1
   

If there Is A Draft....

 
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Nov, 2006 08:27 am
This is the oddest war, or set of wars, or overarching campaign against terrorism, whatever it is. It's even difficult to put a name on it, but the fact remains that for the vast majority of Americans, the conflict never comes home. There are no sacrifices being made by the average citizen.
None. Has anyone heard of any rationing, any restrictions, even any pleas for any efforts whatsoever to be made in support of these conflicts? The Bush Administration has actually asked for the opposite. We've got this terrible war to fight and it's going to take years and what they ask us to do is nothing. Just go about your daily lives. Nothing to see here. Keep moving.

Oh, I forgot, no clear liquids in your carry-ons.

That's it.

Save gas? Nope.
Increase Savings? Nope.
Buy US Bonds? Nope.
Line up at your recruiting station in order of height? Nope.

How about us, the ones who support the President and his war? Stop worrying yourself. We'll find enough volunteers, we need you to finish your MBA.

There is no cultural or social rebuke to those who fervently support the combat efforts of this administration yet do nothing more than mouth that support and put a sticker on their SUV. (To steal an image from a recent Doonesbury)
Nobody says, Hey, join up or shut up.
Or, at least, do something besides sit around the Young Republican's Club debating the effect Goggle's stock price is having on the market.

Yeah, I'd draft a few of those people.

Joe(USAF 1967-71)Nation
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Nov, 2006 09:09 am
JN-You're absolutely right, we do not sacrifice, as a nation. I remember the ration book in WWII, in fact, there's still some sugar rations in my grandmothers trunk of keepsakes, she died about 30 years ago. I remember the victory gardenstoo & the little flag like things that people hung in their windows proudly, a gold star on the flags for each son or daughter that was serving. I also remember a very patriotic nation that was willing to sacrifice & with the exception of a fewRamsey Clark like anti-Americans, we all stood together with the president, it didn't matter what political party he was a member of, he was THE president of all Americans.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Nov, 2006 09:45 am
lonestarM wrote:
Quote:
....we all stood together with the president, it didn't matter what political party he was a member of, he was THE president of all Americans.


Well, I'm not too big on standing with any President because he's THE President.
Swooning over this present one has gotten us a long to where we are today.

Putting too much into the executive's office seems to me to be slightly Un-American, the branchs of our government are co-equals, so what I want is a Constitutional government wherein the Congress, the Courts and the President all do their jobs. The President leading but following the lead of the People who are represented by the Congress with the Courts doing or undoing what they get wrong or fail to act on.

Of course, that's a fantasy.

The House is paid subscriber of lobbyists and the Senate is still full of pontificating puffballs, unable to tackle anything like immigration reform or Social Security. Let's see if either can come up with a budget before Christmas, not a continuing resolutionthat would dump all the problems on the incoming Democrats. Bets?

Where are the Republicans who will say We do not need Rangel's Bill? We are going out and signing up all of our true believers.

Joe(as soon as we can drag them away from their comfortable lives)Nation
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Nov, 2006 09:49 am
Joe Nation wrote:
lonestarM wrote:
Quote:
....we all stood together with the president, it didn't matter what political party he was a member of, he was THE president of all Americans.


Well, I'm not too big on standing with any President because he's THE President.
Swooning over this present one has gotten us a long to where we are today.

Putting too much into the executive's office seems to me to be slightly Un-American, the branchs of our government are co-equals, so what I want is a Constitutional government wherein the Congress, the Courts and the President all do their jobs. The President leading but following the lead of the People who are represented by the Congress with the Courts doing or undoing what they get wrong or fail to act on.

Of course, that's a fantasy.

The House is paid subscriber of lobbyists and the Senate is still full of pontificating puffballs, unable to tackle anything like immigration reform or Social Security. Let's see if either can come up with a budget before Christmas, not a continuing resolutionthat would dump all the problems on the incoming Democrats. Bets?

Where are the Republicans who will say We do not need Rangel's Bill? We are going out and signing up all of our true believers.

Joe(as soon as we can drag them away from their comfortable lives)Nation


I was speaking of standing with the president in time of war.
Where are the Republicans? With the Dems, there's very little difference.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Nov, 2006 10:01 am
Quote:
I was speaking of standing with the president in time of war.


So was I.

Joe(seldom was heard a discouraging word)Nation
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Nov, 2006 10:09 am
Joe Nation wrote:
Quote:
I was speaking of standing with the president in time of war.


So was I.

Joe(seldom was heard a discouraging word)Nation


When our country is at war, you think it's ok to NOT stand with our president? I was not for us going to Iraq anymore than I was for bombing Bosnia back to the stone age, however, as we are in Bosnia & we are in Iraq, I stood with BC (& I absolutely deplore him) & our troops, & I stand with GB & our troops. I truly believe politics stop at the waters edge in time of war
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Nov, 2006 10:25 am
I am assuming you do not equate 'standing with' with 'rubberstamp'.

We could have done with a little bit more reasoned caution regarding Iraq before we got stampeded by Condi and George darkly warning of mushroom shaped clouds. Politics may end at the water's edge but before we wade in there should be vigorous examinations on how far out we are swimming.

Joe(and is this nation at war? This nation wherein 1% is involved in the effort)Nation
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Nov, 2006 10:42 am
Joe Nation wrote:
I am assuming you do not equate 'standing with' with 'rubberstamp'.

We could have done with a little bit more reasoned caution regarding Iraq before we got stampeded by Condi and George darkly warning of mushroom shaped clouds. Politics may end at the water's edge but before we wade in there should be vigorous examinations on how far out we are swimming.

Joe(and is this nation at war? This nation wherein 1% is involved in the effort)Nation


Absolutly no rubber stamp, however, after we go into war, I'm with them. My husband is a Vietnam Vet, I KNOW what the ant-war crowd can do to our troops morale. George & Condi had the same info that Congress had that did rubber stamp the decision for going to Iraq. Hindsight is always 20/20. Woulda, coulda, shoulda is moot now.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Nov, 2006 11:53 pm
A phony illegal war! All the fighting is in Iraq which is no threat to the US and did nothing to the US. W is just a bully. Someone needs to stand up to him not with him.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 12:08 am
I think LoneStar is a Bush relative. No other person in their right mind would
be that numb.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 06:32 am
She is an excellent follower.

These are difficult times for such, the chants, or you can call them talking points, aren't ringing as true as they once did -George & Condi had the same info that Congress had -- heh, heh, sure, they did and so did the New York Times and my uncle Fitzie, but saying stuff like that is only an attempt to spread the blame around instead of putting it squarely where it belongs. George has said he doesn't like to play the blame game, that's okay, and exactly what one would expect the one responsible to say.

This thread is about instituting a draft of our citizens in order, if I understand Rangel's thoughts, to get more of those who back the neo-con's philosophy of unilateral war as necessary to do some actual shooting while standing in the middle of the result of that philosophy.

It is a lot easier to be a cheerleader than to be sent onto the field.

Joe(sign here)Nation
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 09:10 am
I know what the thread is about, since I started it. Rolling Eyes
Spread the blame around? You think there isn't enough to spread around? You believe that only Condi & George are wearing the black hats? Get real.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 09:19 am
I have a better idea. The US should start minding it's own damn business and there would be no need for a draft.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 09:22 am
au1929 wrote:
I have a better idea. The US should start minding it's own damn business and there would be no need for a draft.


perfect. thank you.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 09:39 am
au1929 wrote:
I have a better idea. The US should start minding it's own damn business and there would be no need for a draft.

Would that include such business as 911?
The question is If there IS a draft....
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 10:16 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
au1929 wrote:
I have a better idea. The US should start minding it's own damn business and there would be no need for a draft.

Would that include such business as 911?
The question is If there IS a draft....


No but it certainly would include Iraq. Which by the way is why the the question of the draft was broached. I do not remember any mandate by the American electorate for the US to be the worlds police force.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 10:41 am
au1929 wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
au1929 wrote:
I have a better idea. The US should start minding it's own damn business and there would be no need for a draft.

Would that include such business as 911?
The question is If there IS a draft....


No but it certainly would include Iraq. Which by the way is why the the question of the draft was broached. I do not remember any mandate by the American electorate for the US to be the worlds police force.


& you felt the same about Bosnia? Was there a mandate by the American electorate for that? How do you explain then that Rangels proposal for a draft includes community service, Peace Corps, etc., etc.?
You do realize that some politicians are calling for more boots in Afghanistan, right? The war on terror is not limited to Iraq.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 11:02 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
au1929 wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
au1929 wrote:
I have a better idea. The US should start minding it's own damn business and there would be no need for a draft.

Would that include such business as 911?
The question is If there IS a draft....


No but it certainly would include Iraq. Which by the way is why the the question of the draft was broached. I do not remember any mandate by the American electorate for the US to be the worlds police force.


& you felt the same about Bosnia? Was there a mandate by the American electorate for that? How do you explain then that Rangels proposal for a draft includes community service, Peace Corps, etc., etc.?
You do realize that some politicians are calling for more boots in Afghanistan, right? The war on terror is not limited to Iraq.


Our participation in the war in Bosnia was for the most part limited to air and logistic support and supported by NATO of which we are a part. Our armed forces were not stretched by it's participation. Nor did we stand alone.
As to Afghanistan where we did have a valid reason to be involved. The responsibility for need for more troops lies directly Bush and his cronies. Had he finished the job and not diverted troops to Iraq the conflict would have been long over and AlQeada might have been by now a non-factor.

Regarding the war on terror Bush by his actions has been it's greatest facilitator. Unfortunately on the side of the terrorists.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 01:51 pm
au1929 wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
au1929 wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
au1929 wrote:
I have a better idea. The US should start minding it's own damn business and there would be no need for a draft.

Would that include such business as 911?
The question is If there IS a draft....


No but it certainly would include Iraq. Which by the way is why the the question of the draft was broached. I do not remember any mandate by the American electorate for the US to be the worlds police force.


& you felt the same about Bosnia? Was there a mandate by the American electorate for that? How do you explain then that Rangels proposal for a draft includes community service, Peace Corps, etc., etc.?
You do realize that some politicians are calling for more boots in Afghanistan, right? The war on terror is not limited to Iraq.


Our participation in the war in Bosnia was for the most part limited to air and logistic support and supported by NATO of which we are a part. Our armed forces were not stretched by it's participation. Nor did we stand alone.
As to Afghanistan where we did have a valid reason to be involved. The responsibility for need for more troops lies directly Bush and his cronies. Had he finished the job and not diverted troops to Iraq the conflict would have been long over and AlQeada might have been by now a non-factor.

Regarding the war on terror Bush by his actions has been it's greatest facilitator. Unfortunately on the side of the terrorists.


Ah, so it's ok to mind others business so long as we just use air power, I see. NATO is involved in the war on terror too & are involved actively in it, does that make it better?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 01:59 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
NATO is involved in the war on terror too & are involved actively in it, does that make it better?


Quote:
NATO is contributing to the fight against terrorism through military operations in Afghanistan, the Balkans and the Mediterranean and by taking steps to protect its populations and territory against terrorist attacks.



The official NATO announcement sounds a bit less ... war mongering then your reply.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/17/2025 at 07:57:16