PDA

View Full Version : well it looks like the draft is coming back



aserecuba
04-20-2004, 12:33 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040420/pl_afp/us_iraq_military_draft_040420163408

I quote-


"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future," Senator Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on post-occupation Iraq.


"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?"

really mofo why dont you get your ass over there instead.

JonZ
04-20-2004, 01:22 PM
"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?"

We are - its costing us 100s of billions.

And Im sure none of the guys who created this law will have their children get drafted.

Senators kids are too busy buying cars and getting blowjobs at college to get drafted.

aserecuba
04-20-2004, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by JonZ
"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?"

We are - its costing us 100s of billions.

And Im sure none of the guys who created this law will have their children get drafted.

Senators kids are too busy buying cars and getting blowjobs at college to get drafted.
bump

JigaroKagan
04-20-2004, 01:26 PM
A draft will never happen. Come on, look at how the American public is already reacting to the situation in Iraq! A draft, especially one where the Vietnam generation is still alive, is only doomed to fail.

Anyway, that's BS about us needing more people in Iraq. We're currently easing our way out of there so that the UN can take over.

fireman_x
04-20-2004, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by JigaroKagan
A draft will never happen. Come on, look at how the American public is already reacting to the situation in Iraq! A draft, especially one where the Vietnam generation is still alive, is only doomed to fail.

How is it doomed to fail when citizens don't really have any control over the governmants actions, protesting is useless. I knew a draft would occur, and even being in college will no longer be an exemption. If a situation occured where national security was as risk, there wouldn't need to be a draft because there would be enough volunteers. Now the government wants to "spread democracy" :rolleyes: at the cost of billions and hundreds(probably soon to be thousands) of American lives. The draft will be enabled due to the incompetence of military planners who decide to underequip and underprepare soldiers who die as a result. If another conflict occurs lets say with Syria(most likely), Lebanon, Iran or even Indonesia, a draft will be enacted.

SteakNPotatoes
04-20-2004, 01:43 PM
Here is my dick, military draft. Suck it.

supergarr
04-20-2004, 02:45 PM
law enforcement is exempt. yay :D

LethalOnGuitarZ
04-20-2004, 03:04 PM
Phoowee. That's one step closer to civil war!!!

Ak47
04-20-2004, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by LethalOnGuitarZ
Phoowee. That's one step closer to civil war!!!

didnt some guy claiming to be a time-traveler say there would be civil war in the US in 2005?


That would be some crazy ****...

aserecuba
04-20-2004, 03:39 PM
lol john titor. yup that would be some crazy **** indeed

ripped_holla
04-20-2004, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by a. americanus
Ip: Logged :D

That's what you said to me when I objected to the draft.

At least come up with something more original. ;)

Jcfreak_02
04-21-2004, 12:13 AM
As long as the Vietnam vets live the draft will not be activated, when it does, it is about time IMO.

Al_Bundy
04-21-2004, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by fireman_x
How is it doomed to fail when citizens don't really have any control over the governmants actions, protesting is useless.

Au contraire. The parliaments are elected by the people. If a parliamentary party believes that a draft is wrong, all you do is vote them in at the next election.

Jimineye
04-21-2004, 01:25 AM
I've said it time and time again, that if I'm drafted I will proudly serve my nation. I'm considering in joining the military after college anyways for a couple years and becoming an officer.

fireman_x
04-21-2004, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Jimineye
I've said it time and time again, that if I'm drafted I will proudly serve my nation. I'm considering in joining the military after college anyways for a couple years and becoming an officer.
The thing is that you will not be "serving your country", unless we're attacked, you will only be serving your countries "interests".

fireman_x
04-21-2004, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Al_Bundy
Au contraire. The parliaments are elected by the people. If a parliamentary party believes that a draft is wrong, all you do is vote them in at the next election. By the next election it could be too late. Also politicians don't do what they feel is right, they do what is right for the right price. The government only does enough to try and keep citizens content and quiet so they can go about their own "activities".

LethalOnGuitarZ
04-21-2004, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by aserecuba
lol john titor. yup that would be some crazy **** indeed
LoL yup that's the guy. www.johntitor.com

I don't think I can really believe any of that... but hey be pretty eerie if it did happen...

kmac12
04-21-2004, 11:18 AM
Won't happen.

kmac12
04-21-2004, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by fireman_x
The thing is that you will not be "serving your country", unless we're attacked, you will only be serving your countries "interests".

I think you are incorrect.

If we are attacked, he would be 'defending the country'. If he serves in the us military, he is 'serving the country'.

I think it is somewhat insulting to say that the soldiers in Iraq are not 'serving their country'.

Jimineye
04-21-2004, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by fireman_x
The thing is that you will not be "serving your country", unless we're attacked, you will only be serving your countries "interests".

So what were the soldiers doing when we were at peace? Twidling their thumbs and doing nothing for the country. ANYONE who is in the armed forces is serving the country.

mariners216
04-21-2004, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
I think you are incorrect.

If we are attacked, he would be 'defending the country'. If he serves in the us military, he is 'serving the country'.

I think it is somewhat insulting to say that the soldiers in Iraq are not 'serving their country'.
It's sad that they think what they're doing is necessary. I just saw a dead soldier's parent that lives in the Pittsburgh area on the news the other day, saying her son "joined the military because he thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and wanted to defend his country.":(

fireman_x
04-21-2004, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
I think it is somewhat insulting to say that the soldiers in Iraq are not 'serving their country'. Did I say anything about Iraq? Where are you getting these assumptions from? Anyways why are the soldiers in Iraq, to spread democracy? That will never happen they all want Islamic governments. Even some Muslim's in Holland say the want to see the "flag of Islam flying on the capital buildings."


Originally posted by Jimineye
So what were the soldiers doing when we were at peace? Twidling their thumbs and doing nothing for the country. ANYONE who is in the armed forces is serving the country.
No. When soldiers are sent to fight in other countries for contrived reasons then they are fighting solely for the governments interests. Fighting in Afghanistan against terrorists was fighting for our country. Fighting in Iraq for WMD that seems to no longer exist, and now trying to "spread democracy" is fighting for the government's interests.

kmac12
04-21-2004, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by mariners216
It's sad that they think what they're doing is necessary. I just saw a dead soldier's parent that lives in the Pittsburgh area on the news the other day, saying her son "joined the military because he thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and wanted to defend his country.":(

That is some people's opinion.

My girlfriend has some friends who are in the military and about to head to Iraq and some who are already there (one was in the unit that captured Saddam and he has very cool pictures of them pulling him out).

They all have told her not to vote for Kerry and that they stand behind Bush.

I let the soliders speak for themselves. I am positive that most of them support the war and the President.

One of the soldiers on the history channel documentary said that he felt wonderful after seeing the faces of those that he liberated.

Reborn79
04-21-2004, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
That is some people's opinion.

My girlfriend has some friends who are in the military and about to head to Iraq and some who are already there (one was in the unit that captured Saddam and he has very cool pictures of them pulling him out).

They all have told her not to vote for Kerry and that they stand behind Bush.

I let the soliders speak for themselves. I am positive that most of them support the war and the President.

One of the soldiers on the history channel documentary said that he felt wonderful after seeing the faces of those that he liberated.

Now let's liberate the many other countries run by dictators out there, as it is apparently now the U.S.'s job to spread democracy.

The fact is this: The argument for the war was that Saddam was an imminent threat to the U.S. He wasn't. Now that we have found no WMDs, the argument changed to 'we are liberating the Iraqi people'. If you fail to realize this change of message, or simply follow what the administration says blindly, then you will never get an accurate picture of what is going on.

Sure, we liberated them. Great. But that is NOT the reason the majority of America supported the war. If they would just ****ing admit that, then I would at least have a little shred of respect for this administration. Of course they won't, so whatever.

kmac12
04-21-2004, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
Did I say anything about Iraq? Where are you getting these assumptions from? Anyways why are the soldiers in Iraq, to spread democracy? That will never happen they all want Islamic governments. Even some Muslim's in Holland say the want to see the "flag of Islam flying on the capital buildings."

No, but I thought that was what you were inferring. I apologize if that was not the case.

I do not want to debate the reasons for the war. It is like running around in circles. It's been done alot on this board.


No. When soldiers are sent to fight in other countries for contrived reasons then they are fighting solely for the governments interests. Fighting in Afghanistan against terrorists was fighting for our country. Fighting in Iraq for WMD that seems to no longer exist, and now trying to "spread democracy" is fighting for the government's interests.

So, you are saying that soldiers in Iraq are not 'serving their country'?

kmac12
04-21-2004, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
Now let's liberate the many other countries run by dictators out there, as it is apparently now the U.S.'s job to spread democracy.

The fact is this: The argument for the war was that Saddam was an imminent threat to the U.S. He wasn't. Now that we have found no WMDs, the argument changed to 'we are liberating the Iraqi people'. If you fail to realize this change of message, or simply follow what the administration says blindly, then you will never get an accurate picture of what is going on.

Sure, we liberated them. Great. But that is NOT the reason the majority of America supported the war. If they would just ****ing admit that, then I would at least have a little shred of respect for this administration. Of course they won't, so whatever.

Again, I am not going to debate the reasons for the war or explanations by the administration. Been there, done that. I am tired of it already.

I was just saying that soldiers we know are backing Bush and believe in the war. And, that I saw a documentary on the History channel and heard some comments by soldiers on it.

Reborn79
04-21-2004, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
No, but I thought that was what you were inferring. I apologize if that was not the case.

I do not want to debate the reasons for the war. It is like running around in circles. It's been done alot on this board.



So, you are saying that soldiers in Iraq are not 'serving their country'?

They are serving their country, and everyone I know has nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for the men and women who essentially risk their lives day in and day out .

They are serving our country by following orders. As far as 'making America safer', that is debatable. My problem is not with the soldiers or the military, even. It is with the administration and those who are manipulating these military men and women by lieing to them and the American public.

fireman_x
04-21-2004, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
No, but I thought that was what you were inferring. I apologize if that was not the case.

I do not want to debate the reasons for the war. It is like running around in circles. It's been done alot on this board.
Ok.



So, you are saying that soldiers in Iraq are not 'serving their country'?
If they are not doing anything that would benefit the American people then they are not serving their country. The government seems to be "interested" in this so called "spreading of democracy" to "stabilize the region" which of course will never work. Freeing the Iraqi people and "spreading democracy" at an enormous cost of capital and human life is not beneficial to the citizens of the United States. Terrorist and the so called "freedom fighters" have become active in the region due to the invasion of Iraq.

kmac12
04-21-2004, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
They are serving their country, and everyone I know has nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for the men and women who essentially risk their lives day in and day out .

Exactly.

Whether you agree with the reasons for the war or not, the soldiers ARE serving this country and they should be commended.

kmac12
04-21-2004, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
If they are not doing anything that would benefit the American people then they are not serving their country.

So, the military should only be doing things to benefit THIS country?

That has not been the policy of this country in the past. Just look at Vietnam, the Persian Gulf War and the more recent military policing actions of the '90s.

This is not to mention the numerous special ops missions that we do not know about that may not directly benefit this country.

So, were the soldiers in those wars/police actions serving their country? I think so.

In essence, I agree with you about only using the troops to benefit this country. I am more of an isolationist than Bush (at least post 9/11 Bush), but that has not been the policy of this country.

In a perfect world, our soldiers would only be used to defend this country and in some cases it's allies. IMO, it is disrespectful though to say that they are not serving this country in their current duty. I highly doubt you will find many that disagree with me on that.

Ak47
04-21-2004, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
Exactly.

Whether you agree with the reasons for the war or not, the soldiers ARE serving this country and they should be commended.

Right, only totally left-wing psychos and iraqi insurgents want soliders to die, and no one that i have seen post anything on this board is either of those. So why do people like a. americanus and heavily armed constantly accuse all democrats of this?

Woden
04-21-2004, 02:11 PM
If that happens I will be so pissed. Stupid goverment bastards. I think a law should be made that if a goverment offical supports a draft, their kids have to go first.

agpetz
04-22-2004, 09:52 AM
john mccain was on the sean hannity radio show this past friday and said there is no way there will be a draft.

mariners216
04-22-2004, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Woden
If that happens I will be so pissed. Stupid goverment bastards. I think a law should be made that if a goverment offical supports a draft, their kids have to go first.
bump.

The first 635 drafted should be sons, nephews, or other close relatives of congressmen.

irpker
04-22-2004, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by mariners216
bump.

The first 635 drafted should be sons, nephews, or other close relatives of congressmen.

Why change 150 years of precedent? :)


Anyway, it's very odd that a nation that prides itself of liberty has a mandatory draft. It's one thing for your wealth to be redistributed, but not your life!

The Kurgan
04-22-2004, 03:36 PM
Of course the British military is one of the most powerful in Europe BECAUSE we don't have conscription, but oh well...

Some interesting facts about conscription-

Conscription wasn't always the liberal commie-loving homosexual-supporting anti-Christian thing it is today. In the good old days, an honest Lawyer or Businessman could buy his was out of conscription.

Conscription has ruined the careers of the men who are generally regarded as the best Heavyweight Boxers of all time- Joe Louis, for willingly accepting it and Muhammad Ali, for rejecting it. Both lost about four prime years to World War 2 and The Vietnam war. Of course, Joe Louis's life was ruined by the IRS and Muhammad Ali's by Nation Of Islam leeches, but people still prefer to blame these wars.

The United Kingdom has only twice introduced conscription in the 20th Century- in 1916 during World War 1 and in 1939 (ish) in World War 2. Also, in the United Kingdom, you can be taxed while not being represented from the ages of 16 to 18. But now I'm just getting angry at the goverment and coming up with random facts.

Often, people have not had the right to vote, but have been sent to die on battlefields. And that's just in Democracies.

Conscription is one of many differences between Humans and Ants.

During the wars between the young USA and Britain (in Canada), it was an example of a state with conscription losing to a state without conscription. Being British, the Red Coats had the good ettiquette just to club people over the head outisde pubs and brothels and drag them onto ships.