Have you heard the latest from Iran's Thug-in-Chief Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? He sent another letter to us, the American people, deploring our support of the "Persistent aggressions by the Zionists" and the virtures of repenting from our evil Judeo-Christian ways by converting to Islam.
He continues to beat the drum of wiping out Isreal. But how is he going to do this? With conventional forces (a large ground war) or maybe nuclear weapons? No, he's going to use his new secret weapon, the Jew Bomb. It will only kill Jewish people, so when he unleashes his weapons of mass destruction he won't kill any of his muslim brothers in the "Zionist Occupied Lands".
The existance of such a weapon must be true, because so many Palestinians take to the streets and rally behind his words of "liberation". No sane Palestinain would support him if it meant their own destruction, would they?
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Feeling a draft?
There’s been lots of talk in the press lately about resurrecting the draft. I have some friends who think it’s a good thing, and some who don’t. Some say a universal service plan is a good idea, some say only for the armed forces, and others say nothing at all. Here are my thoughts on the debate (for what it is worth).
I am for a draft if, and only if, we need a large ground force that needs to be able to sustain high rates of casualties over a long period of time. A draft is used when fodder is needed. In WWII we had a draft (more like conscription) because we needed a huge ground army (and other services too) that could withstand horrific casualty rates and still fight and win. Off of the top of my head I think that the there were over one million casualties suffered by the US military during the war (about 400,000 KIA), with most occurring in the Army in Europe between June 6, 1944 and May 9, 1945. In the Air Corps alone 25,000 flyers were killed over the skies of Europe during the war. Therefore, in order to sustain the fight we drafted millions of men.
Today, our battle is different. We’re not trying to fight a huge land war. We also don’t need a million-man air force, and we’re not manning a 2,000 ship navy. I think everyone agrees that we do need to expand the size of the active duty army and marine corps, maybe by 20%. That would put the Army at about 610,000, and the marine Corps at about 210,000. This can be done with a volunteer force, and it’s been done before.
In comparison to 16 years ago, the active duty Army was 780,000 as we stood ready to fight the Soviets and the North Koreans at the same time. Of that huge Army, with another 600,000 in the National Guard and Army Reserve, very few were draftees from the Vietnam War, a time when the active duty Army was something like 1.4 million. As a young platoon leader and company commander, I can recall only one or two NCOs I knew who were drafted. Most had enlisted, most had fought in Viet Nam, and they stayed in the Army after the war. They were volunteers and that’s what we still need today.
Expanding the force does not require a draft. Why take people who don’t want to be there and force them to soldier? Again, if we need a huge ground army to fight Iran or China, then yes, we need the draft. But being a soldier is hard. The vast majority of our young people today go through a real culture shock when they enlist. I know, I lived in that environment while back on active duty a few years ago.
Additionally, only about 30% of Americans aged 18-25 are physically, mentally, educationally, and morally (meaning no felonies) qualified to enlist, and not all of those who do make it through their initial entry training. Remember, not just anyone can join the military. We say “volunteer”. Fat Albert can volunteer, but he’s not going to meet the physical standards. Our service members are recruited, selected, and vetted for service. Today’s young military professionals are fit and smart.
Let’s go back to the draft issue and peel back the onion a little. I have some questions:
- How many soldiers are we going to draft?
- What branches of the service are they going into?
- If the force is going to grow, where are the new officers and sergeants going to come from to lead these new soldiers?
- What bases are they going to train at?
- Where are we going to base them since we are still closing down bases as a part of the Base Realignment and Closing process in Congress?
- Are married draftees going to be allowed to bring their families?
- How much is it going to cost for family support?
- Will new bases be built?
- Will local communities be able to absorb the increase of base population (ie schools, water, sewer, etc)?
-
I’ve peeled back about one layer of the onion so far. Now let’s take a look at the “public service” side of a draft (for the other 70% of America’s youth who can’t serve in the military):
- What field will they go into?
- How will they be trained and who will pay for it?
- Where will they live?
- What vetting method will be used to ensure it’s a “good fit”?
- Will the receive health care and a salary?
- What if they’re married, will there be married housing available for them?
- How will their wages be set?
- Will they be unionized?
Let’s say the Johnny comes from a low performing high school in California, isn’t a high school grad, and had some brushes with the law. Because he’s 80 pounds over weight and has carpel tunnel syndrome from playing video games, he’s not going into the service. What to do with Johnny in the draft? Have him work in a rest home with Alzheimer patients? Maybe work in a homeless shelter? Now let’s say he’s married, and there are no “placements” near his Yreka home. Now what?
