Political Crossfire Forums

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

Quote: I think he really wants to return to a conscription based military.

Of course that is what they want.

I made a thread concerning this subject well before the election and a lot of screwballs said it would never happen.

To these folks I say "I told you so".

Dookiestix · Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:40 pm Post subject:

Tetracide wrote: freeatlast wrote: There's no way there will be a draft, unless the cons do it. Rangel is just baiting the Republicans to point out who the real warmongers are. Bush and Co would have a draft if they could figure out how to get one. Especially for the poor and black.
This is a dirty, dirty trick by the Democrats then.
Perhaps. But it's a very clever trick that puts the war mongering Republicans on the defensive. When Rangel put this up for a vote a while back, it was overwhelmingly voted down. But he will push this issue nonetheless, because it addresses the fact that those who are so diehard for this war and represent the 101st Keyboard Brigade are hypocrits when it comes to sacrifice. Believe or not, the elite are not JUST liberal democrats. They are conservative Republicans as well, and many of them who are currently in office at the highest levels have never fought in a war.

It's the lack of understanding by those at the top when it comes to personal sacrifice that as contributed to the enormous fvck-up that is currently Bush's corporate war in Iraq.

pyrophasma · Joined: 19 Sep 2006 Posts: 591 Location: Georgia

While we're feeling justified in forcing men to go fight, let's draft women to go "comfort" our boys in uniform.

Same principle.

Tetracide · Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 4449 Location: California

Dookiestix wrote: Tetracide wrote: freeatlast wrote: There's no way there will be a draft, unless the cons do it. Rangel is just baiting the Republicans to point out who the real warmongers are. Bush and Co would have a draft if they could figure out how to get one. Especially for the poor and black.
This is a dirty, dirty trick by the Democrats then.
Perhaps. But it's a very clever trick that puts the war mongering Republicans on the defensive. When Rangel put this up for a vote a while back, it was overwhelmingly voted down. But he will push this issue nonetheless, because it addresses the fact that those who are so diehard for this war and represent the 101st Keyboard Brigade are hypocrits when it comes to sacrifice. Believe or not, the elite are not JUST liberal democrats. They are conservative Republicans as well, and many of them who are currently in office at the highest levels have never fought in a war.

It's the lack of understanding by those at the top when it comes to personal sacrifice that as contributed to the enormous fvck-up that is currently Bush's corporate war in Iraq.
I'm having quite the Deja vu. Didn't Republicans get an ear-full when they proposed a bill to remove the troops from Iraq immediately. Not many Democrats voted for that one, but boy did we show them.

Dookiestix · Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:07 pm Post subject:

Tetracide wrote: Dookiestix wrote: Tetracide wrote: freeatlast wrote: There's no way there will be a draft, unless the cons do it. Rangel is just baiting the Republicans to point out who the real warmongers are. Bush and Co would have a draft if they could figure out how to get one. Especially for the poor and black.
This is a dirty, dirty trick by the Democrats then.
Perhaps. But it's a very clever trick that puts the war mongering Republicans on the defensive. When Rangel put this up for a vote a while back, it was overwhelmingly voted down. But he will push this issue nonetheless, because it addresses the fact that those who are so diehard for this war and represent the 101st Keyboard Brigade are hypocrits when it comes to sacrifice. Believe or not, the elite are not JUST liberal democrats. They are conservative Republicans as well, and many of them who are currently in office at the highest levels have never fought in a war.

It's the lack of understanding by those at the top when it comes to personal sacrifice that as contributed to the enormous fvck-up that is currently Bush's corporate war in Iraq.
I'm having quite the Deja vu. Didn't Republicans get an ear-full when they proposed a bill to remove the troops from Iraq immediately. Not many Democrats voted for that one, but boy did we show them.
I'm not sure about Republicans getting an earful regarding that bill. It was obviously aimed at calling Murtha's "bluff" in regards to his proposals of redeployment. Of course, that was all political as well, as it was an attempt at allowing a "vote to send a message to our American troops that we believe in their mission of fighting terrorists and we must not retreat and defeat."

Of course, this was done before "stay-the-course" became enormously unpopular, just like Bush's corporate war has become. And the language in the bill was such that it called for an immediate termination, which was a sentiment that was expressed by a few Democrats, and of which the Republicans took advantage of in thier highly predictable losing bill.

Unfortunately, it was all done at the expense of our troops, who continue to get slaughtered in Iraq's sectarian violence.

