Funny how the corporate bankruptcy laws have changed over the last few years. The large companies with huge pension plans negotiated with unions have, through lobbying, managed to change the laws enough to leave loopholes that allow them to escape from the burden (negotiated and promised though it was) of these plans.

Unfortunately, the companies continue to make money while a lot of the burden of these pension and health care liabilities are dumped onto the taxpayer. And every business that gets in financial trouble due to corporate mismanagement will be lining up.

You know, when you and I as individuals, enter into a contract and then do not honor the contract, we don't have the protections that these huge companies have.

I think I have a little more sympathy than most of you for the guys who work their 30 and then have a large portion of their future taken away.

My mistake. Posted wrong thread.

But, dammit, that general who quit will get his pension. Mark my word. 'cause he works for the government, and they have to follow the rules.

"But, dammit, that general who quit will get his pension. Mark my word. 'cause he works for the government, and they have to follow the rules."

I can see you haven't had to deal much with the government. Ask any career soldier how that "free medical care for retirees" thing worked out.

Kevin has a good point. Anyone who has to deal with a Vet's hospital or clinic is ready to throw in the towel because of inefficiency and bungling...typical government entity. My dad, a Korean vet, died before ever needing their help, but so many others have the most frustrating stories to tell and it's a shame. Do many government jobs require a quota of stupid people?

Colleen,
If they were smart they'd be in the public sector, making real money
Like Doug.

I have wondered whether the "UN observer force" on the ground in southern Lebanon actually might have observed the construction of missile launchers and the transportation of the various missiles. Nobody has ever said whether they did or didn't observe or report such things. I sure would like to know.

They were too busy checking out all those pre-teen Lebanese girls to notice.

David, not only did the "UN observer force" observe the construction of launch sites and transport of ordnance, but they broadcast and published daily real-time intelligence on Israeli troop movements. You can read more about it here:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/622bqwjn.asp

"...and which many on the left want to revert to a draftee force, precisely because such forces have a hard time fighting wars like the one we,"

Where in the piece you linked to is it written that, "We should have a draft because drafted troops are less effective?"

(leaving aside, of course, the question of how one link to commondreams.org can stand in for the opinion of "many on the left")

The Commondreams article wasn't especially articulate about *any* merits to the draft - but as a matter of fact draftee militaries are, man for man, less effective than volunteer ones. There are exceptions, of course; draftees fight for their national survival just fine (Israel, for example). But as a rule, man for man, draftees aren't as effective in combat as volunteers.

So nations with draftee militaries either adopt VERY conservative military strategies (Israel, Norway, Sweden, Cold-war era West Germany, Switzerland) or strategies that allow for the inefficiencies and waste of draftee militaries, including the waste in terms of casualties (North Korea, World War II-era US) that accompany draftee militaries.

And people on the left - like Rep. Jerry Nadler, who has proposed the return of the draft - know this, but figure that imposing a draft will force the Administration to fight future wars (and/or the present war) with all the disadvantages of a conscript military.

Which, like most left-wing military ideas, is madness; draftee militaries have to make up in force what they lack in military skill (as we saw in Vietnam, to say nothing of World War II) when they DO have to fight, or accept casualties that'll make present-day Americans blanche...

...or just not fight. Which is fine, if you assume the rest of the world is just going to leave us alone.

So you were simply mistaken when you wrote that, "many on the left want to revert to a draftee force, precisely because such forces have a hard time fighting wars like the one we [are currently fighting]"?

Um, no - I merely conjoined a larger idea with the one in the Commondreams article.

So you were making stuff up?

"So you were making stuff up?"

No, but you just did.

Let me elaborate - perhaps more that the ever-sneering, ever-"gotcha"-ing Joshua rates:

One of Jerry Nadler's stated goals in moving to reinstitute the draft was to make it more difficult to use the military overseas.

One of the reasons it's more difficult to use a conscript military overseas is that draftees are, man for man, not as capable or skilled as volunteers. Their morale tends to tank much faster, their unit cohesion breaks down sooner, their ability to carry on a battle isn't as great.

So, Josh, why doncha show me what's "made up?"

Either that, or resort to your usual sneering scatological dismissal.

"So, Josh, why doncha show me what's 'made up?'"

You have yet to cite anything that would support the conclusion that, "many on the left want to revert to a draftee force, PRECISELY BECAUSE such forces have a hard time fighting wars like the one we [are currently fighting]"?

Basically you're working off a faulty syllogism. Something along the lines of, "Exercising causes you to sweat, Bob likes to exercise, therefore Bob likes to sweat."

While it's possible that Bob likes to sweat, he probably exercises for the cardiovascular benefits and may even consider sweating an unfortunate side effect. Unless you actually cite an example of Bob saying he exercises because he likes to sweat a supposition that Bob exercises PRECISELY BECAUSE he wants to sweat would be just that-- pure supposition. In other words, something you "made up."

Furthermore, even if there was a case for concluding that Bob exercises because he likes to sweat, that still wouldn't guarantee the conclusion that, "MANY who exercise do so PRECISELY BECAUSE they want to sweat."

In conclusion, you have yet to cite anything to support the supposition that anyone on the left wants to reinstate the draft "precisely because" it would lead to a less effective armed forces and, even if you were to cite such a case-- or even a small group of cases --it would not necessarily guarantee the conclusion that "many on the left" want to reinstate the draft for the reason you've stipulated.

No? Okay, well, I tried.

Joshua,

No? Okay, well, I tried.