Army to Call Up Retired, Discharged Troops

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

For a really excellent analysis from About.com of all places that details why the return of the draft is not a possibility, read this article: http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm

I would love to see something that supports the statement on page 2 that the military is "turning away volunteers in droves" because I find that hard to believe.

[Guest Cerebus]

For a really excellent analysis from About.com of all places that details why the return of the draft is not a possibility, read this article: http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm

I would love to see something that supports the statement on page 2 that the military is "turning away volunteers in droves" because I find that hard to believe.

Then you know nothing about military recruitment.

 

As far as I know, military recruiters don't track people who end up being rejected but the bar is high, as an article I posted here explains. You don't have high physical and mental standards without turning away a shitload of people.

 

Hell the Air Force and Navy have TOO MANY people right now. They won't have much of a choice but to reject a ton of people out of hand.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Makes me wonder a bit tho...

 

 

If they DID (in theory) bring back the draft, what my chances would be since the Army already turned me down back in 94. I had asthma as a kid and they told me no. Go figure.

[Guest Hero to all Children]

If worst comes to worst they'd draft you for administrative work in a war that is being waged on US soil but even that is unlikely. If you're not fit you're out.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Were I drafted now, forget about it.

 

Were I drafted for something I considered just, then I'd go.

[Guest MikeSC]

Wow, situational patriotism.

-=Mike

[Guest Hero to all Children]

Wow, situational patriotism.

-=Mike

Like all the people who rushed to buy American flags in every shape and form after 9-11.

If you were a patriot you'd already own a god damned flag.

Most of them would have most likely never done it otherwise, seeing as they never bothered to buy one before.

[Guest MikeSC]

Wow, situational patriotism.

        -=Mike

Like all the people who rushed to buy American flags in every shape and form after 9-11.

If you were a patriot you'd already own a god damned flag.

Most of them would have most likely never done it otherwise, seeing as they never bothered to buy one before.

Definitely. And they're the same dumb shits who don't have their flags flying now. I have little use for situational patriots.

-=Mike

[Art Sandusky 0]

Wow, situational patriotism.

        -=Mike

Like all the people who rushed to buy American flags in every shape and form after 9-11.

If you were a patriot you'd already own a god damned flag.

Most of them would have most likely never done it otherwise, seeing as they never bothered to buy one before.

Definitely. And they're the same dumb shits who don't have their flags flying now. I have little use for situational patriots.

-=Mike

Yeah, fuck you both. A flame yes, but I'm not going to have my patriotism questioned because I won't fly headfirst into any boneheaded military engagement this country might get itself into.

 

There was a classification called Conscientious Objector, sanctioned by the government itself, for people who were "situational patriots," as you falsely put it. Had you drafted me to go to Afghanistan to fight terrorists and the people who attacked us, I'd be all about it. Try to draft me into a war for which the reason has been changed twice already, and you can forget about it. The military is meant to be used only when necessary, and this wasn't necessary.

 

So don't fucking question my patriotism for objecting to a bullshit war because you love to wrap yourself in the flag and gloat about it. Some of us choose not to use it as a shield for our opinions and respect the nation by questioning things which aren't in its best interests. It's the same nutjobs like yourselves that try to convince people that questioning anything we do is tantamount to treason, when it simply isn't. Your types won't intimidate me into blindly following anything that happens to our country just because we're doing it and that should be good enough reason to support it.

 

It's people like you that make me a liberal.

[tommytomlin 0]

What are you, a terrorist?!

[Guest MikeSC]

Yeah, fuck you both.

You gripe about much less than this flaming.

A flame yes, but I'm not going to have my patriotism questioned because I won't fly headfirst into any boneheaded military engagement this country might get itself into.

Hence the term "situational patriotism". Also "situational disapproval of flaming" fits you rather well.

There was a classification called Conscientious Objector, sanctioned by the government itself, for people who were "situational patriots," as you falsely put it. Had you drafted me to go to Afghanistan to fight terrorists and the people who attacked us, I'd be all about it. Try to draft me into a war for which the reason has been changed twice already, and you can forget about it. The military is meant to be used only when necessary, and this wasn't necessary.

Bush gave NUMEROUS reasons. If people chose to focus upon one, oh well.

 

And, this is different than "situational patriotism" in what way, precisely? You'll do what the country needs, only so long as you agree with it.

So don't fucking question my patriotism for objecting to a bullshit war because you love to wrap yourself in the flag and gloat about it.

Who's gloating about it? I have my flag in right now because it's been raining incessantly and I find it rude to leave the flag out in the rain.

