January 23, 2013

"North Korea said Thursday that it plans to carry out a 'high-level nuclear test' and further long-range rocket launches, all of which it said are 'aimed at the U.S.'"

"The statement from the North's National Defense Commission was carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency," says just-in email from CNN Breaking News.

I read it aloud, hear myself laugh, then say, "It's funny 'til it's not funny," and Meade says, "Axis of Evil."

208 comments:

1 – 200 of 208   Newer›   Newest»
madAsHell said...

Cuz...we have smart diplomacy!!

What difference does it make!?!?!?

traditionalguy said...

Obama and his super Marxist ladies had better start bowing and bowing.

Because if that doesn't work, then we have to go to war again. Damn how appeasement always works. Bowing appeasement ASKS for war.

EMD said...

Did Madeline Albright greet the news with a toast?

Borepatch said...

Wonder in the Chinese make that test be WAAAY out over the Pacific so that Beijing doesn't get hit with an Electro Magnetic Pulse.

wyo sis said...

Eight years ago it would have been funny. Now...

EMD said...

I certainly hope the Chinese see the long-term need to bring Pyongyang to heel. They don't want the refugee problem, but the other problems are all worse.

bagoh20 said...

Well if they claim it's aimed at us, then we should shoot it down in self-defense and maybe accidently miss with a few missiles that unfortunately hit the Great Leader's house.

No, not our Great Leader, but theirs. You know - the one who is really good at basketball.

edutcher said...

We announce women in combat. The Norks announce nuclear tests.

Oh, yeah, this is going swell.

Coketown said...

In all fairness to Obama, he is the first black president and was just re-elected, so he deserves a pass.

I mean, sure, yeah, alright, Obama's approach to foreign policy was supposed to be the Left's antidote to the Bush years--showing the world how you can both contain existential threats and pacify them with soft words and truckloads of carrots. And yeah, North Korea and Iran continue their relentless marches toward building sophisticated delivery systems for their crude nuclear weapons. But America's reaction to this behavior is much softer and gentler--and isn't that the important thing?

Doesn't it feel good, everyone, treating these diminished outcomes as supreme foreign policy victories? It's nice, isn't it?--stating a goal and achieving the exact opposite? I had my doubts, but now I am in love with this affirmative action presidency--this soft bigotry of low expectations.

ALH said...

This is a real shocker- has Jimmy Carter been reached for comment yet?

ALH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

If the draft was reinstated,
Females may be drafted. I forgot what libertarian lady here was so against that in a thread a few months ago. "Not MY daughter", she said. "Over her dead body", said she.

kentuckyliz said...

The female doing their bit for the war effort is to pop out some replacement cannon fodder.

Preferably sired by the shtrong heroes that went over to fight.

Synova said...

This "libertarian" lady is vehemently against the draft.

Period.

The sort of existential scenario where a draft would be necessary is one where getting adequate volunteers will be trivial.

If there are not enough volunteers, that answers, definitively, the question of their necessity.

Inga said...

So Synova, what if we were attacked again, say by.... North Korea this time? Should we turn tail and run or do we fight, do we have enough troops? Maybe if we get out of places we don't need to be in.

garage mahal said...

Way to go, 0bummer!

Synova said...

Inga...

Suppose we're attacked. What happened to recruiting last time we were attacked?

Suppose the hypothetical existential war. We're all gonna die. Right? If we don't fight, we're toast. Imagine that war.

What do you *think* will happen to recruiting in that scenario?

I am not arguing the inverse... that adequate recruiting proves a just war.

I am arguing that a just war, something necessary enough to institute a draft, will be understood as necessary and recruiting will respond to the extent of need.

And if it doesn't... if, for argument's sake... no one is willing to fight, voluntarily, then we've no national "self" to defend in any case. Let Kim Jong Jr move into the White House and be done with it.

Shouting Thomas said...

I might be wrong, and I don't know much about military tactics, but...

It seems mighty unlikely that a war with a nuclear power with the ability to fire ICBMs would be fought with conventional forces.

Somebody want to fill me in on why I might be wrong?

Don't you respond to an opponent who threatens the use of nuclear weapons with nuclear weapons?

Dustin said...

We should ignore this problem. Then it will go away.

Inga said...

So why did they need to use a draft in WW2? Maybe they thought that the country was worth saving and enough men wouldn't volunteer. It could happen again. I'm not ready to surrender this country to someone who would attack us.

wyo sis said...

Dustin
I think you might have something there.
What difference does it make after all?

Synova said...

The idea that we'd ever NEED a draft requires that the need is so firmly rejected by the population that soldiers must be conscripted.

If the need for war is rejected by the population, then maybe there really is not a need for war.

In the past communication wasn't so good as it is now and perhaps the general population didn't have the information that "statesmen" and kings had in order to know if there was a good reason to go to war. Or maybe, in truth, there WASN'T a good reason to go to war.

Revenant said...

I forgot what libertarian lady here was so against that in a thread a few months ago.

Pick a libertarian woman; she either said it or thought it.

Conscription is diametrically opposed to everything libertarianism stands for, after all.

Inga said...

Whatever happened to patriotism? Only if your guy is in the White House, huh?

Shouting Thomas said...

Now that I think of it, seems to me that the tactical response would likely be similar to the response Israel has used repeatedly with Iran.

That would be quick tactical air strikes intended to take out the capability to build or fire nuclear weapons.

Hard to see how this response would involve the use of ground forces.

Inga said...

