Tuesday, November 28, 2006

You'll probably be hearing more about this idea in the next few weeks (as soon as I get that paper on terrorism done), but here's a sketch of my plan for world peace. I explained it well in this IM conversation with my friend...plus, you get the benefit of me seriously explaining why a draft is such a bad idea that it will never happen.
(jeez, sometimes liberals need the most basic things explained to them (though, this doesn't really include my friend, most of the time)

Here we go(edited slightly for readability and anonymity):
Ben: guess what E and I decided we need to do this summer...

A: I heard protest for the invasion of Iran

Ben : Yup. But actually, it was to "Protest for the Ending of Human Rights Abuses" the world over...though particularly in Iran, cause we're strategically placed, and a couple other reasons.

A: I think its a great idea
A: I just hope you guys like the draft cuase thats the only way its happening

Ben: Not really...we don't need the draft.
Ben: We just need to redeploy from Iraq to Iran...We have them surrounded, and we'll be able to use the Navy more...
Ben: There will never ever be a draft again, it's inefficient.
Ben: It takes us about a year to train someone to be a basic soldier, at which point we send them to specialized training, which takes at least another 6-8 months. Most specialties take more time than this. (remember, this isn't exact, I was thinking off the top of my head. It is generally correct. - ed.) If we drafted people for two years (like the draft is currently set up, and how it worked in Vietnam) (In WWII we drafted people for the duration. - ed.) we would barely get to use them at all. Plus, they would not be as good as the volunteers we currently have, who are in top physical shape and all that. So, a draft would increase our needs and costs and we wouldn't really get much (a draft would also reduce the number of volunteers)
Ben: A draft is just pretty much all-around, bad strategy, and we can increase the size of the military without it.
Ben: Like we have been doing, for the past four years, despite the fact that we missed our overall recruitment goals for one of those years.

A: and its your asses that are going

Ben: I probably would go... but I would be a volunteer...not a draftee...

A: I would volunteer to but thats not the point
A:I guarntee if it was necessary which it very likely could be in the future
A: Training and standards would be lowered which is yes bad strategy but if you can't get enough kids to volunteer you don't have a choice

Ben: I just told you all the reasons it's not necessary, even, not helpful nor beneficial...
Ben: We don't have wars that need bodies to fill trenches or storm a beach anymore. We use skilled technicians that complete highly specialized missions that come together to create the desired impact.

A: And when it comes down to it the military is going to what they have to to keep enough people there
A: Well good fight the war without them then

Ben: We need people who can use a computer with one hand, while shooting a gun with the other, while running full speed at a crouch.

A: and how are you going to redeploy

Ben: from Iraq to Iran?
Ben: well, no one wants us there anyway, right?

A: we can't even keep iraq stable now and the Iraqis sure as hell can't do shit

Ben: I assume we'll just take the helicopters, tanks and everything and drive across the border to Iran...

A: no one wants us there but we can't leave it in chaos

Ben: I mean, if the trainers and suppliers can come this way, it can't be that hard to go the other way.
Ben: why not?
Ben: If we did, they would bleed out, and the problem would fix itself. (please, sarcasm - ed)
Ben: Plus, it would show them that being stupid and violent never works.

A: then all your various insurgents that are keeping global terrorism down by busting the shit out of iraq will start moving around or just go to iran
A: and then we will just be fighting the iraq war in iran

Ben: yeah, so?
Ben: we'll move to Pakistan when that happens.
Ben: Run once, run twice, what's the difference?

A: can't do both at the same time
A: yes alexander the great
A: go take over the middle east i don't care i just want a job wiht the CIA

Ben: eventually, we'll destroy so much stuff (which is what our military is designed to do, not be a police force) that the insurgents won't have anything left to make bombs with.

Ben: I don't want to do two things at the same time.

A: please keep me in business for the next twenty years or soo

Ben: I want to leave Iraq, and go to Iran, then leave Iran, and go to Pakistan, then leave Pakistan, and go to North Korea, then leave NK and go to Burma, then leave Burma and rest for a few minutes before we get to Africa, (cause we'll need it to pump ourselves up for being in Africa, which is far more confusing than the Middle East) but we'll have to be there eventually.
Ben: See, just one thing at a time...

