I thought Liberals would do anything if it helped the kids..

...to discourage them from joining the military. Our troops currently function as targets and bait. And if you've seen some of the exposes lately of recruiting offices ("no no, the war is over already!") then you can understand SF schools decision. It's not great for society as a whole but it clearly is good for kids.

on this comment, Piker.

"Targets and bait"?

I'm so angry from that little snippet, I can't type what I want to say.

You and I have had many good back-and-forth exchanges on differences as we see them. I like that about our "relationship".

I don't want to say anything else that I will be sorry for later.

The troops (men, women, young and old) that defend this great Country day in, and day out, with little thanks from the people they are defending are the bravest people I know. They do the job that most could never do for low pay, in cruddy conditions, and voluntarily.

I am a better person for knowing the soldiers I have met. They have my respect, my gratitude, and my admiration.

SFGate took a poll last week, asking if the SF School District should continue the JROTC program.

79% said "yes, it's proved to be a helpful program for many kids"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/12/CONGRESS.TMP

Scroll to the bottom to see the results from last weeks poll.

for a glib and ill-chosen phrase. It's ill-chosen because it didn't convey my anger properly - I too believe that our troops are dedicated, smart and they deserve our support and respect. My anger is at the top brass and how they have put these good soldiers in the middle of an unwinnable situation, and failed to adequately equip them.
In any event, the district has a right to refuse JROTC participation if they feel the same way as I do.

I appreciate that.

If 79% of the people in the City feel it's a worthwhile program, how does the school board get away with ending it?

Doesn't the majority get to make the rules?

How about the quote at the end of my post-do you think the military is running the civillian institutions?

...and piker this word is completely wrong:

"unwinnable"

Using that word in conjuction with our military is absolutely asinine. The arsenal of The United States can set the suface temperature of any location on Earth to that of x times that of the surface of the sun. It's winnable, but the word should be willable.

You bring clarity to this little part of the Internet.

The "will" will always be harder than the "win".

A massive strike from our subs offshore in the Gulf would turn Iraq and Iran into a nice shiny piece of glass. All from thae safety and security of an underwater location. No troops on the ground, no American directly in harms way. Check my archeives for a piece by Walter Williams on this.

My post on the "PC War" based around Ralph Peters Op-Ed echoes that sentiment.

I hope we never get to the point where the US is forced into creating another mushroom cloud like we saw over Japan. I do hope that if "it" ever came to that, whomever is in the White House would have the courage to make that decision. I haven't seen many Democrats in my 40 years that could fill those shoes. I have seen several Republicans that would.

And clearly we can obliterate Iraq, but how would that stop terrorists? Unless you are assuming that all the terrorists are in Iraq, along with any other Muslim who might be radicalized by such an outrageous act. If anything, it would embolden wild-eyed suicide bombers everywhere.
On the other hand, if it's Iraq we're at war with, then we've already won. What are we still doing there? The country is in a shambles and they're in no position to develop weapons of mass destruction. Mission accomplished!
I'm no strategist (obviously) but it seems to me that our goals in Iraq are 1. Tamp down the violence, 2. Set up a pro-American Democracy, 3. and ensure that Democracy can defend itself. These things may not be impossible, but it seems the longer we occupy the country the less pro-American they become. Rumsfeld wasn't able to make it work; I sincerely hope that Gates can.

With the SWIFT program and the wiretaps, but the smart guys at the NYTimes stopped that.. But I digress.

In my opinion, the extremists respomd to one thing-force. When we were having our problems fighting in a PC manner against al Sadr in Fallujah, that is when we "lost" Iraq.

The insurgents realized that we didn't have the will to hunt them down, and exterminate them. Hezbollah "defeated" Israel in the same manner.

If I was in charge, I would blanket the problem areas with flyers, messages, loudspeakers, whatever for 1 week. Tell the people that "Next Monday, at 1201, this area will be erased from the map. If you need assistance moving, contact your local Iraqi police station. You have been warned."

And at 1201, I would unleaseh Hell on Earth on that problem area. Would it kill only insurgents, and kill all of them? No. Would I continue doing the same thing from problem area to problem area? Yes.

Eventually, the Iraqi people would see several things: That the US Military has the will to do a dirty job properly. That the insurgent with his rocket launcher is no match for the forces of Democracy. And it would send a message to the terrorists around the World that me mean business this time.

Is the US "occupation" creating more terrorists? I'm sure it has, and will continue to. Will the creation of new terrorists cease the day we pull out of Iraq. Of course not. So lets fight it on our terms, in their Countries, not in the streets of NYC, DC, and farmland in PA.

Terrorism can never be stopped. We can only hope to contain it.

...the "War on Terror" is a misnomer. Terror is a tactic and not a nation.

Piker, "it seems", well who or what gives you that perception?

Your silly argument about America emboldening muslim maniacs is equivalent to stating cops and courts embolden criminals.

Yes, we've won the war and are still there. America has forces in Germany, Japan, Korea, and all over the globe and have been for decades. Are you suggesting no soldiers anywhere?

Also, who gives a rat's azz if any nation is "pro-American" or not as long as they fear Our Military Might and Our Will to use it?

You guys are making my head spin. First of all, MD, refresh my memory - why are we at war with the Iraqui people? I thought we were there to liberate them!
Now as for terror as tactic - agreed. You are both advocating keeping these guys in line by threatening to eviscerate their villages. It's using terror to manipulate them. Which is fine, and it will work with rational people. But I still don't see how it will work with suicide bombers.
To take this further, we are ransoming our economy to the Chinese to pay for this war, producing the same effect in their population as a handful of poorly-funded crazies have created in ours. The war in Iraq is just a bad use of our great military.
I will grant you, JC, that it was a silly idea. I think our enemies will be emboldened whether we are over there or not.

with the Iraqi people. My comment was on wiping out the insurgent areas, thus showing the Iraqi people we are for real in helping them achieve a young democracy. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been..

I feel that if we keep killing the terrorists, it might dissuade more folks from joining their ranks. If we keep fighting the war on a PC level, it's not as much of a deterrant to them. It also shows the Iraqis that the insurgents are losing, and might have the effect of them "turning in" insurgents in their neighborhoods. The situation over there now reminds me of the gang neighborhoods in LA in the 80's. Noone would testify against the drug dealers, because after court was done, they both went back to the same neighborhood. You have to show the "good ones" that the "bad ones" are on borrowed time.

Peace thru superior firepower.

Will it eliminate all terrorists and terrorism? No. But you have to start somewhere.

I suppose I could be accused of advocating "cut and run," but I'm not. We do need to stay in Iraq until the Iraqis decide they're ready for us to leave. However, I do advocate a different kind of cut and run.

The War on Terror is really a war between us normal and sensible people (normies) and the non-normies of the polar-right persuasion (Islamo-fascists et al) and polar-left persuasion (Demo-socialists et al). The last time this happened to the extent it is threatening to happen now was about 400 years ago, when most of the eastern hemisphere was under the strong-arm rule of secular and religious elites (anyone remember the 100 years war?). We had a frontier back then--the western hemisphere, newly discovered, full of untapped resources and relatively few folks able to contest our ancestors for possesion.

Our ancestors scraped everything they had together to buy passage on rickety wooden sailing ships with a distressing tendency to sink in a storm in hopes of building new homes where they could practice their religions and values free of interference.

That frontier is gone, now, and the seeds of evil have followed us here and grown into a mighty weed patch determined to strangle us.

But there is a new frontier, the High Frontier, not far above our heads, and stretching essentially to infinity. It's full of energy and resources far beyond those of Earth, and we have the knowledge and technology to go out there and build new homes where we can practice our religions and values without interference.

The only question is whether we have the will to scrape everything we have together, pool it with the resources of our fellows, and book that passage to the new frontier.

For more, check either my blog or go straight to the National Space Society website, http://www.nss.org, and check the Settlement section.

...was a cakewalk compared to settling another planet. Living off the land will not be an option. Just sayin', Phoenix Lady. You're right though, it's worth persuing.

It is economically biased against the poor. I mean, you can't take a bus or walk there. I'm guessing hitchiking is out as well. The only people that will be able to afford getting to Space are people like Halliburton and the kid from Nsync that wanted to be an astronaut. How would we make Space available for everyone?

Sarcasm switch now in the *off* position.