My point is that it’s real easy to say “let’s have a draft” or “let’s have national service”. In reality, it is very difficult, and to use it as a political tool is a mistake.
What do you think?
I am for a draft if, and only if, we need a large ground force that needs to be able to sustain high rates of casualties over a long period of time. A draft is used when fodder is needed. In WWII we had a draft (more like conscription) because we needed a huge ground army (and other services too) that could withstand horrific casualty rates and still fight and win. Off of the top of my head I think that the there were over one million casualties suffered by the US military during the war (about 400,000 KIA), with most occurring in the Army in Europe between June 6, 1944 and May 9, 1945. In the Air Corps alone 25,000 flyers were killed over the skies of Europe during the war. Therefore, in order to sustain the fight we drafted millions of men.
Today, our battle is different. We’re not trying to fight a huge land war. We also don’t need a million-man air force, and we’re not manning a 2,000 ship navy. I think everyone agrees that we do need to expand the size of the active duty army and marine corps, maybe by 20%. That would put the Army at about 610,000, and the marine Corps at about 210,000. This can be done with a volunteer force, and it’s been done before.
In comparison to 16 years ago, the active duty Army was 780,000 as we stood ready to fight the Soviets and the North Koreans at the same time. Of that huge Army, with another 600,000 in the National Guard and Army Reserve, very few were draftees from the Vietnam War, a time when the active duty Army was something like 1.4 million. As a young platoon leader and company commander, I can recall only one or two NCOs I knew who were drafted. Most had enlisted, most had fought in Viet Nam, and they stayed in the Army after the war. They were volunteers and that’s what we still need today.
Expanding the force does not require a draft. Why take people who don’t want to be there and force them to soldier? Again, if we need a huge ground army to fight Iran or China, then yes, we need the draft. But being a soldier is hard. The vast majority of our young people today go through a real culture shock when they enlist. I know, I lived in that environment while back on active duty a few years ago.
Additionally, only about 30% of Americans aged 18-25 are physically, mentally, educationally, and morally (meaning no felonies) qualified to enlist, and not all of those who do make it through their initial entry training. Remember, not just anyone can join the military. We say “volunteer”. Fat Albert can volunteer, but he’s not going to meet the physical standards. Our service members are recruited, selected, and vetted for service. Today’s young military professionals are fit and smart.
Let’s go back to the draft issue and peel back the onion a little. I have some questions:
- How many soldiers are we going to draft?
- What branches of the service are they going into?
- If the force is going to grow, where are the new officers and sergeants going to come from to lead these new soldiers?
- What bases are they going to train at?
- Where are we going to base them since we are still closing down bases as a part of the Base Realignment and Closing process in Congress?
- Are married draftees going to be allowed to bring their families?
- How much is it going to cost for family support?
- Will new bases be built?
- Will local communities be able to absorb the increase of base population (ie schools, water, sewer, etc)?
-
I’ve peeled back about one layer of the onion so far. Now let’s take a look at the “public service” side of a draft (for the other 70% of America’s youth who can’t serve in the military):
- What field will they go into?
- How will they be trained and who will pay for it?
- Where will they live?
- What vetting method will be used to ensure it’s a “good fit”?
- Will the receive health care and a salary?
- What if they’re married, will there be married housing available for them?
- How will their wages be set?
- Will they be unionized?
Let’s say the Johnny comes from a low performing high school in California, isn’t a high school grad, and had some brushes with the law. Because he’s 80 pounds over weight and has carpel tunnel syndrome from playing video games, he’s not going into the service. What to do with Johnny in the draft? Have him work in a rest home with Alzheimer patients? Maybe work in a homeless shelter? Now let’s say he’s married, and there are no “placements” near his Yreka home. Now what?
My point is that it’s real easy to say “let’s have a draft” or “let’s have national service”. In reality, it is very difficult, and to use it as a political tool is a mistake.
What do you think?
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Ecosexuals???
A friend of mine sent me an article recently that just about knocked me out of my chair. Living on the Left Coast I see lots of things that make me think “What The …?”
This one in particular is written by Stefanie Olsen. Never heard of her. The topic is on “Ecosexuals”. Huh? WT…? My thoughts exactly!
