Because salon.com put that stuff up on the DOD website? :rolleyes:
Dogs? You had dogs, you pampered brat?
We had to huddle with rats…and we were grateful for them too.
Rats?
Luxury.
No, because they’re scaremongering that the Bush adminsitration is going to re-introduce the draft. Can’t be done-- it’s only Congress that can do that. Now, if they had posted an article saying that Democrats in Congress (Rangel in particular) are making an effort to resurrect the draft, then that might be some alarmist news with a basis in reality.
Reporting about the website is not scaremongering. Even the article mentioned that the re-institution of the draft was unlikely. Further, they reported that it would take an act of Congress to institute the draft - so how does that differ from your statement?
As already noted in this thread, Rangel’s proposal was a bit of political theater. And salon.com reported it when he proposed it, too.
The posting in that government web site is what caused this ruckus: with that wording and that timing it was really dumb; but to then say “speculation on that is porn” or a bad thing to discuss about, is what IMO is un-American.
Demonstrating open displeasure is necessary so that everybody in congress and the president (how is it that many conveniently forget the pressure he can apply to his party if he chooses?) will not get even to first base with this one.
I should add though that when I see even non-liberal posters saying: “god forbid”, to a second term of Bush, it makes me hopeful for the future.
Sure, and only the house can introduce budget legislation. But it doesn’t mean the President doesn’t have a budget. If the president wanted a draft, he’d get someone in Congress to introduce the appropriate legislation.
Rangel makes an interesting arguement for the draft: to promote class equity of those facing the main costs of the war. I disagree, not that it isn’t a valuable goal, but I think it is trumped by the freedom of the individual.
I oppose the draft, and refused to register for it. Should we start a “ask the draft dodger” thread? I do hope Bush does not have plans to reintroduce the draft. I’d hate to be going to prison next year and not graduate school.
I’m all for anything that will make more jobs available for sickly 30-something guys like me.
I didn’t register, so only saw the 2-3 paragraph blurb. But the scaremongering is pretty blatant (my bolding):
Oh NO! Not the dreaded “some experts”!! Anyone but them!
You may think that a renewed draft is a long shot, but then you’d be disagreeing with “some experts”. Give me a feakin’ break!
I get it. Demonize salon.com however you want for merely reporting on a website that was put up by the DOD. The article correctly stated that it would take an act of congress and quoted people who felt it was extremely unlikely and other that weren’t so sure.
I can’t see how that is scaremongering. But apparently it’s necessary for you to label salon as such. I have no interest in debating someone who admittedly attacked salon without even first reading the article in question.
My dear Lemur, do you mean to suggest that we do not already have such proof in abundance? We are awash in it, my cup positively runneth over. Any further proof is simply an embarrassment of riches.
One minute here.
I agree that a draft in the U.S. at this time, with this war, with American society the way it is, is pretty stupid. I also agree that the Vietnam-era draft system was an exercise in incompetance. However, draftee armies are not inferior to volunteer ones, if handled properly. They may in fact have several advantages on the professional, sociological and political levels. It all depends on the country and on the war.
So how will the military deal with the fact that people are not re-enlisting? Particularly in view of the sabre-rattling Bush is directing at Syria and Iran and North Korea? And given the prospect of a long occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan (remember them)?
Somehow, I don’t think throwing more college scholarship money at recruits is going to be enough inducement to overcome the counter-inducement of dangerous service in Iraq. Maybe I’m wrong.
I’m too lazy to dig up the thread, but way back when this shooting match started I wondered aloud on these very boards if maintaining necessary enlistment levels would become a problem (and was hooted down at the time).
Also newsworthy is that Turkey has decided not to send the 10,000 troops they promised until some conditions are met. Apparently, those conditions will not be met anytime soon.
And, IF we invade North Korea because of WMD and/or to liberate her downtrodden masses, or because GWB will need the votes that accrue to a president at war, just who is it who will occupy that country? Why, draftees, of course—I don’t think there are or will be enough volunteers.
The draft will be Vietnam War-style. Indeed, it will probably be even worse. This is because the very people most necessary to ensure that draft boards do not rubber-stamp rich boy deferments will be the least likely to volunteer for draft board service. The ones most likely to volunteer will be the most likely to rubber-stamp rich-boy deferments.
I’m wondering -
Did all of you react the same when Rangel proposed re-instituting the draft? Or does your paranoia only extend to Bush?
This is roughly equivalent to some other horse-hockey about Bush cancelling elections that we got previously. Or picking at scabs until they bleed.
The chances of re-instituting the draft are indistinguishable from zero. Have fun convincing yourselves otherwise.
Regards,
Shodan
Actually, the more I think about this, the more it makes a certain amount of sense to get the draft infrastructure in place. Whether or not you agree that the draft is a good idea, it has been and can be again a part of our military staffing process. Given the situation we are in today, with terrorists willing to launch large scale attacks against Americans and given that these terrorists do get support from some governments, it’s entirely conceivable that a draft might be needed at some point in the near future.
I could just see the headlines if large scale war broke out and the adminstration (of either party) was unprepared: “President Fails to Plan for the Need for a Draft-- Congress urges inquiry”.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Stoid *
**My dear Lemur, do you mean to suggest that we do not already have such proof in abundance? We are awash in it, my cup positively runneth over. Any further proof is simply an embarrassment of riches. **[/QUOTE
I also wanted to point out, my dear Stoid, that you might want to look up the meaning of the word"exclusive". Given the common knowledge of Rangel’s draft inititative, perhaps you can explain what exactly it was you meant by the title of your thread…?