OT Draft legislation
 

So what. Every country in the World is dependent upon a strong
America...both economically and militarily. They're own self-preservation
instincts will bring 'em around sooner or later.

When you find yourself at increased risk as the result of support for somebody
who is treating you like manure, the common
solution is unlikely to be *increasing* support.

The US has some major fence mending to do with the rest of the world,
regardless of the outcome in November.

But you claim that Bush is treating America like manure. So why are his
poll numbers sky-rocketing?

Because the Bush campaign spent more money "defining" Kerry than Kerry could
spend getting his message out so far.

An incumbent doesn't have to utterly destroy the competition, merely create
enough fear and doubt that the people will stick with the devil they know over
the devil they don't.

I'm sure Hitler's poll numbers were pretty high at this point in his
administration, too. Just because his electorate was stupid enough to
swallow the rhetoric didn't necessarily make his view of the world the
right, one did it? Or did it.....

Capt. Jeff

NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
So what. Every country in the World is dependent upon a strong
America...both economically and militarily. They're own
self-preservation
instincts will bring 'em around sooner or later.

When you find yourself at increased risk as the result of support for
somebody
who is treating you like manure, the common
solution is unlikely to be *increasing* support.

But you claim that Bush is treating America like manure. So why are his
poll numbers sky-rocketing?


Because Americans like simple answers to complicated problems, even if
the answers are wrong. For them to be otherwise would mean they'd have
to face the horrible reality, and that is this: our military might ain't
gonna resolve Islamist terrorism for us.





--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

Tamaroak wrote:
I'm sure Hitler's poll numbers were pretty high at this point in his
administration, too. Just because his electorate was stupid enough to
swallow the rhetoric didn't necessarily make his view of the world the
right, one did it? Or did it.....

Capt. Jeff



Hitler was smarter than Bush, and a better speaker, too. While Bush
isn't the monster Hitler was...he's working on it.

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Tamaroak" wrote in message
...
I'm sure Hitler's poll numbers were pretty high at this point in his
administration, too. Just because his electorate was stupid enough to
swallow the rhetoric didn't necessarily make his view of the world the
right, one did it? Or did it.....

I've never seen an historical account where it was claimed that Germany was
attacked by the Jews...or the French...or the Poles. Were they?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Tamaroak wrote:
I'm sure Hitler's poll numbers were pretty high at this point in his
administration, too. Just because his electorate was stupid enough to
swallow the rhetoric didn't necessarily make his view of the world the
right, one did it? Or did it.....

Capt. Jeff



Hitler was smarter than Bush, and a better speaker, too.

More proof that where Hitler wowed 'em with style, Bush prefers to wow 'em
with substance.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
So what. Every country in the World is dependent upon a strong
America...both economically and militarily. They're own
self-preservation
instincts will bring 'em around sooner or later.

When you find yourself at increased risk as the result of support for
somebody
who is treating you like manure, the common
solution is unlikely to be *increasing* support.

But you claim that Bush is treating America like manure. So why are his
poll numbers sky-rocketing?


Because Americans like simple answers to complicated problems, even if
the answers are wrong. For them to be otherwise would mean they'd have
to face the horrible reality, and that is this: our military might ain't
gonna resolve Islamist terrorism for us.

I figured that the horrible reality was that we would have to become what we
despise: cold-blooded, calculated killers willing to use any *AND ALL*
weapons at our disposal...just like the terrorists. I don't favor the use
of nukes...but the message needs to be sent that they will remain an option
if the killing of our troops continues to escalate. A war against the US
cannot be won.

Is it more humane to kill 100's per day times thousands of days...or doom
the same number of people in a matter of seconds? And which one has more
shock appeal to subdue the enemy by exhausting his will to fight? I know
how FDR chose to answer those questions.

Curtis CCR wrote:
You think the author of this bill really wants a draft? Charlie
Rangel??? How about the co-sponsors? Sheila Jackson-Lee and Pete
Stark want a draft?



I think a draft that does not exclude rich, white kids would be
delightful. It certainly would bring an end to unjustified militarism on
our part.

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Tamaroak wrote:
I'm sure Hitler's poll numbers were pretty high at this point in his
administration, too. Just because his electorate was stupid enough to
swallow the rhetoric didn't necessarily make his view of the world the
right, one did it? Or did it.....

