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.

 

A Vote for Bush is a Vote for the Draft

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 08:00 AM
link   
If the US Forces are undermanned its because Democrats and Republican both tried to prove to the electorate they could deliver a peace dividend and equip the US military with all this gee whiz 21 century hi tech kit at the same time. Net result?

The strength of the USArmy, USN and USAF is 40% under its 1990 level. The USMC got off lucky with a 15% reduction.

The ship strength of the USN almost reached Reagans planned 600 ships. Today it is less than 290.

That was policy not decline of support.

However you talk up the tech, the multi tasking and so forth, you are still talking about less to cover more. Your hi tech was great for collapsing Iraqs army, but seems kinda indifferent to the internal security role. Not enough bootprints in the sand.

If you still had your 1990 strength you could have occupied Iraq properly.
You wouldnt have the same poor buggers there a year and a half later.
And you wouldnt have needed to lean so heavily on your reserves for an overseas deployment.

We were dumb enough to follow your lead when we were already understrength, and we are in worse shape than you.

Australia will never go the route of conscription again, short of full on war on our doorsteps (theeese small) and I hope the USA will not need to. You are already too divided and bitter at each other as it is.




posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 08:16 AM
link   
I would never want to go to war with a drafted Army. That's just bad bizness from the git-go. It's dangerous enuff to be in combat without being with a bunch of pissed off and rebellious people who have weapons. It's difficult enuff when everyone's volunteered.

You're right, if we had had say, 750,000 troops on the ground, as in the Gulf War, things would be considerably different; perhaps, only a little better, though. No one's ever gone into Mesopotamia and been able to control it for long. It just doesn't work.

Maybe if Dubya had listened to his father's own advice, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Back after the Gulf War, before I got out, they began the draw-down. I thought it was ill-advised, for many reasons. Cold war or not, the whole point to our force structure was to be able to fight two separate wars at once (i.e., N. Korea and Iraq). I knew that we would not be able to handle it at the rate they were cutting. Now, here we are. Kerry's talking about adding two more divisions to the Army. The way I see it, that's the only way to keep from having to re-instate the draft. (At the rate we're going, that is.) True re-approachment and Peace would be nice, too.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 08:29 PM
link   
ECK-- Well, I am either voting libertarian (Badnarik) or I am completely abstaining from the whole process. I'm frankly sick and tired of hearing people say they are voting for the lesser of two evils---bottom line, you still have an EVIL.

There is absolute no difference in the parties anymore. The bread and circus going on in D.C. (District of Criminals) and the dog and pony debates were nothing more than carefully scripted infomercials and the appearance of high school students high jinks debating for Class President. It is beyond disgust.

I am a true Paleo Conservative one who believes in limited government, limited taxation and limited intrusion. With either candidate you will see neither.

Buchanan has been absolutely right about the "Death of the West" and yet, when I watch him on MSNBC as an analyst I know he is controlled by what he can or cannot say--it is obvious. Either that or he has two faces. But still I am gun-shy as to trusting him totally because he too is a careered politician.

The guy to follow is Ron Paul (R)--TX. He doesn't mince his words and is not afraid to speak the truth, however, he gets very little mainstream attention.

Michael Badnarik seems to hit the nail on the . in most of the speeches I have seen him in and his position. Of course, he gets nil coverage because of being the treacherous third party candidate--that everyone always claims will help one or the other EVILS elected.

Check it out:
badnarik.org...

It certainly would be nice to see most Americans take a stand this election day and vote completely away from the left or the right-- which are consistently and systematically selling Americans out.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 08:52 PM
link   
.
EastCoastKid, I am inclinded to agree with you.
Iraq is deteriorating.
Troops are stretched thin.
I am unaware of a huge surge in recruiting numbers.

Either we cut and run, leaving Iraq an open festering wound or,

We have to bring more force to bear until we can facilitate some kind of stable selfsustaining government there in Iraq.

And bringing more force to bear means, without any allied support, a draft of Americans.

the math is not difficult on this one.
.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by smokenmirrors


Keep drinking the lemonade.


] I think Bush should be tested for schizophrenia, as our country is on the brink of disaster thanks to an insane president. Give him 4 more years, without the prospect of re-election, and see what happens.

The train tracks are ready and the white train is pulling in...All aboard...

[edit on 18-10-2004 by dgtempe]



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 07:36 AM
link   
I'd love to know how many ATS members are under 34; especially of those who support Bush; how many have already joined and are serving; and how many have never contemplated it.

The thing that strikes me as particularly awful about current draft legislation is that it is universal. Men and women. I think that's wrong. Although, I fully support women who join, I don't believe women should be drafted. It's just wrong. But then again, unless the sky is falling, I do not support anyone being drafted.

The draft is bad business and we should never allow our elected officials to persue policies that require it. Unfortunately, here we are, at the door of it. For his sheer idiocy in getting us embroiled into this impossible Iraqi situation, I hope the electorate spanks George W's a$$!

Maybe if Kerry is elected he will move to create some new divisions, as he mentioned. If we go about handling the military in a wiser manner, hopefully the need for a draft will disappear.



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Here's an article on the draft. He makes one good point: You draft troops, quality plummets. My point: When quality plummets, more people die.



A Draft or Merely Hot Air?

by Ivan Eland
In the presidential campaign, there has been talk of returning to the draft after the election: Kerry has predicted that President Bush will reinstate the draft if reelected and Bush has denied it. Any such reinstatement would be disastrous for the republic.
www.antiwar.com...



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 08:51 AM
link   
The draft bill was brought up in the house as a joke and and was even voted against by its creator. Their is zero chance of a draft at this time.



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 08:57 AM
link   
It was introduced for two reasons:

1. BushCo. wanted folks to think they've shot it down.

2. The Dems brought it about to bring attention to the issue: namely, making it universal. EVERYONE serves.

Don't be fooled. After Bush is re-elected, there will almost certainly have to be a draft to sustain current operations.



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Guys, gals, guys. I have to ask you some questions, when President Bush says we are going to be in Iraq for a long time, how can he know this? His administration can only last eight years so how can he say we are going to be there for a long, long time? Why would congress elect to go to war when they know it cannot be resolved during the bush administration and that the war could implode during any presidency? Who runs congress right now? The republicans.

It's quite simple as this is not a strategic war but a business enterprise. The bush administration knows that the war cannot possibly last longer than their term in office. Put your thinking cap on here. The fact of the matter here is:

The military was operating on a KAIZEN black belt (some of you know this)lean operating principles before Iraq - there was no post structure. On time delivery does not call for a post structure. It was never an option to help Iraqi's but to obtain their resources.

Vice President Dick Cheney, was Halliburton's chief executive from 1995 to 2000. He only left Halliburton so there would be no conflict of interest in contracts. Iraqi oil was always an option. He still holds Halliburton stock options and draws a deferred salary from the Houston energy and construction company. In other words the seat is waiting for daddy to come home.

CIA Director James Woolsey's wife joined Fluor Corp. soon afterwards, the company won about $1.6 billion in reconstruction contracts.

7 Billion has been awarded to Kellogg, Brown & Root a Haliburton Subsidiary to process oil in Iraq. Subsidiary means Cheney's friends and other family own the company.

Over 20 Billion has been approved for rebuilding Iraq through haliburton and it's subsidiaries along with a few other republican corporations.

Kellogg, Brown & Root had operational plans for processing oil in Iraq well before we invavded as declared by the military itself.

Cheney holds 433,333 Halliburton stock options - do the math.

Halliburton is the world's largest supplier of products and services to the petroleum and energy industries.

Kellogg, Brown & Root specialists have installed and maintained bases in Bosnia, Somalia and Haiti, often deploying within 72 hours of notification.

When the UN gets involved it just means we are giving them a slice of the Iraqi oil pie. Only about 25 companies in Europe will be able to bid on contracts having to do with oil.

Cheney, republicans, and the CIA did not want the UN involved because they would be competition for contracts. It's nice to have a patriotic fever but I am telling you people right now, this is not an opinion, we invaded Iraq for business - not to oust Sadaam or stop WMD's. Some of you simply do not want to believe that President Bush or Cheney could do this, I am sorry to tell you they have. President Bush says he is a devout christian, but being a devout christian would not allow you to bomb civilians for oil. You cannot create chaos in a country where over 40,000 civilians have died through your warfare and call yourself a devout christian. That is just insulting Christ in whom you say you believe.

Haliburton does need US troops in Iraq to maintian security, but not for the Iraqi's. The contracts are done and they will use their own hired mercenaries and newly formed Iraqi corporations to protect the lines. The US and UN will only have troop deployment for as long as oil industry protection is necessary - relief, aid and reconstruction will only be an excuse to maintain production. Why do you think the republicans want to remain in the white house - to stop terrorism? They need four more years to insure oil production cause Kerry don't give a rats arse about it.

Why do you think oil is at an all time high? OPEC knows their time is over.

We created more terrorism, worse than in Afghanistan, while Cheney and certain CIA directors will retire super rich, fat, and powerful. What about Ol' President George W.? Daddy owns American oil.

So will there be a draft? There is no need for one.




[edit on 19-10-2004 by vincere7]



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 02:37 PM
link   
A Vote for Bush is a Vote for the Draft...
Really, and couldn't the same rhetoric be said for Mr. Kerry?

This whole claim and assertion amounts to nothing but continued political stratagems of "scare tactics". Both main party candidates seem to be utilizing 'it' about as well as 'it' is being utilized here within ATS....




seekerof

[edit on 19-10-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   
This thread is still here?

This has got to be one of the worst threads on this board.
I'm hoping you're joking ECK but I know you're not....


NO president can bring back the draft. Any draft bill must be passed by congrees first. That's not going to happen because:
1. Congressmen care too much for their jobs. Any vote for the draft would ensure they're not reelected.

2. The military wouldn't allow it. The system we have now is just fine. If you start bringing in people who don't want to be in there...our military will quickly become very ineffective.

3. The people wouldn't allow it. There'll be a revolt should any draft bill pass

4. There's no need for it. It's absolutely ridiculous to say that we need a draft for Iraq, or the war on terror. That would be a complete waste of time, money, and resources.
We can wipe off Iraq from the map if we wanted to. We don't want to so the US doesn't have nearly a large enough force over there as they can have (maybe even should have had).

Besides, let's say that some how a darft is magically passed through congress and signed by the President. That's at least a year away. So by the time the first draftees are ready, it'll be what? Another 6 months to a year away. By then our troops would be coming out of Iraq, not going over there. In the end, you wind up with a huge waste of time.



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

This has got to be one of the worst threads on this board.
I'm hoping you're joking ECK but I know you're not....


Sorry you feel that way. The truth hurts.


NO president can bring back the draft. Any draft bill must be passed by congrees first. That's not going to happen because:
1. Congressmen care too much for their jobs. Any vote for the draft would ensure they're not reelected.


Keep dreaming. How old are you, anyway?


2. The military wouldn't allow it. The system we have now is just fine. If you start bringing in people who don't want to be in there...our military will quickly become very ineffective.


The military does not have a say. The system now is at the breaking point. I already made your last point.


3. The people wouldn't allow it. There'll be a revolt should any draft bill pass


Sadly, under this regime, the people do not have much of a say. The voices of dissent are quickly muted by a compliant, whorish mainstream media (most especially by the blow-dried, dicksucking network TV "news" networks).



4. There's no need for it. It's absolutely ridiculous to say that we need a draft for Iraq, or the war on terror. That would be a complete waste of time, money, and resources.


I'm sorry. Your experience with the military and foreign policy is..? How old are you?


We can wipe off Iraq from the map if we wanted to.


Yes, and China or Russia could wipe us off the map, too, if they wished. Rational people/nations do not operate that way.


We don't want to so the US doesn't have nearly a large enough force over there as they can have (maybe even should have had).


The United States should never have invaded Iraq without at least the equivalent number of troops we used in the Gulf War (750,000) - if not more. I say more because the objective in this case was to occupy. The whole thing was done in the most assenine manner, it's mind boggling.
Anyone who claims to support our troops must consider the fact that Rumsfeld and his yes-men should be charged with high crimes for their execution of and conduct in this Mesopotamian fiasco. If I had my way, I'd kick his and Wolfowitz a$$'s out of my bird onto the streets of Fallujah to see a little Iraqi justice employed. They'd tear those idiots limb from limb under 15 mins. flat. Then you Bushfans would see just how grateful the Iraqis are for their "liberation."


Besides, let's say that some how a darft is magically passed through congress and signed by the President. That's at least a year away. So by the time the first draftees are ready, it'll be what? Another 6 months to a year away. By then our troops would be coming out of Iraq, not going over there. In the end, you wind up with a huge waste of time.


Yeah right.
Coming home in 6 months?
Keep dreamin'!



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
A Vote for Bush is a Vote for the Draft...
Really, and couldn't the same rhetoric be said for Mr. Kerry?


No. Kerry is proposing creating at least two new divisions. We need even more than that, but its a start.



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Bottom line to this thread President Bush or any other President for that matter cannot bring back the draft on their own. To bring back the draft requires passage through the House and atleast 60 votes in the Senate

Well if it passes the senate with 60 votes that means at the very least 8 democrats had to vote for the measure. How do I know this because the Senates breaks down like this




  • Republicans- 51
  • Democrats- 48
  • Independents- 1


www.senate.gov...

So if the draft does pass it will have to be a bi-partisan action.


As for the Selective Service a quote taken from their website


Since 1980, the Selective Service System has discharged its mission of preparing to manage a draft if and when Congress and the President so direct. The House action proves that the Selective Service has gotten no such direction. That being the case, the Agency will maintain its readiness as required by law, and to register young men between the ages of 18 and 25. That mission has been reaffirmed frequently by successive Administrations and by Congress under the leadership of both parties.




www.sss.gov...



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Wow, the terror campaign continues, regardless of facts.

Bush has not suggested that there would be a draft. The draft would be a counter-productive thing, and Bush knows it. There is nothing better than an all-volunteer army. As stated, the two bills, are by Earnest Hollings and Charlie Wrangle. They are politically motivated, not motivated by anything else. Charlie tries to say that it is poor black kids who are making up the brunt of the front line, but the numbers clearly show that the black kids go for the tech side of the army so that they can parlee that into a better paying job on the outside. Combat arms is made more a white thing, today, by percentages.

Speaking of numbers, Kerry says he will add two more divisions to the army. Really? As with everything else he says he's going to do, who is going to pay for this. With this, the question is bodies, not dollars. There is two ways he can do this. He can either have the military do the shell game of making two more smaller divisions with existing assets, or he can get new bodies from the civilian sector. They are expecting to barely, if at all, make quotas next year as it is. How do you think he could possibly do this.

Darn it, don't you hate it when facts and logic screw up a perfectly good conspiracy? I do, which is why I lamost left this alone!



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 05:41 PM
link   
It never ceases to amaze me how "smart" average Joe's continuously vote against their own interests b/c they think their gut instincts are right. Don't y'all remember how Rush Limbaugh used to lambaste the left for feeling out the iss-ee-ues rather than reasoning them out? How soon we forget.


Here's a little fact for you:

Kerry has pledged to roll back George W's assenine tax plan and keep the taxes up for those who make above $200,000 per year. That's A LOT OF DENERO. And that will help most of us sturggling average Joes. I doubt many ATSers are a part of Bush's base, "the haves and have mores" as he so affectionately refers to them. You would do yourselves a great favor to consider this.

And hey, if Kerry goes back on that pledge, rest assured, I'll be the first one to tear him a new one here. I doubt he will, though. He's actually more fiscally conservative and responsible than Bush has ever been.



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Bottom line to this thread President Bush or any other President for that matter cannot bring back the draft on their own. To bring back the draft requires passage through the House and atleast 60 votes in the Senate



www.sss.gov...

Wishful thinking. These boys can do whatever the hell they want to do. they don't need or want our permission. Havn't you gotten that yet? Besides, you'd be surprised at what congress will do if the correct pressure is applied.



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 06:41 PM
link   
In light of the history of the draft in this country, particularly with respect to Vietnam, and the recent push by Democrats to reinstitute the draft, seeing statements like "A Vote for Bush is a Vote for the Draft" disgusts me.

Such words insult everyone who reads them, and the one who posted them must really think we're a bunch of idiots to even make the suggestion.

Hypocrisy is too kind a word for such villainy, and I would be embarrassed beyond remedy were I to parrot such obvious dross.

If you don't want a draft, then you may want to let the people who are actually proposing the legislation to implement a draft -- and for the most cynical, demagogical and falsely pious reasons at that -- know how you feel, rather than gracelessly and foolishly point fingers at those who have done no such thing.

Utterly disgraceful, and the main reason I usually avoid political threads these days. Sanity and reason rarely have anything to do with them anymore, if they ever did.



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 08:14 PM
link   
.
Seekerof, I am inclined to agree.

Who ever is elected, unless we just cut and run, which is probably not advisable, The Draft is almost inevitable with either Kerry or Bush. The only other possibility is paying the troops more. Ya think that is gonna happen? [NOT]

Pre-election promises equal squat.

We don't have the troops on the ground necessary. The insurgents are targeting the trained Iraqis thereby discouraging recruits and hurting moral of those already trained. I have heard reports from sources [either on MacNeil Newshour or Charlie Rose] that many trained Iraqis would like to oust the US at gunpoint. In otherwords they are ready to join the insurgents.

Iraq is turning into a tar-baby. If we had had a good deal more troops on the ground immediately after the war and gone to work right away on infrastructure we could have won a good deal of Iraqi 'on the ground' support. Two mistakes: 1) Not enough troops to manage the peace. 2) Not enough funds going directly into re-construction [Bush wanted 'War on the Cheap']. Additionally much of the funds were used in ways that COMPLETELY EXCLUDED using Iraqis which would have integrated Iraqis into their own reconstruction effort. There is nothing as satisfying as being a part of something constructive.

Frankly the people incharge of Iraq weren't paying attention, they were living in fantasy land. Now we are left to pick up the pieces.

ThatsJustWeird, I belive you are incorrect. A little social upset doesn't bother these guys. Maybe they can draft only all these war-happy war-hawks. If they are well used [read working with Iraqis] they may get the job done, if not they will be put in a meat grinder like Vietnam.
.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join