Why not?  After all, the Iraqis are going to welcome Americans as liberators!  It'll all be over before the you know it!  Two weeks - tops!  And it'll only cost a buck ninety-nine!

Did you ever vote for Bill Clinton?

No.  Did you ever vote for Jean Chretien?

Ah, gotcha. Well, I guess we'd better disregard anything you have to say about who should fight for the US.

How utterly American.  Self-proclaimed "leaders of the free world", but absolutely deaf to anyone living in the free world who doesn't carry your water.

Thanks for the reminder.

...absolutely deaf to anyone living in the free world who doesn't carry your water

Not at all. I just don't think any American should pay attention to a Canadian's opinion about whom should serve in the US armed forces. I wouldn't presume to form an opinion about whom should serve in the Canadian armed forces let alone proclaim it publicly.

Oh come on, z, that's horseshit and you know it.  This is a discussion board, fer chrissakes, and we all throw out opinions about all sorts of things.  By your above logic your opinion about anything not American should be ignored.  Is that, or should it be, the case?  Of course not.

And of course you "wouldn't presume to form an opinion about whom should serve in the Canadian armed forces..."  Those twenty-nine people are under enough scrutiny as it is.

Fine. I think you, I mean you, personally, should be in Afghanistan right now, serving in the Canadian Army.

Does that idea make any sense whatsoever?

Let's see. I proposed that those who most scream for war should be the ones to wage it.  Somehow, that idea got under your skin, but not nearly as much as the fact that I'm not even American, and how dare I have an opinion on who should serve in the US military.

Now you're proposing that today we're going to Hong Kong, but first we're going to the zoo.

Yep, that makes sense to me - both propositions are exactly the same!

Now you're proposing that today we're going to Hong Kong, but first we're going to the zoo

No, you misunderstood what I wrote. I said that you should go to Afghanistan and serve in the Canadian Army. I'm not going anywhere - not to the zoo and not to Hong Kong.

Above you opined that the people who voted for Bush should "go off to war" (all fifty million* of them, presumably). What's so different about my idea that you should be compelled to join the Canadian Army and "go off to war" in Afghanistan?

* Logistical difficulties notwithstanding, sending 50,000,000 Americans to Iraq would have made for a much better outcome, so maybe you're on to something. We could have assigned two Americans to nearly each and every Iraqi, ensuring not only that the security situation would be much improved, but allowing for the maximal spread of American values in the country.

What's so different about my idea that you should be compelled to join the Canadian Army and "go off to war" in Afghanistan?

Only the gist, z.
Your idea is to send an avowed anti-war person to a war zone.  My idea was to send those most wanting war to go and actually fight what they deem a necessary mission.

But then, you already knew this.  You also know that I most always post with some or all of my tongue in my cheek, but you didn't let that stop you from a) positing that nobody but Americans should be heeded on American issues, and b) you too can post absurdities...without any underlying point whatsoever!

And I so wanted to go to the zoo!

Your idea is to send an avowed anti-war person to a war zone

Only because your nation is at war and by being Canadian you are, to some extent, responsible for that.

My idea was to send those most wanting war to go and actually fight what they deem a necessary mission

No it wasn't. Your idea was "folks that voted a war-mongering president into power" should go to war. You didn't mention "those most wanting war to go;" it was enough that they'd voted for Bush.

...you too can post absurdities...

We all throw out opinions about all sorts of things.

Maybe I can get leave from my post in Afghanistan long enough to get over to Iraq and ask all those Bush voters, "What the fuck were you thinking?"

I think we should let the Mexicans in before starting a draft and I don't see where that wouldn't be a win-win.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

You guys realize that non-US-citizens are allowed to enlist in the US military...right?

Yes, non-US citizen, documented permanent residents. I'm talking about Mexican-Mexicans and extending citizenship benefits to their families in exchange for service and/or making people citizens as soon as they sign up if they want, instead of simply reducing their wait from 5 years to 3. You've got to go whole hog on this imperialism thing or not at all.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

I knew that, but I think thefadd is proposing allowing illegal immigrants to enlist, or maybe just opening up some American Foreign Legion recruiting centers south of the border.

There's no need to start a draft, so the Mexican idea isn't worth discussing.

Er, yes. Why not?

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

You know who should go off to war?  The same folks that voted a war-mongering president into power.

Speaking as a person who voted for Bush twice, I'd be totally OK with that -- on one condition: we get to fight the way we want. None of this "Congressional oversight" nonsense.

You know to something like rambomander or gerryrambo?

Illegitimi non carborundum.

I always thought "Zoltar" had a nice ring to it.

Giant monster robots are either mechanized infantry (if they can't fly) or air cavalry (if they can).  Either way, Army.  

This is not a signature.

Linking gay discharges to the "doctor draft" idea would seem to indicate that there is a severe shortage of doctors because so many gay ones are being kicked out. I was just wondering how many of the 50 or so medical personnel given homo-discharges in 2005 were doctors.

I don't think there is any need to have a "doctor draft" even if all 50 of the 2005 discharges of medical personnel were physicians. But I doubt there were more than a couple.

I doubt there were more than a couple.

cuz doctors hardly ever catch teh gay.

cuz doctors hardly ever catch teh gay

If you say so, Jimmy, but my conclusion came from the fact that for every doctor there are dozens of other medical specialists in the Army.

The chart you reference is derived from labor statistics from 2000. I assume the risks facing a soldier in peacetime are exponentially lower than those faced by the armed forces abroad right now.

Actually, since it didn't have military figures at all, I was using it only for the civilian figures and taking military casualties and dividing them by the size of the force to compare.

I would consider military service more dangerous than fishing, but it's because of the higher chance of disability and not because of the chance of death, which is a bit lower.  If we were in a situation with a casualty rate more typical of a war, we would probably be having more trouble getting people to volunteer by now.