Capt. Jeff



Hitler was smarter than Bush, and a better speaker, too.

More proof that where Hitler wowed 'em with style, Bush prefers to wow 'em
with substance.


Oh? Did Bush buy some substance somewhere?

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
So what. Every country in the World is dependent upon a strong
America...both economically and militarily. They're own
self-preservation
instincts will bring 'em around sooner or later.

When you find yourself at increased risk as the result of support for
somebody
who is treating you like manure, the common
solution is unlikely to be *increasing* support.

But you claim that Bush is treating America like manure. So why are his
poll numbers sky-rocketing?


Because Americans like simple answers to complicated problems, even if
the answers are wrong. For them to be otherwise would mean they'd have
to face the horrible reality, and that is this: our military might ain't
gonna resolve Islamist terrorism for us.

I figured that the horrible reality was that we would have to become what we
despise: cold-blooded, calculated killers willing to use any *AND ALL*
weapons at our disposal...just like the terrorists.

Then what's the point?



--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
om...
You think the author of this bill really wants a draft? Charlie
Rangel???

Charlie Rangel is a Congressman? I thought he was Dick Morris's
alter-ego...sort of a black James Carville, if you will.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
Good for the Brits! They and the Australians are our only true-blue
allies...although I'm pretty sure that the Beslan incident will make the
Russians understand and accept that our foreign policy is the correct one.
Of course, I can't say enough bad things about France...or Canada. It
must
be the negative French influence on that country.

What bad things are you going to say about Canada? I would like to know.
For your information.
Canada is the largest trading partner that you have in this world.
Canada is a supporter of the USA, with our military forces in Afghanistan.
Canada has supported the USA in many of its endeavors for peace.

Why do you try to bad mouth us? We are friends of the USA.

James D. Carter, Port Captain
"The Boat"
Bayfield, Canada.........

Jim Carter wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
Good for the Brits! They and the Australians are our only true-blue
allies...although I'm pretty sure that the Beslan incident will make the
Russians understand and accept that our foreign policy is the correct one.
Of course, I can't say enough bad things about France...or Canada. It
must
be the negative French influence on that country.

What bad things are you going to say about Canada? I would like to know.
For your information.
Canada is the largest trading partner that you have in this world.
Canada is a supporter of the USA, with our military forces in Afghanistan.
Canada has supported the USA in many of its endeavors for peace.

Why do you try to bad mouth us? We are friends of the USA.

James D. Carter, Port Captain
"The Boat"
Bayfield, Canada.........


It's just right-wing xenophobia, rearing its ugly, ill-educated head.

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
So what. Every country in the World is dependent upon a strong
America...both economically and militarily. They're own
self-preservation
instincts will bring 'em around sooner or later.

When you find yourself at increased risk as the result of support
for
somebody
who is treating you like manure, the common
solution is unlikely to be *increasing* support.

But you claim that Bush is treating America like manure. So why are
his
poll numbers sky-rocketing?


Because Americans like simple answers to complicated problems, even if
the answers are wrong. For them to be otherwise would mean they'd have
to face the horrible reality, and that is this: our military might
ain't
gonna resolve Islamist terrorism for us.

I figured that the horrible reality was that we would have to become
what we
despise: cold-blooded, calculated killers willing to use any *AND ALL*
weapons at our disposal...just like the terrorists.

Then what's the point?


Survival! Losing this war means annihilation and extinction for the losing
side. It's not about land or geographical gains like other World Wars.

And because of nuclear weapons, the stakes are a lot higher than religious
wars of the past.

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
So what. Every country in the World is dependent upon a strong
America...both economically and militarily. They're own
self-preservation
instincts will bring 'em around sooner or later.

When you find yourself at increased risk as the result of support
for
somebody
who is treating you like manure, the common
solution is unlikely to be *increasing* support.

But you claim that Bush is treating America like manure. So why are
his
poll numbers sky-rocketing?


Because Americans like simple answers to complicated problems, even if
the answers are wrong. For them to be otherwise would mean they'd have
to face the horrible reality, and that is this: our military might
ain't
gonna resolve Islamist terrorism for us.

I figured that the horrible reality was that we would have to become
what we
despise: cold-blooded, calculated killers willing to use any *AND ALL*
weapons at our disposal...just like the terrorists.

Then what's the point?


