Here comes the draft!

I copied this from it's entirety from here:
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/mandatorydraftcoming19mar04.shtml

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mandatory Draft Coming-Soon

From: Sophie Lapaire <[email protected] ([email protected])>
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/mandatorydraftcoming19mar04.shtml (http://educate-yourself.org/cn/mandatorydraftcoming19mar04.shtml)
March 19, 2004

I rarely send a mail to a large audience, but the possibility of mandatory drafting for boys and girls (age 18-26) starting June 15 2005, is something, I believe, everyone should know. This litteraly affects EVERYONE since we all have or know children that will have to go if this bill passes.

If there are children in your family, READ this.

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately. Details and links follow.

Even those voters who currently support us. Actions abroad may still object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a shelter and includes women in the draft
--
Also, crossing into canada has already been made very difficult.

Actions, actions, actions:
P please send this on to all the parents and teachers you know, and all the aunts and uncles, grandparents, godparents.... And let your children know -- it's their future, and theycan be a powerful voice for change!

Please also write to your representatives to ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills -- and write to newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story.

The draft

$28 million has been added to the 2004 selective service system (sss) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html (http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html) to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.

The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5146.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5146.htm)www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html (http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html)

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, http://www.hslda.org/legislation/national/2003/s89/default.asp (http://www.hslda.org/legislation/national/2003/s89/default.asp) entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States,
including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era. College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For those that don't believe that letter above, I have never seen that letter before myself until I found it on another forum, but a quick search of the Thomas Jefferson Legislative Search service of the Library of Congress gave me these:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.89:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.163:

Read it for yourselves. If you go to "Bill summary and status", neither one has been stricken-down as of yet, and have been merely referred to Committees and Sub-committees for "review". It's still alive, folks.

Ah, the draft. A stupid thing if there ever was one.
People do a better job when they want to do that job, not when they have no choice but to do so. I've even heard it called slavery, not that I'd put it down to quite that level - but worthless it is anyway.
Many countries do have mandatory military service for their citizens, I am glad, and proud that the U.S. doesn't currently do this. As I have already stated, the people who will do the best job, are those who are actively seeking that job, I believe very strongly in that. It angers me when people take job that they don't want, and then do a crappy uninspired job because of this - it's even worse when they don't do this out of their own choosing, IMHO.

No Canada? Oh well, I got friends in Mexico. :biggrin:

Seriously, I'd do what I have to do. Even though I wouldn't be happy about doing it.

spring 2005.. still only 17

*gulp :eek7:


What would you all do if you were drafted?
I don't really know but I guess I would serve.

It aint gonna happen....but it isn't all that bad of an idea.

It aint gonna happen....but it isn't all that bad of an idea.

I take it you're a Liberal like Lyndon B. Johnson?

I have never heard of anything more ironic (or stupid) than taking away somebody's freedom to protect his freedom, lol.

Yeah um, this better not happen.......

It won't, but hey it worked fine for many years. SOMEBODY has to protect the nation! As long as there are fine men to volunteer...we're are in good hands. If there just aren't enough...maybe they will have to bring the draft back.

I'm hoping this is just one of those things that comes up every few years, I've already been planning to move to another country, Canada has been high on that list, so I'd hate to be kept out as a potential draft-dodger. I honestly didn't think we would need to reinstate the draft with the amounts of money we put into the military.

It is one of those things we hear every few years. Its done as a scare tactic. Rangle (D-NY) was on the talking head shows calling for it because of the disproportion of blacks to whites, latinos to white, poort to rich and a few other buzz word comparisons.

This bill was brought around January of 2003 - it still sits in committee. I can find no mention of when and or if the bill will even be talked about in committee. Aside from it being introduced, its gone noplace. Remember any member can introduce anything they like. So one of the member makes a motion to reinstate slavery, the bill would get moved to committee.

If anyone wonders about the timing, just look at the sites raising the alarm. (use google and you'll see what I mean) They all site that the draft would start right after the 04 election. Most of the web sites specifically mention Bush and this bill over and over again. The bill was brought to the floor by Democrats who want nothing more then to see Bush out of office.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Yogs is right but if i was drafted id do what i had to.

I agree that it won't happen.

I would go to war if I was drafted and I felt it was a good cause. In a World War II-like situation, yes I would go. A vietnam-like situation? Probably not. If we're going to have a draft I'd like to know that it's for a good cause. Good points Yogs.

I have done my time in the military, and if I got called back, I would grab my gear, head up front, do whats needed, keep my ass and head down, come back to my fiance (yup just asked her 2 days ago!) and go about my buisness. Personally, I like the idea of mandatory military time of 1 or 2 years. I think it would help cut down on crime and lazy people, because it might actually instill some discipline, morals, responsibility, and most of all, self-respect. If they do decide to pass it back, I do hope this time it is equally for all. Males and Females alike.

Hmmm, maybe the government should give everybody jobs. You know, have state run companies, give everybody what and only what the government deems necessary to give them, we could stand in line for half an hour to get a loaf of bread...
Never mind. I don't think the government should be forcing jobs on people. Use your freedom of choice to make the right choice. But it's important that that choice, remains a choice.

Hmmm, maybe the government should give everybody jobs. You know, have state run companies, give everybody what and only what the government deems necessary to give them, we could stand in line for half an hour to get a loaf of bread...
Never mind. I don't think the government should be forcing jobs on people. Use your freedom of choice to make the right choice. But it's important that that choice, remains a choice.

Kind of like a welfare-to-work program? The government uses big companies like say...Lockheed Martin, making defense weapons, *like we need any more* and employs people without work, gives them transportation to and from, and gives them the equivalent of welfare checks while boosting the economy. I kind of disagree with the program, it has it's flaws. Alot of people work the jobs because they feel they have to in order to get any support, and most people are gone from sunup to sundown, taking them away from their children. I think that's what you're getting at...correct me if I'm wrong.

The government "finding" jobs for people is different, than forcing them to do work. Tongue in cheek, I was making reference to communism, with government appointed jobs in government run companies.

because it might actually instill some discipline, morals, responsibility, and most of all, self-respect.

I really dont think the military is the best place to instill morals in people.
from what i understand, our military is a killing organization. to quote the ever wonderful Dick Cheney "the military does not exist as a welfare organization, or as an educational institution. The military exists for one reason, and that is the eradication of our enemies". The military enforces such things as the inability to reason, the blind taking of orders, and instinct to kill rather than reason with your adversaries. While i think military service is an honorable thing, it is hardly a "moral" institution

and on the greater point, theres alot of blaming on this thread as far as "democrats did this, and republicans did that, your party sucks, etc"

what we are forgetting is that both parties are a part of the larger political machine that has held power over our politics since 1776, and will hold power until America collapses in on it own puffed up jingoism. there is no coincidence that the two men running for president are essentially the same canidate. its no coincidence that there isnt a third party in this country with any sort of pilitical power. remember always, "the illusion of choice is the greatest tranquilizer for the populace"

when I said morals, I meant by the fact that the military holds everyone responsible for their actions, good or bad. You are "forced" in a way to develop your own set of morals. I didnt mean they would literally teach you morals. I am sorry for the confusion, I should have clarified my statement better.

IPersonally, I like the idea of mandatory military time of 1 or 2 years. I think it would help cut down on crime and lazy people, because it might actually instill some discipline, morals, responsibility, and most of all, self-respect.

Thats an interesting point but you'd have to admit there are other more constructive & socially aiding programs that can lift people out of a hole and get them going on a good career.

