Mike Works said:So I'M trolling because I'm asking the liberals in this thread to back up their neo-dem left wing crazy monkey claims with, oh, i don't know, FACTS?
I didn't know this forum was hosted by CBS.
Oh wow, an article from a Newsweek editor;evil solrac v3.0 said:
The only thing more left wing than Newsweek would be the 47th story of the Northern WTC tower that was decimated by the port side of that airplane carrying hundreds of brave heroes from this very United States of America. Sure, you could support a party whose iconology is represented by a tool of terror which resulted in the impromptu mass slaughtering of thousands of innocent American lives, if you WANT. You should just thank your God, whoever he MIGHT be (allah lover) that we had a TRUE LEADER behind the wheel that is this great land on 9/11. Bush had the STONES to drop bombs on Iraq, a proven provider and supplyer of WMD's within the past few decades.
TheDuce22 said:I get the feeling alot of the youth of america would join up with the al qaeda before they allow themselves to be drafted by their country.
Lebanon Wire said:According to White House sources, the USS John F. Kennedy was deployed to the Arabian Sea to coordinate the attack on Iran. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld discussed the Kennedy's role in the planned attack on Iran when he visited the ship in the Arabian Sea on October 9. Rumsfeld and defense ministers of U.S. coalition partners, including those of Albania, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Iraq, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Poland, Qatar, Romania, and Ukraine briefly discussed a very "top level" view of potential dual-track military operations in Iran and Iraq in a special "war room" set up on board the aircraft carrier. America's primary ally in Iraq, the United Kingdom, did not attend the planning session because it reportedly disagrees with a military strike on Iran. London also suspects the U.S. wants to move British troops from Basra in southern Iraq to the Baghdad area to help put down an expected surge in Sh'ia violence in Sadr City and other Sh'ia areas in central Iraq when the U.S. attacks Iran as well as clear the way for a U.S. military strike across the Iraqi-Iranian border aimed at securing the huge Iranian oil installations in Abadan. U.S. allies South Korea, Australia, Kuwait, Jordan, Italy, Netherlands, and Japan were also left out of the USS John F. Kennedy planning discussions because of their reported opposition to any strike on Iran.
In addition, Israel has been supplied by the United States with 500 "bunker buster" bombs. According to White House sources, the Israeli Air Force will attack Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr with the U.S. bunker busters.The joint U.S.-Israeli pre-emptive military move against Iran reportedly was crafted by the same neo-conservative grouping in the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney's office that engineered the invasion of Iraq.
Fragamemnon said:
Lighten Up-Enjoy the Draft!
All humor aside, there's no way to sustain unilateral Bush Doctrine policies without mandatory conscription unless the world stays perfectly calm and there's no ethnic cleansings, invasions of soverign nations, terrorist attacks like Unca Dick keeps scaring people every day with, or rogue nations with WMDs.
The odds of at least one of those things situations coming up during the Bush presidency are very high-indeed, every President since the end of the Cold War has had to deal with some permutations of the above, and they generally required significant troops assests.
Our military is stretched to the breaking point. We've deployed the National Guard overseas and are grabbing people from the Inactive Ready Reserve. We're instituting stop-loss policies to prop up force capability. There will be three optins when faced in the next four years if we go with the Bush doctrine against one of the above events-refuse the draft, and so overextend ourselves to the point of losing everywhere, one is the draft, and the other is massive mercenary usage. Two of those lead to failure, only one (the draft) has a hope of suceeding.
That's the point here-we'll be put in a position where if we want to fight the terrorists or evildoers, we've got to put on the draft. That's how it will be spun, in conjunction with clever tried-and-true Orwellian doublespeak. It will be left unsaid that a multilateral policy and effective diplomacy wins without the draft.
It *is* coming folks. It won't just affect the 18-25 set either. The military will be looking to fill in highly-trained positions with drafted folks with good skillsets-computer programmers , system administrators, and medical technicans/residents especially, look for a special draff just for you.
I'm glad my girlfriend is a Belgian citizen. She might have a exceedingly picky taste for chocolate and beer, but at least I know I've got a plan to win the peace, so to speak. No fucking way am I going to fight for that warmongerin POS installed by our judiciary branch.
Yes, they were. They were from predominantly poor and minority districts, and there bills were worded as such as to institute a draft that would make the rich and powerful have to give up their sons and daughters as equally as the poor, powerless, and undereducated. It was a symbolic gesture presented to expose the rank hypocrisy of the rich and powerful to send soldiers to die despite having virtually no risk whatsoever to their own children. One doens't need to look past the current circle of GOP leaders and pundits to know that deferential treatment is given to those in power or with wealth.
Sal Paradise Jr said:See that's the thing i'm not understanding from others.
They continue to repeat that such a bill would be defeated in Congress. And it would... if the situation were like it is right now. But what if we try to fight any other war? Well, i'd imagine Congress would have less choice on the matter.
Tenguman said:You guys DO know the biggest proponents of the draft bill were democrats?
Boogie said:How would Congress have less choice on the matter? Couldn't Congress overrule the president if tried to start another war? /slightly unfamiliar with particulars of American Government
myzhi said:Apparantly, not. The DNC has fool many GA posters.
Sal Paradise Jr said:Yes, but I'm talking about a mandatory war. A war where we wouldn't have a choice in participating.
DarthWoo said:Actually, most of us do know that, but also know that this advocacy was merely a sarcastic gesture by the Democrats who felt that everyone was a little too trigger-happy on the war front, not considering the results of sending the all-volunteer army into an unwinnable war of occupation.
At the same time, we also know that the current administration in the White House is amongst the most untrustworthy of all time, so any of their claims that there would never be a draft are hardly reliable.
MrAngryFace said:I try not to think of such things.