Survival! Losing this war means annihilation and extinction for the losing
side. It's not about land or geographical gains like other World Wars.

And because of nuclear weapons, the stakes are a lot higher than religious
wars of the past.



There are ways to win a war against hydra-headed terrorists without
ending the world, which is what your position would entail. There are
many nations with nuclear weapons now...and if we started using them,
we'd start catching them.

Sorry...nukes ain['t the answer.

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

I'm sure you, or your kids. grandkids are going to be the first to sign
up, right? And if not, why not?

And, to save a couple of irrevalent posts, I did, 1969 to 1971. How
about you?

Capt. Jeff

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
So what. Every country in the World is dependent upon a strong
America...both economically and militarily. They're own
self-preservation
instincts will bring 'em around sooner or later.

When you find yourself at increased risk as the result of support
for
somebody
who is treating you like manure, the common
solution is unlikely to be *increasing* support.

But you claim that Bush is treating America like manure. So why
are
his
poll numbers sky-rocketing?


Because Americans like simple answers to complicated problems, even
if
the answers are wrong. For them to be otherwise would mean they'd
have
to face the horrible reality, and that is this: our military might
ain't
gonna resolve Islamist terrorism for us.

I figured that the horrible reality was that we would have to become
what we
despise: cold-blooded, calculated killers willing to use any *AND
ALL*
weapons at our disposal...just like the terrorists.

Then what's the point?


Survival! Losing this war means annihilation and extinction for the
losing
side. It's not about land or geographical gains like other World Wars.

And because of nuclear weapons, the stakes are a lot higher than
religious
wars of the past.



There are ways to win a war against hydra-headed terrorists without
ending the world, which is what your position would entail. There are
many nations with nuclear weapons now...and if we started using them,
we'd start catching them.

I don't think so. Who would have the capability and motive to hit us back
if we responded with nukes to the next state-sponsored terrorist attack in
one of our major cities? The only Middle Eastern country that I'm aware of
that has nuclear weapons is Pakistan...and Musharraf's on our
side...especially after al Qaeda tried twice to assassinate him. Which
nuclear power concerns you?

Hitler was smarter than Bush, and a better speaker, too. While Bush
isn't the monster Hitler was...he's working on it.

Much as I dislike Bush, I don't see any real comparison between GWB and Hitler.
There is always the danger that a country that becomes too right wing and too
militant will take the next step and become fascist, (like Germany did), but
comparing GWB, as a person, to Hitler, as a person, would be just as difficult
as it would be silly.

I've never seen an historical account where it was claimed that Germany was
attacked by the Jews...or the French...or the Poles. Were they?

No. Based on "unsettled business" from a previous war, Hitler began attacking
countries that were no threat to Germany at all. Why would anybody think there
was some sort of similarity with Bush?

NOYB wrote:

Is it more humane to kill 100's per day times thousands of days...or doom
the same number of people in a matter of seconds? And which one has more
shock appeal to subdue the enemy by exhausting his will to fight? I know
how FDR chose to answer those questions.


And as your radioactive cloud circles the globe, creating 500 million slow
death cancer cases, any wonderful ideas about how we'll keep it out of the US
and the one or two other nations on the globe still friendly toward us?

Gould 0738 wrote:
NOYB wrote:

Is it more humane to kill 100's per day times thousands of days...or doom
the same number of people in a matter of seconds? And which one has more
shock appeal to subdue the enemy by exhausting his will to fight? I know
how FDR chose to answer those questions.


And as your radioactive cloud circles the globe, creating 500 million slow
death cancer cases, any wonderful ideas about how we'll keep it out of the US
and the one or two other nations on the globe still friendly toward us?

Nobby thinks he and his will be safe down in Buttfock, Florida, where
they live.



--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

Hitler was smarter than Bush, and a better speaker, too. While Bush
isn't the monster Hitler was...he's working on it.


Gould 0738 wrote:
Much as I dislike Bush, I don't see any real comparison between GWB and Hitler.

Agreed.

Hitler served his time in the army, George Bush Jr. got into a cuhsy
position based on favoritism and still went AWOL.

Hitler had the patience & intellect to write a book, George Bush Jr.
doesn't have the patience & intellect to even read one.

Hitler was sincere in his ideological and religious beliefs, George Bush
Jr. is just a good ol' boy who cannot follow through on any consistent
principle.

