Sunday, August 07, 2005

A commenters actions

From comments over at Democratic Veteran (my humble abode):

I have a son in the National Guard, and a daughter-in-law in the Regulars. She was deployed lasy year, and, thankfully, returned home safe and sound in February.

I consider the draft a pretty good thing to revive.

Meanwhile, I carry a pocket-full of business cards from Army recruiters. I give them to people with big yellow ribbons on their SUV's, or that Bush/Limbaugh smirk on their faces.

It's amazing how fast the smirk drains away when I hand them the card.

Posted by John at July 31, 2005 12:37 AM
I hope that there are more folks out there showing up the Yellow Elephants. Yesterday, while travelling through an airport, there was a fat college boy with a "Support Out Troops" T-shirt on, and on the back was a picture of a squad in Iraq holding up a Texas A&M sign. Amazingly he was not in the picture...I guess he couldn't get away from his XBox fast enough to make it to the recruiter before they closed the office for the week.


At 07 August, 2005 19:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

they should send those facists back so they can die in the sand

At 07 August, 2005 20:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sort of old news but this idea to encourage the war-enthusiastic to answer their president's call is something I've been doing for quite some time.

At risk of physical peril.

My most memorable encounter was in the parking lot of our local grocery last year. There pulled next to me a classic sight: pickup truck with large US flag mounted in the bed; young man (maybe late 20's) descending from the high cab (practically needed a ladder) and dressed, no less, in cammoflage outfit.

Overcoming the fear, I engaged in what I hoped would be a fast, un-fisted conversation.

"Nice flag", I uttered.

To which Mr. Cammodude effused with his entire (vacuous) philosophy over the course of at least two minutes, and covered everything from the "great job" our "heroic" president was doing, to of course, the "heroes" doing battle for freedom in Iraq.

Finally sensing my chance, I replied, "Well, you seem very enthusiastic about the war".

He nodded.

"I hear the Marines are in need of good men like you. Ever considered joining up?"

There was a moment, and I was ready for it, where I expected the cammodude might have a homicidal thought pass between the echo chamber bordered by those large ears. I was ready for a fast run to safety.

He thought the better of it, and instead his face turned a bit more red, and then something unrepeatable escaped between his pursed lips. Then he turned away, hobbling off to purchase another 6-pack.

Small town. Haven't seen him lately. Maybe conscience rose to the occasion.

At 07 August, 2005 22:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

you should have beat the shit out of him and made him eat it even though the marines dont need him the army does so they can kill brown people

At 07 August, 2005 23:11, Anonymous Pvt. Bidness said...

Probably safer asking in front of reliable witnesses, but thanks for taking the risk. Peace be with you.

At 08 August, 2005 01:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

fat college losers play PlayStation 2 and NOT Xbox.

At 08 August, 2005 05:45, Blogger Joe Visionary said...

I read a blog (Fort FlyOver) where this guy figures Americans need to be in Iraq.

Since I'm not American, I offered a fresh perspective:

Let's take a hypothetical situation: I represent a superpower even greater than America, that has decided that the American Constitution is bad for the American people.

What's more, we can easily demonstrate that portions of it, like the 2nd Amendment are hideously inapproapriate for any modern-day society.

The 2nd Amendment's justification for arming the public for concerns about tyranny and evil overrunning the world was a concept that died with the end of the Cold War. Today, no nation could hope to bankrole such an aspiration.

The present day conflicts are ancient wars with histories that fade into the past, the Iraqi Shiite/Sunni one being one of them.

Now as this hypothetical superpower with more military might even than the US, we're going to come visit you and insist that you dump your 200+ year old Constitution (a newcomer by historical standards) because too many Americans are getting killed unnecessarily because of it.

Also, the unbridled capitalism it propounds makes for enormous disparity of wealth, such that portions of America live in poverty comparable to some Third Worlds.

And remember, we're doing this for your own good.

Don't you suppose that if our troops overrun you, and stick guns in your face, that even if we claim to be doing this 'for your own good' that you may get royally pissed off anyway?

America has done this in Iraq, and your still wondering why these people aren't grateful.

Yes, there is a problem with these tyrants killing many people, but if there's one lesson the rest of the world has learned from American experiences, it is that you can't fly in and deliver them from evil; you can only try to broker peace.

This may mean a peacekeeping role, one that requires more diplomatic policing skills, as opposed to the 'let's overrun 'em and learn 'em a lesson' approach.

The bottom line with any society with long-standing tensions; often they are based on ancient cultural dogmas that hadn't been reconsidered, only blindly followed.

And where there is little critical reassessment, only blind adherence, there is the old dilemma 'how do you change an unthinking man's mind?'

The solutions? History has shown that;
1) You kill him.
2) You almost kill him.

For obvious reasons, the first solution is useless. The problem with the second solution is that under NO circumstance do you want to step in in place of one of the adversaries - the situation is messy enough as it is.

The best you can do is to attempt to limit carnage and promote non-violent exchange.

But dropping 'Daisy Cutters' on urban neighbourhoods simply doesn't qualify. All that will get you is suicide bombers looking to stroll through YOUR neighbourhood.

