Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 67

Thread: Military Draft 2005: Strong Possibility

  1. #46
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom Tower
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
    Quote Originally Posted by MidnightRambler
    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...

  2. #47

    Default

    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!

  3. #48
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom Tower
    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?

  4. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom Tower
    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.

  5. #50

    Default

    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.

  6. #51
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom Tower
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom Tower
    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.

  7. #52

    Default

    The Military draft can be here sooner than you think!
    get informed!

    http://www.geocities.com/draft_in_2005

  8. #53

    Default

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in658994.shtml

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

    Old Soldiers Back on Duty


    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



    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.

  9. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Liverpool UK
    Posts
    264

    Default The Draft

    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).

  10. #55

    Default

    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?

  11. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Liverpool UK
    Posts
    264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sfenn1117
    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.

  12. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YesIsaidYesIwillYes
    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.
    I thought the United States ended the draft after 'Nam.

  13. #58
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Yes, the draft ended.
    Patrick, read that article carefully.
    They were only proposing to bring it back, which I believe was voted down.

  14. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marksix
    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.

  15. #60
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    1,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby
    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.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. NYC Easter 2005
    By Braesikalla in forum Photos and Videos of New York
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: April 23rd, 2007, 10:36 PM
  2. Londen june 2005
    By VdB in forum Photography and Travel
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: February 7th, 2006, 09:29 PM
  3. Office Construction 2005-2006
    By merlyn316 in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2005, 09:04 AM
  4. Going to visit NYC on August 2005 :-)
    By maik73 in forum Questions and Answers about New York City
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 4th, 2005, 09:05 AM
  5. 2005 Movies
    By thatshott in forum Anything Goes
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: December 19th, 2004, 08:51 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software