http://disqus.com/people/13a6764b49b96cd931560bd71ca0d56b/enTue, 25 Aug 2009 09:08:05 -0000http://rogelsview.disqus.com/too_much_to_ask_for/#comment-1227636Painful. Absolutely painful.WulfTue, 12 Dec 2006 21:48:31 -0000http://washingtonindependent.disqus.com/birthers_the_movie/#comment-15349850Well, what goes around comes around. The Left has their embarrassing fringe making asinine movies, and now the Right fringe has got hold of the idea. Good, it'll keep the moderates more honest.WulfTue, 25 Aug 2009 09:08:05 -0000http://cafehayek.disqus.com/rather_than_conscript_why_not8230/#comment-13613768<p>The issue is, could you set this up so there was a greater incentive for those who do stay in? Steeper pay charts, delay the more valuable schooling, etc? My signing bonus was not delivered until successful completion of two years of school, which was a good incentive not to fail out, but what is a few dollars incentive to someone whose next mission is viewed as likely to end in death? It&#39;s hardly comparable.</p><br><p>While Mr. Boudreaux&#39;s proposal is interesting, but it simply is not workable, for the reason Randy noted. You have to be able to put the military in situations that are far worse than cops or firefighters deal with, and know that they will stick to it. &quot;Quitting&quot; has to be seen as both dishonorable and practically impossible - which is how it is currently viewed by most enlisted personnel. The so-called &quot;brotherhood&quot; of those who serve together gets that name because you view your shipmate or platoon as practically permanent, like family. Like them or hate them, you know your fellows will be there - they cannot just quit and go home. Abandoning your mates makes as much sense as abandoning your family - it is only for the most upside-down of horrific situations. That is the only way a military can perform its ugly function.</p>WulfThu, 08 Dec 2005 15:36:30 -0000