It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congress ready to resurrect Draft!!..

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Actually, if the movie, Rules Of Engaugement, is to believed, the life expectancy of a second liutenant in Vietnam was 8 minutes in the battle. However, my understanding of that was because the North Vietnam troops were well trained, and could spot an officer. The best way to beat an army is to destroy its leadership. Take away the commanding officer, and you see just how well those troops were trained.

[edit on 6-14-2005 by junglejake]




posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Actually, if Rules Of Engaugement is to believed, the life expectancy of a second liutenant in Vietnam was 8 minutes in the battle. However, my understanding of that was because the North Vietnam troops were well trained, and could spot an officer. The best way to beat an army is to destroy its leadership. Take away the commanding officer, and you see just how well those troops were trained.


the rules of engagement talks about how an officer gets killed in 8 minutes? that dont sound like a rule of engagement to me.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Actually, if Rules Of Engaugement is to believed, the life expectancy of a second liutenant in Vietnam was 8 minutes in the battle. However, my understanding of that was because the North Vietnam troops were well trained, and could spot an officer. The best way to beat an army is to destroy its leadership. Take away the commanding officer, and you see just how well those troops were trained.


the rules of engagement talks about how an officer gets killed in 8 minutes? that dont sound like a rule of engagement to me.

sorry about the double post. computer slowed for awhile.

[edit on 14-6-2005 by deltaboy]



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by junglejake
Actually, if Rules Of Engaugement is to believed, the life expectancy of a second liutenant in Vietnam was 8 minutes in the battle. However, my understanding of that was because the North Vietnam troops were well trained, and could spot an officer. The best way to beat an army is to destroy its leadership. Take away the commanding officer, and you see just how well those troops were trained.


the rules of engagement talks about how an officer gets killed in 8 minutes? that dont sound like a rule of engagement to me.


I was talking about the movie staring Tommy Lee Jones and Sam Jackson
Probably should have been clearer
Gonna go edit now.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
The best way to get an officer killed is to salute him in the field. Calling him sir in a real loud voice works, too. Neither tactic will endear you to the man should he survive.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   
also, the average life expectancy of a mchien gunner was 7 seconds



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I plan on joining the military next summer. It is either going to be the Navy or the Marines. And even though I am joining I do not support the draft in a situation like Iraq. However, I support the invasion of Afganistan because I felt it was necessary. Finally, I support the draft if we get invaded or there is an immidiate threat. Iraq and Iran do not constitute an immidiate threat. North Korea is questionable.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
quote: Originally posted by syntaxer


I am completely lost here. Rangel is a Democrat who opposes the War in Iraq, yet he's moving to resurrect the Draft shipping off our children to their possible deaths? No doubt this smells of a Republican Shill like that Zel Miller fellow...


[edit on 13-6-2005 by syntaxer]

Rangel is a very schrewd and "street smart" guy. He already knows that if any politician tries to re-institute the draft, the american public is going to go absolutely nuts! If fact, he is pushing the draft because he knows that the draft might be the only thing that will motivate the American people to stop Involvement in Iraq. Americans have no problem sending someone else's child to fight and die, but wait till they might have to send their own son or Daughter. The draft will motivate average Americans more than almost anything else.

Defend our Country...no problem...all americans will volunteer to fight.

Fight for the "rights" of Iraqi women, oil, etc......not if my children might die.
But if you can get volunteers to go...I think that is fine with most Americans.

The only way you can re-instate the draft is to get Americans believing that it is neccessary for this defence of our country. And I can only think of one way to do that......another terrorist attact on American soil must first occur.

Then and only then, can the politician's SELL the draft to the American people.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
Sounds good to this old soldier. The US Army made a Man outta me


Well something had to. Gotta start worrying when you need to be "made" into a man.



and more of our young American boys need some steel in their back-bone.


And their heads. And their chests. And their...oops lost an arm.



American boys have gone soft. I went to my nephews private high school graduation last week and Ive never seen a worse buncha sissies in my life.....only a handful out of dozens I saw looked like their ready to defend America.


You never had to, so I guess it just seems to make sense that you'd rush your own kid off to a combat zone.



The rest were ether too fat or acted like giggling school girls instead of young men. Yeah, we need the draft in a bad way before we end up with a buncha "girlie-men" who can't even fire a BB gun decently.


Has anyone ever seen the movie "American Beauty"? You know, the one with Kevin Spacey. Remember his neighbour in the film? The rough and tough ex-army Dad who has been putting up a front for his whole life because he is really gay?


