Bush vs. The Axis of Evil - TL
Or a certain Illinois politician, for that matter, could end up his running mate.
What is "Lopez's final days"?
And I guess that people will simply ignore Kim to this point. But I'm not surprised if SOUTH Korean destroys the infrastructure and then blame Kim for this...
Well, I think that should be clarified, because what I normally see in the use of this argument is that they limit themselves to "he dodged the draft", as if they believed that that alone is something so immensely evil that it already forever disqualifies whoever does, regardless of whether the draft dodger has done much worse things (as is the case in the Bush Jr. example).
But yes, I agree that it is very hypocritical to avoid the draft and then send other people to die in wars not very different from the one you tried to avoid.
It's just that I'm a little tired of seeing Americans who call themselves anti-war and proudly boast that they themselves would avoid the draft if they were called up, using that to criticize someone else.
It only makes them seem hypocritical for claiming that it is evidence of evil for someone to do something that they themselves admit they would do if they were in that situation.
It's even frivolous when you consider that in many cases it is used against people who are responsible for much worse things and with whom people are less likely to empathize than "avoiding being drafted against your will."
Also I agree with your valoration about Bush in this posts.
EDIT: To clarify, the core of my criticism is to question the appropriateness of the use of "this person dodged the draft" as the most serious accusation that can be made against a person, and what should be highlighted most when criticizing that person, especially if is someone who, as in the GWBush example, is directly responsible for much worse things including the commission of war crimes.
At no point have I intended to defend morality or honesty or the figure of GWBush and nothing I said should be used to try to affirm this.
Last edited:
Solano Lopez's final stand against the Brazilian Empire I believe
Francisco Solano López - Wikipedia
Pretty much what @Aluma said, with how it devastated Paraguay and all that.
Kim! Finally, a national leader who makes Lopez look positively non-ruinous by comparison.Francisco Solano López - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Pretty much what @Aluma said, with how it devastated Paraguay and all that.
The funny thing about the Kim comparison to Lopez and the whole draft dodging discussion is that Solano Lopez's enemy, Pedro II, could be considered the antithesis of that since he threatened to abdicate the crown if he wasnt allowed to fight in the Paraguayan War himself and even went as
"Brazilian Soldier 01"
Like imagine Bush saying he'll give up the Presidency if he isnt allowed to fight in Iran or Korea himself lol, our history is so funny
"Brazilian Soldier 01"
Like imagine Bush saying he'll give up the Presidency if he isnt allowed to fight in Iran or Korea himself lol, our history is so funny
Bush served though so to call him a "Draft Dodger" is inaccurate.
Yes it's likely that his fathers money and position made getting into the Texas Air National Guard easier but he still had to attend and pass the two year "Officers Training Program" (for people who already have a collage degree) and the pilot training program to get into active service. Cheney was very much a Draft Dodger especially in the sense of being put into a position of military importance (Secretary of Defense) having never served.
The main reason Americans feel that being labeled a "Draft Dodger" or more specifically being accused of never serving in modern context is that politicians who have never served very often have power and ability to help or hinder the US military and it's veterans and are called out for this fact when they "use" the military or veterans as propaganda or claim to be supportive but are not. (Recent events being a good example of this issue)
"Draft Dodger" is used to suggest that someone puts "something" as a priority over serving the nation, Cheney being a literal example of this. But it has been losing meaning for decades due to the lack of a draft in the US all volunteer force because it's more specific to the Vietnam era.
ITTL due to a new draft that of course will be more often used that in OTL for that reason.
Randy
When or if Bush drops the nukes, am extremely anxious what would the domestic and international reaction to that is
Good thing its fiction and the emotional impact is entirely dependent on your own personal feelings which you should be able to ignore if you wanted to
I have seen him still getting ridiculed nonetheless on account of his service being fairly cushy and devoid of combat.
Essentially the world is holding it's breath here as has been pointed out Kim has already "breached" US policy with chemical, then biological and now radiation weapon attacks and the policy of the US is very clear that the US WILL retaliate when and where it choses. Domestically I don't think it will play to well but that's more down to the NeoCons around Bush having pretty much burned every bridge that had with the American public. (Edit: To be clear the new draft is going to effect a LOT of the base supporters of the NeoCons by putting THEIR sons and daughters in danger involuntarily. You can bet this will effect the legacy and voting record of those parents and voting age draftees)
OTL Afghanistan was confusing to most American's as they might of harbored Bin Laden but what were we doing there "after that". Iraq was mostly seen as 'finishing' what we'd started a decade before, but what then and why as it was clear Iraq had nothing to do with our 9/11. Then you pile on Iran and then North Korea and the whole "Axis of Evil" argument is pretty shaky and in context while the NeoCons were good at getting us INTO 'trouble' they had very few clues on what to do afterward and here it's going to both look and be worse.
World opinion is going to be mixed with some nations critical of the use of nukes but still supporting the US general policy, ("dirty" bombs are really too easy to make and you want to squash that idea as soon as possible) some wondering "out load" what took the US so long and others supporting the decision. I don't think you'll have any dissenting opinions, (I figure Japan will remain on the fence about it due to its history with the US but it's recent history with North Korea my publicly trump that history)
Oh I have too but it's still wrong as he DID serve and as a Texas Air Guard pilot he was considered a firm member of the defensive line of the US. "Cushy" well anyone who didn't actually go to Vietnam (and there were thousand of them) were considered that by the people fighting in Vietnam. More to the point being a member of the military even in Texas of the day meant that you tended to get "stink eye" and shunning by a large percentage of the US population at the time.
As for a lack of combat, keep in mind his "role" (and those around him) was to stop Soviet bombers from reaching the US cities so that's actually a GOOD thing
Similarly it's like people who don't understand the military often took exception to his being made a "First Lieutenant" in their eyes "right out of Basic Training"!
Well yes but that's how the "Officer Training School" route works. Unlike enlisted who are trained for a similar length of time, (IIRC the basic and advanced/technical training took anywhere from a couple of months to over a year. In context my original tech training took 3 months, my second career training took almost a full year) OSS is JUST training to be an officer whereas an "Academy" stint is both a four-years collage AND officer training. As noted people like Bush already HAD collage degrees so only needed the shorter OSS training in being an officer.
Now if people are willing to drill down into the "mud" of the actual issue you can easily come up with facts and evidence to support claiming he was in fact a mediocre officer and pilot and leveraged his fathers position to avoid some duties and responsibilities which DOES make his actual 'service' level as questionable at best but he DID serve.
While that does not really translate well to most civilians it's DOES carry a lot of weight for veterans and the active duty military.
As an example OTL's Bush could not get Congress to allocate money for the Missile Defense system work he wanted, so he and NeoCons generated what is known as a "BRAC" or "Base Realignment And Closure" review which to make it NOT be a football in politics was unable to be shut down once started. Hence we had base closures and a personnel drawdown WHILE the US was ramping up after 9/11. And though the Democrats called the NeoCon's on this (as did Veteran and Military support groups) this got buried and forgotten due to the instigation of the "War on Terror". (TTL it is probably mostly forgotten by the general public but with a reintroduction of the draft I suspect that a large segment of those "draftees" will know about it and make it an actual issue once they get home.
Randy
Last edited:
Well they better act quick because Hezbollah isn’t doing too hot atm. 😛
Last edited:
