PDA

View Full Version : Who Still Believes Bush Wants The Draft?


drobertson420
10-14-2004, 06:10 AM
Anyone out there STILL believe Bush wants to re-instate The Draft?
Please tell me no.......

hellojello
10-14-2004, 06:49 AM
i wouldn't have a clue
but anyways my dad was drafted to go to vietnam but he turned into one of them draft evader people and ran off and lived in some hippie house with a heap of other draft dodgers after a while this dude turned up there who everyone called American Steve...his story was he'd taken leave from vietnam and didn't want to go back...anyways he lived with them for a while till one day Dad was out, scoring weed prolly, and someone comes up and says don't go home ASIO r there (australian fbi) and so he had to ditch the house and all their stuff turns out american steve was a goddamn spy.
on a more serious note the whole basis of vietnam was a fraud based on this theory called the domino affect where some stupid dick came up with this idea that if vietnam fell to communism so would the surrounding countries and then australia and then the world!! u know like how dominos fall.. anyways id like to point out AMERICA & AUSTRALIA LOST THE WAR VIETNAM TURNED COMMUNIST AND WE (AUSTRALIA) ARE STILL A DEMOCRATIC NATION AND SO IS THE MAJOURITY OF SOUTH EAST ASIA. shows how much them 'political theorists' know. kinda reminds me of that weapons of mass destruction thing. where r they again??

drobertson420
10-14-2004, 06:57 AM
Iraq DID have a Nuclear (noo-cue-ler) facility, but the ENTIRE BUILDING has vanished since the war started. Even Kerry mentioned it in the 1st debate.......Something to the effect of "...Bush did nothing to stop the looting
of shops, palaces, and even their Nuclear Facility!" What? I thought they didn't have any Nuclear Facilities!!!??? ;)

drobertson420
10-14-2004, 06:59 AM
By the way, The election in Afghanistan went well, but you won't see THAT story on any front pages.....Hmmmmmm, why not? Oh yea, that would benefit Bush ;)

hellojello
10-14-2004, 07:12 AM
By the way, The election in Afghanistan went well, but you won't see THAT story on any front pages.....Hmmmmmm, why not? Oh yea, that would benefit Bush ;)
IT TOOK ME 2 SECONDS TO FIND THIS

Even as Afghans were still going to vote in the country’s presidential election on Saturday, 15 of the 16 candidates launched a concerted protest over widespread voting irregularities favouring the US-backed incumbent Hamid Karzai. As of today, counting had still not begun as Washington, with the assistance of the UN, attempted to find a way to squash the opposition.

The most glaring flaw involved the indelible ink used to mark the thumbs of those who voted in order to prevent multiple voting. On polling day, it soon became evident that in many cases the ink could be easily washed off. As opposition candidates were quick to point out, this opened the way for ballot rigging on a massive scale. Other irregularities, including under-age voters and political bias by election officials, were also reported.

According to a briefing paper by the US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) last month, multiple voter registration was widespread. UN and Afghan officials told HRW that the overall number of registered voters was “vastly inflated”. Of the 10.5 million on the electoral roll, estimates put the actual number of voters as low as 5 to 7 million. The ink was meant as a guarantee that those with multiple registration cards would be unable to use them.

All 15 opposition candidates called for a boycott, urging election officials to stop the polling and to hold the election again. In the cities of Kunduz and Herat, supporters of Yunis Qanooni, regarded as Karzai’s main challenger, held protests outside a number of polling booths. In Kabul, one resident told the British-based Independent: “There were a lot of violations. In Wardak, one person voted 100 times. If they declare Karzai a winner, it will be a puppet government.” http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/10/1699083.php

IF U ENJOY LOOKING STUPID I COULD FIND MORE

Ace42
10-14-2004, 04:19 PM
Iraq DID have a Nuclear (noo-cue-ler) facility, but the ENTIRE BUILDING has vanished since the war started. Even Kerry mentioned it in the 1st debate.......Something to the effect of "...Bush did nothing to stop the looting
of shops, palaces, and even their Nuclear Facility!" What? I thought they didn't have any Nuclear Facilities!!!??? ;)


Mr Blix said large amounts of nuclear material had been removed from Iraq - by IAEA inspectors after the 1991 Gulf War, and by the Americans when they toppled Saddam Hussein's regime and occupied the country last year.

He said Iraq still had "machines and equipment that could be of use in a nuclear programme... But of course it is not the highly-enriched uranium, or plutonium, that you need for a bomb".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3738452.stm

If it can't be used for a weapon, I fail to see why it would be significant in a debate about weapons of mass destruction. Your argument is akin to finding an alarm-clock, some wires and some bags of fertiliser, and saying "See, I told you they were going to make a bomb!" Well, yes, or more likely they were going to get up extra early (the clock) to fertilise their garden, and thus needed wires to cordon off the different vegetable plots.

When you are planting vegetables there is no 'smoking gun' ...

The mast majority of Uranium in Iraq was put there by the US. Via tanks.

Echewta
10-14-2004, 04:37 PM
^thanks for saving me the trouble.

drobertson420
10-15-2004, 05:50 AM
Back to the subject of the thread........ :D
I'm not sticking up for Bush here, and you people seem intelligent...
Does Bush want to re-instate the Draft, or not?
I read somewhere recently that 51% of young voters believe Bush wants to bring back the draft......I thought we trying to be informed here...
P.S. thanx for setting me straight on the WMD thing (y)

"......IF U ENJOY LOOKING STUPID I COULD FIND MORE....."
naw, thats cool... :rolleyes:

ClifRa JOnes
10-15-2004, 07:36 AM
OK everyone, lets cut through the fearmongering and get to the facts.

