Here:

cafepress.com/sloganeerinc

I applaud your bravery, but I don't agree with your argument. If we are going to fight wars, we need a draft. It isn't the regular army that's getting slaughtered, it's the reserves, the weekend warriors, the people enticed into battle for a little extra money for college.

All people, not just Republicans, have the luxury of stupid opinions because they know they'll never have to pay for them.

Draft everybody. This war will be over in two weeks.

John doe, your logic seems sound, but there's one key point you seem to be missing; a soldier's job is different from that of a biologist or politician because we don't send biologists to kill or die in order to prevent global warming. We don't send politicians into battle; that's the key. Even the most dangerous occupation on your list, police officers, don't suffer the kind of physical and mental stress that a soldier does; they aren't asked to spend years away from their families in a foreign land where they can be shot at or bombed at any moment. That's why people get angry at those who seem to have a cavalier attitude towards the lives of our troops. They seem to have no qualms about sending other people to possibly die for any possible reason, while they sit comfortably at home, making no real sacrifice at all. I don't believe anyone is saying you have to serve to have any opinion on war, in fact this scenario probably wouldn't work because soldiers are less able to voice dissent than, say, a biologist. In the military, if a commanding officer gives an order, you follow it. You don't ask why, you don't make an alternative suggestion. This is necessary in order for the military to run smoothly. So who is left to stand up and question authority? Those of us at home. It's not a matter of, "be anti-war or sign up..." The point is we should exercise restraint when endangering the lives of our military personnel. Private citizens who choose not to serve have a responsibility to the troops to ensure we send them only when it's absolutely necessary, only when it's for a good reason. Thus far, the reasons for the Iraqi invasion haven't been satisfactory, nor is wisdom of continuing their presence in Iraq. If we don't hold the reasons for war up for scrutiny and hold our leaders accountable for the life and death decisions that rest in their hands, in my opinion, it's a slap in the face to those who protect our right to do so.

I think it is silly you think we send Marines to Iraq to die. We don't. We send them to kill really bad people. And they are killing a lot of really bad people, so far about 60,000 of them. Not just Iraqis either, but Saudis, and Kuwaitis, and Syirans and a lot of really bad people who wouldn't be living peacefully, but trying to figure out other ways to acheive "martyrdom."

And going into the military isn't hell. Football camp is a lot harder. Yes you can get shot, but you can also get horribly maimed driving in your car to work. It is not a death sentence. It really isn't that bad.

And I really do think this new generation coming up are pussies. I think you are overblowing the casualty rates greatly just because you want to be the next Bob Dylan (or should I say Captain Planet), and you have had it pounded into your head that marching for peace, along with saving the whales and recycling is so great.

Heck, I could see why they did it in Vietnam. Those people really thought the communism was the way to go. But keeping Saddam Hussein in power was the best thing for us? You are totally insane. Do you have any idea what we had to do to just get weapon inspections into his country? Or how about the terrorists he sponsored, including al-Qaeda, and what he said about 9/11?

And no, we do not need a draft. If we needed a draft, we would have had one already.

I can't believe you would compare fighting on the front lines of an armed conflict to training at a SPORTS CAMP. I'd find it silly if it weren't so deeply offensive to the people of our military.
Are you being serious? Surely this must be satire!

Melyssa, I don't believe john doe's logic is flawed. You would be right if we were sending biologists off to fight the wars, but we are not. People who join the military do so of their own volition, knowing full well that they may be putting their lives in danger. That is part of their job, and they know it. When you say that biologists aren't sent off to war for months at a time away from their families, you are correct. But you are mistaken in the fact that biologists never signed up for that activity; soldiers willfully do. It is undoubtably a tremendous strain and hardship for the soldiers and their families, one that we should all be grateful for. I think you will find, though, that most soldiers are up to the task, and more than committed to the reasons that we are over there. This is evidenced by the above average re-enlistment rates recently.

