|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| |||||||||||||||
Date: 10/5/2004 6:36:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
It might be wise to click on over to Snopes and learn that this is all a ploy. There is no push or intention from the current administration to re-instate the draft. The bill currently sitting in Congress was engineering by two DEMOCRATIC congressmen to be used primarily as a scare tactic and political disinformation. The Second reason Congressman Rangel introduced the bill was to draw attention to what he claims is a disproportionate amount of minorities in the military, and he feels a nationwide draft will eliminate that. All in all it's just smoke.  |
Date: 10/5/2004 6:46:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
BCAR, Please give the link to this "ploy"? I went there and looked through all the political stuff, could not find it. And furthermore, sometime ago, when I gave a link to Snopes wherein there was a debunking to the "Swiftboat" blather, you ignored and blew it off. NOW, you want to cite Snopes when it suits YOUR agenda.....yeah, I get it now.  |
Date: 10/5/2004 7:06:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
This has been debunked so many times it isn't even funny...try this http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm395513.html--Two DEMOCRATS sponsored these bills and neither have any support. So if you don't want the draft vote republican...but seriously, there is not going to be a draft, this e-mail is only meant to scare people...I heard Charles Rangel (D New York) on the news today. He sponsored one of the bills..and I quote "The bill was meant to make a point. If it ever came up for a vote, one or two people who misunderstand it might vote for it"...  |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 7:08:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
"no intention from the current administration to re-instate the draft"? Hockeysticks. Good grief, BCAR, dodging, re-wording, fancy wordsmithing, pointing fingers, IS all "just smoke" by Bush and this administration. Then, if he gets back in office, and he no longer has to worry about reelection, there WILL be a draft (and it won't be a simple "draw attention to disproportion of minorities" either. I read at THIS site: http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html and it reminds me of when I use to have to interpret Medicare EOB's for patients....same kind of Goverment mumbo-jumbo, legalese jargon, which the powers that be can use to snooker and deceive, then when people have to pay up, or in this case, their sons are drafted to die for Bush's war in Iraq....oops! it is too late. |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 7:10:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
I do have to add that admire democrats for this. They sponsor bills they know Americans will panic over, than blame republicans for the bills although there is no support for them in either party. |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 7:12:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
So...you are going to ignore the fact that both bills were written and sponsored by democrats? |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 7:12:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
Democrats sponsored the bills in case you missed it. |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 7:13:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
Two democrats sponsored the bills.....not republicans, just to make it perfectly clear. |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 7:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
d*e*m*o*c*r*a*t*s to make it crystal clear..vote Republican..they don't send draft legislation they know will scare people like The Thinker into fleeing to Canada. |
Date: 10/5/2004 7:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 50434
I really cant see how this would ever go through you know how many Americans would fight it, and the young people now a days would never sit this one down....so all i can do is say HA good luck.  |
Date: 10/5/2004 7:17:00 AM
From Authorid: 36704
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp  |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 7:18:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Kelly, you gave a link to another post. I went to that post, and checked out the factcheck.org but could find nothing about the issue. Please give the source for Yours and BCAR's statements. |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 7:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
Google is my friend---http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=200 |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 7:29:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Thanks, Base. That says "Probably not". Also... QUOTE: "Although the possibility of a reinstatement of conscription cannot be ruled out, a renewal of the draft anytime soon appears unlikely, and one implemented as early as June 2005 seems rather improbable." PROBABLY not? "Cannot be ruled out"? ummm...this war is gonna drag on for a long long time. Sorry, but the military remaining at voluntary status ? I don't see it that way; don't see as how the draft is "improbable". |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 7:29:00 AM
From Authorid: 36704
http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=200 |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 7:31:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
by the way...what is the source for YOUR information...besides an e-mail forward?? |
Date: 10/5/2004 7:38:00 AM
From Authorid: 12835
I have a second cousin who has a friend that's related by marriage to a democrat, and they said it's true...  |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 7:40:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
SO, the White House and the Pentagon has "denied repeatedly" about a draft; and Rumsfailed says: quote: ""I can't imagine our country going back to a draft. We don't need it. We're able to attract and retain wonderful people the way we're doing it as long as we provide the appropriate incentives". What it comes down to is WHO you choose to believe in this whole mess. BUSH, CHENEY, RUMSFELD have lied and lied and lied. There is no way (my opinion) that a draft won't have to be implemented. Maybe not a quick as was stated here, but sometime within the next two years. They can't keep the current forces there forever, and the growing dissention and disillusioned of many draft age young people says they aren't gonna be volunteering. |
Date: 10/5/2004 7:41:00 AM
From Authorid: 25390
Everybody PANIC!!!  |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 7:41:00 AM
From Authorid: 25390
ahhhh, scare tactics. Gotta love em'. |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 7:45:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
oh, and about Rumsfeld's "incentives" ? Um, here, let me post a letter from a soldier in Iraq: QUOTE: ""I was guarding some Iraqi workers one day. Their task was to fill sandbags for our base. The temperature was at least 120. I had to sit there with full gear on and monitor them. I was sitting and drinking water, and I could barely tolerate the heat, so I directed the workers to go to the shade and sit and drink water. I let them rest for about 20 minutes. Then a staff sergeant told me that they didn't need a break, and that they were to fill sandbags until the cows come home. He told the Iraqis to go back to work. After 30 minutes, I let them have a break again, thus disobeying orders. If these were soldiers working, in this heat, those soldiers would be bound to a 10-minute work, 50-minute rest cycle, to prevent heat casualties. Again the staff sergeant came and sent the Iraqis back to work and told me I could sit in the shade. I told him no, I had to be out there with them so that when I started to need water, then they would definitely need water. He told me that wasn't necessary, and that they live here, and that they are used to it. After he left, I put the Iraqis back into the shade. I could tell that some were very dehydrated; most of them were thin enough to be on an international food aid commercial. I would not treat my fellow soldiers in this manner, so I did not treat the Iraqi workers this way either. This went on for eight months while I was in Iraq, and going through it told me that we were not there for their freedom, we were not there for WMD. We had no idea what we were fighting for anymore."" |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 7:46:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Oddsmell, You want me to go dig up and post one HUGE post filled with SCARE tactics of BUSH and the REPUGS?? Puuullleeeze! |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 7:52:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
LOL! Sorry I missed most of this. Thinker you posted and internet urban legend and got called on it by some folks. True though just because it isn't going to happen doesn't mean it won't happen right? Now feel free to change the subject and rant on about soldiers working in hot weather and other various unrelated issues. What about the Dick Chenny/ Hurricane connection? It's all about construction contracts and diverting attention from social security I hear. |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 7:52:00 AM
From Authorid: 25390
My point is, it doesn't matter WHO'S side it's from (Republican, Democrat, Nader, etc), the fact is that people tend to read this stuff and go into widespread panic over it before looking into whether it holds any real truth to it. Do both political sides do it? I never said they didn't. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be freaking out over something until it starts becoming more of a reality. |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 7:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
I think we need more TRUTH and fewer LIES and real LIBERTY around here. |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 7:59:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Flip-Flop...Rumsfeld says he was "misunderstood". http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1320129,00.html |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 8:03:00 AM
From Authorid: 36704
One staff sergeant in Iraq has no correlation on Rumsfeld or his incentives. I can post just as many positive soldier stories, but what's the point, it has nothing to do with the topic of this post. "Rangel, who did not respond to an interview request, argued in a Time magazine essay last December that the all-volunteer military's use of bonuses and other financial incentives to recruit and retain troops had led to a disproportionate number of poor people serving. Money "will not make the military any more attractive to upper-middle-class young people," wrote Rangel, who served in the Army from 1948-52. "Increasingly we will be a nation in which the poor fight our wars while the affluent stay home." His legislation was meant to "correct the disparity among those who serve," he added." Rangel has his own agenda with these bills, and it has nothing to do with the current administration. |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 8:04:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Oddsmell, DRUDGE accuses Kerry of "cheating": http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc57.htm |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 8:06:00 AM
From Authorid: 36704
What does that link and that story have to do with the topic of a draft? |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 8:08:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Now on DVD: The Passion of the Bush: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/arts/03rich.html?ex=1254628800&en=b7fc7fd6361f12fd&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 8:14:00 AM
From Authorid: 36704
And that link also has nothing to do with this post. Typical Thinker, you somehow turn a post about democratic sponspored draft bills into a Bush administration tirade. |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 8:16:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
The REAL George W. Bush: http://blog.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/archives/002347.html |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 8:28:00 AM
From Authorid: 25390
I think I remember saying this above: "it doesn't matter WHO'S side it's from" as well as "Do both political sides do it? I never said they didn't." Never did I say that the Republicans haven't ever obscured the truth, or used scare tactics. I never said that ONLY the Democrats use scare tactics either. The truth is, both sides do it. This is why I don't vote based on the party itself, but rather on who I think is the best choice. I don't need links on these things, I already know they exist. Again I say, you yourself have to research in to what is true and fair. |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 8:40:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
whatever, Base. And there are those who turn anything posted about Bush into an anti-Thinker and Anti-Kerry tirade as well. I can recall many posts where the stupid "flip-flop" label was used and I posted a list of Bush flip-flops, and many times I would take the time to respond in depth, give sources, etc, only to come back later and the post had either been abandoned or there was no comment or refutation of my statements and or material posted. I'll just say that AS I SEE IT NOW, there will have to be a draft. And let it go at that. This is my opinion, and I am entitled. I base it on all that I have gleaned from many sources. I do hope like hell that I am wrong. |
Date: 10/5/2004 9:04:00 AM
From Authorid: 13729
It was sponsored by Democrats, and I'm sure it would never pass, but I dont think we should be so fast to say that only Democrats use scare tactics.....President Bush and many republicans diverts everything back to 9-11 in an attempt to scare everyone into thinking he is the best man for the job, even though he was on vacation for 49% of his first 9 months in office........  |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 9:04:00 AM
From Authorid: 36704
Thinker there are very rarely any anti-Kerry posts on this site, but there are daily anti-Bush posts sometimes several in one day. You go off on tirades on pro Bush posts, any time you have a chance you take a shot. You name call, and come off as someone obsessed with nothing more than hating Bush and are incapable of having any sort of objective opinion when it comes to do with anything concerning Bush or his administration. This post is a perfect example, you posted something that was nothing more than an untrue email circulating and then turned it into and anti-Bush post, when it had nothing to do with Bush. You asked people for proof, they provided it, Kelly asked you for proof and all you gave were links to stories having nothing to do with this post. Maybe the reason there's no comments or refutations to your tirades anymore, is you long ago lost your credibility. |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 9:21:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
Just for the record, I thought the Kerry cheating story was embarrassing and wrong. The Factcheck.org site is pretty even-handed. They nail both parties on false information put out in campaign ads. This is an election season, in every single election we've ever had (with the exception of Washington and to a lesser extent FDR when he ran his last two terms) both sides put out false information. It isn't new and it isn't unusual. It was pretty nasty 200 years ago to. Back than they had pamplets instead of the internet. Seems like every election season people are always moaning about how nasty things have gotten, when in fact things are the same as usual. Besides, I think this stuff works or otherwise it wouldn't keep happening. I probably wouldn't keep getting e-mails from the Congo or Liberia where they request my account number to help a poor orphan recover millions of dollars, if someone wasn't being suckered in by it despite it being an obvious fraud.... |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 9:38:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Base, you're way off there when you imply that it is just me with "name calling" and Bush bashing. Now, I'm not about to go posting all the links to a ton of posts wherein there were Kerry bashing remarks, and posts where there were remarks made with nothing to back it up. Many times, a certain few would immediately comment on my use of CAPS and remark about me being a "Bush basher", but would not comment on the topic; or even if they did, it was just statements of their own with nothing to back it up. There is absolutely no question that there is a DOUBLE STANDARD when it comes to the Bush supporters. If you haven't noticed that, or don't agree, then continue on with trying to portray me as "lost all credibility". The focus should be on this Administration and their screw-ups, and BUSH's loss of credibility. |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 10:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 36704
But Thinker this post has nothing to do with the Bush administration and that's the point, you turned it into one, and for what reason? I have seen the name calling on the other side, I'm not talking about personal attacks on members of the site, I'm talking about all the name calling towards the Bush administration, yes there is some on the other side, but it doesn't even come close to the amount the Bush haters spew. If someone who has no credibility is trying to accuse someone else of having no credibility, it's not going to go very far. You'd get a lot farther trying to make a point without using names like Rumsfailed, and Bushville etc. and yes that goes for the other side also. |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 10:33:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
In reply to author only: There are charges that the worst lies and smears are by the democrats. NOT TRUE! I've always voted for who I thought was the best candidate, and not voted the Party. I've surfed websites both for and against; both sides, independent and non-partisan; I've read books by both staunch republicans and staunch democrats; ex-military, ex-CIA people, and a whole lot of LISTENING....Listening, to BOTH sides of the issues, and through it all, I try very very hard to REMEMBER who said what, and WHEN they said it, and what is being said later, and.....do not forget this: ALWAYS, I want to refer back to the ENTIRE speech, or ENTIRE transcript of what a candidate says, or a book says, whatever, because I KNOW DARN WELL that words are taken out of context and plastered all over the newspapers and TV screens because that is what the masses want. They want everything all neat and tidy, in one little sound-bite, catchy, "see-there, I-told-you" fast food presentation. Based upon all these different sites, stations, forums, books, ads, films, personal appearances, etc. etc., I have came to my opinion based on reason and not emotion. And I know that I am not alone in my thinking. BUSH does not want any criticism. If it is not optimism out of Iraq, he don't want to hear it. Guess there are TWO Iraqs. The one HERE on Earth, and the other in a time and space perceived ONLY by a select few, the main one being our President. We've seen Iraq go from awful, to downright awful, to whatever comes next after downright awful. The "We're making progress"..."We're moving forward" and "We're getting the job done" remarks by Bush is in sharp contrast , bears little resemblance to just about everything presented by everyone else around the world. Again, let me emphasize: BUSH is the one who should be talked about as "losing credibility" here. He is the one to be criticized, bashed, and BOOTED. Because HE is the one who has totally deceived, he is divorced from reality, stubbornly holding on to his version of how it is (within his own mind) in Iraq, and that is S C A R Y. |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 10:43:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
You could have saved yourself the trouble of trying to defend an indefensable post and just posted, "I hate Bush". You are after all entitled to your opinion so why bother trying to wrap it up in something else? |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 10:56:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
And you are entitled to your opinion, so why try to wrap it up in "you just hate Bush" or something else? |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 11:07:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
So this whole post falls into what catagory? Bush is planning a draft though there is no proof he wants a draft. That sounds neat and tidy to me all wrapped up in an e-mail that fails to mention some key realities, that the bills are written by two democrats who have no real intent on seeing them passed...this post was originally about a draft wasn't it? |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 11:36:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
There is nothing "neat and tidy" about the whole Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld war. And, Kelly, since when was there ever a post about anything on USM wherein people stuck to the original topic? |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 11:51:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
A Wall Street Journal correspondent says "In Baghdad, it is unsafe to talk to strangers, eat in restaurants, shop for groceries, take a drive, speak English, be an American". The New York Times reports that 2,300 insurgent attacks took place in Iraq during a recent 30-day period----thats an average of 76 car bombs, land mine explosions, rocket propelled grenade assults, shootings and mortar strikes every day. "It's getting worse" says Secretary of State Colin Powell. "Right now we are not winning" says Republican senator Chuck Hagel. "The situation has obviously been somewhat deteriorating" says Republican senator John McCain. In July, the National Intelligence Council issued a 50-page report representing the consensus of the U.S. intelligence community on the likely course of things in Iraq. It foresaw continuing instability and possible civil war. Repeat: there will have to eventually be a draft. |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 11:52:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
Well, you got me there. |
Date: 10/5/2004 11:54:00 AM
From Authorid: 5886
About 2 months before I heard about the draft bill, the father of someone I went to school with (who's now in the Navy) says "In the military, it's common knowledge there's going to be a draft after the elections." Think people, you hear about it everywhere on the news about there not being enough manpower in Iraq, how our troops are being forced to stay there much longer than they're supposed to. How do you think they'll remedy this? More soldiers comming out of thin air? There's no possible way we'll be able to invade another country with our current soldier shortage, but with the Bush administration constantly talking about a mounting nuclear threat in Iran, I don't think they're just going to wait around. The whole point of pre-emption is to go after enemy nations before they get powerful weapons. My dad saw that e-mail a while ago and wrote to our congressmen, and got replies from both of them basicly saying "We don't support this bill now, BUT if the need arises..." The need has been around for a long time, and reguardless of who wins the election, a draft will be almost certian. If those 2 bills get discarded, what's stopping them from thinking up another one to take their place? If we have another terrorist attack, you can bet such a bill will get passed as quickly & quietly as the Patriot Act was.  |
Date: 10/5/2004 11:54:00 AM
From Authorid: 52155
http://www.catherinespreadingmorelies.org/bushdraft.html  |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 12:04:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
http://www.braintransplant/eddoFund.com |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 12:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 1:12:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
An article by a retired USAF Sargent with a degree in personnel administration? Yup, sure puts to rest any question about a draft fer me. *grin* |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 1:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
And a person with no military or political experience, with a degree in cosmotology, sure means there's gonna be a draft fer me *grins* |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 3:23:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Well, Base, I never claimed to be any expert; never claimed to be anything. Just offered my opinion and why. I prefer to listen to John Kerry, whose opinion I value much more than the Sargent. I also prefer to listen to General Clark. I prefer to rely on my ability to look at the facts regarding this godawful fiasco that this administration got us into, and then voice my opinion. No one is twisting anyones arm and insisting they agree with it. Thank you for your replies though. Hope you are going to watch the debate tonight. I look forward to Edwards nailing Cheney on his lies. |
Date: 10/5/2004 3:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
As Rebel Soul stated, when you talk to the people who are in the military, there is little option left but to reinstate the draft, or some form thereof. My cousin recently transferred from a Navy Manpower post to a fleet command. His previous duties included working with others to mandate the manning requirements for various fleet and shore commands. When he first went to Manpower, the actual manning rate for fleet units was at 90% of set standards. For an aircraft carrier with 6000 people, that meant manning them with only 5400 people. When he left Manpower, there were carriers that were actually putting to sea at only 65% manning. That translates to a crew of 3900 for a ship designed to be operated by 6000. How does the military make up those numbers? There is only one option, and that is a draft. Personally, I would love to see a mandatory service put into place, with mandatory service expanded from the previous two years, to no less than four years. This would increase the readiness of the military to repsond to more than one crisis situation worldwide with full force, and also provide for a future workforce that is of a lot higher calibre than today's workforce. It could also lead to a reduction in prison populations, since it would take kids who are prone to conduct which could lead to imprisonment, and instill in them a higher degree of responsibility and discipline, and at the same time potentially teach them a skill that will help them on the outside. Regardless of who sponsored the bill, it is one bill that is long past due, and should be passed with the utmost speed.  |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 3:33:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
And this is not the first time you've mentioned the "cosmotology" thing. I would sincerely appreciate it if you stop with the "cosmotology" cheapshots. That was over 35 years ago; thank you very much. I don't know why you and BCAR rag on me so much. I'm only voicing my opinion. ONE lowly opinion. I'm a peon; really, a nobody, and haven't much skill at expressing myself effectively, but what I am is someone who is very passionate about this most important issue, and the consequencies of this administrations failures for America and all of us. |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 3:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
I'll stop with the cosmotology thing if it bothers you, sorry about that. That's only the second time I've done it and I don't "rag" on you. Disagree with you, sure, but that's what makes it interesting. I will be watching the debate, I like Edwards and regret the democrats didn't elect him as their presidential candidate. I am sorry if you were offended by my comment. |
Date: 10/5/2004 4:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 19092
Looks like someone went fishing, and caught a sucker...But, my opinion...I wish it were manditory for ALL citizens between the ages of 18 and 26 to serve 4 years.  |
| Date: 10/5/2004 5:44:00 PM ( Admin-DNL ) I hope this isn't true I wouldn't last a day in service. The drill sergeant would make me cry lol. Sorry I know this is a serious post. I am really hoping that this doesn't happen... |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 7:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
I am going to say something that while not exactly concerning the subject at hand, does have a lot to do with it. What I have to say may tick a few people off, but so be it. Everytime the idea of the draft being reinstated comes up, there are those who say, "No!!", "Not my son (daughter, husband, brother)". To those who think that way, I have one question. What makes you think that your child, spouse, or sibling is any better than anyone in the past who was drafted and served their country? What makes them any better than my father who was drafted in 1961, my uncle who was drafted in 1960, or my neighbor who was drafted in 1971? Plain and simple, they are not any better, and should the draft be reinstated, any who shirk their duty should not only be imprisoned, but also stripped of every right and freedom that they enjoy as an American, because it was the blood of those who served before that guaranteed them those rights and freedoms. |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 8:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 19092
AMEN!!! Well said TwoSpirit, may I shake your hand? |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 8:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
I don't oppose a draft for that reason Two Spirit, no one is any better than anyone else. I don't think it would better our military to implement one though, forcing people into something they don't want to do seems like it would bring the overall morale down. |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 8:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 15228
Two Spirit, that was well said and I agree. I still think it is wrong to say there is going to be a draft just to scare people into voting for a certain party though.... |
|
Date: 10/5/2004 8:45:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
And MY position is: There would be NO NEED for any draft if it weren't for this preemptive war in Iraq. As Kerry and Edwards have said: The American people need to always be told the truth. |
|
Date: 10/6/2004 3:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
Catherine, even without this war we have reached a point where we once again need a draft. If you notice the dates, my father and uncle were both drafted not in a time of war, unless you take into account the Cold War. The fact is that with the end of the Cold War, our military was drawn down so much that we are no longer able to respond to a crisis in more than one area of the world, without taking troops from some other sorely needed spot. The first Gulf War proved that point, yet the drawdown continued for the next 10 years. During Desert Shield/Storm, with the number of troops and equipment deployed to the Gulf, we would have been unable to respond properly if the Korean Peninsuela had once again gone "hot". In fact, over half of the 9th Air Force units, which were the response units for action in Korea, were either ectively actively involved in the Gulf, or preparing for deployment to the Gulf. Even now, the action in Iraq and Afghansitan requires as much as 80% of the Army's resources to mainain an appropriate rotation. Even though the Cold War is over, their is still a need for a military big enough to protect American resources on more than one front. |
|
Date: 10/6/2004 4:11:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
Base, many states have passed laws that require students to stay in school until they reach a certain age or achievement level, or face various consequences, even though there are many who would rather not be there. If a compulsary service were put in effect, where a person had to do some form of federal service, I do not think you would see the low moral many believe you would see. Yes, you would at first, but before long that would change. I would ask, have you ever seen the movie Starship Troopers? In that movie, the requirements for rights as a citizen were service. As draconion as that idea sounds, if young people had to do service to this country to gain the rights of a citizen, then I can assure you that many would be more than happy to serve. As a veteran, I use extremely few of the services or resources afforded to me. There are many though who take advantage of every resource the government has to offer without having ever done a single thing for this country, incuding exercising their right to vote. If certain privileges and resources were made exempt unless they agreed to serve their country in some capacity, then the overall benefit to all Americans would be much greater. |
|
Date: 10/6/2004 6:07:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
Just a big FYI, Democratic Rep. Charles Rabgels bill was voted down yesterday by a vast majority of Congress. It is dead, dead, dead. And honestly I think a draft is the best way to get a true cross section of Americans if needed. My objection with this whole incident is that it was meant to be and used as a political ploy and nothing else. |
|
Date: 10/6/2004 9:53:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
And Rangel voted against his own bill! |
|
Date: 10/6/2004 6:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 5886
I don't believe one bit that we "need" a draft, if Bush could convince us that this war is really in the interests of defending our country, we would have enough volenteers to fill those spots. Our troops in Iraq probably aren't even sure what they're dying for anymore, now that it's been revealed Saddam was never a threat to us. Instead of safeguarding us from terrorists, we've just destablized a country and turned it into a breeding ground for them. Now I see someone actually hoping that this country will begin forcing its young adults to fight for a false cause? If all of our manpower were concentrated on Afghanistan, bin Laden would have long ago been in our custody. Anyway, point being that I'd rather not have to give up all the plans I've made for my life so I can go get taken atvantage of by my government and possibly die in a desert land playing the roll of an invader & occupier. |
|
Date: 10/6/2004 7:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 5886
"It is a very improbable supposition that any people can long remain free with a strong military power in the heart of their country, unless that military power is under the direction of the people, and even then it is dangerous." -Sam Adams |
|
Date: 10/6/2004 7:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 15228
Rebel Soul makes me wish for a draft, just to see people like him with a shaved head and in a cooks uniform in the mess hall serving up slop to his fellow "invaders and occupiers" would be worth it. Oh well, I can dream. |
|
Date: 10/6/2004 8:42:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
^^^That is very cold-hearted, very cold....Kelly. Reminds me of the evil Cheney out on the campaign trail where he implys that we're all doomed if we don't vote for Bush; and his tone of voice is as if he really don't care either, and that tone is "if you don't vote for Bush you'll get what you deserve". *shudder* |
|
Date: 10/7/2004 10:46:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
Guess I'm just a cold-hearted person. Or wait! I'm just a person who doesn't think my husband who served or people I know who died in Iraqi Freedom can be insulted by some snot-nosed kid who would only serve his country if...well, what is the criteria for those who are whinning over the draft??? When would they come down from there cozy, Ivory towers and serve? Would it probably be never? I doubt most of these kids would recongnize a Hitler if he knocked on their door, did the nazis salute and personally invited them to join the Hitler youth. So, they are off the hook, their won't be a draft. They can shut there mouths about those who do the dirty work though. |
|
Date: 10/7/2004 11:35:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Kelly, this issue has nothing to do with the fine and brave soldiers who do sign up and volunteer for service, and do their job. NO ONE is ever downing them or thinks bad of them whatsoever. It is all about elected officials who send them into a war on pretense; who manufactures reasons for their own political or financial gains. All the re-wording, fancy schmancy wording and back-door stop-loss whatever's they can come up with to pull the wool over our eyes they will use. Now, you can make silly remarks about Hitler and Nazi's all you want, but it is just plain outright silly blathering emotional appeals to the ignorant and the uninformed. |
|
Date: 10/11/2004 10:08:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
No what it is about is someone's hatred for President Bush, I get it you hate "cowboys", and in line with that you swallowed a contrived draft bill and a follow up internet forwarded chain letter hook line and sinker. Then having realized that you were being called on it and proven to be at best the spreader of a hoax, you decided to go the old "bash away" route to cover. Hypocritical, nothing more nothing less. Turn it around when the facts don't suit you. |
|
Date: 10/11/2004 10:14:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Look in a mirror, BCAR. Reality check time. Hypocrisy is what Bush Co and the Republicans are all about. All Bush has to run on is FEAR. That, and taking a word or phrase out of context and try to make it look like something else. They prattle on about Kerry being a flip flop, when in truth, just one word applies to Bush. He is a FLOP. Lie, twist and denial is what Bush is best at. His house of cards is folding. Soon You'll all wind up down at detox trying to get rid of all that Kool-Aid . |
|
Date: 11/12/2004 7:04:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
For the author only replier: I totally understand; and I stand with you 100%. I agree with everything you've said. You are NOT alone. I'm hearing the same reaction from many young people. One guy said he does not believe in war; and follows his deep faith and the "Thou shalt not Kill" commandment, but if they came on his property to force him to fight in Iraq, he said they would surely see a "war" and he feels that that that would be justified. Thanks....and let's hope you never have to go. |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
