Draft?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 82

Thread: Draft?

  1. #1
    Employee of the Month
    seven11's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Twenkie-ville
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Points
    6304240

    Draft?

    so guys what do u think bout the situation in iraq, and do u think there will be a draft?

    it really look fishy now, because the army didnt recruit enough for this month
    so just share your thoughts

  2. #2
    Bohemian Extraordinaire
    ELITE MEMBER
    maniclion's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Mēns Incognita
    Posts
    27,183
    Rep Points
    989810505

    Yes they should draft all the alpha males like you.
    Coarse edged youth, the irish pendants string from their smiles
    not yet plucked as to slacken the seams
    and drag down the features of age,
    no folds or creases from unkempt wear
    eyes of tranquilty, crystalline-beads
    no sign of despair in their hair, nor their hearts
    but oh they have yet to be experienced and that makes aging so very worth it...ML circa2012

  3. #3
    Employee of the Month
    seven11's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Twenkie-ville
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Points
    6304240

    Quote Originally Posted by maniclion
    Yes they should draft all the alpha males like you.

    hehehe but seriously i was just trying to start a conversation about the darft

    but on a side note... i think im too badass for iraq

  4. #4
    Bohemian Extraordinaire
    ELITE MEMBER
    maniclion's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Mēns Incognita
    Posts
    27,183
    Rep Points
    989810505

    Why not Bush isn't up for re-election and Cheney won't be aiming for it next go round cause he'll be too near death.
    Coarse edged youth, the irish pendants string from their smiles
    not yet plucked as to slacken the seams
    and drag down the features of age,
    no folds or creases from unkempt wear
    eyes of tranquilty, crystalline-beads
    no sign of despair in their hair, nor their hearts
    but oh they have yet to be experienced and that makes aging so very worth it...ML circa2012

  5. #5
    Employee of the Month
    seven11's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Twenkie-ville
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Points
    6304240

    i know and i've been hearing alot about the posiblities of a draft latly

  6. #6
    Employee of the Month
    seven11's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Twenkie-ville
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Points
    6304240

    well i guess nobody has to comment on this

  7. #7
    IDIOT SAVANT
    ALBOB's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    An alternate reality.
    Posts
    11,633
    Rep Points
    167808239

    Quote Originally Posted by seven11
    the army didnt recruit enough for this month
    You hear the news media making a big deal out of that, but it's all bullshit. The Army hardly EVER makes it's quota, no matter what they tell the public. They just recruite however many troops they can and then say, "Yep, that was our goal." The Air Force and Navy are turning people away, there's so many kids trying to sign up. The Marines are right about in the middle. Don't worry, the draft will NOT happen anytime soon.
    Rules? You mean we have RULES for that???

  8. #8
    Bohemian Extraordinaire
    ELITE MEMBER
    maniclion's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Mēns Incognita
    Posts
    27,183
    Rep Points
    989810505

    Quote Originally Posted by ALBOB
    Don't worry, the draft will NOT happen anytime soon.
    Yep, not this month maybe next month.
    Coarse edged youth, the irish pendants string from their smiles
    not yet plucked as to slacken the seams
    and drag down the features of age,
    no folds or creases from unkempt wear
    eyes of tranquilty, crystalline-beads
    no sign of despair in their hair, nor their hearts
    but oh they have yet to be experienced and that makes aging so very worth it...ML circa2012

  9. #9
    Employee of the Month
    seven11's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Twenkie-ville
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Points
    6304240

    man i dont wanna go to iraq

  10. #10
    IDIOT SAVANT
    ALBOB's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    An alternate reality.
    Posts
    11,633
    Rep Points
    167808239

    Quote Originally Posted by seven11
    man i dont wanna go to iraq
    I've got friends over there and they watch CNN every night wondering where the footage is coming from. What you're seeing AIN'T what's happening. True, it's not exactly a garden spot, but it's nothing like what you're seeing on T.V.
    Rules? You mean we have RULES for that???

  11. #11
    Metrosexual
    ELITE MEMBER
    DOMS's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    In a van, down by the river...
    Posts
    32,686
    Rep Points
    1862244849

    The draft was pushed by the Democrats for fear-mongering. They wanted to say, "look, the war in Iraq is going so bad that President Bush wants to re-instate the draft!" Is was Charles Rangel (Democrat, NY) that drafted it.

    No Republican endorsed the draft. As a matter of fact, the Republican led House already shot it down.


  12. #12
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,367
    Rep Points
    -12839023

    While "fear-mongering" makes for good partisan rhetoric, the worry about reinstating the draft was based on prolonging the assignment of troops already on the ground who were due for rotation home, the large number of National Guard troops assigned overseas, the growing number of nations that have reduced their own forces or have left Iraq already, and concerns about meeting our other treaty commitments overseas.
    We already have two states that are clamoring for recall of their National Guard troops. One of them, Montana, is concerned about having manpower to fight what is expected to be one of the worst forest fire seasons. And since surrounding states are facing the same dilemma, those governments are going to have to be creative in finding personnel available for the season.

    If we can accomplish this task without a draft, that would be great - but I wouldn't rule one out in the future, especially if things heat up in the Taiwan Straits or the Pacific Rim. We have commitments scattered from South Korea and Japan to Australia...and the growing cooperation between the Chinese and Russian militaries is something to be concerned about. China already has what they call territorial claims all the way to some islands near Indonesia.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    7,008
    Rep Points
    1675493

    I wouldnt worry about the draft. I think that the government generally takes into account just what they can do with their given resources (at least man power). A draft would destabilize the current Republican control and would probably knock them out of the race for a couple elections. I dont think they are clamoring to do that.

    As to China and Taiwan, my opinion on that is that China is currently enjoying popularity with businesses and countries around the world because they are towing the line. To attack Taiwan would pretty much force us to place embargos on many Chinese goods, and would probably also force alot of business to leave because of concerns with their politics. I do think they want to be the next United States though as far as world power, and they are trying to act it.

    Putin is a bastard and might bring us some trouble. We'll see what happens during the next elections though, hopefully we'll get somebody who is less of a pain in the ass. There is still some time for him to cause trouble before that.

    So overall, I wouldnt worry about it too much. If anything I see an arms buildup similar to that of the Cold War (if things go sour), with neither country looking for an actual confrontation. That said, China isnt always easy to predict

  14. #14
    Metrosexual
    ELITE MEMBER
    DOMS's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    In a van, down by the river...
    Posts
    32,686
    Rep Points
    1862244849

    Quote Originally Posted by kbm8795
    While "fear-mongering" makes for good partisan rhetoric,
    You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

    The point of the Democrats pushing the draft had nothing to do with actually using the draft. Otherwise, why did Charles Rangel, who drafted it, vote against it? Manpower was never the issue.


  15. #15
    Training for triathlon
    The__wenger's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    139
    Rep Points
    1247926

    I'am not worried about the draft at all, being Canadian of course . But if the draft does indeed come-Best of luck.
    Man can now fly through the air like a bird , swim beneath the ocean like a fish and burrow under the ground like a mole , and if he could only walk the earth like a man......this would truly be paradise.http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/...s/n_sr-not.jpg

  16. #16
    Metrosexual
    ELITE MEMBER
    DOMS's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    In a van, down by the river...
    Posts
    32,686
    Rep Points
    1862244849

    You mentioned Canada and the draft (a military reference) in the same sentence.

    So remember, you brought this on yourself...




  17. #17
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Meadville, Pa.
    Posts
    2,786
    Rep Points
    19045177

    Quote Originally Posted by kbm8795
    While "fear-mongering" makes for good partisan rhetoric, the worry about reinstating the draft was based on prolonging the assignment of troops already on the ground who were due for rotation home, the large number of National Guard troops assigned overseas, the growing number of nations that have reduced their own forces or have left Iraq already, and concerns about meeting our other treaty commitments overseas.
    We already have two states that are clamoring for recall of their National Guard troops. One of them, Montana, is concerned about having manpower to fight what is expected to be one of the worst forest fire seasons. And since surrounding states are facing the same dilemma, those governments are going to have to be creative in finding personnel available for the season.

    If we can accomplish this task without a draft, that would be great - but I wouldn't rule one out in the future, especially if things heat up in the Taiwan Straits or the Pacific Rim. We have commitments scattered from South Korea and Japan to Australia...and the growing cooperation between the Chinese and Russian militaries is something to be concerned about. China already has what they call territorial claims all the way to some islands near Indonesia.
    Hi Kbm,

    It boils down to if there are enough Men... If there are not then we can expect a draft. Plain and simple. It will happen as long as we are on the road we are on. The Republicans would never say this BEFORE the election but I am damn sure it is on their minds. As long as there are not enough Men volunteering there will be a real possibly of a draft. BANK ON IT.

    Take Care, John H.