Libertarianism, too bad it leans so much toward selfishness.

Revenant said...

So why did they need to use a draft in WW2?

They didn't.

Maybe they thought that the country was worth saving

"The country was worth saving" from what, exactly? At what point during WW2 are you contending the country was at risk of being conquered? And by who?

Read any memoir written by a WW2 veteran who volunteered for service; they *all* have nothing but bad things to say about the draft and the quality of the troops it provided. Because guess what -- slaves tend not to be terribly enthusiastic about risking their lives for the people who enslaved them. :)

Shana said...

That was probably me Inga. I think women in combat is a horror and a way to take the last shred of normalcy our men in uniform have left. I don't think seeing a cute 18 yr old girls' head and limbs separated from her burning torso, or whatever other gruesome death you want to insert here, is the best way to boost morale. I know it happens to nurses, etc., but it just isn't the same level and probability. Add in the women who will be raped to death, etc and you've just got a whole barrel oof nastiness ahead. If my daughters want to nurse wounded soldiers or be Rosie Riveters, or some such during wartime, good on 'em. But I don't want my son worried about the girl next door getting her face blown off next to him while he's trying to fight and survive.

Synova said...

"I'm not ready to surrender this country to someone who would attack us."

While you've a right to spend your own life for what you're not ready to do, do you have the right to spend someone else's?

And are you willing to accept the judgement of our government, of George Bush? If Obama decides (again) to involve us in another dispute, if the military decides they won't follow and they separate at the first opportunity and recruiting goes to next to nothing, are you willing to support a draft?

For someone who serves in the military there is an element of understanding that one doesn't get to chose your war or conflict... you don't get out of any "unjust" or "illegal" war being harped on by the political opposition. You understand that the person in charge may or may *not* make good decisions.

But that's got a sell by date with a volunteer force. It's got a threshold. At some point there will be no volunteers.

At that point the leadership and the government becomes truly illegitimate. Instituting a draft will not create legitimacy in the government.

Revenant said...

Libertarianism, too bad it leans so much toward selfishness.

... said the silly little cunt who sits safely at home while her daughter fights.

Honestly, a person has to be pretty warped to consider "forcing other people to fight for you" to be the *unselfish* position. :)

Shouting Thomas said...

Whatever happened to patriotism? Only if your guy is in the White House, huh?

Jesus, Inga, how many times do you have to be reminded of how bitterly and viciously the left vilified President Bush during the Iraq War? You can't be this dense.

Back then, dissent and opposition was the highest form of patriotism.

You are such a one sided goofball partisan hack, Inga, that I don't think you even notice that I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. So, I remember this shit.

bpm4532 said...

Do they build those things themselves, or are they mail-ordering from Estes?

Shana said...

And yes, I am against the draft for men as well. If it is a defensive war, plenty of people volunteer.

Inga said...

Shana, yes it was you, I believe. Well I don't want to see any 18 year old head removed from his body, male or female. Girls are no more precious to a mother than her sons.

Inga said...

I wasn't talking to you ST, not since you called me a very bad name today, do you remember what it was? Now you want me to talk to you? Pffft.

Synova said...

"Libertarianism, too bad it leans so much toward selfishness."

How is advocating volunteer service "selfishness?" How is refusing to conscript someone to fight for me "selfishness?" Ought I not fight for myself?

Inga said...

Ought we not to fight for our country?

Shouting Thomas said...

Once again, somebody explain to me how a war against an adversary with ICBMs and nuclear warheads is going to involve large ground forces and conscription.

I think it isn't. So, you're kinda carrying on about a situation that seems mighty unlikely to happen.

EMD said...

Inga has no real concept of libertarianism. At all.

Inga said...

Ayn Rand was demonic person, IMO.

Inga said...

Objectivism, as bad as Communism.

EMD said...

Ought we not to fight for our country?

The argument is that if the country is in peril then you will not need a draft.

There's no "not fighting for the country" component.

Synova said...

Inga, yes, we should fight for our country.

But if it's clear we're fighting for our country... there will be volunteers.

That's my entire thesis.

If it is clear that we're fighting for our country there will be volunteers.

I can see no scenario, realistic or fantastical, that would result in the necessity for a draft. I can see no scenario where conscription becomes (or ever was) moral.

wyo sis said...

How can you argue with such impeccable logic.
Libertarians are selfish.
Ayn Rand was demonic.
The facts simply speak for themselves.

Shouting Thomas said...

Inga, objectivism is not a substantial factor in U.S. politics.

It's influence is virtually zero.

And, no, Rand, is not demonic. She's just a bad writer.

EMD said...

Ayn Rand was demonic person, IMO.

Another Inga non-sequitur.

Were we talking about Ayn Rand?

Inga said...

Yes Synova, and unicorns and rainbows.

EMD said...

Once again, somebody explain to me how a war against an adversary with ICBMs and nuclear warheads is going to involve large ground forces and conscription.

Countries with nukes are reticent to actually use them in combat?

Pakistan and India have shown restraint despite both being nuclear powers.

Inga said...

Ayn Rand and Libertarianism have no connection whatsoever, huh EMD?

Shouting Thomas said...

Well, this is a pinhead thread.

Ayn Rand is not even a minor figure in U.S. politics.

God alone knows where Inga got this bullshit idea that Rand represents some sort of big political following.

She doesn't.

Shouting Thomas said...

That's right, Inga. Just about no connection.

Shouting Thomas said...

Inga, you've clearly never read Rand, and you've fabricated some big role for her.