I agree that there are many less than intelligent college republicans, and the CRNC convention isn't where one would go to find thought out arguments and sound logic. But I would venture a guess that, although supported by no evidence, Max left some footage on the cutting room floor. There are many college republicans who do end up joining the military.

One great thing about this clip-the kid who comes out of the closet at the end. Hilarious.

First, thanks for responding without personal attacks or calling me insane. I appreciate that! Your argument in the opening line seems to reinforce rather than refute my statement that John Doe's equating of a biologist and a soldier is incorrect; putting that aside for a moment, I'll address your other point. You are correct that soldiers sign up with an understanding they may see battle. You seem to be misunderstanding me though; I'm not advocating the idea that no soldier should ever have to see combat under any circumstances. That's unrealistic. There are certainly circumstances where military action is the only choice. However, we should be careful about when we use our military. A simple, "well, they signed up for it..." doesn't cut it for me. Just because they signed up to defend our country doesn't give us or our political leaders the right to be reckless with their lives and to do whatever they please. We owe our military better than that, even more so because they are willing volunteers.

I couldn't agree with you more that we cannot be reckless with soldiers lives, and I definitely don't take the attitude "they signed up for it". I suppose our fundamental disagreement comes with the questions "Was it the right thing to invade Iraq?" and "Should we still be in Iraq?" Most people, at the time of the invasion, said yes to the first question, which is how we find ourselves there. If it had not been a noble and worthwhile endeavor in the eyes of the majority of the country, then we would not be there today. Now, I'm sure we could get into a large scale debate about whether or not the reasons for going to Iraq ended up being correct, but that's another discussion. The answer to the second question, in my opinion, is also yes.

Obviously the war has been incredibly mismanaged, and things have been going horribly. I don't see this as a good reason to leave, however, as not one person familiar with the conditions has suggested this would be a good course of action. Even most democrat presidential candidates agree that to leave at once would be the wrong decision, which is why they are proposing a phased withdrawal, rather than an outright withdrawal. For us to leave immediately would be to leave an already chaotic country in only more chaos and bloodshed.

So when you say that we should be careful when using our military force and putting our soldiers in harms way, I completely agree. But most Americans, at some point, agreed that it was a worthwhile war, and a last course of action.

OK, let me preface by saying I'm not condemning anyone or trying to be a jerk. Having said that, I want to understand from someone who supported the Iraq War why they supported it. I'd be interested to hear from anyone, whether they've since changed their position or not. I'm trying to understand, not to attack anyone.

Jesus! How old are you guys? I am talking about this "John doe" And that strange non English literate "Death B4Dishonor" who obviously ain't no way near the front and still beating him self on his chest ,gawgling out some hateful and pretty macho stuff and still be so grammatically misfitted that one has to wonder if he did clear high school (even though I guess that he is from around the middle east according to his spelling mistakes..LOL!).

And finally..Zack. oh why oh why Zack do you involve your self with these elements and then ...try to protect their insane insinuations? Or do you really believe that most of them citizens of USA really did agree "at some point???" that the Iraq war was a "worthwhile war?" which planet do you come from son?? How many ordinary Americans did in fact "VOTE" for that war? Please amuse us all by giving us those fact sheets? Or better yet, ask Diebold for ballots. oh, right, they do not believe in that kind of constitutionally necessary stuff.

And finally Zack, please try to follow the news. it has been going on for a long time now but you call it "Re-enlistment" Let me quote a line of yours...
"This is evidenced by the above average re-enlistment rates recently"

It ain't no re-enlistment Zacky. Haven't you heard? The pentagon has prolonged the tour of duty from 12 months to 15 months. THAT is no re_enlistment just as factually as the pentagons more shameful report that desertion is higher then ever amongst those on the field. Sure there were 580 something soldiers who re-enlisted for yet another stint to mark July 4th, and 160 of them were those who had been given a chance to become American citizens...IF they would enlist and thus show their loyalties, Come on now, are we living in the midle ages? Enlist and show me that you are ready to die for our country or look in them heavens for a green card that will never come. By the way, if you come from the Caribbeans you might be given this chance. but if you are lucky and come from Europe you can win a green card in that yearly lottery. But watch and behold, never before has there been so few from other industrialized Nations NOT participating in that lottery to become American citizens since...since Bush took power. I wonder why? Is it just intelligence?