You can link to the article here (http://www.sanfran.com/home/view_story/1454/), but in a nutshell it is about women who will only date men who are, well, wimps! No beef eaters allowed, vegans need only apply, etc.
What really perplexes me about this is that the guy who sent me this article is one of our war fighters deployed in a combat zone. I have no idea how he received it, but I think it may be a form of enemy propaganda aimed at making our soldiers believe that their women folk on the home front are now going after wimpy men, the exact opposite of or soldiers. Much like during the first Gulf War when Iraqi propagandists spread stories that GI wives were sleeping with American TV star Bart Simpson.
Ladies, what do you think about this? Guys, thoughts?
This one in particular is written by Stefanie Olsen. Never heard of her. The topic is on “Ecosexuals”. Huh? WT…? My thoughts exactly!
You can link to the article here (http://www.sanfran.com/home/view_story/1454/), but in a nutshell it is about women who will only date men who are, well, wimps! No beef eaters allowed, vegans need only apply, etc.
What really perplexes me about this is that the guy who sent me this article is one of our war fighters deployed in a combat zone. I have no idea how he received it, but I think it may be a form of enemy propaganda aimed at making our soldiers believe that their women folk on the home front are now going after wimpy men, the exact opposite of or soldiers. Much like during the first Gulf War when Iraqi propagandists spread stories that GI wives were sleeping with American TV star Bart Simpson.
Ladies, what do you think about this? Guys, thoughts?
Irish Coffee
Do you like to drink Irish Coffee? There’s a controversy at the world’s best Irish Coffee house, the Buena Vista in San Francisco. They’ve switched Irish whiskey brands and some folks are having a fit over it.
Personally, I couldn’t tell one brand from the other, but I do know that the Buena Vista makes a mighty fine Irish Coffee. In fact, according to bartender Paul Nolan here’s how he makes it (as cited in the SF Chronicle): “carefully rinsing the glasses with hot water, putting in two cubes of sugar (it must be C&H cane sugar), pouring the coffee (Peerless is preferred), then the whiskey, then the cream.”
I don’t know how much whiskey you should put in the mix, but enough to taste it. As for the cream, it should be of a consistency to sit on the top of the coffee, like the head on a dark beer.
Enjoy!
Personally, I couldn’t tell one brand from the other, but I do know that the Buena Vista makes a mighty fine Irish Coffee. In fact, according to bartender Paul Nolan here’s how he makes it (as cited in the SF Chronicle): “carefully rinsing the glasses with hot water, putting in two cubes of sugar (it must be C&H cane sugar), pouring the coffee (Peerless is preferred), then the whiskey, then the cream.”
I don’t know how much whiskey you should put in the mix, but enough to taste it. As for the cream, it should be of a consistency to sit on the top of the coffee, like the head on a dark beer.
Enjoy!
Monday, November 20, 2006
Support our Troops
Today after work some of my co-workers and I are going to be packing boxes to ship to 10 servicemembers serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. Regardless if you support the anti-terror campaigns in those places it its important to remember that these men and women not only volunteered to serve, but made it through a number of "gates" to wear the uniform. Anyone can volunteer, but only a few can serve. In fact, only about 28% of America's youth (18-25 years old) are fit (physically, mentally, no felonies) to serve in the armed forces.
I was reminded today about the dedication of your young people when I received an e-mail from a young friend serving in Iraq who was wounded last week. He's back in the fight after having been patched up. That's dedication.
There are lots of different ways to support our troops. The easiest way is to donate to a number of organizations, such as the DAV or the Red Cross.
A friend of mine started an organization a few years ago to support our troops called Operation Care and Comfort (www.operationcareandcomfort.com). She has no children in the military, but wanted to make a difference in the lives of our deployed troops. Her volunteer organization has sent something like 100TONS of care packages in the past few years.
The other thing I remind folks, especially those not in favor of the war or the President, is that supporting the troops is about showing care and empathy for your neighbors son or daughter, husband or wife. Of the 1.5 million men and women serving in our active armed forces (and almost 1 million in the reserve forces), about 10% are in the combat theater of operation at any one time. The rest are providing humanitarian assistance to Tsunami and earthquake victims, fighting forest fires and floods, and continuing to train to defend our nation.
We cannot afford to forget what HG Wells said (and I paraphrase): "We sleep safely in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who will do us harm".
I was reminded today about the dedication of your young people when I received an e-mail from a young friend serving in Iraq who was wounded last week. He's back in the fight after having been patched up. That's dedication.