You got that from some nutjob leftist website.

Inga said...

Objectivism and Libertarianism have no connection either, huh?

Inga said...

Quit talking to me ST.

Inga said...

Or apologize for saying what you did today.

Shouting Thomas said...

Once again, Inga, Rand is a very minor and bad writer who has close to zero influence in the American politics.

Can I say that any more clearly?

EMD said...

Ayn Rand and Libertarianism have no connection whatsoever, huh EMD?

How often do I, as a small-l libertarian think of, or read, Ayn Rand?

Hardly ever.

And as far as I know, unlike Communism, Objectivism has never been the main political philosophy of any state, anywhere.



Shouting Thomas said...

Oh, fuck you Inga. You egged on Ritmo to accuse me of crimes in a public forum.

What a lowlife piece of shit you are.

And, you always turn around after you pull some stunt like that and play the victim.

bagoh20 said...

I'm pretty libertarian on most things except defense, because as is often the case with self-defense you have to break the usual rules in existential situations.

Because of that, I support being less stingy with defense spending and even support a draft if needed. I often see situations where sufficient support from people could prevent evil from winning, but enough people won't stand up on their own - they need to be prodded to their duty to help each other. A lot of people will back into the shadows without a fellow standing right behind them. I understand well the dangers of such government power, but the danger of mass cowardice is worse.

We have always risen to the call before, but lately I have been disappointed in our national character when people are completely free to choose a necessary but tough course, over closing the curtains and leaving it up to someone else. I don't want the few brave and decent to be shouldering the whole load when it absolutely must be faced.

EMD said...

Objectivism has also failed to kill and starve millions of people -- unlike Communism.

Inga said...

How many of you were going to go Galt? How's that workin' out for ya?

Inga said...

I egged Ritmo on to accuse you of crimes?! LMAO, oh now that's a good one Bwahahahahaah!

Inga said...

Ritmo does not need me to egg him on!

wyo sis said...

Ayn Rand is eeeevvvviiiiilll.
So we must draft women.
After all women should go out and get blown up too.
Nothing evil about that conclusion.

Synova said...

I served, Inga. I volunteered. I wore a uniform. Why do you believe that our nation could be attacked and no one would defend it unless they were forced at the end of a gun?

Now, nothing is stopping you getting out there and rallying and demonstrating in support of a war and encouraging young people to enlist as their patriotic duty. Nothing stops you now from advising young people to seriously consider military service, either as a career or as an experience to take with them into civilian life.

If people stop thinking that military as patriotic duty is worth aspiring to, why do you suppose that would happen?

But I think that even if we lose the notion of patriotic duty, people will still line up to volunteer to defend their families and their lives.

Inga said...

That right wyo sis, equal opportunity!

EMD said...

How many of you were going to go Galt? How's that workin' out for ya?

Who are you talking to? Unless you have specific posters in mind, you're just trolling. Seriously.

EMD said...

Inga, I suggest you take this line of non-sequiturs to the "acting alone fallacy" thread, where it is more germane, and leave this thread to the North Korea discussion.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

Yes, I know yo did Synova, that's one ofhe reasons it bothers me that you SEEM to care so little for this country that you would say that some dictator should take over in case of a war.

We could get lots of volunteers, but perhaps not enough in the case of a huge war. I think Libertarianism has twisted a lot of decent people. Republicans are more honest and realistic.

Shouting Thomas said...

This thread has descended into dementia.

Inga is reciting bullshit she read in Daily Kos. You might as well beat your head against a wall henceforth.

Inga, go to bed. You're babbling incoherently.

Coketown said...

Please? Lord? Just one thread that isn't dominated by one snotty little witch taking everything personally, posting one trite comment after another?

bagoh20 said...

Did I just agree with Inga?

Maybe I have food poisoning or catching a little Dementia, or Ebola.

I really am torn on a draft. I just don't know if we are the people we used to be, and that might be temporary.

Shana said...

I have sons and daughters, Inga. Unlike you, I believe they were created with different purposes in mind. You can inhabit your own brave new Utopia in your mind with neuter robots who must be forced to do the patriotic, right thing by their benevolent govt. I'll inhabit the real world which is much more interesting.

Inga said...

Coketown this is a discussion about libertarianism, it's not about me, you little toad.

Revenant said...

Objectivism and Libertarianism have no connection either, huh?

Objectivism is a moral philosophy, libertarianism is a political philosophy. You can be one, the other, both, or neither.

In my experience objectivists consider libertarians to be a bunch of lily-livered pansies with no respect for the sanctity of property rights. But they say that about everybody, so hey.

EMD said...

u SEEM to care so little for this country that you would say that some dictator should take over in case of a war.

Where did Synova say this?

This thread sucks.

EMD said...

this is a discussion about libertarianism, it'

IT WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT NORTH KOREA UNTIL YOU SHOWED UP.

bagoh20 said...

If a North Korean and libertarian had a baby...

Revenant said...

Ought we not to fight for our country?

Depends on the fight. My country's not the boss of me. :)

Inga said...

Synova said,

"And if it doesn't... if, for argument's sake... no one is willing to fight, voluntarily, then we've no national "self" to defend in any case. Let Kim Jong Jr move into the White House and be done with it."

1/23/13, 10:48 PM

Shouting Thomas said...

Inga, you lost it a while ago.

Give it up and go to bed.

Or else, discuss something pleasant and moderately sane.

Inga said...

Well yes, the conversation veered off, OK talk about North Korea and cross your fingers and toes that we don't get into any new wars.:)

EMD said...

"And if it doesn't... if, for argument's sake... no one is willing to fight, voluntarily, then we've no national "self" to defend in any case. Let Kim Jong Jr move into the White House and be done with it."

You're missing the point of this statement wholeheartedly.

Inga said...

My dear ST, I'll have you know I am always in control of my faculties.

Inga said...

No, no no dear friend's let us discuss North Korea! What do you think of Jr.'s new squeeze?

Inga said...

Bueller? Heloooo.....

Nighty nite.

Sorun said...

Don't be disrespecting Inga, who is our resident military expert (since she has a daughter in the military, dontchaknow).

When her response to North Korea's nuclear testing is to talk about bringing back the draft, particularly for women, well, by God, she knows what she's talking about!

Inga said...

Damn right.

Synova said...

So... posit total war. We're attacked by a credible force that can only be met by a massive Army. (A serious but obscure threat can be met by the military we've got... it's obscure. By definition it's not a massive attack.)

You SEEM to believe that people facing destruction would refuse to fight. That they'd have to be forced to do so at the point of a gun, under threat of imprisonment at the least.

I'm saying that if people refuse to fight, that something else is going on that a draft is not going to cure.

The bigger problem, the practical problem rather than the moral or philosophical one, that isn't and can't be addressed by a draft, is that the time when illiterate peasants could be rounded up and handed a pike and herded toward the enemy lines are far and long gone. The amount of time it takes to train someone to do ANY essential task in the modern military is significant. Some technological military careers can take up to a year of training. The amount of time it takes to train the *trainers* is multiple YEARS. I figure at least 10 years for effectiveness and continuity for an effective NCO corps.

Anything needing a response faster than that to build up huge numbers of combatants is going to have to rely on Red-neck Joe, his illegally converted AR-15 and his trailer-bunny wife managing the reloader.

Revenant said...

Inga's scenario requires (a) an American government which wants to fight a war, (b) ruling over an American public which does NOT wish to fight but which (c) will submit to a draft without rebelling.

That doesn't describe a democracy. It describes a nation which is already a totalitarian state.

If the war enjoys democratic support then there must, by definition, be a good 100+ million American adults willing to fight it. The idea that you can't find a sufficient body of volunteers in a population that large doesn't pass the laugh test. Honestly, exactly what is the means by which someone gets away with invading us if even, say, five percent of us dislike the idea enough to fight? That's ten million pissed-off guerilla warriors armed with high-powered rifles and "assault weapons".

The Taliban has around one-tenth of one percent of those numbers and we can't even beat THEIR sorry asses on their home turf. :)

Synova said...

I mean, seriously, if it's time to promote a true "militia" with personal weapons that aren't deliberately crippled by stupid limitations... lets do that.

bagoh20 said...

I see where Inga is coming from. She is just saying, as I am, that although it is very unlikely, if the situation came to where we would lose everything without forcing people to serve, should we force them. I say yes. The principles of a dead nation are worthless. Just like killing a man is an unthinkable act, but in a case of live or die, you do the unthinkable.

Yes, this is all very unlikely, but were just talking here. Besides, both sides are calling up the draft possibility to bolster there side of another argument.

Inga said...

I understand your premise Synova. Did you ever answer me as to why we had a draft in WW2?

EMD said...

to where we would lose everything without forcing people to serve, should we force them. I say yes.

If you are forcing them to serve, you've already lost everything.

Inga said...

I also agree its highly unlikely, thank you God.

bagoh20 said...

" That's ten million pissed-off guerilla warriors armed with high-powered rifles and "assault weapons".

Known as Bitter Clingers.

EMD said...

Did you ever answer me as to why we had a draft in WW2?

You should ask FDR.

After Pearl Harbor, volunteerism shot through the roof.

The draft came first.

bagoh20 said...

I'm not sure we wouldn't have millions of totalitarian sympathizers to fight here.

EMD said...

" That's ten million pissed-off guerilla warriors armed with high-powered rifles and "assault weapons".

Known as Bitter Clingers.


I prefer Wolverines.

Inga said...

Well, you know me, I'm always up for a good fight.

EMD, but they continued to draft, even after the war until, hmmm, when did the draft end?

bagoh20 said...

"If you are forcing them to serve, you've already lost everything."

Did we lose everything during our previous drafts, or did we retain something?

Inga said...

We retained a nation that we loved, I still love it.

Inga said...

Yes, yes, how emotional and foolish. Better to be objective.

Synova said...

There was a lot of opposition to going to war in WW2. Plus, conscription was what government did. It was the accepted normal way to raise an army. Asking why there was a draft in WW2 is a little bit like asking why Japanese-Americans, Germans and Italians, were put in internment camps in the US. Some things were believed to be true... if you had a War you conscripted people. If you had a War you expected people from the nations you were fighting to be potential threats.

EMD said...

Did we lose everything during our previous drafts, or did we retain something?

I think we're not connecting on the point "forcing."

Conscription at the point of a gun? Is that the argument?

I think the hypothetical was that volunteer efforts for this new "war" were so low (that the people themselves en masse thought it criminal or ill-intentioned) you would really have to force people to the front lines, as if you were a totalitarian state.

This hypothetical seems so remote that it makes the discussion/argument about re-instating a draft in this instance kind of pointless.

Inga said...

I guess the greatest generation were just chumps.

Inga said...

Why this hyperbole " At the point of a gun"?

Revenant said...

She is just saying, as I am, that although it is very unlikely, if the situation came to where we would lose everything without forcing people to serve, should we force them. I say yes.

Think about the scenario you're describing. You are talking about a body of people who, when faced with the choice between "being conquered and ruled by the enemy" and "fighting the enemy", have chosen "being conquered and ruled by the enemy" as the better option.

By definition, they would rather see "their side" lose than fight for it. These are people whose goal is going to be to get you out of the way so they can surrender as fast as possible.

EMD said...

"Americans supported the return of conscription. One national survey found that 67% of respondents believed that a German-Italian victory would endanger the United States, and that 71% supported "the immediate adoption of compulsory military training for all young men". Similarly, a November 1942 survey of American high-school students found that 69% favored compulsory postwar military training."

Inga said...

So so sad that we are each other's enemy.

This poor country.

EMD said...

I guess the greatest generation were just chumps.

Another non-sequitur. You're really on your game.

bagoh20 said...

I'm passing on the hole part about if it's likely of not, I'm just asking the principled libertarians a purely hypothetical: If there is any point at which you would draft (which means jail if you don't go) in order to save the nation from being overtaken, or even to prevent Canada or Mexico from going to an ambitious enemy?

EMD said...

So so sad that we are each other's enemy.

This poor country.


You're not my enemy, You're just a dumbass who is prone to poor reasoning and needless hyperbole.

EMD said...

I'm passing on the hole part about if it's likely of not, I'm just asking the principled libertarians a purely hypothetical: If there is any point at which you would draft (which means jail if you don't go) in order to save the nation from being overtaken, or even to prevent Canada or Mexico from going to an ambitious enemy?

Bagoh, I am tired of dealing with hypotheticals.

Revenant said...

EMD, but they continued to draft, even after the war until, hmmm, when did the draft end?

When a libertarian economist convinced Nixon to end it.

Go team! :)

Synova said...

We also, in WW2, thought it was rational to waste more than three thousand men in a single battle, as many at Iwo Jima *alone* as were lost in the first four or so years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

That's insane.

Warfare no longer functions according to that paradigm. Chewing up lives for a wee bit of geography is as impossible to comprehend anymore as the illiterate pikers getting churned into mud under the hooves of horses... even if it was barely before our lifetimes.

Inga said...

You dear EMD used the very hyperbolic term, "At the point of a gun", that says it all. Don't care enough for you own country to serve it? Then you dont deserve it.

EMD said...

Why this hyperbole " At the point of a gun"?

It's not hyperbole ... it fits the narrative constructed by the remote hypothetical that our nation would rather not volunteer to fight a foe and save the country. Why would such a thing happen?

EMD said...

. Don't care enough for you own country to serve it? Then you dont deserve it.

Another wild leap of association.

I never proffered what I would personally do given this useless hypothetical, did I?

Inga said...

Hypotheticals are good tools.

Ok now you'll call me a tool, good night.

Synova said...

The greatest generation weren't chumps... they were men of their time.

Not ours.

Bagoh... I'd go myself, old and chubby with my bad knees, and point my weapon at the enemy before I'd point my weapon at my own countrymen.

bagoh20 said...

You are avoiding the hard choice by making scenarios where it would not be needed. Go past that and just humor me. What is the higher principle? Would you sacrifice a nation that could not get enough citizens to defend itself if you could force it too instead.

China loads up every seaworthy vessel then can find with about 5 million men and lands on the west coast. Americans are folding like dominoes - it's the west coast after all. The Continental divide becomes the front. Americans are saying. We don't really need the west coast anyway with all those freaking nutjobs out there.

EMD said...

Ok now you'll call me a tool, good night.

Hmmm. No.

I would volunteer if the hypothetical came to be, but you'd rather surmise what I would do, given that you, like Ritmo, can see into men's hearts.

You can score your cheap self-satistfaction points assuming my motives, or you could come out and actually ask me what I might do.

Another avenue or possibility is that our government becomes the enemy, and the invading force could be our liberators. You know, hypothetically speaking.

Synova said...

"At the point of a gun" isn't hyperbole. It's a rational description of what conscription means. Gonna give the refusenik a teddy bear and tuck the darling in? Of course not. Gonna ignore it like the few "volunteers" who decided they didn't have to deploy? Of course not. You're *conscripted*, and that's what it means. If you don't go, you're a deserter.

It's not hyperbole.

Revenant said...

If there is any point at which you would draft [...] in order to save the nation from being overtaken

I cannot justify enslaving someone to save my own freedom, or my own life for that matter. So, no.

To turn it back on you -- is there something so abhorrent to you that you wouldn't do it to protect America? For example, if the invading army promised to turn back if you handed over your daughter to be raped and killed, would you?

bagoh20 said...

I'm left defending L.A with a 9mm, 1 clip and a spatula. Fortunately I have my Chinese/English dictionary.

EMD said...

Bagoh-

I would volunteer to defend my country.

I would assume most of my fellow men would oblige as well.

You would also have to assume that the myriad military installations along the West Coast would fold as well. I don't buy that.

Also, it's not in China's best interest to invade us ... they're making too much of our money!

Inga said...

Save everything east of the Mississippi!

Glad to hear you wouldn't turn your gun on your own countrymen Synova.

Chip Ahoy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

All the business men's children who manufacture in China, take Chinese lessons. My grandchildren included.

bagoh20 said...

"For example, if the invading army promised to turn back if you handed over your daughter to be raped and killed, would you?"

That's the whole reason I'd swallow my libertarian pride about not forcing people to fight. To save her and all the other daughters I could.

Losing the fight out of principle seems to me to be like a pacifist who will not fight.

Inga said...

Just sayin'.

Revenant said...

What is the higher principle?

At the risk of being considered a smartass:

That mankind is endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I dunno, they've always seemed like good principles to me. Telling someone "fight for me or die" kinda runs contrary to them.

bagoh20 said...

They only want Wisconsin. They heard about the Brats.

Chip Ahoy said...

For some odd reason I don't feel all that threatened.

Nor do I think Obama or the administration has aught to do with it, that blight would vex any president.

I always wished our forces would withdraw, and withdraw assistance to N.K too, all of it, even humanitarian, let them get hungry, unruly, and attack, and let S.K. deal with flood of zombies, get it over with at once. That's irresponsible, I know, but so is having this go on ad infinitum. The collapse of that place in my lifetime would almost make up for my own country going full-on socialist, and politically unbearably dark spirited. Almost worth it. Watching those Germans climbing over the wall sure was a thrill.

Then what? Why blame us for not interfering? You're big boys and girls, secure your own border if you must.

Inga said...

Yeah Rev tell that to the hoardes of Chinese invaders.

Revenant said...

That's the whole reason I'd swallow my libertarian pride about not forcing people to fight. To save her and all the other daughters I could.

But that's not what I asked you. I asked you if you'd sacrifice *her* to save your country. And if the answer's "yes", how many would you hand over before you said "ok, that's too many"?

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EMD said...

If you honestly have hordes of Chinese invaders, you won't need a draft. Won't have time for one, either.

bagoh20 said...

"Telling someone "fight for me or die" kinda runs contrary to them."

It beats "lets just die".

But this is an old argument that been had for ever, as with deserters and soldiers who refuse to fight. It's a hard question, and I don't know what I would do if it happened, and I was in charge. I do know that many lives have been saved though history by pushing men to do what they did not want to do, but were glad they did later. The reverse is sometimes true too. 1940's Germany for example.

bagoh20 said...

"And if the answer's "yes", how many would you hand over before you said "ok, that's too many"?"

But you are saying you would hand them all over rather than force some to fight.

Inga said...

Exactly Bagoh!

I would choose to fight, in a heartbeat.

Revenant said...

Yeah Rev tell that to the hoardes of Chinese invaders.

Well I would, but in this hypothetical the United States decided California wasn't worth fighting for. Presumably I'm already dead or in a POW camp somewhere. :)

bagoh20 said...

Anyway, I'm done. Good times.

I was just agreeing with Inga in hopes of getting her to send me some photos in a dominatrix outfit.

Yep, there they are. Thanks home girl.

Inga said...

If ya have to die, die fighting.

Inga said...

Anytime Baggy;)

Revenant said...

But you are saying you would hand them all over rather than force some to fight.

I answered your question already. I'm uninterested in continuing to field questions from you until you answer mine. :)

So answer the question about handing your daughter over to be raped, and then we can continue.

bagoh20 said...

No. I would shoot her.

Revenant said...

Actually, while you're at it answer the question I asked way back when -- why do you expect the conscripts to be on YOUR side once you've given them a gun?

Inga said...

Good answer Bagoh.

Inga said...

Because we are not enemies, we are countrymen.

Revenant said...

No. I would shoot her.

That doesn't make much sense. You're killing her to avoid the *possibility* that she would be killed or raped later. How's that either moral OR smart?

Honestly, this hypothetical is becoming increasingly silly. It started out with the United States being conquered. Now, apparently, "being conquered" has been replaced by "the entire population of the country gets raped and killed". But nobody's willing to fight avoid being raped and killed. This isn't so much "hypothetical" as "a question I think I may have been asked by my pothead roommate in college". :)

bagoh20 said...

As I said earlier, I would expect we would have a lot of sympathizers to fight here.

Forced conscription has a long history, and the people you are fighting are usually the preferred target even for conscripts. I expect that a majority of forced conscripts would prefer to fight rather than lose to the enemy, they just lack the courage to volunteer. Some nudging makes it easier.

Revenant said...

Because we are not enemies, we are countrymen.

Of course you're an enemy. You're willing to kill me if I won't do what you say.

Also, given that our country was founded on the principles I mentioned above, you forfeited the right to call yourself my countryman when you pointed that gun at me. :)

Inga said...

Naw, I just nudged you with it:)

bagoh20 said...

I'd not give her up, because I intend to fight no matter what. She is gonna die, I'm gonna die, a lot of us are gonna die, with the expectation of the nation surviving.

Both our hypotheticals force us to do what we don't want to do in order to survive. I just insist on fighting, and with everything available.

Inga said...

Best answer yet, good night y'all!

Revenant said...

Forced conscription has a long history

Offhand I can't think of an evil thing governments do to their people that *doesn't* have a long history associated with it.

and the people you are fighting are usually the preferred target even for conscripts.

That's because the conscription events have taken place in real life, not in your hypothetical universe where the vast majority of the country would rather be conquered than fight. In the real world, your scenario has only ever worked when the government in question was already a totalitarian state to begin with, and the people were already cowed by fear. WW2-era USSR, for example.

In your example, these are people who are currently free men but who are opposed to fighting -- even though NOT fighting is likely (or "guaranteed", depending on which version of this hypothetical we're talking about) to result in their death.

In that scenario, how are you not their true enemy?

Revenant said...

