From the heart

[billydkid]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/sheehan4.html

My great fear is that this war will still be going on when my son turns 18. If we take the President at his word, it will never end. I can guarantee you this, my boy will never lose his life on foreign soil fighting and killing for a lie.

[Number Six]

When your son turns 18 if he wants to do something dangerous and there isn't a war going on then he'll find something else. It's up to him in the end. He won't be drafted if that's what you're worrying about.

[DaChew]

Is there any way that a parent can actually send their own children to fight in the military? I was under the impression our current military was a voluntary thing.

[crimresearch]

It is.
A parent can give consent for a 17 year old to enter military training, and the law says that the military can't send them into combat until they are 18 ( don't know how rigorously that last is enforced), but parents cannot sign up their child against the child's will...

The parents 'sending their kids into the military' is one of the Big Lies promoted by Michael Moore that is insinuating itself as 'common knowledge'.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Number Six
When your son turns 18 if he wants to do something dangerous and there isn't a war going on then he'll find something else. It's up to him in the end. He won't be drafted if that's what you're worrying about.

How can you possibly say that with any certainty? I would not be at all surprised if there is a draft, although they may refer to it by another name.

[Snide]

Originally posted by crimresearch

The parents 'sending their kids into the military' is one of the Big Lies promoted by Michael Moore that is insinuating itself as 'common knowledge'. I'm confused...please explain what you mean by this (remember what happened last time I misunderstood a comment of yours re: Coulter).

[billydkid]

Originally posted by crimresearch
It is.
A parent can give consent for a 17 year old to enter military training, and the law says that the military can't send them into combat until they are 18 ( don't know how rigorously that last is enforced), but parents cannot sign up their child against the child's will...

The parents 'sending their kids into the military' is one of the Big Lies promoted by Michael Moore that is insinuating itself as 'common knowledge'.

Kids can be compelled to kill and die by their government at the age of 18, but can't drink a beer. Yeah, we have our priorities right.

[crimresearch]

Kids can be compelled by their governments to kill and be killed at ages much lower than 18, and people can be kept from legally drinking a beer at any age.

[Number Six]

Originally posted by billydkid
How can you possibly say that with any certainty? I would not be at all surprised if there is a draft, although they may refer to it by another name.
I say it as a result of my observation of our society and my impression of how people (the military, the government, the public) would react to a draft. I just think it is extremely unlikely.

I'm not saying there will never, ever, ever be one. It's hard to read really far into the future. But in the next ten years, say...no way. Last summer people were on here saying how certain they were a draft was coming. I offered to make any interested parties a bet on the matter, giving them until Jan 1, 2015 for there to be a draft. It was about 10.5 years away at the time and now it's nearly 10 and the offer still stands.

People just like to say there'll be a draft for scaremongering purposes (either to scare others or to scare themselves).

[billydkid]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Kids can be compelled by their governments to kill and be killed at ages much lower than 18, and people can be kept from legally drinking a beer at any age.

It obviously true that a given government CAN do ANYTHING it wants to do if the people allow it to, but I am completely unable to understand the point you are trying to make. My point, on the other hand, is completely obvious. The same government which mantains that our children need to be protected from the dangers of alcohol and tobacco before the age of 21 does not feel the need to protect them from the dangers of mortal combat. You can find some way to feel smug and disaffected and if that works for you, more power to you. Let me ask you this - do you defend the powers of a government to compel people to do whatever the government wants? Do you think the notion of a just government is quaint?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Kids can be compelled by their governments to kill and be killed at ages much lower than 18, and people can be kept from legally drinking a beer at any age.

And do you think this is a good thing?

If not, why not?

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Number Six
I say it as a result of my observation of our society and my impression of how people (the military, the government, the public) would react to a draft. I just think it is extremely unlikely.

I'm not saying there will never, ever, ever be one. It's hard to read really far into the future. But in the next ten years, say...no way. Last summer people were on here saying how certain they were a draft was coming. I offered to make any interested parties a bet on the matter, giving them until Jan 1, 2015 for there to be a draft. It was about 10.5 years away at the time and now it's nearly 10 and the offer still stands.

People just like to say there'll be a draft for scaremongering purposes (either to scare others or to scare themselves).

If there is another significant strike on the country you can bet absolutely there will selective service of one sort or another, what with our military stretched nearly to the breaking point. And you can also bet we will see the government given new powers far beyond those of the Patriot Act.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Number Six
I say it as a result of my observation of our society and my impression of how people (the military, the government, the public) would react to a draft. I just think it is extremely unlikely.


My understanding is that the US Army (specifically) is having difficulty meeting its recruiting quotas, as is the US National Guard in its various guises. Assuming that this difficulty isn't a momentary blip on the radar, and assuming that these quotas aren't plucked arbitrarily out of the air but bear some relationship to reality and to the needs of the armed forces, then at some point down the road the US Army will be looking at a substantial manpower shortage.

If you accept my assumptions, then how do you think the Army will manage to meet its force committments without resorting to a draft (or forcible recruiting of whatever sort)?

And, of course, if you don't accept my assumptions, with which one(s) do you disagree, and why?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by billydkid
If there is another significant strike on the country you can bet absolutely there will selective service of one sort or another, what with our military stretched nearly to the breaking point. And you can also bet we will see the government given new powers far beyond those of the Patriot Act.

Interesting 'if' ya got there, Billy. I have to admit I didn't see that one coming.

It would tend to alter the conditions of your original post. You know, unless the 'significant strike' is a lie.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by new drkitten
My understanding is that the US Army (specifically) is having difficulty meeting its recruiting quotas, as is the US National Guard in its various guises. Assuming that this difficulty isn't a momentary blip on the radar, and assuming that these quotas aren't plucked arbitrarily out of the air but bear some relationship to reality and to the needs of the armed forces, then at some point down the road the US Army will be looking at a substantial manpower shortage.

If you accept my assumptions, then how do you think the Army will manage to meet its force committments without resorting to a draft (or forcible recruiting of whatever sort)?


They'd have to make the military option more appealing. Bigger signing up bonuses, more money for college, perhaps forgiveness for previous student loan debt, tax credits, more and more promises (which I'm sure they'll keep. Yeah.).

They've already raised the acceptable recruit age to 39, which shows that they're willing to accept those previously unacceptable. I'm thinking the whole gays in the military thing might have to resolve itself simply as a practical matter of needing anyone who's willing. I can't imagine the public would prefer a draft to letting gays serve openly.

[Number Six]

Originally posted by billydkid
If there is another significant strike on the country you can bet absolutely there will selective service of one sort or another, what with our military stretched nearly to the breaking point. And you can also bet we will see the government given new powers far beyond those of the Patriot Act.
If it happens and you want to bet you know where to find me. Remember though, Jan 1, 2015 is the deadline. No waiting until November 2014, when things may be different, and then calling me out with "Okay, I bet you it happens in the next five or ten years." I'm giving plenty of time for the draft to be instituted if it is indeed going to come.

[Number Six]

All those things listed to get more people in the military may be tried and may be successful. But you're overlooking another big factor and that is changing the policy so that a larger military isn't needed and the military that we have fights less, which will mean people will be more likely to join it.

To see that there isn't going to be a draft all you do is imagine what would happen if there were one. Is there a single good thing that could come out of it for anyone (except for people that hate the USA)? There'd be more bodies in the US military but considering all the other baggage that would go along with it it's not clear to me that the US military would actually be more effective with a draft. I can't imagine a single sector of the American public that would be in favor of it at this point (with the exception of the tiny percentage actually rooting for the US to collapse from within).

Also, one more factor people haven't mentioned yet is the potential for growth via immigration. So many people want to come to the US to be citizens that using citizenship as a carrot to get immigrants to join would be very effective.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by billydkid
It obviously true that a given government CAN do ANYTHING it wants to do if the people allow it to, but I am completely unable to understand the point you are trying to make. My point, on the other hand, is completely obvious. The same government which mantains that our children need to be protected from the dangers of alcohol and tobacco before the age of 21 does not feel the need to protect them from the dangers of mortal combat. You can find some way to feel smug and disaffected and if that works for you, more power to you. Let me ask you this - do you defend the powers of a government to compel people to do whatever the government wants? Do you think the notion of a just government is quaint?

Spare us the BS and strawmen billy...you are on the run from so many of your own smug assertions and generalizations that I've lost count.

YOU made this post for political purposes, and you needed a dead body to do so.

OK, now you've got a dead body to do your little dance over, go ahead and make your point, and quit lying about what positions other people hold.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by new drkitten
And do you think this is a good thing?

If not, why not?

Same response to you as to billyD..
I never said any such thing, and you are fraudulently raising the suggestion that I did.

Hiding behind 'It was just a question' still makes you a reprehensible thug, tap dancing on a dead soldier's body.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Spare us the BS and strawmen billy...you are on the run from so many of your own smug assertions and generalizations that I've lost count.

YOU made this post for political purposes, and you needed a dead body to do so.

OK, now you've got a dead body to do your little dance over, go ahead and make your point, and quit lying about what positions other people hold.

You are really big on this lying accusation thing. I really don't know what you are referencing. I didn't assert that you held any position. I asked you a question.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Same response to you as to billyD..
I never said any such thing, and you are fraudulently raising the suggestion that I did.

Hiding behind 'It was just a question' still makes you a reprehensible thug, tap dancing on a dead soldier's body.

Pull yourself together. I have never seen anybody get so hysterical because someone sought clarification about where, exactly, you are coming from. And this name calling thing because someone disagrees with you - not too classy.

[crimresearch]

No, you attached an offensive belief to my name...no question involved...then you *added* the questions to pile on to your first implication that it was my position.

" The same government which mantains that our children need to be protected from the dangers of alcohol and tobacco before the age of 21 does not feel the need to protect them from the dangers of mortal combat. You can find some way to feel smug and disaffected and if that works for you, more power to you.

Let me ask you this - do you defend the powers of a government to compel people to do whatever the government wants? Do you think the notion of a just government is quaint? "

Nothing in my comments or my posting history supports the notion that I feel smug and disaffected about war...

That was a creation of *your* mind... and asking me questions about something I had not proposed would then become a non sequitur.

And in light of your long history of hit and run trolling here, such as the claim you made in another thread about states that have made self defense a crime, from which you ran when asked for a list of those states, supports my interpretation that you are a serial offender.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by crimresearch
No, you attached an offensive belief to my name...no question involved...then you *added* the questions to pile on to your first implication that it was my position.

" The same government which mantains that our children need to be protected from the dangers of alcohol and tobacco before the age of 21 does not feel the need to protect them from the dangers of mortal combat. You can find some way to feel smug and disaffected and if that works for you, more power to you.

Let me ask you this - do you defend the powers of a government to compel people to do whatever the government wants? Do you think the notion of a just government is quaint? "

Nothing in my comments or my posting history supports the notion that I feel smug and disaffected about war...

That was a creation of *your* mind... and asking me questions about something I had not proposed would then become a non sequitur.

And in light of your long history of hit and run trolling here, such as the claim you made in another thread about states that have made self defense a crime, from which you ran when asked for a list of those states, supports my interpretation that you are a serial offender.

There you go with the old trolling accusation - from the one who's mission in life is, apparently, to derail any thread started by anyone with whom you disagree with insults and personal attacks. As far as the hit and run thing goes - I have seen the "debates" you and some other engage in with Shane, for example, and they aren't debates at all, they are pissing matches and I'm not going to waste my time with that.

I state my opinions as clearly as I can and after that I don't think that there is anything significant left to say. In fact, your comments did sound smug and disaffected. I said you can find some way to feel smug and disaffected, suggesting that that was how you sounded to me, but I never said you were smug and disaffected.