There are lots of different ways to support our troops. The easiest way is to donate to a number of organizations, such as the DAV or the Red Cross.
A friend of mine started an organization a few years ago to support our troops called Operation Care and Comfort (www.operationcareandcomfort.com). She has no children in the military, but wanted to make a difference in the lives of our deployed troops. Her volunteer organization has sent something like 100TONS of care packages in the past few years.
The other thing I remind folks, especially those not in favor of the war or the President, is that supporting the troops is about showing care and empathy for your neighbors son or daughter, husband or wife. Of the 1.5 million men and women serving in our active armed forces (and almost 1 million in the reserve forces), about 10% are in the combat theater of operation at any one time. The rest are providing humanitarian assistance to Tsunami and earthquake victims, fighting forest fires and floods, and continuing to train to defend our nation.
We cannot afford to forget what HG Wells said (and I paraphrase): "We sleep safely in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who will do us harm".
Gringolandia?
I read a well written piece by author Barry Golson in the SF Chronicle today (on-line http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/11/20/EDG59LIA161.DTL), where he describes his experience of retiring in Mexico. It’s seems like a wonderful life. He took his big bucks down south and was able to build what I can only imagine is a nice house. Through his legal immigration to Mexico he also brings his retirement salary which is able to pay for things like food, health care, etc.
He says that 20,000 Gringos move to Mexico on a regular or semi-regular basis each month. I’m betting that they are all doing this legally. I just can't imagine retired teachers or bankers in their 50s and 60s hiring "coyotes"to smuggle them into Mexico. It is probably putting a strain on some of the infrastructure, but not too badly. I’m sure that the local residents are’t having to pay for the Gringos health care or for their grand kids schooling. In fact, the Gringos probably go to private clinics, not the poor ones that the populace goes to.
Mr. Golson states that 20,000 migrate south each month, that’s 240,000 per year. Let’s do some math here: what would it take for Gringos heading south to balance the illegals heading north? Hmmm, I’m no math whiz but according to my fingers and toes it would take about 50 years for a southern migration of legal migrants to meet the current number of 12 million illegals here in the US.
Of course, not all illegals are from Mexico, but the majority are. But the difference (again) is that the Gringos are taking money and basically paying their own way. That’s not happening when the illegals are crossing into the US.
What are your thoughts on this issue?
He says that 20,000 Gringos move to Mexico on a regular or semi-regular basis each month. I’m betting that they are all doing this legally. I just can't imagine retired teachers or bankers in their 50s and 60s hiring "coyotes"to smuggle them into Mexico. It is probably putting a strain on some of the infrastructure, but not too badly. I’m sure that the local residents are’t having to pay for the Gringos health care or for their grand kids schooling. In fact, the Gringos probably go to private clinics, not the poor ones that the populace goes to.
Mr. Golson states that 20,000 migrate south each month, that’s 240,000 per year. Let’s do some math here: what would it take for Gringos heading south to balance the illegals heading north? Hmmm, I’m no math whiz but according to my fingers and toes it would take about 50 years for a southern migration of legal migrants to meet the current number of 12 million illegals here in the US.
Of course, not all illegals are from Mexico, but the majority are. But the difference (again) is that the Gringos are taking money and basically paying their own way. That’s not happening when the illegals are crossing into the US.
What are your thoughts on this issue?
Sunday, November 19, 2006
A great book
I'm currently reading "The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny & Terror". Author Natan Sharansky, a former Soviet dissident and gulag resident who immigrated to Isreal and was eventually elected to parliment, brings up a number of very solid and common sense themes in this book. I'm currently on page 77 of this almost 300 page book, but two points I'm taking a way thus far are things we've all known, but that Sharansky is able to put into a few words:
1. The difference between living in a free society and a fear society is that there is public discourse and dissent, where someone can walk into the "public square" and speak their mind about government policy.
2. "Free elections are held in an environment where people are free to express their views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or fear of physical harm. Put simply, free elections are elections in a free society."
As I find other common sense words of wisdom from this book I'll post them.
JB
1. The difference between living in a free society and a fear society is that there is public discourse and dissent, where someone can walk into the "public square" and speak their mind about government policy.
2. "Free elections are held in an environment where people are free to express their views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or fear of physical harm. Put simply, free elections are elections in a free society."
As I find other common sense words of wisdom from this book I'll post them.
JB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)