Both our hypotheticals force us to do what we don't want to do in order to survive. I just insist on fighting, and with everything available.

No, that's not correct. We both insist on fighting, you just insist on enslaving help. Also, while you are willing to do whatever it takes to survive, I am not. People are not a means to an end.

This is all moot, since this hypothetical takes place in the Bizarroworld. In reality this scenario has never, can never, and will never come to pass.

Inga said...

Revenant was our government a totalitarian one before WW2?!

Inga said...

Man, that Roosevelt, what a dictator.

Mick Havoc said...

Unleash the drones.
May Day is coming. Kim will be waving from the balcony with his minions.
Lot cheaper than LA or Seattle goning radioactive.
Just sayin.
Come on Barry, get in the game. What price glory?

bagoh20 said...

I guess we are imagining too different conscripts. You imagine a man who doesn't want to fight out of principle, and I imagine one who does want to fight but is scared, or just making a calculated bet that he can better survive by letting others fight for him.

There obviously will be both. I've never suggesting shooting either, just long jail time during and after the war. I don't relish that, but it beats losing to the enemy, in which case the assumption is they would be even worse off. I'm assuming the threat of jail is enough to nudge enough of them to fight.

Anyway, I do have to go, and I don't want to just disappear, so good night, and thanks.

Revenant said...

Revenant was our government a totalitarian one before WW2?!

I should have thought this was obvious, but I was referring to the scenario under discussion -- where the people are unwilling to fight off a conqueror unless conscripted.

The United States has never faced such a threat. We've never been in any danger of being conquered by anybody, unless you count the Revolutionary War (which wouldn't have really been "conquest" since we were rebels).

So, for example, in WW2 our conscripts were people who didn't want to fight the Nazis but were in zero danger of being ruled by them if we lost. In your and Bag's scenario, the conscripts are people who would rather be ruled by the Nazis than fight them. That's a huge difference.

Revenant said...

You imagine a man who doesn't want to fight out of principle, and I imagine one who does want to fight but is scared, or just making a calculated bet that he can better survive by letting others fight for him.

Ok, wait a second. So in your hypothetical, reasonable people can believe the country will be fine with the volunteer troops it has?

Now you're not holding a gun to their heads because it is the only way to save the country. You're holding a gun to their heads because you think you know better than them.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Greybeard said...

"One Second After" by William R. Fortschen.
Don't read it if you're clinically depressed.

Inga said...

But it's strange, libertarians would sacrifice an imperfect country for an unrealistic philosophy.

Are you ever truly completely free? Do we not use peer pressure ( nudging) to maintain a civil society in everyday life on a daily basis to some degree?

That's why Libertarianism is unicorns and rainbows.

Mick Havoc said...

I taught my boys to resist peer pressure.
They are very socially responsible but they know which hill to die on.

Paul said...

I would gladly fight and die for my country, for America. At least I always felt that way.

But now? Would I fight for the socialist shithole, run by corruptocrats who despise me and ordinary freedom loving Americans like me, that we are becoming?

With a blatantly dishonest, partisan media who pander to and cover up for the agent of our destruction that this administration truly is?

With an education system that's really no more than an indoctrination mill for leftist, anti-Americanism and pc anti-white, anti-male bias?

I don't think so. I think America is finished. The Gramscian rot has metastasized into her vital organs too deeply.

So fuck you Obama. I won't fight for you. Your pledge to "fundamentally transform America" from everything I love into everything I despise elicits only contempt and my most energetic resistance.

Mick Havoc said...

Paul is RIGHT!

Revenant said...

But it's strange, libertarians would sacrifice an imperfect country for an unrealistic philosophy.

Correction -- libertarians would sacrifice a fantasyland that exists in your head, for our philosophy. :)

There is no such thing as a free country whose citizens will not voluntarily fight to defend it. Only tyrannies need slaves.

john marzan said...

STRATFOR: china, in concert with NK, will show how inutile the US is in asia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0qXl1n3DNE

Alex said...

So suddenly the left is for the draft.

Alex said...

Inga you fascist piece of shit. You never were genuine to begin with. Your entire leftist ideology is built upon lies.

Alex said...

What is the relevance of ground troops in a nuclear war? reading these comments, I feel like it's morons debating morons.

edutcher said...

If Oop really had a daughter and the draft came back, he/she/it would be one of those people spelling out PEACE with their naked body.

(my eyes, my eyes)

(what's that smell? her pet wussy)

Revenant said...

So why did they need to use a draft in WW2?

They didn't.


Of course they did. Once the casualty lists started coming back from Attu and Kasserine and Buna and Salerno, all that enthusiasm plummeted.

The rate of volunteers was higher in Vietnam than WWII.

Rusty said...

Inga the chickenhawk.


I gotta sell more stuff on Ebay so I can give Althouse more money.

gerry said...

San Francisco: Buh-bye!

Rusty said...

Let's get this back to the realm of reality.

Should Lil'Kim manage to lob a rocket with any accuracy at all and manage to duct tape a working warhead to the top of it, AND aimed it- more or less-at the US or S Korea, or Japan, or who ever else they perceive as a threat, it would be the end of N Korea.
Not even China would stand by and let that happen.
I'm not sure what Obama would do. Probably send Hillary, but the American people would want action.

EMD said...

That's why Libertarianism is unicorns and rainbows.

At least I don't spend the shit out of other people's money, and then borrow trillions more.

Roger J. said...

I thought this thread was about the potential of a NORK nuclear strike on the US--then that subject was abandoned, and veered south.