In a way, this proves the George Bush Jr. simply could not ever become
the evil monster that Hitler was.

There is always the danger that a country that becomes too right wing and too
militant will take the next step and become fascist, (like Germany did), but
comparing GWB, as a person, to Hitler, as a person, would be just as difficult
as it would be silly.

I agree again, but I have no doubt at all that many of GWB's followers
would like to start American concentration camps, if they could.

DSK

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Is it more humane to kill 100's per day times thousands of days...or doom
the same number of people in a matter of seconds? And which one has more
shock appeal to subdue the enemy by exhausting his will to fight? I know
how FDR chose to answer those questions.


And as your radioactive cloud circles the globe, creating 500 million slow
death cancer cases, any wonderful ideas about how we'll keep it out of the
US
and the one or two other nations on the globe still friendly toward us?

You're exaggerating the effects to people outside the "immediate effect"
range, assuming the attack is done with an "air blast" instead of a surface
blast. Scientists have made predictions of various scenarios, and they've
come to the conclusion that air blasts have a lot less delayed effects from
radiation fallout. In fact, they've calculated that a 1-Mt air blast over a
city would have the following delayed effects *worldwide*:

Somatic effects (Cancer deaths, thyroid cancers, thyroid nodules) : between
1900 and 3700 people worldwide.

Genetic effects (abortions due to chromosomal changes, other genetic
effects): between 450-4500 cases worldwide.

So a worst-case scenario is that 8200 people are affected worldwide (outside
the "immediate effect" area)...which is certainly lower than the total
number of people killed in terrorist attacks over the past 2 decades.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/pdfs/7906.pdf (table 14)

NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Is it more humane to kill 100's per day times thousands of days...or doom
the same number of people in a matter of seconds? And which one has more
shock appeal to subdue the enemy by exhausting his will to fight? I know
how FDR chose to answer those questions.


And as your radioactive cloud circles the globe, creating 500 million slow
death cancer cases, any wonderful ideas about how we'll keep it out of the
US
and the one or two other nations on the globe still friendly toward us?

You're exaggerating the effects to people outside the "immediate effect"
range, assuming the attack is done with an "air blast" instead of a surface
blast. Scientists have made predictions of various scenarios, and they've
come to the conclusion that air blasts have a lot less delayed effects from
radiation fallout. In fact, they've calculated that a 1-Mt air blast over a
city would have the following delayed effects *worldwide*:

Somatic effects (Cancer deaths, thyroid cancers, thyroid nodules) : between
1900 and 3700 people worldwide.

Genetic effects (abortions due to chromosomal changes, other genetic
effects): between 450-4500 cases worldwide.

So a worst-case scenario is that 8200 people are affected worldwide (outside
the "immediate effect" area)...which is certainly lower than the total
number of people killed in terrorist attacks over the past 2 decades.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/pdfs/7906.pdf (table 14)




Better your 'hood than mine, fella.

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Gould 0738 wrote:
NOYB wrote:

Is it more humane to kill 100's per day times thousands of days...or
doom
the same number of people in a matter of seconds? And which one has
more
shock appeal to subdue the enemy by exhausting his will to fight? I
know
how FDR chose to answer those questions.


And as your radioactive cloud circles the globe, creating 500 million
slow
death cancer cases, any wonderful ideas about how we'll keep it out of
the US
and the one or two other nations on the globe still friendly toward us?

Nobby thinks he and his will be safe down in Buttfock, Florida, where
they live.

That'd be Bumfoch, FL. Buttfock is across Alligator Alley.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Is it more humane to kill 100's per day times thousands of days...or
doom
the same number of people in a matter of seconds? And which one has
more
shock appeal to subdue the enemy by exhausting his will to fight? I
know
how FDR chose to answer those questions.


And as your radioactive cloud circles the globe, creating 500 million
slow
death cancer cases, any wonderful ideas about how we'll keep it out of
the
US
and the one or two other nations on the globe still friendly toward us?

You're exaggerating the effects to people outside the "immediate effect"
range, assuming the attack is done with an "air blast" instead of a
surface
blast. Scientists have made predictions of various scenarios, and
they've
come to the conclusion that air blasts have a lot less delayed effects
from
radiation fallout. In fact, they've calculated that a 1-Mt air blast
over a
city would have the following delayed effects *worldwide*:

Somatic effects (Cancer deaths, thyroid cancers, thyroid nodules) :
between
1900 and 3700 people worldwide.