As far as drafting goes, thats a complicated scenario. Most everyone who loves their country will say they would fight to protect it, but the idea of a worthwhile cause greatly differs between people. So in the event of a clear WWII type threat you'd expect the majority of citizens to enlist themselves - and this same majority wouldn't feel bad about the gov't starting up a draft because everybody should be fighting for this worthy cause. But if the cause is not something the majority believes in then the draft appears awful - and the minority who enlist or look forward to the draft feel bad because the others are not supporting their gov'ts decision. Its a tough call. You have to respect individual rights and freedoms - but on the other hand you also have to support your government's decisions (in theory anyways because they're supposedly acting for your best interest).

There's no way I'd go to Afganistan or Iraq to fight, draft or not. However, I'm sure I'd feel different if Afgani's or Iraqi's flew a couple of our plains into the CN Tower and blew it up. I think the biggest problem with the war on terror is there's no clear target. If it were one country controlling all the attacks it would be easier for people to take up arms and fight. It would be easy for people to focus and accept. The fact that many countries have links to terrorists makes it difficult cause you go into a country with a full head of steam, oust who you thought was the source, then as times goes on (and you're still stuck cleaning up) you start losing focus and even questioning if this was in fact a good target to begin with (cause the attacks are still happening or getting worse).

It might be easily for other countries or peoples to question or second guess the U.S. for their approach, but you guys don't have it easy when it comes to the war on terror. I'm not sure what I think, but I know America's decision to fight is no worse than Spain's decision to recoil from terrorist attacks. Things are messed up.

On a lighter note, you dudes are welcomed to come up and crash at my pad if you decide to ditch the draft. We'll take some beer & bud to the park and throw around the olde baseball, and teach you boys the fine art of street hockey. :grinno:

I guess it depends on the situation. If a draft started for a war like vietnam or something, if I were called I would serve. However, if a war situation like WW2 came up, I'd go join instead of waiting to be drafted, there are more options that way.
It's a good idea to make women sign selective service cards too, makes it more 'equal'.

I agree with Yogs though, this is just a political ploy, nothing more, Bush knows that a proposal for the draft would completely torpedo him in the eyes of the U.S. and the world and he's maintained his stance on leaving by June 30 this whole time, so why draft more of them?

COME TAKE MY SISTER!!!! ah my dream would come true! yes that is mean and evil, but i dont care!!!!!!!!!!!!! ok ok im just kinding, i think this is a bad idea, its really stupid beause those ppl will not fight hard or work hard b/c its not thier choice to do it.

I have done my time in the military, and if I got called back, I would grab my gear, head up front, do whats needed, keep my ass and head down, come back to my fiance (yup just asked her 2 days ago!) and go about my buisness. Personally, I like the idea of mandatory military time of 1 or 2 years. I think it would help cut down on crime and lazy people, because it might actually instill some discipline, morals, responsibility, and most of all, self-respect. If they do decide to pass it back, I do hope this time it is equally for all. Males and Females alike.

I couldn't agree more.

I agree with Yogs though, this is just a political ploy, nothing more, Bush knows that a proposal for the draft would completely torpedo him in the eyes of the U.S. and the world and he's maintained his stance on leaving by June 30 this whole time, so why draft more of them?

Well, maybe Bush needs to shut some of the Republican Senators up?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040420/pl_afp/us_iraq_military_draft_040420163408

For all of you that say that you will do what needs to be done if you get drafted...do you then say that a draft is a good thing? Consider the conflict they're drafting for. http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/disappointed.gif

Complying with the draft and agreeing it are two separate things, you can't say that just because I would serve means that I think it is right.

I am not particularly enamored of the idea but I would serve because I would get arrested for not serving right? What were the jail times for non compliers in vietnam?

What were the jail times for non compliers in vietnam?
Bill Clinton never served any time.

Yeah that really answered my question while helping the thread, fantastic, spectacular post, I am impressed

Just to make sure I remember correctly, if I'm in college, I can stay in college OR go to the draft, right?

Interesting topic. I'm no expert on the subjuct, so keep in mind this is just a thought.

It would seem to me that the United States is large enough that it would have enough people voluntarily joining the military that they wouldn't need a draft. However, since they do, maybe they should rethink their stance on going to war.

It would seem to me that the United States is large enough that it would have enough people voluntarily joining the military that they wouldn't need a draft. However, since they do, maybe they should rethink their stance on going to war.
Exactly. If enough people agreed, they'd have enough people to do the job. If people disagree, and don't want to help out - then obviously the government is not listening to or serving the people of their country.

Exactly. If enough people agreed, they'd have enough people to do the job. If people disagree, and don't want to help out - then obviously the government is not listening to or serving the people of their country.

Very well said!


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by DevoutWankelist
What were the jail times for non compliers in vietnam?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Clinton never served any time.


It's hard to be drafted when you're in England on a rhodes scholarship to the best university in the world. :rolleyes:

And it occurs to me, Dubya never served any jail time either, not even for his desertion stunt.

And it occurs to me, Dubya never served any jail time either, not even for his desertion stunt.

Desertion? :screwy: You must be dazed from the Flames elimination of the Canucks. :lol:













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Cujo better be ready for them Flames or the Wings will get BBQ'd.

Leafs and Wings in the final, its coming...

I hope it doesn't happen..

Complying with the draft and agreeing it are two separate things, you can't say that just because I would serve means that I think it is right.

I am not particularly enamored of the idea but I would serve because I would get arrested for not serving right? What were the jail times for non compliers in vietnam?
You would be prepared to go and kill people, even if you didn't think it was right, to avoid being arrested. Is that what you are saying?

Yeah that really answered my question while helping the thread, fantastic, spectacular post, I am impressed
Well YOU certainly added EMMENSELY!! BTW ...Bite me!

You would be prepared to go and kill people, even if you didn't think it was right, to avoid being arrested. Is that what you are saying?


They can make me go, but they can't make me kill. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

great here we go, time to move to Canada

They can make me go, but they can't make me kill. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
I didn't intend putting words in your mouth, that's why I asked the question "Is that what you are saying?". Thank you for answering that question.

I admire the "can't make me kill" sentiment.

However, when you find yourself in a kill or be killed (or see another killed) situation, it doesn't always work out that way.

As an example, witness what happens when a car runs a checkpoint in Iraq. There is a risk that it may be a car bomb and as such the coalition obliterates it to defend the soldiers at the checkpoint. Often it turns out to be a load of women and children trying to flee the hostilities. It may be possible to justify the slaughter on that basis, but that won't keep the visions of childrens bodies mangled by explosive rounds from filling your mind in the small hours of the morning.

Furthermore, if you refuse the order, you end up in the same situation. Possibly your comrades die as a result of your inaction and you get arrested along with the memory of that incident. Or even if it all turns out ok - you still get arrested for refusing the order.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that draft or no draft, the individual still has choices - it's just that the consequences differ. There are worse things than being arrested and serving time. There are also other options which may include evading both the draft and arrest and of course these options have their own consequences in turn.

You would be prepared to go and kill people, even if you didn't think it was right, to avoid being arrested. Is that what you are saying?

That's why I'd join first if it were a vietnam-like situation. More options that way. I wouldn't desert or draft dodge, I'd do my duty. If they happened to put me in a situation where I had to kill or die being moral, I'd be one immoral son of a bitch.

. . .when you find yourself in a kill or be killed (or see another killed) situation, it doesn't always work out that way. . . .

. . .Possibly your comrades die as a result of your inaction. . .


I posted earlier before I went to work and spent all my time at work thinking about those very same things, and wishing I had thought the post over more. As to whether I would or would not serve, I'm not so sure now, I would really like to hear reasons why people would or why people wouldn't serve (and if so how) then, so that I can decide on what I feel is appropriate in the given situation.

Now that I'm home from work there is one thing running around in my head that I am having difficulty with in reagards to dodging the draft as opposed to not killing in the situation.

The soldier who dies because I am there and don't act still dies if I'm just not there. Granted my absence wont be so directly consequential and the situation will be different because of my absence, but it still bothers me.

Also, if 100 people dodge the draft, aren't 100 more drafted to occupy there positions? I would feel infinite guilt not having served, if it was only so someone else must serve and maybe even die.

I guess those are my biggest concerns for now, thanks in advance for any help.

That's why I'd join first if it were a vietnam-like situation. More options that way. I wouldn't desert or draft dodge, I'd do my duty. If they happened to put me in a situation where I had to kill or die being moral, I'd be one immoral son of a bitch.

Ahh! now we're getting to the nitty gritty!

Please elucidate - what IS your duty?

I believe the answer to that question, equated against what people are actually doing there, is at the heart of question of whether to answer the call or not.

I believe the answer to that question, equated against what people are actually doing there, is at the heart of question of whether to answer the call or not.
So....what the heck do YOU think they are doing there?? Somebody elses duty??

I posted earlier before I went to work and spent all my time at work thinking about those very same things, and wishing I had thought the post over more. As to whether I would or would not serve, I'm not so sure now, I would really like to hear reasons why people would or why people wouldn't serve (and if so how) then, so that I can decide on what I feel is appropriate in the given situation.

Now that I'm home from work there is one thing running around in my head that I am having difficulty with in reagards to dodging the draft as opposed to not killing in the situation.

The soldier who dies because I am there and don't act still dies if I'm just not there. Granted my absence wont be so directly consequential and the situation will be different because of my absence, but it still bothers me.

Also, if 100 people dodge the draft, aren't 100 more drafted to occupy there positions? I would feel infinite guilt not having served, if it was only so someone else must serve and maybe even die.

I guess those are my biggest concerns for now, thanks in advance for any help.
You cannot hold yourself responsible for the choices that other people make - only for your own.

Consider this. A checkpoint cannot be attacked if it is not there - and neither can a soldier.

As to the guilt at not having served, refer to my post above. What do you believe your duty is? - and is being drafted discharging that duty, or some other purpose contrary to what you believe in?

If you haven't already, and you have the time read "Enemy at the Gates" or see the movie. At the very least it will expand the frame of reference from which to draw upon. The type of warfare is very similar to what is happening in Iraq today.

So....what the heck do YOU think they are doing there?? Somebody elses duty??Not what I meant. I meant more along the lines of:

......UPHOLD the CONSTITUTION.........to DEFEND against all ENEMIES...both FOREIGN and DOMESTIC.......

or whatever else you may or may not PERSONALLY believe in - if you do indeed believe in anything.

Does it equate with the intent/motives/ethics of what is actually going on?

That's what I meant.


As to what I personally think they are doing there, posting that here would detract from this thread - read my other posts if you want to know but the quote's in my thread should give you a hint.

There is certainly no need to be a dick!

So many are throwing a fit that more wasn't done BEFORE 9/11! Those same morons are throwing a fit that we are doing things NOW to PREVENT ANOTHER 9/11!
......UPHOLD the CONSTITUTION.........to DEFEND against all ENEMIES...both FOREIGN and DOMESTIC.......
I think that about sums it up. THAT IS EVERYONE'S duty! Whining by limpwristed liberals never stopped anybody from being aggressive toward the USA!

There is certainly no need to be a dick!I agree wholeheartedly.

So many are throwing a fit that more wasn't done BEFORE 9/11! Those same morons are throwing a fit that we are doing things NOW to PREVENT ANOTHER 9/11!
Is that what you believe is going on? - prevention of another 911? You believe Iraq was responsible? You believe that the changes brought about by the Patriot Acts will make you safe?

See the Benjamin Franklin quote in my sig.

I believe that what is being done now is more of what created the motive for 911 in the first place. But that's off-topic and would kill this thread as it has so many others. The topic here is the draft.

