Pages: 1 2 3

 

2006-12-21 08:42:13
oChaos.Haze
Member
+90|6448

kr@cker wrote:

if it's a draft you're worried about, look to charlie, not george

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061120/D8LGK3D00.html
Yeah I remember seeing this.  Doesn't he want it for reasons similar to what I stated above?  I could be completely misinformed.  But I was under the impression that he felt like we treat war too lightly, and by adding a draft, it might make us rethink when we go.  He could just want a draft though, I'm too lazy to be arsed with reading it, haha.  I really don't think W would resume the draft.  He's got enough naysayers as is.

Last edited by oChaos.Haze (2006-12-21 08:43:06)

2006-12-21 08:50:37
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6559|Southeastern USA

oChaos.Haze wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

if it's a draft you're worried about, look to charlie, not george

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061120/D8LGK3D00.html
Yeah I remember seeing this.  Doesn't he want it for reasons similar to what I stated above?  I could be completely misinformed.  But I was under the impression that he felt like we treat war too lightly, and by adding a draft, it might make us rethink when we go.  He could just want a draft though, I'm too lazy to be arsed with reading it, haha.
no, he thought the military didn't have enough white boys in it, and a draft was needed for affirmative action purposes, then the pentagon did this thing called "research" and proved him wrong


damn, the link was removed

but this is nothing new for him, he's been preaching this for years

funny thing is, everyday down here, the papers representing the work force of the military, the unions and such, not the top brass, have been pushing for higher enrollment numbers for ages, as well as non-stop coverage of people re-enlisting, seems the one problem they have is helping people find ways to sort finances and spend some time with their families between the tours they volunteer for non-stop. I regularly meet people itching to make their third run through the sandbox, some of them barely un-packed before talking of going back. I suppose there are worse problems for a military to have.
2006-12-21 08:55:16
Rick_O_Shea678
Angry Engy
+95|6763
oChaos.Haze wrote: On a side note, does anyone else see the futility of trying to fight a war as the "good guys"?

"Good guys" don't invade other countries.

oChaos.Haze wrote: But since we made the first move...

As the Bard would say...ay, there's the rub.  Bush violated one of the basic tenets of American diplomacy, he invaded another country.  Notwithstanding short and forgettable (but still regrettable) episodes like Grenada, the United States does not do this.  They subvert in other ways, yes, but they've always held a moral high ground about invading other people.  It's always been their trump card.  Peace & democracy, peace & democracy.  It's the two things US diplomacy has always been about (and free markets, but that's less obvious).  Bush's invasion flies in the face of the entire American diplomactic tradition.

As to the OP, there won't be a military draft for this war.  The US will pull out, or get others to send in more troops, well before a draft in enacted.
2006-12-21 09:05:38
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6559|Southeastern USA

Rick_O_Shea678 wrote:

oChaos.Haze wrote: On a side note, does anyone else see the futility of trying to fight a war as the "good guys"?

"Good guys" don't invade other countries.

oChaos.Haze wrote: But since we made the first move...

As the Bard would say...ay, there's the rub.  Bush violated one of the basic tenets of American diplomacy, he invaded another country.  Notwithstanding short and forgettable (but still regrettable) episodes like Grenada, the United States does not do this.  They subvert in other ways, yes, but they've always held a moral high ground about invading other people.  It's always been their trump card.  Peace & democracy, peace & democracy.  It's the two things US diplomacy has always been about (and free markets, but that's less obvious).  Bush's invasion flies in the face of the entire American diplomactic tradition.

