PDA

View Full Version : Military Draft 2005: Strong Possibility



YesIsaidYesIwillYes
May 29th, 2004, 09:46 AM
Being someone who falls into the age criteria to be drafted, I'm a little nervous about this. Especially since I've been against this war from day one.
Scary, scary stuff: What are your thoughts?

Source: Congress.org

Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005
The Draft will Start in June 2005

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.

The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

TLOZ Link5
May 29th, 2004, 06:49 PM
I'll support the draft so long as every politician, lobbyist, CEO, and other member of the American elite is willing to volunteer his/her children.

Pilaro
May 29th, 2004, 09:07 PM
Canada, here I come! Well maybe not, but I do not plan on being drafted into the "War on Terror".

One question, how do countries like Israel deal with all the terrorism. They get targeted frequently for various reasons, but somehow they survive. The US gets targeted once, granted one really big attack, and we start a war and a billion other anti-terror schemes. What is Spain doing now? How have they decided to cope with their run in with terror? I hope war is not their solution.

Gulcrapek
May 30th, 2004, 12:03 AM
They pulled out of Iraq. Not saying that's good or bad, dunno.

I'll be eligible for the draft next May, however I won't be in uniform any time soon or later. I'll simply tell them that I do not support the war(s) and at first chance I will shoot my commanding officer. Not that I would (I would only disobey), but that's sure to let me off.

MidnightRambler
May 30th, 2004, 04:34 AM
And land you in jail.

Pilaro - the situation is much simpler than you may realize. The "War On Terror" is simultaneously a distraction for an intellectually eviscerated public and a cash cow for the defense corporations. Those are its only purposes. It was not created to end terrorism. Ending terrorism is not in the best interests of those in charge.

The way to end terrorism is to destroy it's true cause - poverty and oppression. Both of these are products of western imperialism, which is imposed by western leaders. Remove these corrupt leaders - as well as the ones in countries like Saudi Arabia (who happen to be extremely close friends with the Bush family) and then you can start to eliminate terrorism.

Gulcrapek
May 30th, 2004, 01:25 PM
^It wouldn't land me in jail if I wasn't in the military yet.

TLOZ Link5
May 30th, 2004, 02:45 PM
There will be no fleeing to Canada this time, either. The "smart border declaration" was an agreement with the Canadian Foreign Minister in 2001 that would scan each visitor and determine whether they would be a threat. If you have a lot of twentysomethings on the road to Toronto, then customs agents will definitely be looking up.

matt3303
May 30th, 2004, 06:01 PM
At first I thought this whole reinstating the draft thing was a story planted by the DoD to nudge Americans back into realizing we are in a war. But now..... well thanks for the heads up. Amazing how no one in the media has this story.

NewYorkYankee
May 30th, 2004, 09:52 PM
I would choose to spend the time in prison than in a war that I may die in...Im just not supportive of it, and wont do it no matter what. :?

Freedom Tower
May 30th, 2004, 10:08 PM
Canada, here I come! Well maybe not, but I do not plan on being drafted into the "War on Terror".

One question, how do countries like Israel deal with all the terrorism. They get targeted frequently for various reasons, but somehow they survive. The US gets targeted once, granted one really big attack, and we start a war and a billion other anti-terror schemes. What is Spain doing now? How have they decided to cope with their run in with terror? I hope war is not their solution.

Funny how people who don't agree with this war to protect america from terrorists also are the first people who would run away faced with the possibility of being drafted to protect the country.

If I were drafted I would go. It's obviously more easily said than done. I would definately be scared, maybe I coulnd't handle it, but I wouldn't go to Canada. I love America and I would fight to defend it. Anyone who isn't willing to fight to protect the country doesn't deserve the freedoms it grants. Millions of people died protecting the rights of citizens of this country, unless people are willing to do the same they should not live here. BTW, I am of draft age too, so you can't complain that it isn't the same risk for me.

Freedom Tower
May 30th, 2004, 10:10 PM
I'll support the draft so long as every politician, lobbyist, CEO, and other member of the American elite is willing to volunteer his/her children.

I agree 100%, not only that but ANYONE of military age should be drafted. Including the CEOs themselves. And women who want "equal rights" should be treated truly equal and drafted too. Women on this forum, it would be interesting to get your opinion on this. You obviously support "equal rights for women" correct? But would you support the draft being for women too or only men? I find there is usually a double standard here, just want to see if that is still true.

TLOZ Link5
May 30th, 2004, 10:37 PM
:shock: No need to "shout," FT.

Freedom Tower
May 30th, 2004, 10:41 PM
sorry, i didnt realize the caps lock buttoned hurt ur ears

ill use the lower case from now on :wink: :lol:

i usually use the caps to EMPHASIZE main points

however, when i feel everything is important to say
then the whole post turns out to be caps

ZippyTheChimp
May 30th, 2004, 10:59 PM
Freedom Tower:

I warned you months ago about personal attacks. After a long absence, you come back and fall right into character.

I removed your ALL CAPS tirade. Just so you understand, it contained several remarks such as

IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE AL QAEDAS SPOKESPERSON, CLAIMING AMERICAN IMPERIALIST PIGS ARE FIGHTING FOR OIL, ETC.
From now on, any similar posts will just disappear. I'm not going to waste any time on an explanation.

Pilaro
May 31st, 2004, 01:09 AM
Sorry if i offended anyone, ahem-Freedom Tower. I love our country as much as the next citizen, but i do not want to support an emerging american empire in the middle east. How do any of us really know if the Iraqi people desire liberation- have you asked them? I am not one for isolationism, but we should know when to call it quits. Secondly, I do not understand how drafting hundreds of thousands of young people into the war will accomplish anything, except to cause a repeat of vietnam.

MidnightRambler- I kinda agree with you. There really seems to be no purpose to this war. That is also why I have no desire to participate in the foray.

MidnightRambler
May 31st, 2004, 07:32 PM
Freedom Tower:

I warned you months ago about personal attacks. After a long absence, you come back and fall right into character.

I removed your ALL CAPS tirade. Just so you understand, it contained several remarks such as

IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE AL QAEDAS SPOKESPERSON, CLAIMING AMERICAN IMPERIALIST PIGS ARE FIGHTING FOR OIL, ETC.
From now on, any similar posts will just disappear. I'm not going to waste any time on an explanation.

out of curiosity, who was that tirade against? (i missed it)

ZippyTheChimp
June 1st, 2004, 08:41 AM
You.
But don't think you are priviledged. Many have been so honored.

I may be the only one on this forum who was actually drafted, but I can't offer any advice. At the time, I was more concerned with interruption from school (how naive I was). I thought discussions with my father, a decorated war hero, would be intimidating, but they went well.

I remember being told that if I ran off to Canada, not to expect to ever be welcomed back home. I doubt I would have done that anyway. The medical corp was an option. If I resisted and was arrested, he said he would mortgage the house to pay for an attorney.

I allowed the fates to make the decision. My biggest fear was the fear of being afraid (again naive). Everyone was afraid.

MidnightRambler
June 1st, 2004, 02:20 PM
I wish I could have seen what he said so I could respond appropriately, but given the small bit you posted, I can probably guess what the rest was like.

Freedom Tower: Do you equate dissent with supporting terrorism? Do you believe the people who control the government right now have your best interests at heart? Do you believe all their connections to defense corporations, oil companies, and the Saudi royal family signify nothing? I'm a little curious. Maybe you know something about them that I don't.

Ninjahedge
June 1st, 2004, 05:07 PM
Canada, here I come! Well maybe not, but I do not plan on being drafted into the "War on Terror".

One question, how do countries like Israel deal with all the terrorism. They get targeted frequently for various reasons, but somehow they survive. The US gets targeted once, granted one really big attack, and we start a war and a billion other anti-terror schemes. What is Spain doing now? How have they decided to cope with their run in with terror? I hope war is not their solution.

Funny how people who don't agree with this war to protect america from terrorists also are the first people who would run away faced with the possibility of being drafted to protect the country.

If I were drafted I would go. It's obviously more easily said than done. I would definately be scared, maybe I coulnd't handle it, but I wouldn't go to Canada. I love America and I would fight to defend it. Anyone who isn't willing to fight to protect the country doesn't deserve the freedoms it grants. Millions of people died protecting the rights of citizens of this country, unless people are willing to do the same they should not live here. BTW, I am of draft age too, so you can't complain that it isn't the same risk for me.

FT, why do you need a draft. If you are so willing to go serve our country, why are you not there now?

NYatKNIGHT
June 1st, 2004, 05:25 PM
I don't support the draft as it is now, but I can see the benefits of having a mandatory national service of some kind for all citizens after high school for a year or two during war or peace. It'll never happen though.

Freedom Tower
June 3rd, 2004, 08:01 PM
Canada, here I come! Well maybe not, but I do not plan on being drafted into the "War on Terror".

One question, how do countries like Israel deal with all the terrorism. They get targeted frequently for various reasons, but somehow they survive. The US gets targeted once, granted one really big attack, and we start a war and a billion other anti-terror schemes. What is Spain doing now? How have they decided to cope with their run in with terror? I hope war is not their solution.

Funny how people who don't agree with this war to protect america from terrorists also are the first people who would run away faced with the possibility of being drafted to protect the country.

If I were drafted I would go. It's obviously more easily said than done. I would definately be scared, maybe I coulnd't handle it, but I wouldn't go to Canada. I love America and I would fight to defend it. Anyone who isn't willing to fight to protect the country doesn't deserve the freedoms it grants. Millions of people died protecting the rights of citizens of this country, unless people are willing to do the same they should not live here. BTW, I am of draft age too, so you can't complain that it isn't the same risk for me.

FT, why do you need a draft. If you are so willing to go serve our country, why are you not there now?

You are putting words into my mouth. I do not think we need a draft. I think the military we have now is great. By being an all volunteer military they are more dedicated and professional in what they do. HOWEVER, WHAT I DID SAY WAS (AND THIS TIME IM USING CAPS SO IT ISN'T MISREAD) IF I WERE TO BE DRAFTED I WOULD NOT FLEE TO CANADA. The freedoms I enjoy here and everything I enjoy in this country came at a price. If people aren't willing to defend what they have here then they may as well not have it. I don't think there should be a draft. But if there needs to be a draft for some reason then people who are drafted should go and fight. If you would run to Canada then you may as well leave now because if you arent willing to defend what you have here then you dont even deserve ot live here.

Freedom Tower
June 3rd, 2004, 08:04 PM
I wish I could have seen what he said so I could respond appropriately, but given the small bit you posted, I can probably guess what the rest was like.

Freedom Tower: Do you equate dissent with supporting terrorism? Do you believe the people who control the government right now have your best interests at heart? Do you believe all their connections to defense corporations, oil companies, and the Saudi royal family signify nothing? I'm a little curious. Maybe you know something about them that I don't.

Why can't you still see what I said? Go back and read it. I did NOT equate dissent with supporting terrorism. Go back and read more carefully. I said basically that anyone who would flee to canada rather than protect the country does not deserve to live here. anyone who wont make the same sacrifices made to save our country years ago do not deserve to live here. IF THERE IS A DRAFT, AND NO I AM NOT SAYING I WANT ONE. BUT IF THERE IS ONE, I WOULD GO. IF THE COUNTRY NEEDEED ME TO FIGHT, I WOULD. if you do not want to protect this country then obviously you do not care for it so much and should go to canada now before there ever is a draft.

Freedom Tower
June 3rd, 2004, 08:13 PM
Freedom Tower:

I warned you months ago about personal attacks. After a long absence, you come back and fall right into character.

I removed your ALL CAPS tirade. Just so you understand, it contained several remarks such as

IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE AL QAEDAS SPOKESPERSON, CLAIMING AMERICAN IMPERIALIST PIGS ARE FIGHTING FOR OIL, ETC.
From now on, any similar posts will just disappear. I'm not going to waste any time on an explanation.

Zippy, I am not trying to start a quarrel with you so just either listen to what I am going to say to you or don't but don't get all defensive and delete this just because i am responding to your deletions.

"IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE AL QAEDAS SPOKESPERSON, CLAIMING AMERICAN IMPERIALIST PIGS ARE FIGHTING FOR OIL, ETC."

that quote is not meant to offend. Al Qaeda frequently releases messages saying "America is imperialist and all they want is to opress muslims and steal their riches and oil."

That is a standard al qaeda theme. I was just pointing out that the very theme of americans being imperialists and wanting to control the middle east were similar to al qaedas statements, in fact they were almost exactly the same. Notice i said "IT sounds like you are thier spokesperson." I didnt accuse rambler of being that. All i said was that rambler's words were similar to those of our enemy, the people who murdered over 3,000 of us on 911. and becuase of that i dont take the rest of her post as legitimate. I dont see that as a personal attack. I honestly dont know why you do. I didn't say "rambler you evil terrorist" i said something more like "rambler, you say things similar to what al qaeda says, why is that?"

I find it to be a bit biased just because if there are no "personal attacks" then i believe the attacks on republicans, the attacks on bush, and the attacks on rush limbaugh should stop. aren't htose personal attacks? ramblers posts saying a terrorist attack would be good at hte republican convention, why wasnt THAT deleted? i never wished death or destruction upon anyone, only i mentioned her words were scarily similar to al qaedas.

please dont go and ban me becuase of this dissent. i only want to be sure you are not treating me differently because of my political views. and im not trying to disrespect your power or authority as an admin. and i know you dont want to explain to me again about personal attacks, but i just didnt see personal attacks there.

Freedom Tower
June 3rd, 2004, 08:15 PM
really seems to be no purpose to this war.

I am also going to be very careful not to offend you Pilaro, or have a personal attack or whatever one wants to call it. Are you saying there is no purpose to the war on terrorism? 911 isnt a good enough purpose for america to defend its people from murder?

again - pilaro - i am not attacking you, i only want to know why you think that.

zippy - please dont delete this one. i tried hard to make it "civil".

TonyO
June 3rd, 2004, 08:34 PM
This is a quote you won't see on Fox News FT, but the "War on Terror" and the Iraq War were mutually exclusive - until we attacked Iraq and drew the terrorists to us there. It's just fact.

Press conference with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. Here's the key portion:

[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

ZippyTheChimp
June 3rd, 2004, 08:48 PM
"IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE AL QAEDAS SPOKESPERSON, CLAIMING AMERICAN IMPERIALIST PIGS ARE FIGHTING FOR OIL, ETC."

I am not being defensive. I am being lazy. I said I was not going to explain the deletions. I don't care what you post about your views. Although I disagree with most of what you state, the only one that was deleted was the one with the above quote.

It IS a personal attack. If you don't believe me, walk up to people on the street and say it to them. Let me know how many times you get smacked.

By the way, I think Ninjahedge was asking why you haven't VOLUNTEERED for the military, not your views on the draft.

Ninjahedge
June 4th, 2004, 02:35 PM
Yes zip.

I was saying that the people that seem to shout about how wrong it is to run away from a draft and would proudly serve their country if asked (by law) to do so are the same ones that balk any time you ask them about joining up on their own.

I am not putting words into anyones mouth FT, if you are going to start accusing people and using allegations, get them strait or you wil be shot down every time you try to express your "feelings".

Your posts are insulting, you take things too personally and start abstractly correlating things through loose association to terrorist actions and anti-US sentiment.

You have done this on several threads. Please stop.

Now, lets do some quote clipping:


"If people aren't willing to defend what they have here then they may as well not have it."

Things such as freedom of expression?


"If you would run to Canada then you may as well leave now because if you arent willing to defend what you have here then you dont even deserve ot live here."

Um, since when is being drafted to go fight a war in a country that had nothing to do with threatening our freedom (and don't start associating terrorisim here, the affiliations are weak, at best), how is that correlated to "defend(ing) what we have here"?


"I did NOT equate dissent with supporting terrorism"

"IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE AL QAEDAS SPOKESPERSON"

Yep, I read carefully all right.


"Notice i said "IT sounds like you are thier spokesperson.""

It SOUNDS like you are an idiot.

Was that an insult?


"because if there are no "personal attacks" then i believe the attacks on republicans, the attacks on bush, and the attacks on rush limbaugh should stop"

Um, for one, most of the "attacks" are criticisms of the people in charge. Noone is calling Bush an arsehole. Also, Bush is not on the boards. He is not in the discussion, he is the TOPIC of the discussion, so your definition of "Personal Attack" does not fit here FT.

And on a side note, saying that people should not attack Rush Limbaugh is almost laughable. A man that made money off of attacking everybody that did not agree with his narrow mindset is being defended because people criticise him? What?

Try not to include statements like that in your arguement, because they certainly do not strengthen your point.


"Are you saying there is no purpose to the war on terrorism? 911 isnt a good enough purpose for america to defend its people from murder?"

As pointed out by another poster, and the President of the USA, there is not connection between the War on Terrorisim and the War with Iraq. You are mixing your arguements here.

Ah well. Whatever.

Freedom Tower
June 4th, 2004, 04:19 PM
Yes zip.

I was saying that the people that seem to shout about how wrong it is to run away from a draft and would proudly serve their country if asked (by law) to do so are the same ones that balk any time you ask them about joining up on their own.

I am not putting words into anyones mouth FT, if you are going to start accusing people and using allegations, get them strait or you wil be shot down every time you try to express your "feelings".

Your posts are insulting, you take things too personally and start abstractly correlating things through loose association to terrorist actions and anti-US sentiment.

You have done this on several threads. Please stop.

Now, lets do some quote clipping:


"If people aren't willing to defend what they have here then they may as well not have it."

Things such as freedom of expression?


"If you would run to Canada then you may as well leave now because if you arent willing to defend what you have here then you dont even deserve ot live here."

Um, since when is being drafted to go fight a war in a country that had nothing to do with threatening our freedom (and don't start associating terrorisim here, the affiliations are weak, at best), how is that correlated to "defend(ing) what we have here"?


"I did NOT equate dissent with supporting terrorism"

"IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE AL QAEDAS SPOKESPERSON"

Yep, I read carefully all right.


"Notice i said "IT sounds like you are thier spokesperson.""

It SOUNDS like you are an idiot.

Was that an insult?


"because if there are no "personal attacks" then i believe the attacks on republicans, the attacks on bush, and the attacks on rush limbaugh should stop"

Um, for one, most of the "attacks" are criticisms of the people in charge. Noone is calling Bush an arsehole. Also, Bush is not on the boards. He is not in the discussion, he is the TOPIC of the discussion, so your definition of "Personal Attack" does not fit here FT.

And on a side note, saying that people should not attack Rush Limbaugh is almost laughable. A man that made money off of attacking everybody that did not agree with his narrow mindset is being defended because people criticise him? What?

Try not to include statements like that in your arguement, because they certainly do not strengthen your point.


"Are you saying there is no purpose to the war on terrorism? 911 isnt a good enough purpose for america to defend its people from murder?"

As pointed out by another poster, and the President of the USA, there is not connection between the War on Terrorisim and the War with Iraq. You are mixing your arguements here.

Ah well. Whatever.


"You have done this on several threads. Please stop.

Now, lets do some quote clipping:


"If people aren't willing to defend what they have here then they may as well not have it."

Things such as freedom of expression?"


Yes, you can express whatever you want, however, dodging the draft is not freedom of expression nor is saying you would dodge the draft. There are certain limits to that freedom, like you can't walk around cursing at people in public places, or yell fire in a crowded building. Claiming that dodging the draft is a freedom of expression is a far stretch of that freedom. The only thing i am arguing against is dodging the draft, not expressing dissent about a war.


"I was saying that the people that seem to shout about how wrong it is to run away from a draft and would proudly serve their country if asked (by law) to do so are the same ones that balk any time you ask them about joining up on their own."

What are you talking about? THERE IS NO DRAFT NOW. I am not balking when you ask me to join up on my own. There is no draft. If there was and I was drafted I would go. THE END. Plus making the generalization that anyone who states they would proudly serve the country is just a hypocrite who would never join up is wrong. I didn't say everyone should drop what they are doing and sign up. I said if there was a draft and a person was called it is their duty to go. If there were a draft, which there isn't, it would be to PROTECT THE COUNTRY. I am not talking about any specific conflict such as iraq here, as you for some reason think. LOOK AT THIS QUOTE:

"
"If you would run to Canada then you may as well leave now because if you arent willing to defend what you have here then you dont even deserve ot live here."

Um, since when is being drafted to go fight a war in a country that had nothing to do with threatening our freedom (and don't start associating terrorisim here, the affiliations are weak, at best), how is that correlated to "defend(ing) what we have here"?"

There isn't a draft. I am saying that if a draft were ever to occurr it would be because the country would be in under a major threat or under major assault. If a draft were ever issued these days it would be if we were in major danger. Anyone not willing to be drafted when the US is in imminent danger does not deserve to live here. Who said this was only a debate about iraq? It is a debate about the draft and draft dodgers, etc.

"
"I did NOT equate dissent with supporting terrorism"

"IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE AL QAEDAS SPOKESPERSON"

Yep, I read carefully all right."

I wasn't equating dissent with suporting terrorism. You did not read carefully. I said that the particular words rambler used sounded like those of an al qaeda spokesperson. I have already explained this quote and dont wish to keep re-explaining it. Rambler said that the war was for oil, to control the middle east, etc. That is the same theory al qaeda is working with. I don't accuse people who object because they dont think there are WMD of being terrorist supporters, I never even accused rambler of SUPPORTING TERRORISM. All I said was that ramblers words were quite similar to those of terrorists. It is a fact. Listen to speeches by Usama bin laden when you watch the news. he always calls americans imperialist agressors, etc. it was disturbingly similar to what rambler said. there is a difference between dissent and actually believing america to be a country of imperialist pigs. BTW, the war wasn't for oil. If it was the gas prices would be cheap as anyhting right now, since we have control of all the oil fields.

"
"Notice i said "IT sounds like you are thier spokesperson.""

It SOUNDS like you are an idiot.

Was that an insult?"

Yes, that was an insult. Zippy, I am now asking you to be a fair administrator. That was a personal attack. If mine are deleted, so should ninjahedge's.

The reason, ninjahedge, that your post is an insult and mine isn't is the following: YOU HAVE NO FACTS TO BACK IT UP. You are outright calling me an idiot. I just stated how similar Rambler's words were to those of people who hate our country. They were similar. Go back and read them. There is undeniable proof of it. Calling someone an idiot though is a personal attack. Now I hope you read it zippy, becuase i feel i should be given the same courtesy not to have personal attacks against me, being everyone else has that courtesy.

"
"Are you saying there is no purpose to the war on terrorism? 911 isnt a good enough purpose for america to defend its people from murder?"

As pointed out by another poster, and the President of the USA, there is not connection between the War on Terrorisim and the War with Iraq. You are mixing your arguements here.

Ah well. Whatever.[/quote]


"You have done this on several threads. Please stop."

Again you are being too narrow-minded. Who said the debate was solely about iraq? I don't know which war he does not support. Besides, let him answer for himself. I am going to make a generalization and I hope Zippy doesnt consider this a personal attack, but i have noticed that most of the people here keep the debate strictly focused on iraq. you say republicans forgot about afghanistan, but i never hear a democrat even mention it anymore, sounds like you forgot about it. AND please next time if i ask someone a question, dont answer it for them. In addition, I will say what i like to on threads and i will not stop for you. If an admin doesnt like it, they will notify me, and then i will try to stop. but zippy hasn't complained about that, and you are not an admin. so i will continue to "do this on several threads". Also, i am not mixing the two wars. The war in iraq does have a relation. There were WMD in iraq. No one denies the fact that saddam used to have it. he used it against Kurds in '91. then he was supposed to prove their destruction under UN resolution 1441, he didnt. so after 911 to have this insane dictator keep his WMD was almost asking for him to supply the terrorists with it. You can keep claiming there is no connection, but there definately are some. there are arguments about whetehr the war was "justified" but that is not what im arguing, since your mind has been made up already. i am just saying that there were and are terrorists in iraq, and terrorists with WMD are deadlier than anyhting.

Freedom Tower
June 4th, 2004, 04:23 PM
"IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE AL QAEDAS SPOKESPERSON, CLAIMING AMERICAN IMPERIALIST PIGS ARE FIGHTING FOR OIL, ETC."

I am not being defensive. I am being lazy. I said I was not going to explain the deletions. I don't care what you post about your views. Although I disagree with most of what you state, the only one that was deleted was the one with the above quote.

It IS a personal attack. If you don't believe me, walk up to people on the street and say it to them. Let me know how many times you get smacked.

By the way, I think Ninjahedge was asking why you haven't VOLUNTEERED for the military, not your views on the draft.

I know that is what he is asking. Why hasn't he volunteered? We are not talking about volunteerism. We are talking about hte draft. If there was a draft I would not hesitate to go. There is not a draft. And as a matter of fact, i have been talking to recruiters recently about the option of joining so do not judge me without knowing anything about me. I have actually spoken with recruiters who told me all about it, and full time vs. national guard vs. reserves, etc. I just may volunteer so I don't think you should talk ninjahedge cause you may just put your foot in your mouth.

"It IS a personal attack. If you don't believe me, walk up to people on the street and say it to them. Let me know how many times you get smacked."

I wouldn't go up to people on the street and say that because people on the street dont walk around saying "america is full of imperialist pigs, who love oil and hate iraqis". If they did i sure would tell htem they sound like al qaeda. and i wouldnt be surprised if people saying that type of stuff wouldnt be insulted at all.

Ninjahedge
June 4th, 2004, 05:29 PM
How about this:

You are an insulting, belittling, narrow minded, fanatic, conservative, intolerant individual that seems to like to insult people out of hand with things that anyone but you interpret as insults.

If someone SOUNDS like a terrorist, you are accusing him of being one, or very similar. If someone SOUNDS like an idiot, the same is true.

By being insulted and asking for Zip to remove that remark, you just inadvertantly confirmed the persons reason for being angry and zips reason for removing it.

You are not very good at this, are you?

Ninjahedge
June 4th, 2004, 05:31 PM
I wish I could have seen what he said so I could respond appropriately, but given the small bit you posted, I can probably guess what the rest was like.

Freedom Tower: Do you equate dissent with supporting terrorism? Do you believe the people who control the government right now have your best interests at heart? Do you believe all their connections to defense corporations, oil companies, and the Saudi royal family signify nothing? I'm a little curious. Maybe you know something about them that I don't.

MR, are you getting an idea of what he is like, or shall we continue to remove what little sheeps clothing he has left? ;)

stox429
June 4th, 2004, 06:24 PM
I can't imagine why anyone would want to risk their lives in this war.

This goes beyond a Republican-Democrat feud: this has to do with a radical foreign policy designed not to fight terrorism, but to win votes. This war is far removed from korea, vietnam, and the first gulf, where there were tangible enemies and reasonable policies that did not abuse American power.

Clearly the "tangible" link between Sadaam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden is deeply flawed. Even the intelligence used to fool the American people and other nations into supporting us has come to be bogus. If this were an honest mistake by cowboy Bush, intelligence which is not substantiated by other (numerous) sources is still never a reason to start a pre-emptive, essentially unilateral war. And that isnt the case: whether it was Bush, Cheney, or Condi, somebody lied for reasons which have yet to be presented.

I heard something on NPR last night about this situation - it explained how Bush, who has never seen the complicated relationships which arise from the conditions of war, will always have a one-dimensional view on war (not that he doesnt have a one-dimensional view on everything) and thus will not have second thoughts about sending 400000 citizens into Iraq.

It just seems to me, (especially with abu-ghraib) that fighting in Iraq is defending and even supporting the terrorists' cause.

krulltime
June 4th, 2004, 06:36 PM
Ok Freedom Tower, I have read enough!!!

You sound like those naive-minded individuals who love to vote for a president (bush) and be ally to a political party that year by year are becoming one of (if not) the worst political movement in the United State history.

This whole 911 tragedy is an excuse to go to war with Iraq! Can you get that through your heads naive-minded individuals (Freedom Tower)?

ofcourse not...Oh revenge! Please... :roll:

Yeah I agree we have to go after Bin Laden and his terrorists followers. WITH the help of other countries that support us! Like most european countries and beyond.

This war is not about terrorism...it is for the OIL 100%. Let me see...Bush and most of his friends are from Texas...his father was involve in the gulf war as well...was it Kuwait and its OIL? Yes. There wans't and still no connection of Iraq and Bin Laden. Now there seem to be some individuals who simpathize with Bin Laden who are in the way of Bush and Allies to take control of Iraq. But I wonder how that happened?

The threat right now is not Iraq is North Korea. They do have some weapons of mass destruction. Not like Iraq. But wait there is no OIL in North Korea. Hmmm. :?

Do you know what Bush saids all the time! GOD will help us. He is using Religion to get the support from the rest of the country. Don't you know most people in this country are religious! Of course he gets support. Where do you think most of the charity that most republicans give go to?
CHURCHES!

Not moderate churches of course...they are strugling financially. They go to Fundamentalists churches. And we said that the muslim religion is a fundamentalist church...yeah! but we have the same in this country and they are getting ground and growing with the help of alot of money of course and no taxes to pay.

In return we get these churches to praise Bush and his republicans allies. Then you get all of this town people (most town people tend to be very religious) who join the Army and do so many emberrasing things for the USA (like the prison).

Let me guess Freedom Tower. Are you religious(from a town)? Or are you from Texas? If not please don't call your self a New Yorker.

By the way is a shame you use the name Freedom Tower. Maybe a true new yorker will had like to use that name instead.

If there is a draft I will hide or if I go I won't fight. And I love this country. But not for an OIL war. The prices are high because they haven't get a control in Iraq yet.

Please people do not vote for Bush! If you do you are making a big mistake. Seriously.

krulltime
June 4th, 2004, 07:13 PM
Check this out! You might think is false theory or not...but give it a try and listen to the whole video. It takes some time. It is really interesting coming from another 'poit of view' or facts who knows!

That doesn't mean I believe in this 'theory' but I keep an open mind though. But then again I dont believe everything this
government and its media says neither. :|

Let me warn you though...

It is powerful stuff about who's fault was at 9/11. If you are a republican and a bush-liker or even a democrat or not a party affiliate that feels very strong about what the media has already told you of what really happen at 9/11 then I don't recommend this video to you. But if you are an open minded person then it is ok to see it.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

Freedom Tower
June 4th, 2004, 07:28 PM
How about this:

You are an insulting, belittling, narrow minded, fanatic, conservative, intolerant individual that seems to like to insult people out of hand with things that anyone but you interpret as insults.

If someone SOUNDS like a terrorist, you are accusing him of being one, or very similar. If someone SOUNDS like an idiot, the same is true.

By being insulted and asking for Zip to remove that remark, you just inadvertantly confirmed the persons reason for being angry and zips reason for removing it.

You are not very good at this, are you?

No, I'm not good at this becuase unlike you I don't consider it a game. You may like to argue but I am just saying what I believe in. I don't practice "debate" as a sport, rather I debate people when i disagree with them, based on what i believe in. Now, what i believe is that you are worse at debating than i am. becuase if zippy is truly a fair moderator than your post is about to get deleted.

You obviously have some form of a problem understanding this
"If someone SOUNDS like a terrorist, you are accusing him of being one, or very similar. If someone SOUNDS like an idiot, the same is true."

Rambler said the EXACT words i had heard terrorists say. I brought that point up. It is not something i narrow-mindedly came up with, nor is it a vast right wing conspiracy. It is a fact that bin laden and other terrorists say the things about us that rambler did. For some reason my bringing that to peoples attention not only resulted in its deletion but in your all-out personal attack on me, which i hope the moderators of the forum will cease, as they did so kindly for rambler.

also, calling me intolerant is laughable. all i did was point out a true fact. i compared ramblers speech to that of a terrorists'. I am pointing out a real-life fact, which you obviously don't want to hear. Why are you so afraid of the truth? You have to attack me and jump down my throat for telling hte truth? besides, zippy deleted it, so whether it was offending or not is no longer a matter for you to worry about. But your obvious personal attacks on me aren't going to do anything but get you in trouble.

I would also respond to the rest of what you said but I'm not even going to bother. Obviously you cannot have a civilized debate without trying to create a real crisis. whatever insulting things i may have said about rambler were inadvertantly insulting, or insulting in a way i did not realize at the time. they were since deleted. when i compared ramblers speech to that of a terrorist it was becuase it was the same!! but you know what, i did not mean it to be a huge insult. i can see how it may be, but it was not intended to insult, only to prove a point. however, you are not even debating the issues anymore. now you are just trying to create a problem here by INTENTIONALLY insulting me. my insults, if they were that, were unintentional, or at least their primary goal was not to insult. the only goal i can see in your last post was the goal of insulting me. Calling me a narrow minded fanatic conservative. I want to hear what zippy says about this one.

Freedom Tower
June 4th, 2004, 07:48 PM
Ok Freedom Tower, I have read enough!!!

You sound like those naive-minded individuals who love to vote for a president (bush) and be ally to a political party that year by year are becoming one of (if not) the worst political movement in the United State history.

This whole 911 tragedy is an excuse to go to war with Iraq! Can you get that through your heads naive-minded individuals (Freedom Tower)?

ofcourse not...Oh revenge! Please... :roll:

Yeah I agree we have to go after Bin Laden and his terrorists followers. WITH the help of other countries that support us! Like most european countries and beyond.

This war is not about terrorism...it is for the OIL 100%. Let me see...Bush and most of his friends are from Texas...his father was involve in the gulf war as well...was it Kuwait and its OIL? Yes. There wans't and still no connection of Iraq and Bin Laden. Now there seem to be some individuals who simpathize with Bin Laden who are in the way of Bush and Allies to take control of Iraq. But I wonder how that happened?

The threat right now is not Iraq is North Korea. They do have some weapons of mass destruction. Not like Iraq. But wait there is no OIL in North Korea. Hmmm. :?

Do you know what Bush saids all the time! GOD will help us. He is using Religion to get the support from the rest of the country. Don't you know most people in this country are religious! Of course he gets support. Where do you think most of the charity that most republicans give go to?
CHURCHES!

Not moderate churches of course...they are strugling financially. They go to Fundamentalists churches. And we said that the muslim religion is a fundamentalist church...yeah! but we have the same in this country and they are getting ground and growing with the help of alot of money of course and no taxes to pay.

In return we get these churches to praise Bush and his republicans allies. Then you get all of this town people (most town people tend to be very religious) who join the Army and do so many emberrasing things for the USA (like the prison).

Let me guess Freedom Tower. Are you religious(from a town)? Or are you from Texas? If not please don't call your self a New Yorker.

By the way is a shame you use the name Freedom Tower. Maybe a true new yorker will had like to use that name instead.

If there is a draft I will hide or if I go I won't fight. And I love this country. But not for an OIL war. The prices are high because they haven't get a control in Iraq yet.

Please people do not vote for Bush! If you do you are making a big mistake. Seriously.

First of all i don't know why you think you have the authority to call me naive and narrow minded, or anyone who likes bush for that matter. Who gives you the final "know it all" say on this issue? you have declared me naive and narrow minded and all these other negative things because you disagree with me on political issues. So now you are right and everyone else is wrong? isn't that nearly the definition of narrow-minded?

"The prices are high because they haven't get a control in Iraq yet."

They took baghdad in something like a week. the oil fields have been under our control for over a year now. there are occasional attacks on the pipelines - which transport oil to nearby countries - but the oil infrastructure is secure and working. if it was for oil we'd have a ton of it right now. The fact is, the war wasn't for oil, the US hasn't taken a single barrel of it, it was all liberal propoganda.

"If there is a draft I will hide or if I go I won't fight. And I love this country. But not for an OIL war."

Again, I don't know what this thing is with you people, i am talking about a draft in general. they aren't going to draft people to go into iraq, which isnt an oil war, but for the sake of you shutting up we'll claim it is one. so lets say it is an oil war, there isn't going to be a draft for it. the draft, like ive said over and over, will only reappear if we are under major attack or assault. Would you hide then? You love this country so much would you hide for a justified war? What about afghanistan, wehre there is no doubt we are fighting terrorists. the people who murdered us. would you fight there? that is the real question, whenever you ask a liberal about the draft (by the way democrats want to re-introduce it, not republicans) he refers to iraq only and nothing else.

"This war is not about terrorism...it is for the OIL 100%. Let me see...Bush and most of his friends are from Texas...his father was involve in the gulf war as well...was it Kuwait and its OIL? Yes. There wans't and still no connection of Iraq and Bin Laden. Now there seem to be some individuals who simpathize with Bin Laden who are in the way of Bush and Allies to take control of Iraq. But I wonder how that happened?"

Wake up, the first gulf war was about saving kuwait from saddam. we didn't even care about bin laden back then. even when he attacked us in 1993, 1998, etc. your beloved clinton didn't want bin laden. Bin laden wasnt a target until 911, so just by saying he didnt have ties to iraq back then doesnt make the war unjustified. that war saved an untold number of kuwaiti civilians, and if that was for oil, why isnt kuwait a big gas pump for the united states? it obviously isnt because they are rich, and our gas is expensive. all these war for oil slogans are not only old but false.

"The threat right now is not Iraq is North Korea. They do have some weapons of mass destruction. Not like Iraq. But wait there is no OIL in North Korea. Hmmm. :? "

Norht korea already has nukes. if we were to invade them they would nuke the south. millions of people would die. that is why there is no war in north korea. i am narrow-minded? then why can you only think every war is about oil. there are other issues at hand... by invading iraq now we ensure that saddam stops building WMD and also never gets a nuke. so iraq wont be a threat like that again. north korea it may now be too late. to invade them now would cause nuclear war. but elect kerry, and maybe hell provide that for you.

Also what is all this ranting and raving about churches and townspeople? Liberal democrats claim to be the main supporters of tolerance, respect, and equality for everyone. now you are being biased, and prejudiced against churches and people from towns. If someone were to insult a mosque you would call them a narrow-minded person, however insulting a church is ok. last time i checked it wasnt a christian group that blew up the twin towers. why are mosques better than churces?

do you have something against texas? something against people from small towns? something against catholics or christians? you have something against people who join the army to risk their lives protecting your freedoms?

I don't know if you all see this but krulltime not only insulted me, but he just singled out and insulted half the country - he insulted all the republicans, all the brave men and women who fight for our country, he insulted church-goers, he insulted people from small towns...
Oh now i remember, if you aren't from NYC and if you arent a liberal then you are a worthless narrow minded individual :roll:

btw, i purposely tried to not be offensive this time, despite your offensive and belittling, and rude tone to me and every other republican in the world. i am also going to report you to a moderator because after i was specifically warned not to be offensive you and ninjahedge come and verbally assault and personally attack me.

krulltime
June 4th, 2004, 07:56 PM
no I did not personally attack you...it is my opinion on Bush-Likers that is all. And you happen to be one...I am sorry if you took it too personal.

krulltime
June 4th, 2004, 07:59 PM
oh and I did not insult anyone with religious beliefs or because they happen to be republicans...but I repeat only people who like bush and his allies need to open their minds more..that is all. :wink:

Freedom Tower
June 4th, 2004, 08:02 PM
krulltime, do i have to post back what you said though?

krulltime
June 4th, 2004, 08:06 PM
no...because all that I said makes sense. Don't you believe me?

Freedom Tower
June 4th, 2004, 08:06 PM
[quote="krulltime"]

You sound like those naive-minded individuals who love to vote for a president (bush) and be ally to a political party that year by year are becoming one of (if not) the worst political movement in the United State history.

Can you get that through your heads naive-minded individuals (Freedom Tower)?
Where do you think most of the charity that most republicans give go to?
CHURCHES!

And we said that the muslim religion is a fundamentalist church...yeah! but we have the same in this country and they are getting ground and growing with the help of alot of money of course and no taxes to pay.
Then you get all of this town people (most town people tend to be very religious) who join the Army and do so many emberrasing things for the USA

Let me guess Freedom Tower. Are you religious(from a town)? Or are you from Texas? If not please don't call your self a New Yorker.

By the way is a shame you use the name Freedom Tower. Maybe a true new yorker will had like to use that name instead.
[\quote]

You say that people from towns are religious and join the army, and are embarasments to the country, you say that i must be religious, or from a town, or from texas. you say it is a shame i use the name freedom tower. that is obviously purposely insulting to me.

you called churhces in america fundamentalist.

you called me naive-minded twice

your apologies are nothing more than something of a show so when the moderator gets here you look less guilty. read what you wrote to me! that is offensive, insulting, and vulgar.

Freedom Tower
June 4th, 2004, 08:09 PM
I wish I could have seen what he said so I could respond appropriately, but given the small bit you posted, I can probably guess what the rest was like.

Freedom Tower: Do you equate dissent with supporting terrorism? Do you believe the people who control the government right now have your best interests at heart? Do you believe all their connections to defense corporations, oil companies, and the Saudi royal family signify nothing? I'm a little curious. Maybe you know something about them that I don't.

MR, are you getting an idea of what he is like, or shall we continue to remove what little sheeps clothing he has left? ;)

Give it a rest ninjahedge. I am not trying to hide my views behind any sheeps clothing. if you ask me a question i will answer you with how i feel abotu that issue. i am not trying to fool anyone about what i do and do not support. that is your game.

krulltime
June 4th, 2004, 08:31 PM
Nope you are misinterpreting what I said to make it look like I said the wrong things aren't you...oh how smart.

Quotes are from Freedom Tower.


You say that people from towns are religious and join the army, and are embarasments to the country, you say that i must be religious, or from a town, or from texas. you say it is a shame i use the name freedom tower. that is obviously purposely insulting to me. you called churhces in america fundamentalist.

yes people from towns do join the army and are religious...is true...do some research is not surpricing. Yeah they did some embarrasing things in Iraq and afghanistan. sadly they were mostly from towns. It is a fact.

no I am only asking if you are religious or from texas. I did not said you were...I just want it to know that is all. All you do is answer me. Yes or No.

Yes I am ashame you use that name. But that is my opinion and I did not call you a name to insult you.

Alot of churches called themselves fundametalists. Just ask them. Some call themselves moderates. Don't you know that?


you called me naive-minded twice

So, that is not insulting. I think you need to open your mind more.


your apologies are nothing more than something of a show so when the moderator gets here you look less guilty. read what you wrote to me! that is offensive, insulting, and vulgar.

offensive, insulting, and vulgar? You got to be kidding me. I certainly did not. I was very careful with that. Sorry but you can't convince no moderator.

ZippyTheChimp
June 4th, 2004, 09:05 PM
Yo, everyone:

What I said to Freedom Tower also applies to those on the other side of the issue.

You can say Bush (or Kerry) is an idiot, but you can't say a forumer is an idiot for supporting them. Unlike architectural debates, political debates are taken more personally and name calling escalates into a Giraldo Rivera talk show (remember him?).

Ninjahedge
June 7th, 2004, 01:01 PM
How about this:

You are an insulting, belittling, narrow minded, fanatic, conservative, intolerant individual that seems to like to insult people out of hand with things that anyone but you interpret as insults.

If someone SOUNDS like a terrorist, you are accusing him of being one, or very similar. If someone SOUNDS like an idiot, the same is true.

By being insulted and asking for Zip to remove that remark, you just inadvertantly confirmed the persons reason for being angry and zips reason for removing it.

You are not very good at this, are you?

No, I'm not good at this becuase unlike you I don't consider it a game. You may like to argue but I am just saying what I believe in. I don't practice "debate" as a sport, rather I debate people when i disagree with them, based on what i believe in. Now, what i believe is that you are worse at debating than i am. becuase if zippy is truly a fair moderator than your post is about to get deleted.

Wrong on SO many levels there FT. First being, you insulted Zip. You insult the guys in charge, even if you ask nicely later you will find it hard to get them to see whatever point of view you want them to see. You insulted the previous poster. I insinuated by your defence that you SOUND stupid. You were insulted, thereby validating Zips choice to remove your post and his own defence of such. Your unwillingness to accept or validate this arguement either lends to the fact that you are ignorant, stubborn and/or stupid.

And the more you open your mouth (or type) the more you keep digging your own grave on this. the first sign to a mature individual is knowing when to admit they are wrong and ALSO knowing when to just stop talking.

BTW, for someone that does not believe in debate as a sport, you sure try your best to say you are better at it than anyone else. You are a better complainer, I will give you that. OK, not better. Maybe just more prolific.

You obviously have some form of a problem understanding this
"If someone SOUNDS like a terrorist, you are accusing him of being one, or very similar. If someone SOUNDS like an idiot, the same is true."

Rambler said the EXACT words i had heard terrorists say. Um, wow. So you are now yelling at him and calling him a terrorist instead of stepping back and questioning him. That is flaming someone, and that is why it was deleted. I brought that point up. It is not something i narrow-mindedly came up with, nor is it a vast right wing conspiracy. Now you are putting words in my mouth. I am not talking about RWCs. I said "You insulted him" and you did. You are bringing in all sorts of political ramifications as some sort of justification for your ill-chosen words. The game of LIFE is not played that way FT. It is a fact that bin laden and other terrorists say the things about us that rambler did. For some reason my bringing that to peoples attention not only resulted in its deletion but in your all-out personal attack on me, which i hope the moderators of the forum will cease, as they did so kindly for rambler.

Every time I have tried to nicely point out your errors and trangressions, you come back and backhand me across the face with your "I know better" form of "debate" where you freely associate things with others that have not even a tacit connection. If you would learn the difference between what I am telling you and what you are telling other people, then maybe you will do us ALL a lot of good.

But seeing how anything against you, and your beligerant insulting manner, is automatically an insult, it is impossible to be at differing opinion with you without insulting you.

also, calling me intolerant is laughable. all i did was point out a true fact.There are false facts? i compared ramblers speech to that of a terrorists'. I am pointing out a real-life fact, which you obviously don't want to hear. Man, you seem to be so hung up on calling MR a terrorist, don't you? Every other sentance keeps calling him a terrorist. You have dropped the "sounds like" and have inadvertantly let us all know that you regard him with the same respect as you do the terrorists. Unless you LIKE the terrorists, you are insulting him.

How many times does this need to be said?Why are you so afraid of the truth? You have to attack me and jump down my throat for telling hte truth? besides, zippy deleted it, and you brought it back up again. If he deleted it, why do you keep bringing it back up? so whether it was offending or not is no longer a matter for you to worry about. Is this a last word competition? If it is no longer something for me to worry about, why are you so worried about it? But your obvious personal attacks on me aren't going to do anything but get you in trouble.

Again with the threats. You insult people around you, and you get your stuffed banned, but yet you ignore anybody elses words and try to turn it back around. "You think I did something wrong by calling him a terrorist, look he called me stupid!!!!!"

Geez man, you keep shooting yourself in the foot so many times on this. Let it GO already!

I would also respond to the rest of what you said but I'm not even going to bother.Because you can't. All your arguments and positions have been refuted and you have nothing left. You need to seriously get your head out of the sand on this. You do not seem to be a nasty or malicious person, but definitely naieve and very narrow minded. Seriously dude, try to read more OUTSIDE the news articles that go through the trouble of making your opinions for you! Obviously you cannot have a civilized debate without trying to create a real crisis. whatever insulting things i may have said about rambler were inadvertantly insulting, or insulting in a way i did not realize at the time. they were since deleted. when i compared ramblers speech to that of a terrorist it was becuase it was the same!! but you know what, i did not mean it to be a huge insult. i can see how it may be, but it was not intended to insult, only to prove a point.OK, stop there. that is the POINT I have been trying to get to you. And your refusal to acnowledge it has been the reason for my reply posts. The statement that comes after this one is unneeded and looking for another arguement. you did not need to "however" justify your position. that is NOT a way to come to an amicable solution. You inadvertantly insulted him, and now you are "inadvertantly" keeping the flame going however, you are not even debating the issues anymore. now you are just trying to create a problem here by INTENTIONALLY insulting me. my insults, if they were that, were unintentional, or at least their primary goal was not to insult. the only goal i can see in your last post was the goal of insulting me. Calling me a narrow minded fanatic conservative. I want to hear what zippy says about this one.

OK, that is the 3rd time you call on Zippy, like somehow you are the poor injured individual. Dude, you "inadvertantly" called someone a killer. I pointed that out to you and it has taken this long for you to even acnowledge it.

If that is not stubborn I don't know what is.

You really have to learn. Your "debates" are arguments or complaints, not postings looking for discourse.

If you find that insulting, too bad. It is the truth (you remember that word that you kept using). It is a fact (that one too).

>sigh<

Maybe you will learn, maybe not. We can only hope.

Ninjahedge
June 7th, 2004, 01:09 PM
I wish I could have seen what he said so I could respond appropriately, but given the small bit you posted, I can probably guess what the rest was like.

Freedom Tower: Do you equate dissent with supporting terrorism? Do you believe the people who control the government right now have your best interests at heart? Do you believe all their connections to defense corporations, oil companies, and the Saudi royal family signify nothing? I'm a little curious. Maybe you know something about them that I don't.

MR, are you getting an idea of what he is like, or shall we continue to remove what little sheeps clothing he has left? ;)

Give it a rest ninjahedge. I am not trying to hide my views behind any sheeps clothing. if you ask me a question i will answer you with how i feel abotu that issue. i am not trying to fool anyone about what i do and do not support. that is your game.

No, but you come in saying "poor me I am being insulted" and things like you are only feeling for the victims, but then you are very cold hearted to those around you that disagree with what you post!

I am not in 100% agreeance with Krull, he seems to be rather pissed at some of the things you posted, but I understand where he is coming from.


Bottom line is, the war on Iraq has nothing, NOTHING to do with 9-11 other than the propaganda that was used to get public support.

It was a strategic move. It was a mostly secular oppressed nation that seemed to be violating UN resolutions that had its own viable exportable resource. If conquered, it would provide little, if any, fundamentalist resistance from within its own borders, and it would be relatively inexpensive to convert and set up as a self supporting US ally.

We needed that there.

North Korea is not a financially viable long term or short term investment. And Kim is a certifiable looney. So there is no telling what we would have gotten into there.

The only thing that I have objections to now about the whole thing is the reasons we were given for going in. I have no problem accepting an argument once irrefutable proof is given, but when the proof that HAS been given is all shown to be faulty or outright worng, it is hard to back anything.

So whatever...

Freedom Tower
June 7th, 2004, 04:27 PM
i don't see the purpose in responding here anymore. the topic was supposed to be on the draft. it has gone too far off that topic. you have proved that it is yourself who is not here for discourse - you have proved it by going so far to try and prove me wrong, etc.

Obviously we have different views, and perhaps when i hear certain radical views i respond rather LOUDLY but it is no reason to start complaining about my requests to be treated with some respect.

So just for the sake of ending aggrevation, i won't post in this draft topic until it gets back on topic, and talks about the draft!

Ninjahedge
June 7th, 2004, 04:49 PM
i don't see the purpose in responding here anymore. the topic was supposed to be on the draft. it has gone too far off that topic. you have proved that it is yourself who is not here for discourse - you have proved it by going so far to try and prove me wrong, etc.

Obviously we have different views, and perhaps when i hear certain radical views i respond rather LOUDLY but it is no reason to start complaining about my requests to be treated with some respect.

So just for the sake of ending aggrevation, i won't post in this draft topic until it gets back on topic, and talks about the draft!

If you see no need to respond, why do you keep responding?

You keep insulting me by saying I am not here for discourse right after a post I placed on the reasons for going to war in the first place (which is one of the reasons why a lot of people do not want to go to war if there was a draft for this one).

Again, you are arguing a moot point by trying to say, basically "You are wrong and I am not talking to you anymore".

You wanted an explanation, and I gave it to you. You want to know why people are getting angry, I told you.

And the funny thing is, you still have not said why you will not sign up BEFORE a draft in the first place.

Most people who say they are all for the draft are usually the ones that say that they will go if asked, but will not go otherwise. they do not give any reasons for not going now other than the fact that, as you pointed out, that that was not the question.

This is usually because they are uncomfortable about the subject and they don't want to answer why they have not already joined up for fear that will somehow look unpatriotic or lazy.

So the question is raised again, without looking to insult, is why are you so ready to join the army IF there was a draft, but so unwilling to answer the question of whether or not you would joing if there WAS no draft in order to provide support for a war you are in favor of?

Freedom Tower
June 9th, 2004, 05:09 PM
i don't see the purpose in responding here anymore. the topic was supposed to be on the draft. it has gone too far off that topic. you have proved that it is yourself who is not here for discourse - you have proved it by going so far to try and prove me wrong, etc.

Obviously we have different views, and perhaps when i hear certain radical views i respond rather LOUDLY but it is no reason to start complaining about my requests to be treated with some respect.

So just for the sake of ending aggrevation, i won't post in this draft topic until it gets back on topic, and talks about the draft!

If you see no need to respond, why do you keep responding?

You keep insulting me by saying I am not here for discourse right after a post I placed on the reasons for going to war in the first place (which is one of the reasons why a lot of people do not want to go to war if there was a draft for this one).

Again, you are arguing a moot point by trying to say, basically "You are wrong and I am not talking to you anymore".

You wanted an explanation, and I gave it to you. You want to know why people are getting angry, I told you.

And the funny thing is, you still have not said why you will not sign up BEFORE a draft in the first place.

Most people who say they are all for the draft are usually the ones that say that they will go if asked, but will not go otherwise. they do not give any reasons for not going now other than the fact that, as you pointed out, that that was not the question.

This is usually because they are uncomfortable about the subject and they don't want to answer why they have not already joined up for fear that will somehow look unpatriotic or lazy.

So the question is raised again, without looking to insult, is why are you so ready to join the army IF there was a draft, but so unwilling to answer the question of whether or not you would joing if there WAS no draft in order to provide support for a war you are in favor of?

This is exactly why I told you I would not respond. I already answered that question. I told you that I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO ARMY RECRUITERS. I am considering joining believe it or not! (read a few posts back) My question is why does this matter to you? Also I don't believe I said anywhere that I was "for" a draft. I do not believe we need a draft right now. We DO need to pull troops out of places where they are spread too thin and put them in more important places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, but a draft is not necesary right now. I never said a draft is currently necesary. We don't CURRENTLY need one. However, like I said, if we did NEED a draft, if the army was absoultely stretched WAY too thin, then I'd support it. not only would i support it, but i would go if called. Why do my arguments get less credit with you just because i am not currently enlisted? And are you suggesting that if drafted i would not go? That is 100% wrong.

ZippyTheChimp
June 10th, 2004, 12:57 AM
The point about enlisting vs the draft is so obvious, even the cat looking over my shoulder gets it.

Bush has likened the war in Iraq to World War II. If a person supports Bush, it is assumed that he believes what Bush says. Thus, Iraq War supporters of fighting age should be flocking to recruiting offices to enlist - AS WAS DONE IN WWII. When America entered the war, its standing army was ranked 12th in the world.

You stated a few posts back that the draft is not needed because the country is "not in mortal danger." That is not the exclusive reason for a draft. The last time the draft was instituted in the US, the only country in mortal danger was South Vietnam.

Drafts are instituted because there are not enough soldiers. When reservists, who are not trained for intensive combat and generally have greater civilian responsibilities than enlistees, get called up for a second extended tour - THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH SOLDIERS.

You won't see a draft soon for only one reason. It would be political suicide for Bush.

So the point about enlisting is that anyone who, not only criticizes another for not supporting the war, but calls their patriotism into question, should already be in uniform.

But I understand you are going to correct that error. Send us a letter from boot camp.

The cat nods.

Ninjahedge
June 10th, 2004, 09:49 AM
i don't see the purpose in responding here anymore. the topic was supposed to be on the draft. it has gone too far off that topic. you have proved that it is yourself who is not here for discourse - you have proved it by going so far to try and prove me wrong, etc.

Obviously we have different views, and perhaps when i hear certain radical views i respond rather LOUDLY but it is no reason to start complaining about my requests to be treated with some respect.

So just for the sake of ending aggrevation, i won't post in this draft topic until it gets back on topic, and talks about the draft!

If you see no need to respond, why do you keep responding?

You keep insulting me by saying I am not here for discourse right after a post I placed on the reasons for going to war in the first place (which is one of the reasons why a lot of people do not want to go to war if there was a draft for this one).

Again, you are arguing a moot point by trying to say, basically "You are wrong and I am not talking to you anymore".

You wanted an explanation, and I gave it to you. You want to know why people are getting angry, I told you.

And the funny thing is, you still have not said why you will not sign up BEFORE a draft in the first place.

Most people who say they are all for the draft are usually the ones that say that they will go if asked, but will not go otherwise. they do not give any reasons for not going now other than the fact that, as you pointed out, that that was not the question.

This is usually because they are uncomfortable about the subject and they don't want to answer why they have not already joined up for fear that will somehow look unpatriotic or lazy.

So the question is raised again, without looking to insult, is why are you so ready to join the army IF there was a draft, but so unwilling to answer the question of whether or not you would join if there WAS no draft in order to provide support for a war you are in favor of?

This is exactly why I told you I would not respond. I already answered that question. I told you that I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO ARMY RECRUITERS. I am considering joining believe it or not! (read a few posts back) You did not answer the question when it was asked, and you have never simply said "Yes I would" You have said "I am looking into it". I am looking for a simple answer to a simple question and you are really uncomfortable about that. My question is why does this matter to you? Because it is a part of the discussion. And, as I have mentioned before MOST of the people I have seen that are so willing to go if drafted, calling everyone else not willing the modern equivalent of "pinko", are ones that have not JOINED themselves and are uncomfortable about it when asked. I wanted to see your position, and no, your previous posts did not tell me your entire position, so don't even start with that again...:P Also I don't believe I said anywhere that I was "for" a draft. And nowhere did I say you were. I said you would go IF you were drafted, not that you were supportive of the draft itself. I do not believe we need a draft right now. We DO need to pull troops out of places where they are spread too thin and put them in more important places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, but a draft is not necesary right now. I never said a draft is currently necesary. We don't CURRENTLY need one. You are repeating yourself. However, like I said, if we did NEED a draft, if the army was absoultely stretched WAY too thin, then I'd support it. I know. I never said otherwise. You are defending a front that has nobody fighting on it. not only would i support it, but i would go if called. Why do my arguments get less credit with you just because i am not currently enlisted? The question was not about enlistment. It was a strait question on why you are not. The reason itself is usually not as importance as the willingness or unwillingness of the person to answer the question directly. There are many valid reasons why you are not in the military as of yet on your own accord, but just asking the question made you beat your chest and state your feelings about America and the Draft and all that without addressing the question itself. And are you suggesting that if drafted i would not go? That is 100% wrong.

You are 100% wrong.

I have NEVER (Read this NEVER) said you would not go if drafted. Re-read my posts. then read them again. And read them again before you go to bed tonight, then one more time and show me, specifically, where I said you would not go IF DRAFTED.

I do not even HINT at that. Is that what other people have argued, or is that what your own feelings are and you are subconsciously letting your own fears of un-Americanism come forth by making someones questions reflect the fears you have and are not telling anyone.

When you go up to someone and ask "Hey, is that a knife you got?" and their first answer is "I didn't kill anyone" you have to be suspicious.

draft_in_2005
July 30th, 2004, 01:06 PM
The Military draft can be here sooner than you think!
get informed!

http://www.geocities.com/draft_in_2005

ZippyTheChimp
December 6th, 2004, 09:03 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/03/60minutes/main658994.shtml

Transcript of report on 60 Minutes, broadcast Dec 05, 2004

Old Soldiers Back on Duty

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2004/12/05/image659169x.jpg
Chief Warrant Officer Margaret Murray, 55, has been in the reserves for 40 years. She's now being called back to duty.


"My goal was to move back and get that life that I never had because for 16 years the Army...I gave the Army my life."
Rick Howell


http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2004/12/05/image659168x.jpg
Todd Parrish served his four years of active duty in the 1990s as an artillery officer. (Photo: CBS)



(CBS) This past week, the Pentagon announced it’s boosting the levels of U.S. troops in Iraq to its highest point ever – 150,000.

It’s sending in paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne, extending the tours of Marines, and it has started drawing from a pool of semi-retired soldiers called the Individual Ready Reserve.

It's a sign that the Army needs able, and not so able, bodies very quickly. And many of the men and women being mobilized from the Ready Reserve – approximately 5,000 this year – are not very happy about it.

In fact, a third of these soldiers who’ve been called up haven’t shown up. But if old soldiers never die, as the saying goes, the Army isn’t letting them fade away. Correspondent Bob Simon reports.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of those soldiers who have answered the call have come to Fort Jackson, S.C., for training. It's a place none of them really expected to be. In fact, very few expected to be mobilized at all.

"I automatically started crying for about two hours. I couldn't stop, because I knew I was gonna have to leave my babies," says Spc. Carey Trevino, who was called up in August.

She's 31, and has three kids – the youngest a 7-month-old baby boy. She'll be leaving her children behind when she goes to Iraq, for another year-and-a-half.

"I need to serve my country and the call has come out, so I am doing that," says Chief Warrant Officer Margaret Murray, who did her active duty back in the '60s.

She's 55, and 4 feet, 8 inches tall. Her M-16 is almost as big as she is, but that didn't stop her from qualifying as a marksman this week.

Does she find it unusual that the Army is now calling up a female soldier in her 50s, who has been in the reserves for 40 years?

"No. Although I think what they need to look at is our ability to perform in a tactical environment," says Murray. "For myself, I am going to find that a difficult thing to do physically."

Especially if Murray winds up in a place like Fallujah. Does she find that daunting? "Scary," says Murray. "[But] I need to do my job. … I did not retire. And so, now the Army's calling me back to service. And I'm here to do that."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 110,000 men and women in the Ready Reserve right now. They generally don’t train or get paid or belong to units, but they can be called up in case of war or national emergency.

This already happened during the first Gulf War, when 20,000 Ready Reservists were mobilized for 120 days. But this time around, they’ll be there for up to two years.

Pvt. George Sayegh is keeping his obligation as best he can. He may not look tough, but he is very tough on the guys who are not reporting for duty. "When you abandon your country in time of warfare, I feel that, knowing what your obligation is, I believe that it is an act of cowardice," he says.

But you'd be hard-pressed to call one woman 60 Minutes talked to a coward – even though she is resisting the call to return for duty. "Mary," as we're calling her, is a senior special agent with a federal law enforcement agency. She does undercover work in the war on drugs – which is why she appeared in disguise.

"You come up against a lot of big-time criminals. And they're prepared to kill and to shoot to get out of certain situations," says Mary, of her work in the war on drugs.

Is she reluctant to return to the Army because she is afraid of danger? "No, my reluctance is because what's right," says Mary. "I thought my time was up. And they're telling me that it's not."

Like many Army officers, Mary signed up for eight years -- four years active duty, and four years in the Ready Reserves. She received her discharge certificate in 1998, but she was called up this past June to serve as a transportation officer.

"I called the Delay and Exemption Board. And the young lady that I talked to said that date [on my contract] meant nothing. That my new date is 2018," says Mary.

"I was in shock. I was like, 'What do you mean? I have a piece of paper that tells me that that's my obligation.' And for them to just send me orders and disrupt my life and pull me back, it's disheartening and I feel betrayed, I guess you could say. … The military is betraying me, because I served my time."

What Mary didn’t realize is that, as an officer, she remained in the Ready Reserve -- even after her eight years were through -- because she hadn’t resigned her commission as an officer.

But she’s not alone. Many officers say they were never made aware of that -- that no mention is made of it in the enlistment agreements they signed. The Army, which declined a request by 60 Minutes for an interview, counters that the requirement is referred to in the agreements – if ever so obliquely.

"It's a six-digit reference to an Army regulation, that that's put in a remark section in these agreements," says Mark Waple, a lawyer who specializes in defending soldiers. "It borders on being a deceptive recruiting practice. I’m not suggesting it was intended that way."

Waple is a graduate of West Point and was once a judge advocate general in the military himself.

Nevertheless, he calls what the Army’s doing now "a backdoor draft." And since June, he’s been getting dozens of calls from officers around the country who are convinced the Army has no right to call them up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Parrish was the first to call. He served his four years of active duty in the 1990s as an artillery officer.

Unlike many Ready Reserve soldiers, who say they never knew they had to resign their commissions, Parrish knew, and did.

He believed that legally he was out of the military forever. But last July, Parrish and his wife, Collette, were shocked when he received one of those letters from the Army.