A: fine go to iran see what happens just make sure they don't nuke cuase austrailia has great surfing but i don't wanna live there with bunny rabbits

Ben: and if we move quickly enough, the terrorist won't be able to run fast enough to keep up.
Ben: and we'll just kill the leaders in every place, so that the terrorists won't know how to build bombs any more, and they'll have to spend more time learning all over again.

A: this makes the nuke the moon strategy sound plausible (HAHA! A FRANK J. PLUG FOR THE NEW BOOK, AND THE OLD CLASSIC! I EVEN GOT MY FRIEND TO WORK IT IN, SO THAT IT DOESN'T LOOK SUSPICIOUSLY LIKE I WAS BEGGING FOR A LINK! BUT NOW I'LL GET ONE FOR SURE! - ED)

Ben: It'll be like they got sent back to kindergarden from (well, I almost said 10'th grade, but that's too advanced for where they're actually at) 6'th grade.
Ben: Well, I think that for best effect, we should use them both in conjunction with each other.
Ben: Maybe Nuke The Moon again each time we have to move on to another country.

A: fabulous

Ben: Maybe people will eventually get the point and stop being stupid idiots so that the moon doesn't get destroyed.

A: probly not

Ben: *Sigh* Probly not.
Ben: But, on the plus side for us, we get to downsize our nuclear armament, and meet those treaties we have that the russians aren't following.
Ben: it'll be cheaper than disposing of them (im)properly (cause properly disposing of them would be to blow them up, but everyone wants us to just take them apart), and it'll make us look good for meeting our treaty obligations, unlike Saddam

A: they will scream about killling infdels and muhammad and 70 virgins and stuff keeping trying

Ben: Yeah, but we don't really want them to stop anyway...we want to go in and destroy stuff.
Ben: I mean, what's the point of being the most militant country on the planet if you don't get to use a few bunker busters and such?

A: good point



I always make good points, thank you very much.
And just for the record, the US spends 4% of GDP on our military. Iran spends closer to 20% currently, though there aren't really any good figures. NK has no good figures, but you gotta believe that it's closer to 90% of GDP. And, our 4% investment makes most countries (aside from Iran, NK, and France) feel safer in the world, while the Iranians and North Koreans just make everyone feel scared about the crazy things they're going to do next.

Ok, off to lunch.

7 comments:

  1. But actually, it was to "Protest for the Ending of Human Rights Abuses" the world over

    I don't think you realize what you are saying. We are one of the worst violators of Human Rights the world over.

    Please, take your warmongering bullshit and stop blogging.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So, do you have some stat's to back up the fact that we're one of the worst violators of Human Rights the world over? I will concede that we might not meet the standards of a Sweden or something, but surely we're better than places like Iran and NK?

    Also, can you tell me where you got your tag name from? It's interesting. Please don't take this as an attack at your argument, because it has nothing to do with that...but I'd love to hear the story anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To add to my comment - it would appear to me that the relevant question is "are we more respecting of Human Rights than Iran?" Because if we are, then we can teach them a thing or two...

    ReplyDelete
  4. I remember when conservative foreign policy was prudent and in touch with reality. Now we've got this:

    http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW11-12-03.gif

    ReplyDelete
  5. http://www.workingforchange.com/
    webgraphics/wfc/TMW11-12-

    ReplyDelete
  6. http://www.workingforchange.com/
    webgraphics/wfc/TMW11-12-03.gif

    there we go, mission accomplished

    ReplyDelete
  7. So, I read that comic strip - actually, I'll be going to OCS pretty soon. So, there you go.
    But I liked the simple parry of my argumentative thrust with the move known as "Ignore" with all the grace that the "straw-hat argument" style can bring to a sparing match.

    I repose my first questions, because I actually am interested in your response. Call me crazy, but talking to peaceful people we disagree with is the way forward.

    ReplyDelete