I think that about sums it up. THAT IS EVERYONE'S duty!
If people see that as their duty then it's quite simple isn't it. The question is whether waging war in Iraq, the wider Middle East and the defence of Isreal has anything to do with defending the constitution and US soil.

Whining by limpwristed liberals never stopped anybody from being aggressive toward the USA!
Neither does maintaining military bases in foreign countries where they are unwelcome, interfering in the politics of sovereign nations and providing clandestine support for the subversion of foreign governments.

You believe Iraq was responsible? You believe that the changes brought about by the Patriot Acts will make you safe?

I NEVER said Iraq was responsible for 9/11, but I believe (and any [inormal[/i] person agrees) that they had designs on something similar. What people of their ilk would love is for us to sit idly on our asses and let them do us in the same way that UBL did on 9/11. If we ignore their idiocy then we are asking them to knock down a few more WTCs!

Desertion? :screwy: You must be dazed from the Flames elimination of the Canucks. :lol:

Now that was a cheapshot :grinno:

You just better hope that the Wings can do a better job against Kiprusoff than the Canucks could... That guy isn't human! :lol:

Don't worry Yogs, the Canadian boys will show them how to play hockey :iceslolan

I NEVER said Iraq was responsible for 9/11, but I believe (and any [inormal[/i] person agrees) that they had designs on something similar. What people of their ilk would love is for us to sit idly on our asses and let them do us in the same way that UBL did on 9/11. If we ignore their idiocy then we are asking them to knock down a few more WTCs!
If that is your belief then you are just the man for the job. No internal conflicts for you - as your actions will agree with your belief.

I disagree with your belief - I must be one of that not-normal idiot ilk. I can't make you believe otherwise - so I'll post the following link and leave it at that.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/050803H.shtml

I really can't understand you Bush guys. (I won't demean the word "conservative" by calling you guys that.)

First, it was denial, saying that the draft talk is all that - talk, designed to bring Bush's campaign down.

Now that it's becoming more and more real, the draft is now a good, and honorable thing. So, if the draft was so good, how was the mere talk of it supposed to bring down Bush? Does that make sense?

Some of you guys make about as much sense as one of Bush's speech...and no, that wasn't compliment, however you twist it.

Is that what you believe is going on? - prevention of another 911?
I believe that what is being done now is more of what created the motive for 911 in the first place. But that's off-topic and would kill this thread as it has so many others. The topic here is the draft.



If the fatal fighting is kept over there, where blind ignorance and propaganda breed terrorists, then by all means yes, this is the right thing to do.

If people see that as their duty then it's quite simple isn't it. The question is whether waging war in Iraq, the wider Middle East and the defence of Isreal has anything to do with defending the constitution and US soil.

The defence of Isreal is an aid in this situation. They've been dealing with these people for centuries, why not take their advice in dealing with them? In return, give Isreal a little help and learn from them in the process. As I said, keep the fighting over there, not here on U.S. soil.


Neither does maintaining military bases in foreign countries where they are unwelcome, interfering in the politics of sovereign nations and providing clandestine support for the subversion of foreign governments.

Oh, are you referring to the bases in Japan and Germany which are there because of surrender terms from WW2, or perhaps Britain who leased us land and permitted bases on that land in return for supplies in WW2? They have no one to blame but themselves for U.S. bases being on their land.

I really can't understand you Bush guys. (I won't demean the word "conservative" by calling you guys that.)

First, it was denial, saying that the draft talk is all that - talk, designed to bring Bush's campaign down.

Now that it's becoming more and more real, the draft is now a good, and honorable thing. So, if the draft was so good, how was the mere talk of it supposed to bring down Bush? Does that make sense?

Some of you guys make about as much sense as one of Bush's speech...and no, that wasn't compliment, however you twist it.

