[RepublicanReptile]

I see pancakes and bunnies and kitties possibly in your future. Have a nice day

[Chummy]

"Vanity", thy name is....

[unfortunately a bluestater]

I believe more should be asked of the American people for the war effort. I don't know exactly what it would be. But, some level of sacrifice would make us more aware of the stakes involved and build American character. It would also, hopefully, make the troops feel part of a larger team, where those at home were participating to help them.

[Bahbah]

"No draft, no taxes, no rationing and no conservation equate to very little cost,...."

There is no draft because one is not needed. I don't know where you are living, but taxes are killing me. Rationing, again, not necessary and there is no need to make "pretend" sacrifices. As for conservation, I don't drive unnecessarily given the rather high cost of gas and the fact that I'm looking for work, but if conservation of something or other were necessary, I'm sure it would occur. Now your point also assumes, in part, that there is no pain to us, no sense of loss, when we lose young people who exemplify the best of us. Oh, and your other arguments aren't very good either.

[DugwayDuke]

Plugging your own website is frowned upon around here. Too commercial.

[MeekOneGOP]

¿¿¿¿¿¿

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[glock rocks]

DarrylC, I didn't read your post.

[Angry Republican]

Since there is no draft, non-military American families need not worry about their sons and daughters being called for duty.

No complaints there.

[glock rocks]

[Angry Republican]

No draft, no taxes, no rationing and no conservation equate to very little cost, effectively lowering any threshold of criteria required for military action.

There's a thought. Let's tax people up the a$$ and draft like crazy. That will certainly drive up the desire to support the war, just like it did in Vietnam!

Idiot.

[glock rocks]

[superskunk]

with a resulting proliferation of military responses to political problems.

Are you actually suggesting that if we talk nice to the terrorists, they'll agree not to kill us?

How trollishly naive of you. If you want to help the soldiers, first acknowledge that they're fighting a righteous war against evil scum for the greatest nation in history. That would be a good start, troll.

[pharmamom]

You're blathering on, so here's a bunny with ten pancakes on its head to distract you while the Viking Kitties get ready to gnaw your heart out.

[superskunk]

It seems like making this war as burdensome as possible would play right into your political agenda, TROLL!

Who cares about the morale of our troops as long as you get to say, "I told you there would be a draft! I told you there would be a tax hike!"

Justify your existence or go away!

[superskunk]

nation will go to war on impulse? The answer is, sadly, “yes.” No draft, no taxes, no rationing and no conservation equate to very little cost

Hey Meek,

Taxes, rationing, conservation - Sounds like we got us an eco-freak here. Jeez, the liberalism is so transparent.

[darkwing104]

What do you suggest we do?

[BJClinton]

[cyborg]

butthead

[Godzilla]

The unfortunate consequence is a foreign policy driven increasingly by military industrial interests, with a resulting proliferation of military responses to political problems.

That arguement is as old as the hills and twice as dusty. Try something more appropriate for this century, not the 60's.

The Cold War was quite a bonanza for defense companies: enormous defense budget outlays without messy casualties.

Oh, and don't forget freedom across eastern Europe and the FORMER Soviet Union.

The War on Terror, on the other hand, while entailing regrettable military and civilian bloodshed, will continue as long as people use violence against civilians to achieve political goals: in other words, forever. It appears to be the gift that will keep on giving.

Excuse me, we didn't start this fight, it was brought to us. If you are so concerned, why don't you move to Canada or Saudi Arabia.

Nothing but flame for a flaming troll.

[Congressman Billybob]

Didn't you recognize that your article fundamentally contradicts itself? First it says that we are not making enough sacrifice for this to be a war. Then it says we are making too much.

Then it says the war is not as important as prior wars. I don't see any mention of how important this war will be, in retrospect, if the terrorists get their hands on a nuclear bomb, and smuggle it to a pier in NY or NJ for detonation.

In short, there isn't any internal consistency in your article. So it leads to no legitimate conclusions. It just wanders over the landscape, and at the end sits down on its hat.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest, "A Tale of Two Grinches, US and UN"