As to the OP, there won't be a military draft for this war.  The US will pull out, or get others to send in more troops, well before a draft in enacted.
missed that whole exchange, but you've forgotten a few steps, we didn't invade, cliff's notes version is something like this

iraq invades kuwait, declares intention to own everything from egypt to pakistan

kuwait asks west for help, as does saudi arabia

bin laden propositions SA declaring his forces can protect them from iraq

SA chooses to go with the coalition forces of desert shield/storm, spearheaded by the US

iraq is pushed back to baghdad, and surrenders

hussein is allowed to stay in power so long as he follows the terms of the surrender treaty

hussein ignores said terms for more than a decade

after waiting over a decade for the UN to enforce the surrender treaty, the US along with 3 dozen other nations decide to enforce said treaty and call hussein's bluff



hussein is the bad guy, not george bush, despite what all those really cool stand-up comics turned political experts say
2006-12-21 09:13:33
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6501|Northern California

Spark wrote:

Ironchef, I find your position confusing, not to mention apparently hypocritical, given your stance on soldiers.[/b]
Please explain your confusion, and what is my "stance" on soldiers and how is it hypocritical with what I said above about having a compulsory military service?
2006-12-21 10:19:56
Rick_O_Shea678
Angry Engy
+95|6763
kr@cker wrote:...we didn't invade...

I can't really have a debate with you if that's your starting point.
And I don't much care what "stand-up comics turned political experts" say.  I don't let late-night television decide my views, nor do I let "24/7 news channels" do it.  But you don't have to read 800 books on American diplmomacy to realize that this....what did you call it..."enforcement of a treaty" (LOL) is a 180-degree turn in policy.  At first the government admitted this, and tied it to 9-11, WMDs, and so on.  But since those arguments have been exposed, the government is now naked before us, left with weak excuses like "he was violating a treaty" whilst trying to avoid the subject altogether.

re: "hussein is the bad guy"...of course he is.  He always has been.  But there's always bad guys out there.  My point remains: to deal with this badboy, they invaded him, and that was a huge huge change in policy. (and, in the belief of many, it was a huge huge mistake to deviate from the long-held traditions of peace&democracy as the foundations of policy.)
2006-12-21 11:24:49
herrr_smity
Member
+156|6638|space command ur anus

Drunken_Tankdriver wrote:

herrr_smity wrote:

i think you should have a draft
Why?
because if you have a draft, the war is a "national experience" and you will probably become more anti war when everybody has a Chance to get killed in some shit hole against your own will.
just look at Vietnam once middle class kids were getting killed then it was a tragedy
2006-12-21 11:51:18
kilgoretrout
Member
+53|6480|Little Rock, AR

herrr_smity wrote:

Drunken_Tankdriver wrote:

herrr_smity wrote:

i think you should have a draft
Why?
because if you have a draft, the war is a "national experience" and you will probably become more anti war when everybody has a Chance to get killed in some shit hole against your own will.
just look at Vietnam once middle class kids were getting killed then it was a tragedy
But most Americans already think Iraq is a tragedy without a draft.  I know several middle class white guys that are or have served in Iraq.  One of my roomates did 2 tours with the Marine Corps.  I oppose a draft, but I'm actually for making everyone serve for a year or two when they turn 18.  If you object to war, I think you should be allowed to serve in something like the Peace Corps, but only after completing basic training.  That way, everyone in the country has at least a rudimentary understanding of military tactics and weapons training, and we'll have plenty of troops.  Plus, if it came down to it and someone wanted to invade us, we'd have 350 million people that could take up arms if necessary.  Kinda like a huge Isreal.
2006-12-21 12:24:05
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6559|Southeastern USA

Rick_O_Shea678 wrote:

kr@cker wrote:...we didn't invade...

I can't really have a debate with you if that's your starting point.
And I don't much care what "stand-up comics turned political experts" say.  I don't let late-night television decide my views, nor do I let "24/7 news channels" do it.  But you don't have to read 800 books on American diplmomacy to realize that this....what did you call it..."enforcement of a treaty" (LOL) is a 180-degree turn in policy.  At first the government admitted this, and tied it to 9-11, WMDs, and so on.  But since those arguments have been exposed, the government is now naked before us, left with weak excuses like "he was violating a treaty" whilst trying to avoid the subject altogether.