Since when is it honorable or good? The draft sucks ass if you get picked and I'd hate for it to start up just like anyone else would, (except women), because I have a life and I'd rather not drop everything to go get shot at. However, as a U.S. male citizen, in exchange for living here and enjoying the perks available, at 18 you must sign the selective service card. I don't mind it, it's a good thing to have in time of emergency.

Is the draft talk a political ploy by the democrats? I think it is, like I said, it's making a huge stir, (mostly against bush), and it's not likely to be implemented. Yet it just pops up right when John Kerry does and election day is looming. It's just too much 'coincidence' to be legit and not bullshit.

Is the draft talk a political ploy by the democrats? I think it is, like I said, it's making a huge stir, (mostly against bush), and it's not likely to be implemented. Yet it just pops up right when John Kerry does and election day is looming. It's just too much 'coincidence' to be legit and not bullshit.

LOL

It was REALLY hard to not criticize your intelligence, and your grasp of American reality with that last post, considering it was a senior Republican who is pushing for the draft.

Why don't you browse through here: http://capwiz.com/usatoday/bio/letterslist/?id=365

...and read some letters from around the country, expressing anger at even the suggestion of a draft for such a corrupt "war".

The letter is addressed to Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican.

Political shooting by Democrats, maybe, but it was a Republican who put the bullets in that gun, son.

If the fatal fighting is kept over there, where blind ignorance and propaganda breed terrorists, then by all means yes, this is the right thing to do. It is the fighting "over there" that motivates some to "bring it home" to the US. If your dog shits in someone elses back yard, don't be surprised if it gets thrown over the fence into yours.

The defence of Isreal is an aid in this situation. They've been dealing with these people for centuries, why not take their advice in dealing with them? In return, give Isreal a little help and learn from them in the process. As I said, keep the fighting over there, not here on U.S. soil.Centuries? Seems things were quite civil between the Arabs and Jews in that part of the world until people like Ben Gurion came along. As far as learning to use tactics of Mossad and the IDF, may God have mercy on your soul. As far as the Arabs are concerned, it is enough that the US funds the activities of Mossad and the IDF.

Oh, are you referring to the bases in Japan and Germany which are there because of surrender terms from WW2, or perhaps Britain who leased us land and permitted bases on that land in return for supplies in WW2? They have no one to blame but themselves for U.S. bases being on their land. Yes, I refer to all of them. All 700+ of them infecting the globe.
Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (Second Edition) (http://books.politinfo.com/shop.pl?item_id=0805075593&search_type=image)

Where's that draft coming from??

I'd like to comment on something justacruiser said, something that i hear alot, and frankly, i think its time we looked in the mirror. allow me to clarify

"over there, where blind ignorance and propoganda breed terrorists" was a statment made by said member

I'd like to point something out. our government attacked, took over, and has since occupied two countries in less than three years because those countries were, and i quote "rouge nations with weapons of mass destruction and a leader crazy enough to use them"

i'll remind the readers of this thread that the United States produces more chemical and biological weapons than any other nation, has larger stockpiles of nuclear weapons than any other nation, and on top of things has a larger military than any other nation. (note, the united states possesses weapons of mass destruction)

The united states went against the UN and the greater part of the worlds will, and unilaterally (read: rougely) attacked a country that would not have been able to repell an invasion by the girl scouts. The united States, in it "with us or against us" policy, made itself a rouge nation.

The pentagon, with assistance from donald rumsfield and the CIA began developing what is called a "tactical nuke" or a "bunker buster nuke" specifically for the purpose of fighting in Iraq, and the pentagon actually, very seriously considered the use of these tactical nukes in Iraq. The US is also the only nation to ever drop a nuclear weapon on an enemy.

so please note, we as a nation fit the very profile of what we claim to be fighting. To simply dismiss terrorism as a problem of "those people over there" is to be ridiculously ignorant. violence is not something that America is seeking to eliminate in the world, it is something America propigates.

lets not forget that the american military could be clasified as the largest terrorist organization in the world.

lets also not forget that the US funded and currently funds known terrorist organization. must i remind you who gave osama bin laden all his weapons and training?

take a look in the mirror son.