I may have said some states have made self defense a crime, I don't remember, but in some states you certainly can be prosecuted for defending yourself with lethal force. No, I don't know the laws of all the states off hand, but I do know that I have read accounts of people in the US being prosecuted for defending their lives and property. Somehow, you take all of that as a personal insult. You seem not to be able to distinguish between a person's opinion on political issues and personal insults and you seem to take particular offense that I have not revisted that particular thread to see what you wrote or continued with the discussion - this is just something you are going to have to learn to live with. I do not have any particular responsibility to continually monitor every thread I have participated in or to respond to every thing someone may have added.

And you, calling me a troll - an accusation which you are inclined to direct at anyone you have a personal problem with - you who cloaks yourself in sarcasm and contempt for anyone you don't agree with, that is really too rich.

And I did ask you a question - a very direct and specific one which you did not answer, which is your perogative. I know that you know exactly what my point is about sending people off to kill and die while holding the position that they are not old enough to determine for themselves how to conduct their personal lives. Instead of making a reasonable argument that this somehow just (assuming that is your position, but how is one to know?) you respond with a comment which can only be described as cavalier. And, yes, you are right, the government can do that and anything else it chooses to, but is it right? Or is that even worth considering?

I'll make a deal with you - you detest me because of my political views (or something), fine, then put me on ignor. If you want to have an honest, civil discussion, that is fine too, but I will not waste my time in here hurling insults or engaging in pointless pissing matches the only purpose of which is derail any honest debate. I don't play with people who don't play nice. If you want to disagree with civility, fine, we can talk, but otherwise I am done responding to insulting comments and posts filled with contempt.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by billydkid
My great fear is that this war will still be going on when my son turns 18. If we take the President at his word, it will never end. I can guarantee you this, my boy will never lose his life on foreign soil fighting and killing for a lie. I won't hesitate for a nanosecond to move my family out of the country if, when my son approaches 18, there is a draft (or threat of one), unless there has been a sea change in the way the US conducts foriegn policy. (Unless he doesn't need/want this support of course.)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by billydkid
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/sheehan4.html

My great fear is that this war will still be going on when my son turns 18. If we take the President at his word, it will never end. I can guarantee you this, my boy will never lose his life on foreign soil fighting and killing for a lie.

Lew Rockwell

:dl:

[crimresearch]

"I may have said some states have made self defense a crime, I don't remember, but in some states you certainly can be prosecuted for defending yourself with lethal force. No, I don't know the laws of all the states off hand, but I do know that I have read accounts of people in the US being prosecuted for defending their lives and property. Somehow, you take all of that as a personal insult."

This is a skeptic's board, not 'Billy's personal opinion counts as fact' board, and your ranting won't make it otherwise...

If I wasn't asking you to back up your claims about self defense being a crime in certain states, someone else would.

If you find it offensive to be faced with your own words, or to be asked for factual references for your various assertions, who exactly do you think cares *besides* trolls?

Ditto for your labelling of my posting links to factual references, legal citations, and so forth as 'insults and personal attacks'...
the cure for your ailment is to quit making stuff up..then you won't be 'insulted nearly as much.

And what in the world does politics have to do with statements of fact, other than as a dishonest debating tactic?
Quit hiding behind 'If you dare to question my assertions, you must be one of them', even if there is a lot of that going around here lately.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by billydkid
I may have said some states have made self defense a crime...

In NO state is self defense a crime.

[billydkid]

an example: http://carpundit.typepad.com/carpundit/2004/10/cambridge_injus.html

[crimresearch]

Well, I must admit that I am impressed.

Not only has BillyDkid tacitly admitted that he was wrong, but he has kindly supplied us a link showing the difference between being charged with the crime of manslaughter, and the non-existent crime of self defense.

Very nice work.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Well, I must admit that I am impressed.

Not only has BillyDkid tacitly admitted that he was wrong, but he has kindly supplied us a link showing the difference between being charged with the crime of manslaughter, and the non-existent crime of self defense.

Very nice work.

I set the trap and the idiot walked right into it!