What the heck is going on over there?!?

[Clashman]

No, they are two different sites. One is lunaville.org, the other is lunaville.com. Insofar as I can tell, there are no links going from lunaville.org to lunaville.com. There are going the other way, but that isn't the site most people find out about the coalition casualties page. Most find it by doing a google search.

 

[RussSchultz]

Look at the bottom of the page you linked. There's a link there, "A lunaville production".

Strangely, the names of administrators of lunaville.org and the weblog posters at lunaville.com are the same. But no, they're obviously completely different entities.

As an aside: even more strangely, they've toned their rhetoric down, and the weblog that existed before is gone, and replaced with one that does not list the names of the posters. I wonder why that happened?

 

[Clashman]

Look at the bottom of the page you linked. There's a link there, "A lunaville production".

Strangely, the names of administrators of lunaville.org and the weblog posters at lunaville.com are the same. But no, they're obviously completely different entities.

I never said they weren't run by the same people. I said it was very difficult to associate the rhetoric on the one page with the body count on the other, because for the most part the sites exist as separate entities with no, (or as you've shown, very few), directly discernable ties to one another.

 

[DemoCoder]

Somehow thinking that if we institute a draft then it won't be just poor minority kids staffing the ranks.

An urban myth, frequently repeated. It's poor whites, not poor minorities who make up the majority of the grunts sent into the meat grinder.

In December, Rangel offered a proposal to reinstate the military draft, which would generously "let everyone have an opportunity to defend the free world against the threats coming to us." Rangel, and other minority congressmen such as John Conyers contended that a disproportionate number of blacks comprise the enlisted ranks of the military, while more privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent altogether. Hence, minorities would bear the brunt of the hardships incurred in war. They evoked images of the Vietnam War, when black soldiers are perceived to have died at rates far greater than their share of the total U.S. population.

The notion that blacks died disproportionately in Vietnam and continue to shoulder the burden of America's defense seems perfectly plausible, a perception in part fueled by the popular media. If there was ever a perfectly nice theory mugged by a gang of facts, however, this might be the one. Evidence clearly demonstrates that minorities are not over-represented in the armed forces, especially in the combat arms, and a disproportionate number of blacks did not die in Vietnam.

During the Vietnam War, blacks of enlistment age constituted about 13.5 percent of the total U.S. population, while 12.1 percent of the men killed in action were black. Therefore, blacks were not killed at greater rates than their share of the population. The rates were less - 13.5 percent of the population, while accounting for 12.1 percent of battle deaths in Vietnam. This is not to minimize the deaths of these men in any way or to regard them as mere statistics, but the notion that blacks died in Vietnam in disproportionate numbers is patently false.

The belief that blacks bear a disproportionate share of the burden in today' s armed forces has also been proven to be at considerable odds with the evidence. It is true they are in fact over-represented in the aggregate - blacks make up 22.4 percent of all enlisted personnel, compared to 12.4 percent of the civilian population. However, according to Defense Department statistics, blacks are actually underrepresented in combat positions. They only constitute 15 percent of the combat arms, such as infantry, armor and artillery. Only 10.6 percent of the Army's enlisted combat infantrymen are black. Judging from the statistics, if there is any group that has been discriminated against, it is the poor and working class whites who occupy the mainstay of combat billets in the U.S. military - and experience the highest mortality rates.

Black enlistees have been attracted to positions in the armed forces that do not involve direct combat, opting instead for jobs that provide marketable job skills after their terms are up, such as unit administration and communications. In addition, blacks in the military do considerably better than their counterparts in the civilian population, earning on average $32,000 annually, compared to $27,900 in the private sector. All in all, one can hardly make the case that blacks in the armed forces are being discriminated against or are bearing a "disproportionate share of the burden."

It is more than ironic that Rep. Rangel called for a reinstatement of the draft, which would, in true egalitarian fashion, distribute the burdens of military service among every stratum of American society, while concomitantly denying support for the military they would serve in. He worked at cross purposes - proposing a broad national effort to provide the armed forces with the manpower to fulfill their mission, a pro-military gesture to be sure, while voting against a resolution that supports them - which is clearly anti-military. The fact is, this was pure theater on Rangel 's part. He was never serious about reinstating compulsory service, but rather wanted to score points politically to advance an agenda.

Moreover, the who notion of a draft, which is, pick up some civilians, train them for a few weeks, and send them into combat is a recipe for more americans dying, and more collateral damage. If you think morale is low now, and that US soldiers are somewhat losing their cool under a tense situation and being too trigger happy, just imagine what a solider with just 8-12 weeks of training will do.

I doubt the draft would even alter hawkishness, since it is historically not true that the nobility avoided military service, and in previous eras of American history, the well-to-do and gentrified even volunteered for military service.

If anything, a draft would simply force those of the upper class to send their kids to military colleges or engineering positions in the military that avoid direct combat, since 9 out of 10 military positions are support oriented. e.g. I'd volunteer to work on an aircraft carrier or AWACS or JSTARS plane, since it's unlikely either will be shot down.

Those "poor" whites in the Marines are not there because they had no other option. They could have gone to the navy or army and gotten the same college loan or salary. Those people deliberately volunteered for a branch of the military which is KNOWN to suffer the highest casualities and greatest risk. Marines is about proud tradition, not monetary opportunism.

 

[Clashman]

Just to ressurect this one more time, it seems as though there ARE in fact people calling for the UN in Iraq, (although I'm sure you'll dismiss them because they're communists, even if they were by far the largest political party in Iraq pre-Ba'ath).

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._ea/iraq_communists&cid=540&ncid=1473

 

[Sabastian]

Just to ressurect this one more time, it seems as though there ARE in fact people calling for the UN in Iraq, (although I'm sure you'll dismiss them because they're communists, even if they were by far the largest political party in Iraq pre-Ba'ath).

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...on_re_mi_ea/iraq_communists&cid=540&ncid=1473

Your right, to hell with them.

 

[Willmeister]

Oh, Democoder. You kidder!

An urban myth, frequently repeated. It's poor whites, not poor minorities who make up the majority of the grunts sent into the meat grinder.

... just like 'welfare' in the USA. During the great Clintonian 'welfare' debate, someone mentioned that 'welfare' is mostly dominated by white single mothers, not black welfare queens accused of just making babies to increase their welfare checks...

I doubt the draft would even alter hawkishness, since it is historically not true that the nobility avoided military service, and in previous eras of American history, the well-to-do and gentrified even volunteered for military service.

This assumes that your pappy can get your name bumped up on the Texas Air National Guard, or better still, get a deferrment for an anal cyst.

 

[Clashman]

Moreover, the who notion of a draft, which is, pick up some civilians, train them for a few weeks, and send them into combat is a recipe for more americans dying, and more collateral damage. If you think morale is low now, and that US soldiers are somewhat losing their cool under a tense situation and being too trigger happy, just imagine what a solider with just 8-12 weeks of training will do.

This I never disagreed with, and I think Rangel is an idiot for thinking that this will help the situation. As I mentioned earlier, however, Rangel isn't the only one with a draft plan.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03598:

This one also, (fortunately), likely isn't going anywhere. However, as the occupation stretches into it's second and third years, (and unless some divine miracle of intervention takes over, it will), it's going to be nearly impossible to rotate people over there without a draft. Because nobody is re-enlisting right now.

I doubt the draft would even alter hawkishness, since it is historically not true that the nobility avoided military service, and in previous eras of American history, the well-to-do and gentrified even volunteered for military service.

Ummm, no.
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
http://www.awolbush.com/108thsenate.asp
And I'm guessing that there's alot more Democrats who haven't served on that list, they just tend to be slightly less hawkish.

If anything, a draft would simply force those of the upper class to send their kids to military colleges or engineering positions in the military that avoid direct combat, since 9 out of 10 military positions are support oriented. e.g. I'd volunteer to work on an aircraft carrier or AWACS or JSTARS plane, since it's unlikely either will be shot down.

And this I can agree with.

Those "poor" whites in the Marines are not there because they had no other option. They could have gone to the navy or army and gotten the same college loan or salary. Those people deliberately volunteered for a branch of the military which is KNOWN to suffer the highest casualities and greatest risk. Marines is about proud tradition, not monetary opportunism.

Just as a little nit-pick, there. Once "major combat operations" ended in May, most of the Marines were sent home. After 4/27/03, the breakdown of fatalities in Iraq was as follows:

Army: 223 66%
Army National Guard: 30 9%
Army Reserve: 18 5%
Marines: 14 4%

Yes, it is still the Army there, but there's also significant numbers in the National Guard and the Reserves. And the Marines are pretty far down the list. Since the beginning of July, (6/29/03 for our purposes) it's been even more lopsided:

Army: 175 67%
Army National Guard: 29 11%
Army Reserve: 17 7%
Italian Carabinieri: 12 5%
British Army: 5 2%
Italian Army: 5 2%
British Territorial Army: 4 2%
Ukrainian Army: 3 1%
Marines: 2 1%

Once troop rotations start, there will probably be more Marines getting killed, but there's also probably going to be tons more Reserves getting killed as well, as I believe close to half the force in Iraq will be reservists come March or April.

 

[RussSchultz]

Because nobody is re-enlisting right now.

I don't believe that is true. From what I've read, re-elistment quotas have been met and exceeded.

 

[Clashman]

That's not what I'm hearing from all my friends in the armed forces.

 

[Clashman]

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/7336187.htm

It does appear that there are in fact at least some retention and recruiting problems already in the making. As the conflict wears on, I don't see that situation improving.

Edit: I found this part particularly interesting:

The Army also is resorting to a policy called ''stop loss'' that allows the Pentagon indefinitely to keep soldiers from leaving the service once their time has expired. The policy, used during war, is designed to prevent staffing shortfalls in key sectors.

Depending on the scale this is happening on, this could be offsetting larger shortfalls.

Editing some more:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-09-29-reserves_x.htm

The active-duty Army and the Army Reserve both met their recruiting goals for the fiscal year that ends today. The Army National Guard, however, is expected to fall about 15% short of its recruiting goal of 62,000 soldiers.

Although the Guard and Reserve say their retention rates have not suffered this year, the figures could be misleading. Under an order known as "stop loss," soldiers on active duty are prohibited from leaving the service until their tours end.