I NEVER said Iraq was responsible for 9/11, but I believe (and any [inormal[/i] person agrees) that they had designs on something similar.


So you mean to say that if someone doesn't believe that Iraq was planning an attack on the US similar to the attacks on 9/11, that they aren't normal?

The real definition of "normal" is something that adheres to the "norm", being either the mean or the median, depending on who's definition you use.

You think that the majority of the people in the world believe that Iraq was going to attack the US in a massive terrorist action? I certainly don't, and I think you'll be hard pressed to find many people who will agree with you, unless you're constantly surrounded by brainwashed right wingers... Say, are you military?


What people of their ilk would love is for us to sit idly on our asses and let them do us in the same way that UBL did on 9/11. If we ignore their idiocy then we are asking them to knock down a few more WTCs!

Before you can support a statement like that, you're going to have to examine WHY the attacks on 9/11 happened. Look for the root cause of the action, and teh sentiment against the US. If you're going to believe they did it because they hate the US, that's a start. Now try to figure out WHY they hate the US. What has the US done that has caused them to feel this way?

If you're going to retort that they did it because they believed it would get them into heaven, or that they are simply jealous of the US, don't waste your breath.

I'd like to comment on something justacruiser said, something that i hear alot, and frankly, i think its time we looked in the mirror. allow me to clarify

"over there, where blind ignorance and propoganda breed terrorists" was a statment made by said member

I'd like to point something out. our government attacked, took over, and has since occupied two countries in less than three years because those countries were, and i quote "rouge nations with weapons of mass destruction and a leader crazy enough to use them"

i'll remind the readers of this thread that the United States produces more chemical and biological weapons than any other nation, has larger stockpiles of nuclear weapons than any other nation, and on top of things has a larger military than any other nation. (note, the united states possesses weapons of mass destruction)

The united states went against the UN and the greater part of the worlds will, and unilaterally (read: rougely) attacked a country that would not have been able to repell an invasion by the girl scouts. The united States, in it "with us or against us" policy, made itself a rouge nation.

The pentagon, with assistance from donald rumsfield and the CIA began developing what is called a "tactical nuke" or a "bunker buster nuke" specifically for the purpose of fighting in Iraq, and the pentagon actually, very seriously considered the use of these tactical nukes in Iraq. The US is also the only nation to ever drop a nuclear weapon on an enemy.

so please note, we as a nation fit the very profile of what we claim to be fighting. To simply dismiss terrorism as a problem of "those people over there" is to be ridiculously ignorant. violence is not something that America is seeking to eliminate in the world, it is something America propigates.

lets not forget that the american military could be clasified as the largest terrorist organization in the world.

lets also not forget that the US funded and currently funds known terrorist organization. must i remind you who gave osama bin laden all his weapons and training?

take a look in the mirror son.

But I think you've overlooked one key fact... The US are the good guys! The cowboys, the sherriff, the guys saving the world from communism! The US can do no wrong, and obviously anyone who the US doesn't like must be the bad guys, the indians, the bank robbers, the commies, oh and now, the terrorists.

The US has always made a policy of labeling it's enemies to make war more palatable for the American people.

If the fatal fighting is kept over there, where blind ignorance and propaganda breed terrorists, then by all means yes, this is the right thing to do.


As opposed to the US, where blind ignorance and propaganda breed voters, and greed and influecne breed politicians who do the exact same things as terrorists.


The defence of Isreal is an aid in this situation. They've been dealing with these people for centuries, why not take their advice in dealing with them? In return, give Isreal a little help and learn from them in the process. As I said, keep the fighting over there, not here on U.S. soil.


That's a ludicrous statement. All that supporting Israel has ever garnered the US is the animosity of a very large portion of the worlds population.

Israel has never given the US anything, except for continual embarrassment on the internation stage.