It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by AntiPolitrix
And we do not want to get to that stage where we don't see anything worth fighting for.
BS, this is not a time to sit back and wait for the next attack.
Let me put this in dumb *ss terms.
Fight the war in on their land means they do not bring the fight to America.
If you want to sit around and wait for another attack go to France, they like to give in.
Originally posted by Aelita
That sound like no matter what, you'd want to fight.
It's widely known that Iraq has become a huge recruiting office for AQ since the invasion. Just do some research. So I'm afraid you are exactly "sitting back".
I see, you do not profess a very high opinion about my mental capacity. What grace it is, for you to go to the effort to try and speak language suitable for my lowly consumption.
They scored another 1,100 and counting which is rather bad news.
The chances of France being attacked are quite low.
Originally posted by BlackJackal
Now that Bush has been elected according to most Kerry Suporters the draft is just right aroun the corner. So this thread will be here to keep everyone aware of the impending draft that is sure to come down from a presidential order any day now.
Reinstatement of the draft is imminent, war correspondent and author Christopher Hedges told a crowd of more than 120 students and residents yesterday at Manhattanville College.
"We are losing the war in Iraq very badly, but the Bush administration will not walk away from the debacle without trying to reoccupy huge swaths of the territory they have lost," Hedges said. While working for The New York Times, he covered fighting in Central America, the Balkans and the Middle East, including Iraq during the first Gulf War.
To regain territory lost in Iraq, it will take double or triple the current 140,000 troops, Hedges said during the last lecture in a series called "The Costs of War."
Link To Story
Here are the facts: According to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, the President does not have the authority to reinstate a draft. In order for the government to reinstate a draft, a specific law must be approved by Congress to authorize it. The two bills that the poster and the article speak of are Senate Bill 89, introduced by Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC), and House Resolution 163, introduced by Representative Charles B. Rangel (D-NY). Keep in mind that both bills were introduced by two Democrats, not Republicans. Both bills would require every male and female between the ages of 18 and 26 to serve two years of military service (or community service for those who are medically unqualified). According to the Selective Service, 22 million would be required to serve. Keep in mind that these bills do not just require a portion of them to be drafted, they require everyone to serve.
With all due respect to the good senator and representative, they're full of it, and they know it. There is absolutely no way this country could afford a military with 22 million people serving. There has never been a war in which 22 million American servicemen are ever required. The Chinese Red Army, largest army in the world, doesn't even have 22 million. Rangel and Hollings introduced the legislation to make a political point which is they oppose the war in Iraq and by introducing such draft bills this stirs opposition to the war especially to the young voters. Congress immediately stuck them "in committee" to die and the bills has not been actively sought after ever since. That's what Congress usually does to bills which have no chance to pass.
Originally posted by BlackJackal
Here is an interesting article about the draft.
Here are the facts: According to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, the President does not have the authority to reinstate a draft. In order for the government to reinstate a draft, a specific law must be approved by Congress to authorize it.
You are completely correct Bush doesn't have the authority to bring back the draft, he said he won't bring back the draft, but he didn't say anything about congress bringing back the draft. There is always a loop hole, you just need to find it. Now if congress brings back the draft, if Bush really wants to keep his word to the American people, he will veto the bill. However, I don't think any president has the right to say that they won't bring back the draft, you can't predict the future, in two years we might need one.
The Selective Service System (SSS) and the U.S. Department of Education now are gearing up to compare their computer records, to make sure all men between the ages of 18 and 25 who are required to register for a military draft have done so.
The SSS and the education department will begin comparing their lists on Jan. 1, 2005, according to a memo authored by Jack Martin, acting Selective Service director.
While similar record checks have been done periodically for the past 10 years, Martin’s memo is dated Oct. 28, just a few days before the Nov. 2 presidential election, a hard-fought campaign in which the question of whether the nation might need to reinstate a military draft was raised in debates and on the stump.
It took several more days, until Nov. 4, for the document to reach the Federal Register, the official daily publication for rules and notices of federal agencies and organizations.
The memo was also produced after the U.S. House voted 402-2 on Oct. 5, against House Resolution 163, a bill that would have required all young people, including women, to serve two years of military service.
Under federal law, a military draft cannot be started without congressional support.
About 94 percent of all men are properly registered for a draft, according to Richard Flahavan, associate director of the office of public and intergovernmental affairs for SSS