DethB4dizzhonor: If we needed a draft, we'd have one already? WTF? If there were WMDs we would have found them by now. This war is built on bullshit and lies. Nobody is paying attention because they THINK THEY DON"T HAVE TO PAY THE BILL.

Bush said we're fighting the war to avoid 'the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud' but he's pretty much assured that eventuality through his arrogant disregard of international law.

Stop playing 'Splinter Cell' and smell the steaming pile of shit that's been heaped on all of us. Or maybe you'll get it when this cabal of traitors cancels the '08 elections with a bullshit terror threat and installs themselves as the imperialists the truly are.

Liberal Rebel,
You accuse me of not reading the news or doing my homework. I think you need to start reading the news and paying attention, rather than slanging innacuracies wherever you may. Most people, and by most I mean a clear and solid majority, did support this war from the start. I have even included a link, or the "fact sheet" that you requested, to establish this so that you can, as you say, "follow the news".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_on_invasion_of_Iraq

What you are referring to is call "stop/loss", and these are not included, because they are not reenlistments, but rather extensions. Reenlistment rates are up. I don't believe for a second that it is because of large bonuses, as some say, or because, as has been suggested here, that officers insult the grunts by saying that they "won't cut it in civilian life and will end up getting ass raped in prison". Are you honestly going to tell me that all of these soldiers are against the war, but re-enlist anyways and put themselves in danger because of a $14,000 bonus or because an officer hurt their feelings? I have also included a few links to show you that re-enlistments are indeed up. One of them is an opinion column, but if you scroll down, it shows the re-enlistment percentages. The articles are a few months old, but not over a year old. You will get the idea. I hope this helps to clear up your ignorance on the matter.

news10now.com/content/all_news/?ArID=112086&SecID=83

article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZmNhOGRlZmRjMzU2NWFiNmQ1OGQ3NDBiM2Z kNGIzOTk=

I'm for citing your sources, but let me advise against accepting Wikipedia entries as fact. Any fact. Helpful, interesting...but not always accurate.

I agree. I thought we were watching a good mini-documentary, but then you started dancing and discredited the first part.

Agreed. It was very effective until the end, until the dancing. It's like the street performers who show up to protest nearly everything (billionaires for Bush), who add nothing to the debate and only exist to provide mockery.

Also, I wonder what College Democrats would do to a Republican muckracker who tried to do the same thing. I would guess the response would be much worse, somewhat akin to the response that conservative commentators get when they visit college campuses. I'm thinking of the pies thrown at Coulter and Buchanan, and the violence at Columbia University recently. I don't think that being escorted from the premises for disrupting an event is an indictment of the organization.

Hey Max. These Trez Hermanos looking dudes over here (above me in fact) are calling you a "penis". Well, actually it was "Vong utan fjong" (Look up that word Vong, it to has a great history) who started it by in fact calling you a Penis. Then the "Ben lille lem" totally agreed that your dance was bad and soon after him came "Zack full av skit-snack" and tagged along. But hey, I will clear this up for ya. Pillock is originally from a Norwegian word called "Pillikock" and it doesnt mean dick head but "kock peeling" now that THAt is cleared why don't "alla ni kuk huvuden" go and sign on for a tour?

It's actually more of an old British slang for calling someone a twit or a fool. And it isn't just calling someone a penis - it is a small penis.

No idea about the Norweigan for "Vong utan fjong"! But I'd be interested... because the nearest I know of the word with fjor - in it is fjortis which is a girl that is a bit cheap/gives it away easily.

God I love languages.

