Bush wants the Draft? I think not.

In my opinion, the draft should never be reinstated again unless some country actually commits an act of war against our mainland.

That means no draft to preemptively attack NK / Iran because our forces are spread too thin due to poor judgement of the current administration.

After the Iraq debacle, there should be a huge national outcry if any administration dares to reinstate the draft outside of some country committing an actual act of hostility against mainland USA.

And it's been proven time and time again that Bush will say whatever it takes to get reelected. So no matter his stance on the draft now, given his warhawk cronies I would not be surprised if he was reelected, that the draft is restarted within the next 4 years. And that's unfortunate.

Unless WW3 (or 4 if you consider the war on terror #3) suddenly breaks out in that area, I highly doubt it. We only have 135,000 (out of a possible 1.4 million) troops in Iraq. I'm sure if it got so bad in Iraq that hundreds of thousands of reinforcements would be needed, we'd simply increase troop strength, way before any draft. Yeah we'd be moving troops away from vital and critically important areas like Germany, but you have to do that sometimes....

Damn, it got alot of replies in such a short time. I didn't even check it until now. I don't even know how to respond...I was going to say stuff, but now the topic has changed alot. All I can say is it makes me really mad when people just ignore the evidence. You see proof, then just say something like "Well Bush says he's against alot of things that he's actually for". The argument from heelstone seemed to be that although Bush is against the draft, the way we're going suggests that we're going to NEED one because we don't have enough volunteers. This still doesn't change the fact that Bush is against it. He plans on giving more money and benefits to the volunteers, and that's how he plans on raising the volunteer rate. Didn't you read the article?

Rant, I'm sorry but you seem to be very close minded. You're strongly against republicans, even if they stand for something you agree with. Bush says something you like, and you just say that it's not really what he's gonna do! He's gonna reverse it! And no, I'm not going to look back on this and say what was I thinking. Right now, I'm looking back on when I was a liberal and thinking "what was I thinking?". This broad generalization that liberals are smart, educated, and anyone supporting Bush or the war is dumb, close-minded is a very stupid generalization. You seem to refuse to accept other peoples opinions. And stop with the thing where you try to be controversial by calling Bush the flip-flopper, when it's most definately Kerry. Maybe I should start using your logic, Rant. Maybe everytime someone presents credible evidence against something I believe, I'll just say that's not really what's going to happen. It's just a lie. It's really easy to do that, you know.

If I'm closed minded I must be in damn good company with you friend since on several occasions you have now refused to even look at Bush's tragic flip flops. This bunk from you that "it's most definitely Kerry" is closed minded spoon fed campaign garbage planned by the RNC well in advance of Kerry ever opening his mouth this election. It's not "spontaneous public realization" that made you think Kerry was anything. It was fed to you to cover up Bush's horrible record.

But since you're too "open minded" to ever actually click any links or news items or summary threads on Bush's devastating record of flip flops, even though you've now demanded I stop saying Bush is flip flopper on at least two occasions I know of (which is about the most closed minded thing you can do my young Republican friend), I'll make it really easy breazy even for a wide open mind like yours to take in.

Here's the simplist, crappiest, most watered down summary of some of Bush's flip flops I can find you quickly off www.dailykos.com... though I've seen better.



There, you just read something that may not coincide with your way of thinking 100%. I happen to do it all the time. You've taken a great step on the road to recovery from your very special brand of "open mindedness" that demands I have to agree with you.

PS:

BUSH = FLIP FLOPPER

Rant, I click your links everytime. The problem is that most of those are arguable. Most of those have more than just black or white. Most of those have a wide spectrum of which side you are on. Kerry has directly changed his mind on numerous occasions. Like I, and someone else said: There's changing your mind, then there's not knowing what you stand for. I have not been spoon-fed anything. I go on the most credible evidence that we have in these times. I know that our media can be (or most of the time IS) dishonest, but you have to choose something. I listen to all different types of news, talk to people I know that are in the army (regarding war matters) and peice it together. I know it's hard to face, but the news, right now, is the best thing we have to go by. I research... See, the reason that I call you close-minded is because your logic can never be argued against. Nothing is as it seems, therefor we can prove nothing to you. Nothing will get through to you...even if you were to hear on the news that 90% of iraqi's approve of Bush, you would probably just say it's false.

You're catching on.

But I can be reasonable, let's flip for this one.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

Funny, I've used that one before. People actually fall for it, it's amazing. I almost won money one time like that. But that's the kind of logic you use. If you win, you win. If you lose, you win. (in your mind that is)

I haven't looked at this in a while, but having come across the actual speech being analyzed in your above link as "proof" Bush is against the draft, let's contrast the article with Bush's actual words:



White House - Bush Remarks Sept. 7


Bush does go on to talk about how to avoid the need for a draft with the article's citation for how to attract volunteers, but Bush doesn't rule out a draft at all in my reading. In fact, he's quite careful and stunted in his choice of words when directly addressing the draft issue. Stammers and all are White House transcript issued.




So with hesitation, we don't need a draft right now. There's ways to avoid one, and should they work...no draft. But this is far from a promise or even stating a postion as against a draft, should the need arise.

And I love this one... "don't worry about it."

Until after the election no doubt.

Intrepret it how you like, but it's far from a determined line in the sand against a post election draft, and his words "rule out" nothing.

What say you teenagers? Convinced Bush doesn't have a foot on both sides of the fence with this one? The flip flopping history of Bush on campaign statements (I discussed earlier in this thread) appears quite relevant now.

As was said earlier, a draft is used in other civilized nations to instill civics, and teach the youth something to help unite them and their country.
I think civil/millitaryservice is a great idea.

How many thousands of youths from 18-25 get murdered or go to prison every year? (in the USA) Soo many of the youth are total wast cases, gang banging and continuing in lives if crime....lets give them something to live for (like not dying or prison).
We have too many truely wasted lives here already...why would teaching them, paying them, giving them jobs, and more education, while improving our abillity as a people, a nation, a culture to get along with each other be a bad thing? There only going to die in drive by gang style shootings anyway...at least in the millitary, theyd have a fighting chance and a real target for their frustrating lives of crime and poverty.

Now of course the total # of these types of youths is the minority, and most kids are productive and generally active members of society...they arent immune to needing something to help unite them culturally...to learn about other demographics and cultures etc.etc...to learn about service to others, honor, duty, and responsibillity.

The total # of US troops killed AND wounded (in Iraq) pales in comparison to the total # of people murdered in the USA each year. I think that there are plenty of things these people could be doing both for society and for themselves instead of gang-banging and work in the drug trade.

knowing there would be a draft would get a bunch of young people more serious about their lives, and would help make everyone equals here as everyone would all have to serve.

It's coming, and I won't be Bush's or any other rich privileged rich #ers slave, without a fight. I hope you won't either.

www.blatanttruth.org...

No, of course Bush presenting ways of avoiding the draft, and saying that we don't need one, and telling us not to worry doesn't clarify his position.. *Rolls his eyes so far back into his head that he can see what he's thinking, and now he's scared*

We've used plenty of arguments against Bush based on things that he barely HINTED on... He comes as close to saying that he's not going to institute a draft as possible with out engraving it on stone. He doesn't want a draft, and he's not going to impliment one.

[Edited on 22-9-2004 by Herman]

I am 100% against any type of forced military service.

People are more liberal than ever since the days of Vietnam.. a draft would probably cause civil unrest to levels never seen, even in Vietnam. Then the screwballs at the war political department would have to find people to stop all the civil unrest causing even a more drain on military.

Some people just want to be left alone to live.. not die because some president says you have to in the "name of democracy"

If any type of "forced" service is needed.. then maybe civil "non gun" services at the community level.

Not everything has to be based on learning how to shoot a gun and combat.

But the conservatives always talk about "freedom and self-determination" Yet are for a forced "Military distribution" program.

What would the governent do, jail millions of anti-draft people.. or do they plan to gun them all down.

[edit on 24-9-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 24-9-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 24-9-2004 by RedOctober90]

Actually, like I mentioned in my post, it's the liberals who are openly for a draft.

No it's the neo-con conservatives who want a draft.

Theres so many different versions of liberals/conservatives that maybe using the idea of "left and right" is wrong these days.

Bush will be against the draft until the final tally of votes, then see what happens. It amazes me that the right wing nuts believe in this man right to the end. And, it will be the end. And when its all over and done, the right wingers will say Bush did everything he could to protect them.
Am I the nut here???
Are you willing to risk your sons and daughters?

Fine, ignore the evidence. Just be ignorant on this one. Bush has publicly admited that he does not want a draft, those democratic senators have... You can ignore it if you want, but you'll just be doing the opposite of what this site stands for.

With any draft.. gets who gets on the front lines first.. usually the average class... never anyone of the wealthy class gets put on the front lines.

....and....? Are you changing the subject, or am I missing something about Bush wanting to re-instate the draft here?

So then how do you explain bill HR 163? or the senate version bill S. 93?

I'd explain it NOT as Bush wants the draft,
BUT
some one in Congress does.

Which congressperson/senator sponsored those bills? Dem or Rep?

But oh yeah,

blame bush for actions of congress...
dont hold your elected officials in congress responsible for anything...

My gosh...how easliy we let the legeslative branch off in order to "get" the executive branch...

Next you'll be saying the judicial branch is bad because they havnt declared the draft bills unlawful....

Typical liberal pass the busk and avoid responsabillity mentality at work here.