But when he called Army Personnel to tell them a mistake had been made, they seemed to know very little about him. In fact, they told him that he had never done his active duty.

"I said, 'Well, I served active duty. I have the records.' And then I said, 'Do you have my DD-214?,'" says Parrish.

"The DD-214 is the one that says honorable discharge on it. It's a record of everything you've done. And they said, 'No. We do not have that on file. But we can request it.' And I said, 'Request it? You're the Human Resources Command. Shouldn't you already have that before you call somebody to active duty?' They told me, 'Oh, you'll have to report, and we'll work it out from there.'"

Parrish, a veteran, knew that once he reported, he would have "given up all your rights." "Once you show up, you're gonna go to Iraq," says Parrish. "No matter how right you may be."

But should all bets be off now that the country is in a state of emergency?

"I think if they're saying that, then what they're saying is there needs to be a draft. It's over and over it's told, 'We're an all-volunteer Army. We're an all volunteer armed forces,'" says Parrish's wife, Collette.

"And if it's going to be all volunteer, it needs to be the people that have actually volunteered and want to be there - not the people who served and wanted to go on and be civilians."

Parrish is challenging his orders in federal court, where the Army is now arguing that his resignation should never have been accepted in the first place - that it was a clerical error.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Howell also thought a mistake had been made when he received his notification last August. He’s 47 and disabled from an accident he suffered in the military.

"I can’t run anymore. If somebody was shooting at me and chasing me I couldn’t run away from them. I can’t, you know, if I lift anything more than 30 or 40 pounds, I literally, the rod in my arm tingles," says Howell.

He joined the Army in 1981, and became a helicopter pilot. He flew along the DMZ in Korea. Finally, in 1997, after almost 16 years of active service, he retired.

"My goal was to move back and get that life that I never had because for 16 years the Army," says Howell. "I mean, I gave the Army my life. Of course, you know, I wanted a family, you know. I wanted to marry someone and to settle down and to have a home."

And so he did. His son was born two months ago. Going back into the Army would be a major inconvenience, to say the least.

But Howell says he’s willing to do it if he can serve in the United States, which he put in the form of a prayer on Thanksgiving this year.

This past week, the Army rejected Howell’s offer and sent him a letter saying his exemption has been disapproved, and he has to report for duty early next year. But Howell intends to keep fighting.

What is he going to do if he has to go to Iraq?

"I don’t have a choice. They’re going to have to come and get me. I mean literally," says Howell. "They’re going to have to come get me. And at that point in time, if they come get me, I don’t have a choice. They’ll have to drag me away and make me go."

© MMIV, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Marksix
June 28th, 2006, 05:45 AM
My Canadian cousin is going through a divorce and to cut a long story short, his wife is now NOT moving back from Canada to Plattsburgh with the kids as they are not far off being of military service age. The assumption is that there will shortly be a draft in the US and they would be called up – I understand that it might have constituted grounds for custody of the kids.

What’s the feeling over there about a draft? (I’m in the UK).

sfenn1117
June 28th, 2006, 07:02 AM
There is NO draft. A year or so ago a democrat started a bill to enact the draft, but it was shot down with a 99% no vote.

Curious though, why does she want to move to the states?

Marksix
June 28th, 2006, 09:37 AM
There is NO draft. A year or so ago a democrat started a bill to enact the draft, but it was shot down with a 99% no vote.

Curious though, why does she want to move to the states?

...she's a native New Yorker

My reading of the war(s) suggests a lack of manpower will ultimately decide the withdrawl times and that point will arrive within a year and only a draft will enable the war(s) to continue.

The UK armed forces are chronically short of people. AWOL rates are very high since Iraq.

Patrick Pearse
June 28th, 2006, 10:26 AM
Being someone who falls into the age criteria to be drafted, I'm a little nervous about this. Especially since I've been against this war from day one.
Scary, scary stuff: What are your thoughts?

Source: Congress.org

Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005
The Draft will Start in June 2005

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html (http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html) to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.

The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

I thought the United States ended the draft after 'Nam.

antinimby
June 28th, 2006, 05:37 PM
Yes, the draft ended.
Patrick, read that article carefully.
They were only proposing to bring it back, which I believe was voted down.

ZippyTheChimp
June 28th, 2006, 05:54 PM
My reading of the war(s) suggests a lack of manpower will ultimately decide the withdrawl times and that point will arrive within a year and only a draft will enable the war(s) to continue.Then the war will end.

ryan
June 28th, 2006, 06:27 PM
They were only proposing to bring it back, which I believe was voted down.

I don't have any citation, but I believe that it was an anti-war democrat who brought up the draft issue just for PR's sake. To repeat Zippy, a draft would be political suicide, and I'd eat my shorts if I saw a draft for the Iraq war.

Ninjahedge
June 29th, 2006, 09:20 AM
Besides, 2005 is over.

If aything, we MIGHT see a 2007 draft, but it is safe to say we will never see a 2005 draft... ;)

ZippyTheChimp
November 20th, 2006, 08:43 AM
November 19, 2006

House Democrat Wants Draft Reinstated

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 9:59 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.

''There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way,'' Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.

Rangel said he will propose a measure early next year. While he said he is serious about the proposal, there is little evident support among the public or lawmakers for it.

In 2003, Rangel proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. It was defeated 402-2 the following year. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.

Democrats will control the House and Senate come January because of their victories in the Nov. 7 election.

At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, ''I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft,'' said Rangel, who also proposed a draft in January 2003, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. ''I think to do so is hypocritical.''

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Standby Reserve, said he agreed that the U.S. does not have enough people in the military.

''I think we can do this with an all-voluntary service, all-voluntary Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. And if we can't, then we'll look for some other option,'' said Graham, who is assigned as a reserve judge to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.

Rangel, the next chairman of the House tax-writing committee, said he worried the military was being strained by its overseas commitments.

''If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft,'' Rangel said.

He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, ''young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals,'' with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.

Graham said he believes the all-voluntary military ''represents the country pretty well in terms of ethnic makeup, economic background.''

Repeated polls have shown that about seven in 10 Americans oppose reinstatement of the draft and officials say they do not expect to restart conscription.

Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress in June 2005 that ''there isn't a chance in the world that the draft will be brought back.''

Yet the prospect of the long global fight against terrorism and the continuing U.S. commitment to stabilizing Iraq have kept the idea in the public's mind.

The military drafted conscripts during the Civil War, both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. An agency independent of the Defense Department, the Selective Service System, keeps an updated registry of men age 18-25 -- now about 16 million -- from which to supply untrained draftees that would supplement the professional all-volunteer armed forces.

Rangel and Graham appeared on ''Face the Nation'' on CBS.


Copyright 2006 The Associated Press

Edward
November 20th, 2006, 10:01 AM
Somebody tell these lunatics it's 21st century...

lofter1
November 20th, 2006, 10:28 AM
One thing that is confounding to me is that the military is now outsourcing much of their support activites to private companies (big report on that on "60 Minutes" last night, regarding private contractors who provide convoys for delivery of material, etc.) The costs are astronomical. These are services that previously the military covered, but now with a "leaner" military (per Rumsfeld / Bush) we're digging ourselves into a frightening level of debt to pay for our current military adventures.

Public service is something that should be encouraged (think back to JFK and the Peace Corps), but don't know that conscription will ever fly ...

phenom34
January 5th, 2007, 04:36 PM
Funny how people who don't agree with this war to protect america from terrorists also are the first people who would run away faced with the possibility of being drafted to protect the country.

If I were drafted I would go. It's obviously more easily said than done. I would definately be scared, maybe I coulnd't handle it, but I wouldn't go to Canada. I love America and I would fight to defend it. Anyone who isn't willing to fight to protect the country doesn't deserve the freedoms it grants. Millions of people died protecting the rights of citizens of this country, unless people are willing to do the same they should not live here. BTW, I am of draft age too, so you can't complain that it isn't the same risk for me.


Too bad this war isn't about protecting the safety of America. It is about protecting our economy by hurting another country's. The only reason why we are in Iraq is because we (the government) realizes that we are going to need the oil in Iraq down the road. So we go in now, with the title "War on Terror" to distract the public from the truth. I do not support this war at all. If we were truely trying to make the U.S. safer, I would gladly be drafted. (I am 18 right now.)

And we know this is not about terror now because what has happened to Osama Bin Laden? The guy supposedly responsible for the attacks on 9/11? We don't go after him, but we go after Sadaam Hussein. Even though he was a horrible dictator and hurt his people, he had NOTHING to do with the terror attacks on the US. This war is total BULL and George W. Bush is deceiving the American public.


It is such a shame :(

phenom34
January 5th, 2007, 04:48 PM
Wow, I just read a couple of Freedom Towers posts. I find it so ridiculous. He stated something like this. "This war is not about oil. We've had control of the oil fields for around 1 year now. If it was about oil, we would be taking it right now and shipping it back to America"

America is not taking any of the oil now. But the whole objective of this war was to create good political connections with a new government in Iraq so we can buy their oil later on when we will be desparetly searching for some.




I still cannot people elected Bush. I pity those people because of their naivety . He has fooled most of America. We cannot let it go on anymore!

Punzie
January 6th, 2007, 02:27 AM
Welcome to this site, Phenom.

When I think of all the support I gave Rep. Charlie Rangel over the decades, man, do I get pissed. Does anybody have an article on his district's reaction to his draft proposal?