[edit on 15-6-2005 by cargo]



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
That is absolutely true, American kids have gone soft and have his unrealistic view that war can be casualty-free and can be over in week. Are you F-ing kidding me!

They have the mentality of some else will do it ,it does not have to be me, I don't have to do anything but eat my cheeseburgers and go to the movies.
They worry more about what song to download then what to do to defend protect this country.
They have the mentality that they do not need to do anything and that our military does not need to do anything until foreign ships land on our shores and bombs fall out our cities. If we go by that view and strategy we are jut asking to be destroyed.

Then there is of course the “Political Correctness“, I can just imagine this in the future.

Commander: Ok, guys the enemy is just over that hill lets go capture or kill them.
Private: Sir don't you think calling them enemy is little too harsh, why cant we call them people with a different point of view Sir. And do we have to kill them why don't we just throw them some Dr. Phil books and maybe they will change their mind.

[edit on 15-6-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Gone soft compared to what?
This is the digital age, technology has made our lives easier.

In my school there are few who really are hard core "military" kinda people, most people wont join the military.
Why?
Because the military is not for everyone, its the few and the proud.
Also, you dont need to be a soldier, marine or what ever service to defend your country.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   
What is wrong with not wanting to be militaristic? What is wrong with not wanting to kill people?

I am all for defending my country or defending allies when there is a serious and legitimate threat facing them like Hitler was in WWII.

What happens when you've gone and destroyed all the "enemies" of your time, what will happen then? Will there be a new enemy? Out with the commies, in with the terrorists. Will the terrorists soon become our friends like the Soviets and we'll be facing another "enemy"? Will it be a fabricated enemy?(like the other two may be?) Or will you then turn your weapons on yourselves? Will you be able to give up your militaristic ways once the fighting is over? If a society is based around war and the military, it seems like it's hard for it to function if the two are taken out of the equation, and thus the war does not end and the enemy will always exist.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ponderosa
What is wrong with not wanting to be militaristic? What is wrong with not wanting to kill people?

I am all for defending my country or defending allies when there is a serious and legitimate threat facing them like Hitler was in WWII.



There's some irony in these statements beyond the fact that there are a lot of similarities between Hitler and Saddam.

Why don't you just admit it? There is nothing for which you are willing to die; no threat you couldn't rationalize your way out of.


[edit on 05/6/15 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 03:32 AM
link   
If someone were to attack my family, my friends, my country, or to harm others in a way that i am completely against, i will lay my life down to defend that in a second without thought.

Why dont you adress some of the things i said instead of thinking you know anything about me and what i stand for.

[edit on 16-6-2005 by Ponderosa]

[edit on 16-6-2005 by Ponderosa]



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Guess no pro draft person will answer my question?
Ah well, how about asking why does every citizen have to be trained with a rifle?
Why does every citizen have to be trained to drive an Abrahms?
Why?



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   
GradyP,

“And duty is what it is called, not slavery. One has a duty to one's nation and that duty can be performed in many ways. Military service is not the only one.”

It is your duty to defend your country.

The draft is about generating cannon fodder for the next Corporate America illegal land/resources grab.

As many posters have said so far, stop the illegal invasions and you have no need for a draft.

“Why don't you just admit it? There is nothing for which you are willing to die; no threat you couldn't rationalize your way out of.”

Why don’t you just admit it? There is no lie you will not fall for, no falsehood you will not swallow if it involves death and destruction.


WP23,

“They have no choice what are they going to do just continue without filling the crucial positions needed”

There are more than enough men and women in the US armed forces to defend your shores. Bring home all those who are overseas illegally and this problem goes away.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
GradyP,

“As many posters have said so far, stop the illegal invasions and you have no need for a draft.


BHR


we fought in WW2 with the Allies with a draft army as well of course volunteers, does dat mean the war was illegal as well?



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
we fought in WW2 with the Allies with a draft army as well of course volunteers, does dat mean the war was illegal as well?

In WW2 you fought an angressor , the iraqi navy didnt sail into the atlantic and start sinking US shipping now did it?



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by deltaboy
we fought in WW2 with the Allies with a draft army as well of course volunteers, does dat mean the war was illegal as well?

In WW2 you fought an angressor , the iraqi navy didnt sail into the atlantic and start sinking US shipping now did it?


even if people assume wars illegal or legal draft armies do get involved. no matter if we have a legal war, a draft could be possible.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
even if people assume wars illegal or legal draft armies do get involved. no matter if we have a legal war, a draft could be possible.

A draft would not go down well, it could well cause the country to go into chaos.
And a draft would lower the effectiveness of the armed services dramatically, forced to fight or volounteer to fight?




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join