Genetic effects (abortions due to chromosomal changes, other genetic
effects): between 450-4500 cases worldwide.

So a worst-case scenario is that 8200 people are affected worldwide
(outside
the "immediate effect" area)...which is certainly lower than the total
number of people killed in terrorist attacks over the past 2 decades.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/pdfs/7906.pdf (table 14)




Better your 'hood than mine, fella.

Better the Middle East than either of our 'hoods.

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Is it more humane to kill 100's per day times thousands of days...or
doom
the same number of people in a matter of seconds? And which one has
more
shock appeal to subdue the enemy by exhausting his will to fight? I
know
how FDR chose to answer those questions.


And as your radioactive cloud circles the globe, creating 500 million
slow
death cancer cases, any wonderful ideas about how we'll keep it out of
the
US
and the one or two other nations on the globe still friendly toward us?

You're exaggerating the effects to people outside the "immediate effect"
range, assuming the attack is done with an "air blast" instead of a
surface
blast. Scientists have made predictions of various scenarios, and
they've
come to the conclusion that air blasts have a lot less delayed effects
from
radiation fallout. In fact, they've calculated that a 1-Mt air blast
over a
city would have the following delayed effects *worldwide*:

Somatic effects (Cancer deaths, thyroid cancers, thyroid nodules) :
between
1900 and 3700 people worldwide.

Genetic effects (abortions due to chromosomal changes, other genetic
effects): between 450-4500 cases worldwide.

So a worst-case scenario is that 8200 people are affected worldwide
(outside
the "immediate effect" area)...which is certainly lower than the total
number of people killed in terrorist attacks over the past 2 decades.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/pdfs/7906.pdf (table 14)




Better your 'hood than mine, fella.

Better the Middle East than either of our 'hoods.




If there is a nuclear war, it isn't going to be "contained" where you
would like it.

Come on...you're a lot smarter than that. No one wins nuclear war.

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Is it more humane to kill 100's per day times thousands of
days...or
doom
the same number of people in a matter of seconds? And which one
has
more
shock appeal to subdue the enemy by exhausting his will to fight?
I
know
how FDR chose to answer those questions.


And as your radioactive cloud circles the globe, creating 500
million
slow
death cancer cases, any wonderful ideas about how we'll keep it out
of
the
US
and the one or two other nations on the globe still friendly toward
us?

You're exaggerating the effects to people outside the "immediate
effect"
range, assuming the attack is done with an "air blast" instead of a
surface
blast. Scientists have made predictions of various scenarios, and
they've
come to the conclusion that air blasts have a lot less delayed
effects
from
radiation fallout. In fact, they've calculated that a 1-Mt air blast
over a
city would have the following delayed effects *worldwide*:

Somatic effects (Cancer deaths, thyroid cancers, thyroid nodules) :
between
1900 and 3700 people worldwide.

Genetic effects (abortions due to chromosomal changes, other genetic
effects): between 450-4500 cases worldwide.

So a worst-case scenario is that 8200 people are affected worldwide
(outside
the "immediate effect" area)...which is certainly lower than the
total
number of people killed in terrorist attacks over the past 2 decades.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/pdfs/7906.pdf (table 14)




Better your 'hood than mine, fella.

Better the Middle East than either of our 'hoods.




If there is a nuclear war, it isn't going to be "contained" where you
would like it.

Come on...you're a lot smarter than that. No one wins nuclear war.

Particularly the ones without nukes.

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
Curtis CCR wrote:
You think the author of this bill really wants a draft? Charlie
Rangel??? How about the co-sponsors? Sheila Jackson-Lee and Pete
Stark want a draft?

I think a draft that does not exclude rich, white kids would be
delightful. It certainly would bring an end to unjustified militarism on
our part.

I have no heartache with that aspect. But the post I responded to
said that "he is calling for a draft," and cites an article that tries
to make it sound like this Bush driven legislation.

I don't have a problem with conscription for all. There are of
course, people that shouldn't serve. There are legitimate medical
excuses - 'Roids and toenail fungus are not among them.

This would not bring an end to militarism on our part. Whether or not
any particular action is "unjustified" is matter of opinion. This
kind of draft will not turn the U.S. into a bunch a french pussies,
despite the best intentions of your party.