  18. #18
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Meadville, Pa.
    Posts
    2,786
    Rep Points
    19045177

    Quote Originally Posted by cfs3
    You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

    The point of the Democrats pushing the draft had nothing to do with actually using the draft. Otherwise, why did Charles Rangel, who drafted it, vote against it? Manpower was never the issue.
    Cfs,

    LACK OF MANPOWER IS THE ISSUE. When this all got started and will always be THE ISSUE. If there are not enough volunteering THERE WILL BE A DRAFT. The job can NOT get done unless you HAVE ENOUGH TRAINED KNOWLEDGEABLE ABLE MEN to DO the job right. Draft? GUARANTEED - unless "peace" all-of-a-sudden "happens" throughout the world. Which is highly unlikely.

    John H.

  19. #19
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,367
    Rep Points
    -12839023

    Quote Originally Posted by cfs3
    You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

    Right. I'd ask you to enlighten us more here, but it's obvious that partisan rhetoric is more important to you than patriotism.

    The point of the Democrats pushing the draft had nothing to do with actually using the draft. Otherwise, why did Charles Rangel, who drafted it, vote against it? Manpower was never the issue.

    The Universal National Service Act of 2003 was introduced on January 7, 2003 - over two months before the invasion of Iraq. At the time, Congressman Rangel publicly said the bill was designed to spread representation in the military among the entire population, especially since predictions of manpower needs for longterm involvement in Iraq were fluctuating at the time. The volunteer military, according to Rangel's statement at the time, was disproportionately made up of lower income Americans - and 30% of the manpower were minorities. His argument was that, if the United States was going to embark on a prolonged war, every American citizen of national service age should be considered for military or community service.

    Speculation about the need for a draft increased as the length of the occupation increased - after all, the federal government still requires registration for the selective service system, even as a condition for college financial aid. That speculation was fed by Pentagon decisions to deploy large numbers of National Guard troops and extend tours of duty.

    The bill bounced around without hearings or debate for 21 months. Rangel urged Democrats to vote against the measure because Republicans suddenly circumvented both the committee hearing process and limited discussion of the bill, calling it to a floor vote on Oct. 5, 2004 - roughly four weeks before the election.

    Of course, accusations of "fearmongering" are a common political rhetorical strategy. I believe Ed Gillespie, then-chairman of the Republican National Committee, used that same approach when Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry declared on October 17 2004 that President Bush was planning a "surprise" second term effort to privatize social security. The Party's response, reported by the Associated Press and ABC News:


    Republicans denied the charge as scare tactics with little more than two weeks remaining in a tight election. "It is just flat inaccurate," said GOP chairman Ed Gillespie.

  20. #20
    Metrosexual
    ELITE MEMBER
    DOMS's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    In a van, down by the river...
    Posts
    32,686
    Rep Points
    1862244849

    Quote Originally Posted by John H.
    Cfs,

    LACK OF MANPOWER IS THE ISSUE. When this all got started and will always be THE ISSUE. If there are not enough volunteering THERE WILL BE A DRAFT. The job can NOT get done unless you HAVE ENOUGH TRAINED KNOWLEDGEABLE ABLE MEN to DO the job right. Draft? GUARANTEED - unless "peace" all-of-a-sudden "happens" throughout the world. Which is highly unlikely.

    John H.
    IF lack of MANPOWER was the ISSUE when the DEMOCRATS drafted the BILL, then WHY did the MAN who DRAFTED it end UP voting AGAINST it?

    ON a RELATED note, THERE is a SHORTAGE of soldiers BECAUSE slick WILLY (a.k.a. Bill CLINTON) spent 8 years TEARING down the MILITARY.


  21. #21
    Metrosexual
    ELITE MEMBER
    DOMS's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    In a van, down by the river...
    Posts
    32,686
    Rep Points
    1862244849

    Quote Originally Posted by kbm8795
    The Universal National Service Act of 2003 was introduced on January 7, 2003 - over two months before the invasion of Iraq. At the time, Congressman Rangel publicly said the bill was designed to spread representation in the military among the entire population,
    As we all know, he'd never actually lie about his motives. Consider the timing as well. Just as the presidential election is firing up. Hmmmm...must've been pure coincidence...
    Quote Originally Posted by kbm8795
    The volunteer military, according to Rangel's statement at the time, was disproportionately made up of lower income Americans - and 30% of the manpower were minorities. His argument was that, if the United States was going to embark on a prolonged war, every American citizen of national service age should be considered for military or community service.
    Even if he wasn't trying to use fear as a motivation against the general public, he was certainly try to use fearmongering on the "rich". Oddly enough, a tax bracket which he is a member of.
    Quote Originally Posted by kbm8795
    Speculation about the need for a draft increased as the length of the occupation increased - after all, the federal government still requires registration for the selective service system, even as a condition for college financial aid. That speculation was fed by Pentagon decisions to deploy large numbers of National Guard troops and extend tours of duty.
    Registering for the draft has been a part of life in America long before the war in Iraq. It's something that hasn't changed for decades. But if it helps you fearmonger, use it. The rest was pure speculation. For the less literate, speculation is "A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture" and generally lacking facts. Has it come to pass? It's been over two years. I speculate that if it wasn't for liberals, I'd have a million dollars. Where's my money?
    Quote Originally Posted by kbm8795
    The bill bounced around without hearings or debate for 21 months. Rangel urged Democrats to vote against the measure because Republicans suddenly circumvented both the committee hearing process and limited discussion of the bill, calling it to a floor vote on Oct. 5, 2004 - roughly four weeks before the election.
    And because they couldn't get a hearing on it, they decided to kill the bill? Even though the details of which are available to anyone?
    Quote Originally Posted by kbm8795
    Of course, accusations of "fearmongering" are a common political rhetorical strategy.
    So it makes sense that a Democrat politician would use fearmongering, which you seem to think he wouldn't.

    Alrighty then...

    Spin, liberal. Spin, spin, spin.


  22. #22
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Meadville, Pa.
    Posts
    2,786
    Rep Points
    19045177

    Quote Originally Posted by cfs3
    IF lack of MANPOWER was the ISSUE when the DEMOCRATS drafted the BILL, then WHY did the MAN who DRAFTED it end UP voting AGAINST it?

    ON a RELATED note, THERE is a SHORTAGE of soldiers BECAUSE slick WILLY (a.k.a. Bill CLINTON) spent 8 years TEARING down the MILITARY.
    Cfs,

    READ AND UNDERSTAND what Kbm just said above.

    The REPUBLICANS spent EIGHT YEARS trying to figure out how to get Clinton out of office because they were so upset HE WON and were angry about it FOR EIGHT YEARS. I am sure the REPUBLICAN Monica IS was well rewarded for her "suicide mission" into the oval office of President Clinton - the REPUBLICANS were that upset they SENT HER IN TO DO THE DEED.


    John H.

  23. #23
    Metrosexual
    ELITE MEMBER
    DOMS's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    In a van, down by the river...
    Posts
    32,686
    Rep Points
    1862244849

    Quote Originally Posted by John H.
    Cfs,

    READ AND UNDERSTAND what Kbm just said above.

    The REPUBLICANS spent EIGHT YEARS trying to figure out how to get Clinton out of office because they were so upset HE WON and were angry about it FOR EIGHT YEARS. I am sure the REPUBLICAN Monica IS was well rewarded for her "suicide mission" into the oval office of President Clinton - the REPUBLICANS were that upset they SENT HER IN TO DO THE DEED.


    John H.
    What a

    Eight years trying to get him out? After his second presidency was won, they just needed to wait 4 years. You do understand that a president can only hold two terms, don't you?

    Monica was a Republican operative? And she took one (in the mouth) for the greater good?

    ...

    hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahaha ha...


  24. #24
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    7,008
    Rep Points
    1675493

    Hrmm, like Monica must have been like, umm, a top secret special super duper CIA agent! Obviously that is the case since she user her super dooper secret agent powers to entice a president that would not under any other circumstances have let somebody that worked for him suck his dick.

    Of course Republicans didnt want Clinton in office... umm, thats kinda why we have seperate parties, with each trying to push its own objectives.

  25. #25
    Metrosexual
    ELITE MEMBER
    DOMS's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    In a van, down by the river...
    Posts
    32,686
    Rep Points
    1862244849

    Quote Originally Posted by Eggs
    Of course Republicans didnt want Clinton in office... umm, thats kinda why we have seperate parties, with each trying to push its own objectives.
    Shhhhhhh! That's supposed to be a secret.


  26. #26
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    7,008
    Rep Points
    1675493

    Oh, and that Satire Wire was hilarious

  27. #27
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,367
    Rep Points
    -12839023

    Quote Originally Posted by cfs3
    As we all know, he'd never actually lie about his motives. Consider the timing as well. Just as the presidential election is firing up. Hmmmm...must've been pure coincidence...