It is possible, as Rusty notes above, the NORKs could cobble some device together and strike the US. One suspects, however, the NORKs are stupid enough to know they would be annhiliated in a US nuclear response (assuming, of course, our political leadership had the will to use our strategic arsenal).

As for "invasion of the US" by hordes of Chinese and NORKs--to do that a nation has to have the ability to project power and transport huge quantities of troops and supplies across the Pacific where such transport would be sitting ducks.

My bottom line I guess it is conceivably possible for a very limited nuclear strike by the NORKS against the US, but assuming a US response, NORK would cease to exist as surely as Carthage did after the Punic Wars.


Tank said...

I find that I now have such a deep dislike for my gov't "leaders" and so many of my fellow Americans and particularly the left coast, I'm almost rooting for North Korea here.

I mean, a couple of nukes laid on top of CA, "what difference does it make?"

X said...

Inga said...
Did you ever answer me as to why we had a draft in WW2?



to kill your nazi relatives.

Christopher said...

Why do I get the feeling that Inga's favorite term between 2000 and 2008 was "chickenhawk"?

Anyway I'm always amazed by the ability of leftists to completely switch opinions at the drop of a hat.

The military goes from being evil bloodthirsty tools under Bush (who the left accused of planning to bring back the draft) to being a noble institution under Obama. Now, having realized that their idol is doing everything Bush did, they pretend it doesn't exist unless they want to score a quick point or two with their base by implementing a social engineering project.

You see this everywhere amongst the leftist opinion writers; America was evil under Bush, it became enlightened and post-racial under Obama, then the TP took the house and made gains in the senate at which point America became racists and evil again.

Sure political reality changes but the pace at which the US switches between evil and good in the eyes of the left is ridiculous.

Scott said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seeing Red said...

By all means, we don't need no stinking Star Wars or shield.

BTW - I thought they aleady had a missile that could reach Alaska.

Just like the Iranians have a missle that can reach Florida from Venezuela.

Which they signed an agreement in the summer of 2010 with Hugo to put missiles there.

Seeing Red said...

Invasion of Chinese?

Just own our debt & they're buying up California.

1 reason housing prices are going up in Cali is the Chinese are leaving with their boodle.

As to bombing the Norks - that would not only bring China in but we'd hit the Sorks, too.

We are wayyy to nice.

Scott said...

"But it's strange, libertarians would sacrifice an imperfect country for an unrealistic philosophy."

Libertarianism, if it achieves all of its objectives, leaves people alone to do what they wish. It's not about the achievement of a collective ideal. It's about allowing you to live your reality. Calling it an "unrealistic philosophy" is almost a non sequitur.

Progressivism (Fascism) holds that society is perfectable through the collective will of the people expressed through the instrument of a coercive government. As such it is utopian and by degrees oppressive. The government led by Barack Obama has exactly the same ideals as the government by Kim Jong-un. The only significant difference is that Kim Jong-il was a better community organizer.

Which philosophy is more unrealistic?

Seeing Red said...

Don't we just love the former rapist-in-chief and his selling that tech to China?

Seeing Red said...

One of the head's of Google's daughter just visited NorK.


It was very interesting. It's on her blog. Sorry, didn't save the link.

Scott said...

"One of the head's of Google's daughter just visited NorK."

It's amazing how progressive plutocrats are fascinated by efficient strong-man governments, init.

Big Mike said...

@Seeing Red, no one in this administration is much concerned about North Korean missles that can reach Alaska.

Just so long as they can reach Wasilla, AK, every Democrat in DC is happy.

Marshal said...

Inga said...
Whatever happened to patriotism? Only if your guy is in the White House, huh?

Inga said...
Libertarianism, too bad it leans so much toward selfishness.


It's amazing how much stupidity is packed inside two sentences. As if drafting others somehow proves patriotism, and standing up for others is selfishness.

I miss the good old days when leftists believed questioning others' patriotism was wrong. In fact they were so against it they complained even when it didn't happen. But give the leftist a chance to attack others and watch those principles disappear.

Big Mike said...

"It's funny 'til it's not funny."

It never was funny.

Question for the Professor, since she works with so many left-wing loonies there on the faculty of the University of Wisconsin.

If the North Koreans hit Seattle or San Francisco with a nuke, do you think the lefties will change their minds about the need for a strong Defense Department?

Revenant said...

It's amazing how much stupidity is packed inside two sentences

Inga's one of our more self-involved commenters. Once you realize that the world revolves around her, the comments make more sense. :)

CWJ said...

Yeah, had anyone said it, I would have laughed at the idea that a bunch of middle eastern fanatics would hyjack, not one, but four airliners and use them to knock down skyscrapers.

Inga said...

Revenant if commenters here focused less on me and more on the argument or topic being discussed, so many of these threads would not end up being all about me, so why don't you folks who do this, stop doing it?

Unless you do it to shut me up because I may things hat don't comport with your own ideology. There are many ways of censoring a person.

Big Mike said...

Inga, you're maddening because now and again you make a valid point, and this is true whether I agree with your position or not. But those rare moments are interspersed with moments where you don't seem to have thought much beyond the latest talking points from some well left-of-center newspaper or web site.

You're frustrating because you obviously have a real brain, but you so seldom seem ready to ask yourself whether what you're typing could possibly be correct based on what you know.

It doesn't help that often when you are at your least thoughtful you are also at your jerkiest -- taking cheap shots at others.

Make of this what you will.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 208   Newer› Newest»