referring to me as Al Sharpton, Charlie Rangle, Karen Silkwood, or who ever else might make you feel superior go for the gold and really knock my socks off. I can’t wait.

You double-dipped, posted twice before I could reply...I think that is a SEB faux pas old chap, an unforgivable breech of etiquette

I was in the Air Force, as I stated earlier, for over 20 years.  I don�t believe I ever said �everyone� went in to the military for the same reason.  I went in because I was bored at home and wanted to see the world.  I�ve heard of people going in because they were patriotic (all that flag waving horseshit), but that wasn�t my reason.  I do not know how you inferred that I meant all people go in for the same reason! I�m quite sure there are unscrupulous recruiters (like in the movie Private Benjamin) who don�t tell recruits the whole truth when they enlist.  This was not my experience; my recruiter told me everything (good and bad).

Dictionary.com defines volunteer thusly:

To perform or offer to perform a service of one’s own free will.

A person who renders aid, performs a service, or assumes an obligation voluntarily.

I�ll have to give these volunteers, who joined for various reasons, credit for having brains enough to figure out that the military�s job is to kill people and break stuff.  If you joined without that knowledge, that is unfortunate.  As with any job, your boss offers you compensation and you provide a service in return.  I can�t think of any job where you tell the boss what you will or will not do.  It�s also unfortunate that you had to join the military because you had no options, but by the definitions above, you volunteered. 

I�ve served with the son of a 4-star general, Gen Horner, air commander during the first Gulf War.  I also served with a lieutenant who had a doctorate in Chemistry, 28 years old!  I�ve met guys who had extremely wealthy parents or spouses.  One guy that worked for me (an E-4) was married to a dentist and he once went to Kenya on safari for a month!  I�ve served with city boys, surfers, farmers, you name it.  Their reasons for joining were as varied as they themselves were.

I asked how you define �rich� and was lambasted for it, but you still didn�t define it�I should just know what rich is?!  I should just know what the speed limit is on a certain stretch of road?  I should just know how much my fair shares of taxes are?  Negative!  If you move from the conceptual or philosophical realm to implementing something, don�t you agree there must be some standard definition?  That�s all I meant�who the hell is going to decide who is rich?

When did I say the game isn�t rigged?  I happen to be a Black American, so you have very, very little to tell me about inequality.  I guess I could just be hostile and justify any deviant behavior that fits my purpose.  I could just rationalize shit away, like so many people do.  �Yeah, I robbed that guy because he�s white and he has it better than me�.  There are a whole lot of those types out there, some related to me!  For me to envy those who I perceive have more than me, is a waste of time.  Arguably you yourself are better off than many, because you can afford a computer and an Internet connection.  For some people I know, that is as much of a luxury as me driving a Mercedes coupe!

Did I read you wrong or did you imply that �my precious money and status was safe?� OK, I�m done laughing about that!  Where in the hell did you get that idea?  It�s unfortunate that you misunderstood where I was coming from.  I lived outside of this country for over 13 years and had extended stays in over a dozen countries.  If you want to see �screwed up�, move to another country and compare.  I sure as hell did, which is why I�ll never live anywhere else�as screwed up as this place is.

I guess what I really mean to say is, what some people call �screwed up�, I call normal!

When I said “draft the rich” I was being a little facetious, and was not intending to be taken literally.  I agree with Mild Bill that there is no fair way to make such a distinction in implementing a selective service system.  However, a general draft does bring the issue home to roost more so than does an essentially mercenary volunteer armed forces. 

From a democratic perspective (please note the small “d"), we in this country are all equally responsible for our actions as a state.  Even though I have two soon-to-be eligible children, I would favor a general draft.  I feel that a draft forces citizens to actively take a position on what our government is up to one way or another:  either you suit up and serve, or ante-up with decisive refusal on moral/common-sense grounds, facing and fighting whatever legal repercussions ensue. These are both honorable options available to any free individual.

There should be no wealth/class-based deferrals (student, professional,...).  The blatancy with which these loopholes were exercised were one of the main reasons for the “liberal” objections to the Vietnam-era draft to which Bill referred.  The poor and lower middle class were tired of watching G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, John Ashcroft, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Trent Lott, Antonin Scalia, Bill Bennett, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Ken Starr, and others easily dance out of a war that they and their families ostensibly supported.

Of course, with the growing rift between rich and poor in this country, as clearly outlined by Eric, the odds would still be in favor of the wealthy for having their children escape danger.  Perhaps a war service-by-referendum would be most equitable - put military action up for direct vote, with “yes"s going straight to the front

Actually you should know that speed limit on a given stretch of road even if unposted, at least that is what they told me in driver’s ed. If memory serves it is 25 in residential neighborhoods...actually screw my memory (I can’t rely on it to save my life anyhow) the following link will give you the Michigan State limits (your state may differ).