P.S. There is no capital p - in penis... as important a capital as you may consider it! ;)

"Grow some balls" by protesting in the street? Great, so traffic gets jammed up, police get overtime pay, the FBI has a fun time colecting random tidbits about nobodies for their files and everyone ends up at "that chick with the flowery halter top"'s house for an all night hookah party.

Sounds about as productive as Live Earth and less entertaining.

I'm sorry that you'll be inconvenienced by the traffic, but it's a bigger bummer to be killed for bullshit. What's the alternative? Sit around with your finger up your ass?

BTW, the FBI is already collecting useless tidbits on all of us.

I agree that Live Earth was and exercise in idol worship and futility, but protest and direct action ended the Viet Nam war, and will do that with this one as well.

May you should grow some balls, quit complaining and join us on the street.

Dayum that was a good one Farquad, you got ol Jim good with that one. Made my day laughing to that reply.

Thanks. Your posts are pretty good as well.

Zack should Google "War Diary" and watch the video where the NCOs are telling the grunts that they won't cut it in civilian life and they'll just end up in prison getting ass raped. That's how they're getting people to reenlist.

America is morally bankrupt. Whether it stays that way is completely up to us.

Yeah man. Not only should he be doing that but the whole lot of these sand bagging their heads down the hole kind of guys that only knows how to refute through half blinding testosterone filled clouds. I have always said that when entering the ring one must clear ones inner self from all disturbing feelings thus enable a rooted schedule of techniques already attached to the fullest within ones own spinal core to take over and enable the defeat of ones enemy. Now THAT is something one wished those Brats in this clip had. But unfortunately they will never grow something even resembling courage. Could you see one of them inside a ring?

Priceless moment!

I don't think their hypocrisy was necessarily exposed. I am finishing up a doctoratel this year (undergrad supported by a scholarship, grad supported by fellowship) and have no inclination to join the armed forces. However, I were to be drafted, I wouldn't be doing a dance, but I would go serve my country. Obviously, I can't speak for everyone in the video, but I doubt that they would necessarily be dodgers.

Trust most of us Ben, their hypocrisy was NECESSARILY Indeed exposed..Very much so...UTTERLY exposed..yep. You could probably even be blind and still be blended by seeing it coming. ROFLMAO!

We could turn this country 180 degrees by February 2008 with a Paul/Gravel administration. Which is why neither has a chance to even get out of the starting blocks.

Hey Ric:

I think Ron Paul is a longshot also. But if you want to e-mail me directly to dcbennettlawoffice@yahoo.com, I can send you information from a statistician who will explain that Dr. Paul's support may be at least up to 10%. Since he is an unknown, and only declared in March--that isn't bad. I have not followed Gravel's campaign. We called the grassroots movement for Ron Paul the Ron Paul Revolution.

Thank you thank you thank you. Here I thought I'd stumbed into another dimension where no one else would call him/her on that!

Huhm? I do not get it. the rambling you just did above, I read it twice and still it seems like, I dunno. strange. could you please go through it all again and a bit more moderate? Just so that it gets more structurally visible and easier to understand? Is it anti_Democrats or do you mean Anti-Democratic (which in the right linguistically structured term should then be "undemocratic video" or something like that.And by the way, How can it be that exposing a pile of overly spoiled brats screaming for a continuation of a war into which they seem to never want to participate but are willing to sit by the sideline and watch and gore at be something more against Democrats? That was clearly the Republican youth org holding on this one wouldn't you say? Or is it just us getting you back ward? Pund not intended, (he he he)

So hey, Kid.....when are you heading of to the front?

hey sherlock, if you would read my comment. you would know that i said IF a college republican cant have an opinion, then why should you. I think everyone should be able to express their views. Therefore, if you say those who havent served cant have views on if they support the war, then you cant either.

Well, Jody old bean, that might have been what you "said," but it sure ain't what you wrote. Next time, you might want to lock that keyboard before you load!