1. The only entity that can re-instate the draft is Congress. You think that's gonna happen? Remember the House has to stand for re-election every 2 years. Even if GW wanted the draft I seriously doubt whether he could get it passed through Congress.

2. The military doesn't want it. They vehemently don't want it. They don't want a bunch of guys (or gals) who don't want to be there and will not learn how to use the hi-tech equipment they use today.

Lastly, the military is 4-1 on GW's side. There is stong fear in the military command that if Kerry is elected retention will fall to record lows (this happen in the early years of Clinton as well). Kerry says he wants to increase the standing army by 2 divisions (which I support because we don't need reservist out there on the front lines), how is he going to do this if folks are leaving the military in droves? Answer? the draft! Although I doubt whether he too could get it passed.


Fear not, there will be no draft.

Ali
10-15-2004, 08:05 AM
Wasn't it a Democrat (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/?id=419) who sponsored the Bill (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bill.xc?billnum=H.R.163&congress=108)?

infidel
10-15-2004, 09:00 AM
It's obvious why the government and military don't want a draft but it's also obvious that new enlistments aren't keeping up with demand.
We're forced to use extended tours, stop loss and the NG, whose real job should be here in the homeland.
Either there has to be more enticement for new recruits such as higher pay and justified wars or there is no choice except bringing the draft back.

ClifRa JOnes
10-15-2004, 11:44 AM
It's obvious why the government and military don't want a draft but it's also obvious that new enlistments aren't keeping up with demand.
We're forced to use extended tours, stop loss and the NG, whose real job should be here in the homeland.
Either there has to be more enticement for new recruits such as higher pay and justified wars or there is no choice except bringing the draft back.

Still won't work my friend. The draft has been gone for over a generation and young people today are not going to take being told they have to join the military against thier free will.

It's like abortion and drugs. You have to think long and hard before you change a law that's been in place for a long time. There might be good reasons for doing so, protecting the unborn, the abismal record of the war on drugs, the needs of the military, but the ramifications could be devistating. Can you imagine the march on Washington if any administration tried to bring back the draft?

I can't see it. Just like I can't see outlawing abortion or legalizing drugs. It just ain't a good idea.

ClifRa JOnes
10-15-2004, 11:50 AM
Wasn't it a Democrat (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/?id=419) who sponsored the Bill (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bill.xc?billnum=H.R.163&congress=108)?

Yes but for purely crass political reasons. Rangle is trying to say that the majority of the people getting killed in the military are from poor minority communities. Not so. The majority of those guys on the front line getting shot at are white guys from middle America. (farm boys) Most minorities in the military sign up for non-combat position because these position offer better training that can be used in the civilian world. They are not joining to be lifetime soldiers they want to get thier training and get out. I'm not saying that there are not good brave minorities on the front lines but no where near as many as Rangle would lead you to believe.

DroppinScience
10-15-2004, 12:16 PM
Yes but for purely crass political reasons. Rangle is trying to say that the majority of the people getting killed in the military are from poor minority communities. Not so. The majority of those guys on the front line getting shot at are white guys from middle America. (farm boys) Most minorities in the military sign up for non-combat position because these position offer better training that can be used in the civilian world. They are not joining to be lifetime soldiers they want to get thier training and get out. I'm not saying that there are not good brave minorities on the front lines but no where near as many as Rangle would lead you to believe.

Well, a lot of the white guys in the military are poor (lots from the South). Just because you aren't a "minority" doesn't mean you don't have money flowing out of your pockets.

ClifRa JOnes
10-15-2004, 12:19 PM
Well, a lot of the white guys in the military are poor (lots from the South). Just because you aren't a "minority" doesn't mean you don't have money flowing out of your pockets.

I didn't say they were not poor, My point was that they volenteer for a majority of the really dangerous work.

DroppinScience
10-15-2004, 12:24 PM
One other thing of note pertaining to the draft...

Just because BushCo. is saying they have no plans to reinstate the draft, that doesn't mean they won't reverse their positions in the next few years if they get re-elected.

Woodrow Wilson ran as anti-war candidate saying America wouldn't be brought into WWI. Well guess what? He sent America to war.

Lyndon Johnson ran as an anti-war candidate in 1964, but guess what? He escalated American involvement in Vietnam.

Richard Nixon ran in 1968 boasting he'd have a "plan" for a quick exit out of Vietnam. Well guess what? He never had any plans to do so.

No matter what song and dance politicians may give today, that means diddly squat in the future.

Right now, the draft is unlikely to be re-instated. But if Bush is re-elected and there's another terrorist attack and Bush feels like sending troops to Syria/Iran/Luxembourg for more fun wars, the draft would be far more likely than not.

Remember all this if you're given a rifle and you gotta go fight the Indonesians.

ClifRa JOnes
10-15-2004, 12:42 PM
Richard Nixon ran in 1968 boasting he'd have a "plan" for a quick exit out of Vietnam. Well guess what? He never had any plans to do so.


Sounds a lot like John Kerry to me.

Another great man-with-a-plan: Uncle Joe Stalin.

drobertson420
10-15-2004, 01:27 PM
Wasn't it a Democrat who sponsored the Bill?



Sure was...And when it came up to vote, Rengle voted NAY against his own bill (lol)

Kerry said in the 2nd debate that he plans on adding another Division or 2 to the military strength...Where's Kerry gonna get those Troops?


There will be no draft because the Military doesn't want people WHO DIDNT SIGN UP VOLUNTARILY! They would just resist the entire time until they ended up in THE Brig, or Dead ;)