Tetracide · Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 4449 Location: California

Dookiestix wrote: I'm not sure about Republicans getting an earful regarding that bill. It was obviously aimed at calling Murtha's "bluff" in regards to his proposals of redeployment. Of course, that was all political as well, as it was an attempt at allowing a "vote to send a message to our American troops that we believe in their mission of fighting terrorists and we must not retreat and defeat."

Of course, this was done before "stay-the-course" became enormously unpopular, just like Bush's corporate war has become. And the language in the bill was such that it called for an immediate termination, which was a sentiment that was expressed by a few Democrats, and of which the Republicans took advantage of in thier highly predictable losing bill.

Unfortunately, it was all done at the expense of our troops, who continue to get slaughtered in Iraq's sectarian violence.
You don't need to parrot such a position to me. I know full well what you've said in the year or so we've debated each other.

Instigating a draft is a serious decision to make. A draft costs a lot of money to implement, and will definitely destroy the moral of the American people, something no politician should be aiming for. This is all being done at the expense of our troops as well. Generals on the ground say they do not want more troops in Iraq. Rangle wants to put more troops in Iraq to "stick it to the man."

Does he know his own party is the man now?

Dookiestix · Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:43 pm Post subject:

Tetracide wrote: Dookiestix wrote: I'm not sure about Republicans getting an earful regarding that bill. It was obviously aimed at calling Murtha's "bluff" in regards to his proposals of redeployment. Of course, that was all political as well, as it was an attempt at allowing a "vote to send a message to our American troops that we believe in their mission of fighting terrorists and we must not retreat and defeat."

Of course, this was done before "stay-the-course" became enormously unpopular, just like Bush's corporate war has become. And the language in the bill was such that it called for an immediate termination, which was a sentiment that was expressed by a few Democrats, and of which the Republicans took advantage of in thier highly predictable losing bill.

Unfortunately, it was all done at the expense of our troops, who continue to get slaughtered in Iraq's sectarian violence.
You don't need to parrot such a position to me. I know full well what you've said in the year or so we've debated each other.

Instigating a draft is a serious decision to make. A draft costs a lot of money to implement, and will definitely destroy the moral of the American people, something no politician should be aiming for. This is all being done at the expense of our troops as well. Generals on the ground say they do not want more troops in Iraq. Rangle wants to put more troops in Iraq to "stick it to the man."

Does he know his own party is the man now?
Um, why the hostility?

Like I said, all this posturing from BOTH the Democrats and Republicans is doing nothing in addressing how we are to get our troops out of Iraq. No doubt the instigation of a draft would be costly and would undoubtedly lower the morale of the American people. Perhaps Republicans like John McCain, who is obviously circumnavigating the waters for a Presidential run in 2008, need to do a little soul searching before "parroting" the talking points of "more troops" in Iraq. Fortunately, there are fewer and fewer calling for this increase, as reality continues to slowly set in. The call for more troops has mostly been a Republican one, and it has obviously subsided considerably, especially after the Dems win in Congress.

The card being played here is obvious. The Generals on the ground know that the only way to get more boots on the ground is to have a draft, which is extremely unpopular with just about every cross section of American society. To me, it forces the architects of this war to have to give up this worthless "stay the course" garbage and start coming up with better solutions in ending our occupation in Iraq. Personally, I'm sick and tired of the rhetoric coming from the Bush camp.

If they only listened to those Generals who insisted that more troops were needed in the initial invasion, as well as better body armor and more resources, perhaps we'd be in a different place right now. But Bush fired those critics, because he didn't want to hear them.

Now he says he listens to them. Unfortunately, I still don't believe him.

Timmytour · Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 6863

Dookiestix wrote: Tetracide wrote: freeatlast wrote: There's no way there will be a draft, unless the cons do it. Rangel is just baiting the Republicans to point out who the real warmongers are. Bush and Co would have a draft if they could figure out how to get one. Especially for the poor and black.
This is a dirty, dirty trick by the Democrats then.
Perhaps. But it's a very clever trick that puts the war mongering Republicans on the defensive. When Rangel put this up for a vote a while back, it was overwhelmingly voted down. But he will push this issue nonetheless, because it addresses the fact that those who are so diehard for this war and represent the 101st Keyboard Brigade are hypocrits when it comes to sacrifice. Believe or not, the elite are not JUST liberal democrats. They are conservative Republicans as well, and many of them who are currently in office at the highest levels have never fought in a war.