At 08 August, 2005 06:26, Blogger SID Tune said...

The second amenedment isn't "hideously inapproapriate for any modern-day society" becuase it's part of American society. Getting rid of it would be worse for the american people then it could ever be on it's own. And a 200 year old constitution is a newcomer? Sure, America hasn't been around that long, but the US Constitution is the oldest constitution still in use. Thats the thing about. It can be *amended* so we can get add to it and make it better (or in the case of prohibition add something and then remove it when we realized prohibition of alchohol was stupid). But then, I don't expect a non-american to understand american history as much as americans.

Your remarks about capitalism lead me to believe you are a socialist. I am right?

And American capitalism has also changed over the years. We no longer have robber barons (despite what liberals would tell you). People are better off now then ever before.

And America has swooped in and delivered countries from evil. It happened in World War 1 and World War 2. The people living in Nazi Germany and Japan loved their nations under Hitler and Tojo but after a thorough butt kicking from the Allies they accepted democracy.

"And where there is little critical reassessment, only blind adherence, there is the old dilemma 'how do you change an unthinking man's mind?'

The solutions? History has shown that;
1) You kill him."

What exactly is the obvious reason that that doesn't work? Some advice; don't be going into hypothetical situations. We could argue about a hypothetical situation in which the car was invented by British coutesses and how that effects society today. Not a good arguing piont.

At 08 August, 2005 08:50, Anonymous south park resident said...

Dey took er jebs!!

At 08 August, 2005 09:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mrs. Sheehan demands that Babs and Jenna enlist! Join her protest in Crawford now!

Frank Herron

At 08 August, 2005 12:18, Blogger Joe Visionary said...

Hi, tokyupig34. I'm finding that in the blog world, there doesn't seem to be a lot of measured rebuttal. Thank you for taking the time to do so.

First, about the hypothetical argument: I tried to bring home to the American who I was responding to what it would be like if some national belief was being viewed as a problem by a greater outside force.

Whether I use the Iraqi assumptions about Shiite/Sunni tensions, or Serbian assumptions about Christian/Muslim tensions, or Canadian assumptions about English/French tensions, or even American assumptions about Democrat/Republican tensions, it makes no difference, but the reaction by the two sides in tension still resent a third party swooping in to save the day.

While I'm prepared to take you to task regarding the 2nd amendment (see my response to Bearing arms right, obligation ), I don't really see the point. As I conclude in my rebuttal to this article, if it's good enough for Americans, that's fine by me.

As for being a socialist: Nope. One assumption that I wouldn't expect you as an American to understand is the concept of balance between complementary states: in this case the balance between social and personal priorities.

If we elect a federal party that has slight socialist leanings, then we elect a conservative party to lead the province and maintain that balance. When Americans call us pinkos, it's clear they have NO idea where this balance may lie.

As for the evolution of American Capitalism as outlined in your Constitution, I'm glad to hear that some of the rapaciousness has been toned down (tho' I'm not sure where - 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness' clearly favours the individual's needs over any social priorities).

Then there's the swooping forces of good; can you honestly say that Iraq or North Korea, or any other perceived threat IS actually a threat? My gosh, these small countries don't have anywhere near the tax base to finance their public health and education properly, how on earth are they going to march on the world??


"And where there is little critical reassessment, only blind adherence, there is the old dilemma 'how do you change an unthinking man's mind?'

The solutions? History has shown that;
1) You kill him."

What exactly is the obvious reason that that doesn't work?

While technically it is true that the mind of a man has been changed once he has been killed, it is of no consequence since he ain't going to be around to discuss it. On the other hand, if he's still alive, he may yet reconsider. I thought that might be obvious. Sorry.

If I still don't sound like I know what I'm talking about, please don't hesitate to say so. I may not be a journalist, but I'd still like to make some sense when I write.

Thank you for your patience.

At 08 August, 2005 13:02, Blogger merlallen said...

I did receive an application to join my local draft board when it's reactivated. don't know why they'd do that when chickenshit george said there would be no draft.

At 08 August, 2005 17:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

you should join so that when the draft comes this fall you can let all the progressives avoid service and make the repthuglicans die in the sand

At 09 August, 2005 10:11, Anonymous Skev said...

Jo said:

there was a fat college boy with a "Support Out (sic) Troops" T-shirt on

Maybe the shirt was in support of openly gay troops?



At 09 August, 2005 13:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...


At 09 August, 2005 13:27, Anonymous anomalink said...

Where can one get "Support Out Troops" merchandise? I know it would be an invitation to vandalism, but it's the most brilliant typo I've seen in a while.

At 09 August, 2005 23:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...


At 10 August, 2005 00:53, Blogger disabledvet said...

I'd pay a dollar for that!

At 11 August, 2005 18:23, Anonymous Anonymous said...


At 12 August, 2005 15:57, Anonymous anomalink said...

Get an electronic one at

Should I set it up for CafePress swag?

At 12 August, 2005 19:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...



Post a Comment

<< Home