    Right. All Americans who aren't members of the Party lie about their motives.

    Even if he wasn't trying to use fear as a motivation against the general public, he was certainly try to use fearmongering on the "rich". Oddly enough, a tax bracket which he is a member of.

    I saw no evidence of that in his statements at the time the bill was introduced at all. If the idea of a draft is fearful and we have no intention of ever using it, it would make sense to remove the entire registration policy.

    Registering for the draft has been a part of life in America long before the war in Iraq. It's something that hasn't changed for decades. But if it helps you fearmonger, use it. The rest was pure speculation. For the less literate, speculation is "A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture" and generally lacking facts. Has it come to pass? It's been over two years. I speculate that if it wasn't for liberals, I'd have a million dollars. Where's my money?

    Draft registration exists for a reason, doesn't it? But I do love that "fearmongering" word almost as much as I like your definition of speculation. Apparently the Party doesn't subscribe to the idea that tours of duty continue to be extended and that the Pentagon has used a large number of National Guard troops in the Iraqi occupation.

    And because they couldn't get a hearing on it, they decided to kill the bill? Even though the details of which are available to anyone?

    That's right. The bill wasn't given proper consideration - in fact, the process generally used to adopt non-controversial measures, like resolutions, was used and the bill brought quickly to the floor with a very limited debate time alloted. No hearings meant no testimony and no evidence. Limited debate (like 40 minutes) means limited discussion. It was brought to the floor for the same political reasons you accuse the other party of projecting.

    So it makes sense that a Democrat politician would use fearmongering, which you seem to think wouldn't.

    Well, maybe to you and Jeff Gannon.

    Alrighty then...

    Spin, liberal. Spin, spin, spin.

    Boring.

  28. #28
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,367
    Rep Points
    -12839023

    Quote Originally Posted by Eggs
    Hrmm, like Monica must have been like, umm, a top secret special super duper CIA agent! Obviously that is the case since she user her super dooper secret agent powers to entice a president that would not under any other circumstances have let somebody that worked for him suck his dick.

    Of course Republicans didnt want Clinton in office... umm, thats kinda why we have seperate parties, with each trying to push its own objectives.
    I thought it was James/Jeff Guckert/Gannon who was the special agent for the White House this term.

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    7,008
    Rep Points
    1675493

    Quote Originally Posted by kbm8795
    I thought it was James/Jeff Guckert/Gannon who was the special agent for the White House this term.


  30. #30
    Metrosexual
    ELITE MEMBER
    DOMS's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    In a van, down by the river...
    Posts
    32,686
    Rep Points
    1862244849

    Quote Originally Posted by kbm8795
    I saw no evidence of that in his statements at the time the bill was introduced at all.
    "The volunteer military, according to Rangel's statement at the time, was disproportionately made up of lower income Americans - and 30% of the manpower were minorities. His argument was that, if the United States was going to embark on a prolonged war, every American citizen of national service age should be considered for military or community service."

    Did you read this part, or just cut-and-paste it?


    Quote Originally Posted by kbm8795
    Apparently the Party doesn't subscribe to the idea that tours of duty continue to be extended and that the Pentagon has used a large number of National Guard troops in the Iraqi occupation.
    Perhaps not, but your party does subscribe to gutting the military and crying like bitches when there aren't enough soldiers when the fighting starts. There was this guy, Cliinton, you may have heard of him, he was the US President from 1992-2000. During this time he leveled cutback after cutback at the military.



    Quote Originally Posted by kbm8795
    That's right. The bill wasn't given proper consideration - in fact, the process generally used to adopt non-controversial measures, like resolutions, was used and the bill brought quickly to the floor with a very limited debate time alloted. No hearings meant no testimony and no evidence. Limited debate (like 40 minutes) means limited discussion. It was brought to the floor for the same political reasons you accuse the other party of projecting.
    And yet, many other bills have become laws after going though that same process. I don't know...it's almost like they have system in place. A standarized way of doing things that all have agreed upon.


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. If there's a Draft
    By MaxMirkin in forum Open Chat
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 09-03-2005, 05:36 AM
  2. here comes the draft
    By joesmooth20 in forum Open Chat
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 05-29-2005, 12:22 PM
  3. NFL Draft
    By Doublebase in forum Sports
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-03-2005, 02:49 PM
  4. Draft?
    By DOS Forever in forum Open Chat
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 10-28-2004, 07:47 AM
  5. NFL Draft............
    By Rusty in forum Sports
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-25-2003, 02:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
-->