Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
maniclion said:Yes they should draft all the alpha males like you.
seven11 said:the army didnt recruit enough for this month
Yep, not this month maybe next month.ALBOB said:Don't worry, the draft will NOT happen anytime soon.
seven11 said:man i dont wanna go to iraq
You obviously don't know what you're talking about.kbm8795 said:While "fear-mongering" makes for good partisan rhetoric,
kbm8795 said: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.
cfs3 said: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.
cfs3 said: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.
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?John H. said: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.
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...kbm8795 said: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,
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.kbm8795 said: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.
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?kbm8795 said: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.
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?kbm8795 said: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.
So it makes sense that a Democrat politician would use fearmongering, which you seem to think he wouldn't.kbm8795 said:Of course, accusations of "fearmongering" are a common political rhetorical strategy.
cfs3 said: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.
What aJohn H. said: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.
Shhhhhhh! That's supposed to be a secret.Eggs said:Of course Republicans didnt want Clinton in office... umm, thats kinda why we have seperate parties, with each trying to push its own objectives.
cfs3 said: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.
Eggs said: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.
kbm8795 said:I thought it was James/Jeff Guckert/Gannon who was the special agent for the White House this term.
"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."kbm8795 said:I saw no evidence of that in his statements at the time the bill was introduced at all.
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.kbm8795 said: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 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.kbm8795 said: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.