Anyhow I know this isn’t about speed limits but is about the definition of “rich”.

Dictionary.com defines Rich as (among other things):

Possessing great material wealth: �Now that he was rich he was not thought ignorant any more, but simply eccentric� (Mavis Gallant).

I guess then the question is what level of great material wealth constitutes being rich. No one person can make that call but as a society we come together to make laws based on consensus and as a society we also make a determination of rich based on what the average income is. I know for a fact that Bill Gates in most people’s estimation is rich, so rich that most of us cannot even conceive what it must be like to have that much money...and we never will. But now just for shits and giggles let’s look at some numbers and try to figure out in a country as wealthy as ours why it is that we have anyone who could be considered poor.

In the second quarter of 2003 the GDP in billions of chained 1996 dollars (which I chose because it is the lower of the two numbers I could have picked, not because I have a clue what chained 1996 dollars are)was 9,608.1. That means $9,608,000,000,000 plus or minus was made in three months in the United States. The Population clock at the U.S. Census Bureau has the U.S. Population at 291,675,669 (at least when I checked it). Now with absolutely none of that money going back into materials, utilities, etc. that would be $32,940.70 per person (even infants just born) over the course of three months so that would be, what? $131,762.79 per person each year before taxes. Now we know that industry would grind to a halt if no money was re-invested so let’s say everyone could live quite comfortably on $50,000.00 per person per year and the rest gets re-invested. Hell we could even afford to have free health care and education through college with that kind of cash, but we would rather let people die in the streets each winter rather than consider something that smacks of socialism. Better dead than red I suppose, I guess I should remember to ask the next homeless man, woman, or child I see on these gold paved American streets of ours.

Everyone likes to say that America is the greatest country in the world but in relation to what? All of your other choices? Okay, I will agree with that, but it can be greater still if it could just stop being so goddamn greedy.

Do I have a problem with the rich? Every person is unique and I could only make that call on a case by case basis but as a group their concentration of wealth is an obscenity.

Guys, guys, guys!  Your idealism is commendable.  I wish for some of the same things you do, but idealism has little practical application in the real world.  Example:

The Constitution is the idealistically driven document that sets forth our philosophy for law in this country.  The law, however, is implemented through the United States Code and other statutes.  It would not be possible to use only the Constitution as the basis for law, because it is too general.  On the other hand, the US Code is absurdly detailed and specific.

As Ken conceded, it would be nearly impossible to define who is rich.  Did having a draft in the past ever stop a President from sending in troops for dubious reasons?  Did it stop McKinley from sending in troops to fight the Spanish, who may or may not have sunk one of our ships, the Maine?  Did it stop LBJ from fabricating the Gulf of Tonkin incident?  Though the captain of the intelligence gathering ship, the Maddox, claims he was not attacked by North Vietnamese forces, LBJ insisted that he was attacked.  That was the start of that little excursion in Vietnam.  Now LBJ only had daughters from what I remember, so should we only allow Presidents, Congressmen, etc., to serve who have sons who could be drafted? 

In the post-conscription era, Regan sent Marines to Lebanon, where several hundred were slaughtered by a suicide bomber, and then simply withdrew them.  George HW Bush was criticized for not sending troops to Somalia�he was called a racist.  Clinton on the other hand being �progressive�, sent in Army units with little chance of success militarily, because there were no clearly defined objectives.  They also lacked a key ingredient in the success of most of our military operations, airpower!  I know a couple of Rangers and they tell me the movie Blackhawk Down was exceptionally accurate. 

And speaking of Rangers, one little thing Mr. Rangel and his ilk don�t tell you is the vast majority of US Special Forces, besides being volunteers, are also mostly CAUCASION.  In this world of considerable unfairness and injustice, what could be fairer than volunteer military service?

This is 2003, not 1963.  Even if you�re poor, you can go to college or technical school FOR NO TUITION FOR YOUR FIRST TWO YEARS, courtesy of the US government.  Especially if you�re poor, you can get loans and grants for college or technical training.  That�s besides programs offered by the states, colleges, and private institutions.  Bill Gates� foundation alone gives away tens of millions a year to disadvantaged young people.  I never really thought of the military as a welfare program for the poor, but I guess in some people�s minds it is.  To state that you joined the military because you are poor and have no options seems to be a flawed argument.

Oh, and putting war up to a vote would be �BIG D� Democracy, which this country is not!

Hey, I�m glad you guys support Rangel...when I get my share of those slavery reparations, I�ll be laughing all the way to the bank

Whoa Eric, we posted at nearly the same time!  Excellent points.  Impressive calculations.  Boy, this sure is diverging from a discussion about Saddam’s “Hell-Spawn”!!! I’ll comment in detail later.

Yeah, I was waiting for someone to reign us in for be WAY off topic I will cop to be an idealist...it’s how I escape the mundane horror of my reality.