It's the lack of understanding by those at the top when it comes to personal sacrifice that as contributed to the enormous fvck-up that is currently Bush's corporate war in Iraq.

Dookie

I hope this is not more of that "Bush never went to Vietnam" rubbish.

I believe he laid that particular ghost a couple of days back.

:lol:

Tek · Joined: 04 Oct 2006 Posts: 64

Canada_Rocks wrote: Tek wrote: ook Canada_Rocks your 100% right :rolls: and im wrong. But to think of it neither side is !00% right so which one is justified as the true answer?( BTW its not that I don't agree with you its just not 100%)

You are free to have opinions but that is all they are. If you seriously believe that a draft is justified and that you would fight in these wars regardless, I have one question for you: Why would you want to fight in any war that the US was/is involved in since most of the recent wars were/are about fighting against the same ideology you are promoting.

Kind of like shooting yourself in the foot isn't it?

hmm not realy the same dude a twisted version of this Ideology

Dennis · Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:10 pm Post subject:

Dookiestix wrote: Tetracide wrote: freeatlast wrote: There's no way there will be a draft, unless the cons do it. Rangel is just baiting the Republicans to point out who the real warmongers are. Bush and Co would have a draft if they could figure out how to get one. Especially for the poor and black.
This is a dirty, dirty trick by the Democrats then.
Perhaps. But it's a very clever trick that puts the war mongering Republicans on the defensive. When Rangel put this up for a vote a while back, it was overwhelmingly voted down. But he will push this issue nonetheless, because it addresses the fact that those who are so diehard for this war and represent the 101st Keyboard Brigade are hypocrits when it comes to sacrifice. Believe or not, the elite are not JUST liberal democrats. They are conservative Republicans as well, and many of them who are currently in office at the highest levels have never fought in a war.

It's the lack of understanding by those at the top when it comes to personal sacrifice that as contributed to the enormous fvck-up that is currently Bush's corporate war in Iraq.

Dookiestix has hit the nail on the head. I would also add that the Dems we currently see, as a whole, are more moderate, more of a combination of left and right, and not just left. The concept of the draft is also attributed to this.

Technically, this is another good stradegy, one that the Repubs can't figure out. Most of the country is moderate. This is probably why most people voted for this group of Dems. This could also be why most Independents voted for group of Dems.

Good stradegy all around. :-D

Canada_Rocks · Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 9043 Location: Vancouver

Tek wrote: Canada_Rocks wrote: Tek wrote: ook Canada_Rocks your 100% right :rolls: and im wrong. But to think of it neither side is !00% right so which one is justified as the true answer?( BTW its not that I don't agree with you its just not 100%)

You are free to have opinions but that is all they are. If you seriously believe that a draft is justified and that you would fight in these wars regardless, I have one question for you: Why would you want to fight in any war that the US was/is involved in since most of the recent wars were/are about fighting against the same ideology you are promoting.

Kind of like shooting yourself in the foot isn't it?

hmm not realy the same dude a twisted version of this Ideology

How is it different? You support a system that coerces you to your possible death.

Canada_Rocks · Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 9043 Location: Vancouver

Quote: 101st Keyboard Brigade

hahahahahahahahaha

I can't believe I missed that!.

socnicklin · Joined: 08 Nov 2006 Posts: 60 Location: Michigan

tek wrote: It is the duty of the citizen to protect his country

tek wrote: I would fight the war even if I did not like it out of respect.

tek wrote: Personally I think It would Nucking futs if I would have to go to the army

From the article given by Heinz. Quote: No national figures are available for what the total military votes were or how many went to each candidate.

Quote: reserve and veteran votes would go to Mr. Bush by a margin of 52 percent to 44 percent, according to the June 20 to 23 bipartisan Battleground Poll

And the unoffical numbers given don't nearly stand up to the 75% you claimed earlier.

I just read the whole thread and I don't remember/don't feel like going back through to see who first proposed the following ideas but could they explain it to me how it would benefit the democrats.

It was said that the democrats want to do this to create dissent in the military. It was also said that they wanted to do it to raise their numbers in the military, which is republican. I can see where this will create dissent, but they would be easily identifiable in the public eye as the cause of the dissent, so wouldn't that be bad? As for raising the numbers, personally if I got drafted, I don't think I would be voting democrat anytime soon nor would many other draftees.

A draft would be a far far thing from slavery. Calling it slavery is just an attempt to demonize it. It has no basis in fact. Much like comparing Bush to Hitler when we all know he is more like Stalin :wink:

Would this draft include females? Equal rights means equal responsibilities, no? Because if it did, that would be expensive to track them all down. Males are required to fill out a form when they leave high school. If they don't they don't get any funding for college, pretty sure no welfare without it filled out either but not certain on that. You also can't vote without that filled out.

But in the end this is nothing more than stupid politics. Rangel might be pushing it but I doubt he wants it to actually pass, and I don't see it doing so.

heinz wrote: No, it's true, most "anti-war" voters vote democrat.

Most racists now vote republican, so can we declare the republicans the racist party? No, we can't.

Lumina · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 16999

How about this? Require all high school graduates to serve their country in some capacity for two years--stateside or in the Peace Corps or the military or even maybe the WHO. Then we fund their continuing education and fund it very well.

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Quote: Quote: No, it's true, most "anti-war" voters vote democrat.

Most racists now vote republican, so can we declare the republicans the racist party? No, we can't.

Don't quote me on something that I didn't write.

I believe Nixon wrote that.....

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

Lumina wrote: How about this? Require all high school graduates to serve their country in some capacity for two years--stateside or in the Peace Corps or the military or even maybe the WHO. Then we fund their continuing education and fund it very well.

I kinda want to join the Peace Corps...

Mr. Sunshine · Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 1324

Rangel is now alienated from the Democratic Leadership Council on re-proposing such a D.O.A. bill. Yet another fracture in the almighty Democratic takeover of Congress that hasn't even begun yet. There will never be a draft because we don't have a need or means to support a larger military force. :lol:

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

Mr. Sunshine wrote: Rangel is now alienated from the Democratic Leadership Council on re-proposing such a D.O.A. bill. Yet another fracture in the almighty Democratic takeover of Congress that hasn't even begun yet. There will never be a draft because we don't have a need or means to support a larger military force. :lol:

Oh for goodness sakes, take the party loyalty stick out of your ass.

He is proposing what he believes in. Have a problem with that, than thank you very much for furthering to prove that your current party isn't the party of small government and individual liberty.

Mr. Sunshine · Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 1324

Ek0nomik wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Rangel is now alienated from the Democratic Leadership Council on re-proposing such a D.O.A. bill. Yet another fracture in the almighty Democratic takeover of Congress that hasn't even begun yet. There will never be a draft because we don't have a need or means to support a larger military force. :lol:

Oh for goodness sakes, take the party loyalty stick out of your ass.

He is proposing what he believes in. Have a problem with that, than thank you very much for furthering to prove that your current party isn't the party of small government and individual liberty.

What party is that oh psychic internet tin foil hat wearer?

You do not have the intellectual authority to attempt to squelch my pragmatic assessment of this issue. Rangel proposed this in 2003 and was smacked down. He is re-proposing it now, and his own Leadership Council is running for political cover. Rangel's constituents from his district were recently interviewed. One was quoted as saying, "Uh ah, not me. They going have to find me, and my brother too." So, who is Rangel representing on this non-starter issue. 8:)

There is only one partisan getting all hot and bothered in this thread with thoughts of sticks up people's @sses. That is you. BTW, I am a registered Independent. So, much for your skills of perception. :lol:

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

Mr. Sunshine wrote: What party is that oh psychic internet tin foil hat wearer?

You do not have the intellectual authority to attempt to squelch my pragmatic assessment of this issue. Rangel proposed this in 2003 and was smacked down. He is re-proposing it now, and his own Leadership Council is running for political cover. Rangel's constituents from his district were recently interviewed. One was quoted as saying, "Uh ah, not me. They going have to find me, and my brother too." So, who is Rangel representing on this non-starter issue. 8:)

Hell, you're absolutely right. I'm not denying that people from his own party are running for cover. You have that spot on. It's something he wants to see happen though, and you know, while I disagree with it, he has every right to keep bringing it up. Leaders in his party don't want to see it happen, nor do they want to be affiliated with him, but that's politics unfortunately.

Mr. Sunshine wrote: There is only one partisan getting all hot and bothered in this thread with thoughts of sticks up people's @sses. That is you. BTW, I am a registered Independent. So, much for your skills of perception. :lol:

Meh, look at the data. Independents rarely vote independent. They vote Republican or Democrat, because they don't like going past moderacy.