re: "hussein is the bad guy"...of course he is.  He always has been.  But there's always bad guys out there.  My point remains: to deal with this badboy, they invaded him, and that was a huge huge change in policy. (and, in the belief of many, it was a huge huge mistake to deviate from the long-held traditions of peace&democracy as the foundations of policy.)
you're using "invade" in the context that hitler invaded france, technically fine, it was an invasion, but more the resumption of defensive actions put on hold a decade earlier than an unwarranted aggression

it's just that you make it sound as if someone in DC woke up one day and decided to invade without any justification for the war, and yes, WMD's were related to the surrender treaty (LOL), try readin it for once. also, i can't recall anyone in any administration stating that iraq was responsible for 9-11.

if you don't enforce treaties (LOL), they are useless, like the UN

this should help

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin … ubl243.107

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

hey! look what's number one and two on the list!!

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-12-21 12:32:33)

2006-12-22 11:09:03
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6377|Columbus, Ohio
Knew I smelled something....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/22/draft. … index.html
2006-12-22 15:50:53
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6415|North Carolina
In principle, I understand what Charles Rangel is trying to accomplish.  In reality, however, he's just committing political suicide.

Besides, most of what I've read suggests that a conscripted army is usually lower in quality than a voluntary one.  When people join out of choice, they tend to perform better while in the service.  If they've been forced to enter, there are often behavioral and psychological issues that develop.

At the same time though, if we implemented a policy similar to Israel's, where every citizen has to serve the military in some fashion (combatively or non-combatively) for a few years upon reaching adulthood, then I think our society would comprehend the institution of the military on a deeper level.  In Israel, the military is truly a part of their culture, and I believe the same thing would occur if America followed suit.

One of the major positives of this proposition is that every citizen would tend to have a better grasp of warfare.  Some claim that this would only increase the fervor for war, but I disagree.  I think when people get a closer look at what war is really like, they actually tend to take it more seriously and cautiously.  War becomes less political and more calculated.

If every citizen had a more balanced view on war, we'd likely enter less wars, but we'd be better at fighting each one we enter.  I think we've already seen what happens when politicians who've never seen combat try to make decisions about war.  Most of them are strategic failures, but there are plenty of notable exceptions to this rule....

In short, a draft is a serious mistake, but developing a culture of universal conscription (a.k.a. - mandatory service) might not be such a bad thing.

The only negative to universal conscription is that it would create a much larger pool of soldiers, which obviously means that military costs would go up tremendously.  Having enough funds to provide for an army of dozens of millions would likely absorb the majority of our federal budget.  We'd need to dramatically alter our federal spending to fund this program.
2006-12-22 15:53:42
blademaster
I'm moving to Brazil
+2,075|6655
they wont draft you if you are in school college i mean like Kerry said.
2006-12-22 15:56:34
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6559|Southeastern USA
they are currently testing the draft machines and lottery system, but they do that once every few years "just in case", odds are, the only way we'll ever truly be rid of the need for a draft system would be right after we're all dead
2006-12-22 15:58:53
silentsin
Member
+3|6708
meh, if a draft is instituted, i'm going to ireland. why ireland? i have citizenship and relatives there. XD

Last edited by silentsin (2006-12-22 15:59:13)

2006-12-22 16:03:04
blademaster
I'm moving to Brazil
+2,075|6655
Yeah President Clinton was drafted to go to Vietnam but avoided the going to Vietnam by leaving U.S. and going to U.K. until the war was over.
2006-12-22 16:10:00
Pernicious544
Zee Tank Skank
+80|6710|MoVal So-Cal
uh, did anybody read the part where he said 'permanent increase in  the size of the military"
2006-12-22 20:12:28
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6559|Southeastern USA
even better, drafts by nature are impermanent
2006-12-22 21:14:19
jonsimon
Member
+224|6505

kr@cker wrote:

they are currently testing the draft machines and lottery system, but they do that once every few years "just in case", odds are, the only way we'll ever truly be rid of the need for a draft system would be right after we're all dead
Every few years? Try decade, last time was 98.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard