• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Hellooooooooooooooo Draft

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheDuce22

Banned
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. There is no way it would work.
 
evil solrac v3.0 said:
Oh wow, an article from a Newsweek editor;

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.

If Gore was in office, he wouldn't even be able to press that big red button, because it'd still be locked away in his lockbox.

But yeah, great, an article from Leftweek that says something bad MIGHT happen if Bush stays in power. Oh yes, great facts you've got there. Please sir, may I have some more? I'M NOT QUITE FULL FROM YOUR BULLSHIT YET
 

xexex

Banned
Bush or Kerry will need more troops so U.S. can invade Iran. and then face down those crazy North Korean motherfuckers.
 

Keio

For a Finer World
This possible attack on Iran has been discussed in other news sources as well.

http://www.lebanonwire.com/0410/04102002LW.asp

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:
armynewx.jpg


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.


Like I said in an earlier thread: I hear Belgium is nice this time of year.
 
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.

Our military is already stretched wayyyy to thin.
 

Boogie

Member
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.

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
 
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


Yes, but I'm talking about a mandatory war. A war where we wouldn't have a choice in participating.
 

DarthWoo

I'm glad Grandpa porked a Chinese Muslim
myzhi said:
Apparantly, not. The DNC has fool many GA posters.

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.
 

Boogie

Member
Sal Paradise Jr said:
Yes, but I'm talking about a mandatory war. A war where we wouldn't have a choice in participating.

What the hell do you mean by a mandatory war? Whatever you mean by that, I'd say the risk is rather low, considering the U.S. hasn't really fought in any mandatory wars, and whatever type of war Bush might attempt, it sure as hell isn't going to be mandatory.
 

myzhi

Banned
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.


1) Still questionable that most GA posters know.

2) Draft is done by Congress. I have not heard of any leading Congress - members / committee stating there will be a draft. Add in the adminstration saying no draft, where are people getting this? Looks to me like people falling for DNC propaganda.
 

White Man

Member
MrAngryFace said:
I try not to think of such things.

Hey, MAF, since we live close to each other now, would we get to go to boot camp or training or something together?

EDIT: Because I would totally bitch you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom