Maybe the suggestion of that will make the American people finally see the light? I doubt it, too. Do you think they will conscript only boys, or will girls be called too. Oh my God, my heart is pounding at the thought of the draft being reinstated.
I may be jumping the gun on this one, but when I see that our active and reserve military are being stretched as they are now, there seems only one logical solution; conscription. This administration is incapable of seeing the obvious, so anything is possible.
I prefer the alternative: not preemptively strike other nations, reduce our military to match those of other allies (such as remain to us), and get out of war games except when we are invaded. We should be working with the UN, not unilaterally. No, I don't call 9/11 an invasion. I call it a lapse in intelligence which I hope we learn from.
Tartar, Too many in our federal government will not cease operations in Iraq or Afghanistan whether it's Bush or any future president. At the same time, our military is stationed in almost every country across this globe. I can only see one solution: conscription. I hope I'm wrong.
US troups in how many countries?
I've heard it reported that the US has troups in at least 120 countries. At least that is the number that knows about. Why?
---BumbleBeeBoogie
BBB, It's for "our" security.
I think it makes Lockheed and Co. very very secure. I don't think it helps us a bit.
Much of overseas deployment is a cold war legacy. Troops in Europe were to be there when the Russkis came rolling through the Fulda Gap (11th ACR estimated their survival time would be between ten and twelve minutes), and the Balkans into Southern Europe. In the East, troops are in Korea and Japan as a bulwark against China and North Korea. Guam is a base for "heavies" who would fly "nukyaler" strikes into Russia and China.
As for the money going to Halliburton, etc... I find that especially troubling, since many of the contractors have simply failed to turn up. They get to keep the money anyway. :X
C.I.
I read and it was again stated by Cheney on meet the press that most, of the $87 Billion is for military operations in Iraq since it is funded seperatelyand the rest is for reconstruction. Not for as you believe Halliburton.
As far as conscription the latest reports are that enlistment's in both the reserve and active forces is running ahead of forecasts. Wonder of wonder. I wonder how reenlistments will fare considering the extensions that have just been announced.
It makes one wonder why anybody in their right mind would volunteer into the services today, knowing that vets are being shafted with their health plans, the unlimited extensions of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, the daily deaths of our troops, and the untenable conditions with which they are trying to fight this war.
au1929 wrote:C.I.
I read and it was again stated by Cheney on meet the press that most, of the $87 Billion is for military operations in Iraq since it is funded seperatelyand the rest is for reconstruction. Not for as you believe Halliburton.
As far as conscription the latest reports are that enlistment's in both the reserve and active forces is running ahead of forecasts. Wonder of wonder. I wonder how reenlistments will fare considering the extensions that have just been announced.
AU, where did you read that? I have seen exactly the opposite in the press.
conscription thread, with links to articles
Well, even Fox news say that
Quote:
Vice President Dick Cheney hinted Sunday that the Bush administration would seek more money next year than the additional $87 billion already requested to pay mainly for postwar costs in Iraq.
Cheney Hints $87 Billion May Not Be Enough
No, Walter, I meant the increased enlistments. My understanding of the situation is that enlistment in all components, active and reserves, were dropping fast,as were re-enlistments.
hobit, Those are excellent links on reporting the "real" world of our military men and women. If anybody wants to volunteer into the military today, I would have to question their sanity.
Hobitbob
I read it in an article about a week ago. Could not possibly remember exactly where. It stuck in my memory because It seemed unbelievable. The article included statistics. Is it possible that the government was not being entirely truthful.
AU, we all know the government is excruciatingly truthful. When have they ever lied?
