The military is definitely not a corporation but it is an employer and it seems unfair to deny the military the same right to recruit employees as is extended to other employers.

The commentor has thrown out a couple of phrases, “non-U.S citizen immigrants and soldiers on food stamps,” but not to the extent of offering any point. Even mere opinion is preferable to cryptic, unexplained remarks.

The commentor keeps mentioning the unfairness of military recruitment but never offers any facts or data to justify his opinion. Perhaps recruitment policy IS unfair – if it is I would appreciate some facts to mull over. Having seen military recruitment firsthand I have observed no unfairness in any aspect of it, but anecdotal evidence is the weakest of proofs – I was but one person in an immense organization. Unfairness could have easily happened without my knowledge. But I can’t change my opinion without something other than another opinion to go on – there has to be some kind of reality involved, something more tangible than unsubstantiated argument.

The commentor now says that military benefits are “bribes.” I would agree that military benefits are in the nature of incentives, just as most other large employers offer incentives to attract prospective employees. It’s another clear example of the ingrained double standard so common to the apologizers – in their viewpoint the US military is not allowed to offer incentives that are common to any employer attempting to attract workers.

Also, if a study doesn’t ask the right questions, it’s a bit faulty is it not? Doesn’t matter how thoroughly it sifts through data. Studies are wrong every day. It’s actually how science makes progress. They are wrong a lot. Eventually, there is bulk of studies that show mostly one thing or another. One study does not a fact make.

I have no idea what “studies” the commentor mentions. I certainly did not mention any but merely asked for some hard evidence that military personnel are “skewed towards those with fewer initial opportunities.” I’m afraid we will all wait for a very long time for such evidence to be cited by the commentor to support the commentor’s misconceptions about the make-up of US military personnel. The commentor parrots false assertions and then glosses over these false beliefs when challenged, which is standard operating procedure for the apologists.

Otherwise, I see you obfuscate another issue. Of course, when Bush criticized nation building in the Balkans, he was only meaning that particular instance was wrong. How ridiculous is that assumption? But he does nation building in a complex situation as well, it’s then the right thing. Bah hah. You can’t hide this second bald faced distortion either. Did they or did they not flip flop? It’s a simple question.

I don’t deny Bush as a candidate before 9/11 might have spoken against nation-building in the Balkans and Mogadishu but all that changed, as it should change for all of us, in the face of 9/11. In fact I rather admire President Bush for changing his approach after presented with such a horribly large atrocity as was 9/11, especially since that infamous event also changed my own mind about the foreign policies of the past.

By the way: At that time no one had any way of knowing that Saddam would reward such leniency with 13 years of treachery.

Maybe you should extend that courtesy to a few others. That of not knowing the future. You think, little buddy?

But what “few others” could the commentor talking about? Courtesies can always be extended but not to the extent of putting the whole of America in jeopardy.

Even though a draft/lottery system is unarguably fair and fairer than the current by far. (Well, that is, when there isn’t corruption and favors.) You might as well argue the sun isn’t hot.

Whether it’s the best way to run the military is another question. But you know, if you’re going to send people to die, you want to consider fairness. Or maybe you don’t! We’ll see.

Also, get back to me soon about the bush cheney stuff.

Also, if a study doesn’t ask the right questions, it’s a bit faulty is it not? Doesn’t matter how thoroughly it sifts through data. Studies are wrong every day. It’s actually how science makes progress. They are wrong a lot. Eventually, there is bulk of studies that show mostly one thing or another. One study does not a fact make.

Otherwise, I see you obfuscate another issue. Of course, when Bush criticized nation building in the Balkans, he was only meaning that particular instance was wrong. How ridiculous is that assumption? But he does nation building in a complex situation as well, it’s then the right thing. Bah hah. You can’t hide this second bald faced distortion either.

Did they or did they not flip flop? It’s a simple question.

By the way: At that time no one had any way of knowing that Saddam would reward such leniency with 13 years of treachery.

Maybe you should extend that courtesy to a few others. That of not knowing the future. You think, little buddy?

A case in point is a recent Congressional hearing in which Doug Feith testified. Dana Milbank of the Washington post wrote an article which was highly critical of the behavior of the Republican committee members and Mr. Feith during the hearing. But when I viewed the video of the complete hearing I found an event very different than what Milbank described.

Both the highly critical article and the C-Span video of the hearing are linked to at the Feith website so that readers can judge for themselves. I read the article and viewed the video and found the article to be grossly misleading.

http://www.dougfeith.com/index.html

Ms. Thomas’s article refers to remarks Bush allegedly made about Mogadishu – not Iraq. I think the readers can easily understand how then-candidate Bush’s alleged opinion about Mogadishu, even if accurate in Ms. Thomas’s characterization, has little to do with President Bush’s actions taken in a post-9/11 Iraq many years later. Yet many unsuspecting readers, perhaps ignorant of the historical sequence and trusting in the veracity of Ms. Thomas, will be swayed by such trivia, just like the commentor.

So, in my judgement, the Helen Thomas article linked to by the commentor proves nothing except that Helen Thomas apparently dislikes Bush and his administration.

In the other link posted by the commentor we find Cheney talking about various factors which led President Bush’s father to leave Saddam in power after Saddam’s defeat during the Kuwait invasion. All the Cheney remarks prove is that the US is institutionally reluctant to commit lives to “nation-building,” an understandable sentiment with which I happen to agree. At that time no one had any way of knowing that Saddam would reward such leniency with 13 years of treachery. And these remarks by Cheney were uttered before 9/11, an event which changed(or should have changed) certain paradigms concerning the ‘diplomacy-without-teeth-and-hope-for-the-best’ approach to hostile rogue nations.

I suspected the commentor’s earlier assertion that folks in the military are “skewed towards those with fewer initial opportunities” would be unable to be verified by any hard data. He glosses over his lack of confirming data with an awkward, self-serving statement: “Numbers really don’t tell the whole story.” Such hedges are common when apologizers are asked to provide proof for their misconceptions.

The commentor chose instead to dream up a hypothetical in which he compares military recruits to crack addicts. The commentor goes on to decry the offering of benefits by the US military as if furnishing benefits to service members is some kind of scam. This is his proof, such as it is. I find such cracked equivocations to be common among the apologizer set.