Some of us choose not to use it as a shield for our opinions and respect the nation by questioning things which aren't in its best interests.

And some of us find people who will support the country only when they agree aren't always right.

 

Did you know that a lot of people opposed World War II? Did you know tons of people opposed the Civil War (heck, Lincoln nearly lost re-election over it)?

 

Just because it's unpopular doesn't make it wrong. Hell, if everybody supported it, I'd have to question how right it is, seeing as how we've NEVER been totally behind the right thing.

It's the same nutjobs like yourselves that try to convince people that questioning anything we do is tantamount to treason, when it simply isn't.

Do the strawmen you are creating speak to you?

Your types won't intimidate me into blindly following anything that happens to our country just because we're doing it and that should be good enough reason to support it.

Good for you. I fully support your right to be a situational patriot. I just find it rather loathesome.

It's people like you that make me a liberal.

And that makes me all the more proud to be a conservative.

-=Mike

[Art Sandusky 0]

No, I'm not having this shit thrown at me. Fuck you and I hope you burn in hell along with anyone who tells people they don't have a right to disagree.

 

I'm done with this bullshit.

[Guest MikeSC]

No, I'm not having this shit thrown at me. Fuck you and I hope you burn in hell along with anyone who tells people they don't have a right to disagree.

 

I'm done with this bullshit.

OMG BAN PLZ!

 

Seriously --- this is QUITE ban-worthy.

-=Mike

...Now go to HD and discuss how much I flame you...

[Guest Hero to all Children]

Whoa there. No need to get your panties in a knot. I wasn't refering to you with the flag comment, I was honestly refering to every dumb fuck who attacked my critical opinion right after 9-11 and told me not to diss that flag they just bought for $19.95.

 

I don't have a problem with you, sure we disagree. But I disagree with a lot of people, doesn't mean I hate them. Doesn't mean I think you're a turn-coat patriot-when-it-suits-you-type either.

You wouldn't fight in every war, I can respect that. My sense of duty is that if my government asks me to do a job I am very liable to comply unless I have good reasons not to. Like not believing in the war I'm being drafted for in the least.

 

Mike may have a problem with that, I don't.

 

 

It's people like you that make me a liberal.

You say that like "It's people like you that have made me an alcoholic." Liberal isn't an insult, I consider myself liberal to a certain degree. Along the lines of live and let live. I don't even have a problem with communists, I just prefer not to deal with them as we're worlds apart ideologically.

 

I AM THAT SWELL OF A GUY. (Sometimes.)

 

So really: Peace. There's no reason for us to be angry at each other aside of differing opinions which can be over-looked as long as we don't get personal.

 

 

Also:

Mike, if that's ban-worthy your actions are ban worthy,because you willingly participated in this very short flame-exchange too. No bannings.

[Guest MikeSC]

Also:

Mike, if that's ban-worthy your actions are ban worthy,because you willingly participated in this very short flame-exchange too. No bannings.

I didn't flame Kylie one single time. I described his beliefs as situational patriotism and then defended his right to behave in such a manner, even though I found it loathesome. He then informed me that he hopes I die and burn in hell.

 

NOTHING I wrote even APPROACHES the level of a flame.

-=Mike

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

You were flame-baiting and that's the exact same thing. Kotz's right this forum isn't worth posting in.

 

I'm sure you'll be glad to be rid of us.

[Styles 0]

I got to agree, Kotz was quite a hypocrite right there with they way he's been on a witchhunt for Mike's banning for "flaming" when he just went ahead a threw an unwarranted flame at Mike that I don't think Mike has ever approached. Seriously, if you can't argue your position without throwing a tantrum and telling someone "Fuck you and I hope you burn in hell" you should stay out of the folder, or atleast not go whining that others are flaming you.

 

Oh, and I must say did anyone else think of our favorite Vietnam Veteran who also happens to be running for president every time he said "questioning my patriotism"?

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

100% in agreement with Kotz here.

 

This nation was BUILT on our right to disagree with our government. We forget that at our own peril.

[Guest MikeSC]

You were flame-baiting and that's the exact same thing. Kotz's right this forum isn't worth posting in.

 

I'm sure you'll be glad to be rid of us.

Jesus Christ. I was "flame-baiting"? Whatever. And, no, no tears will be shed at the loss of either of you, if you're going to confuse disagreements with "flaming". I imagine I'll see more "ban Mike" threads down in HD and Site Feedback and the like now.

 

Hint: Referring to somebody who will serve if he feels the war is "just" as a "situational patriot" is a disagreement of action.

 

Hoping somebody "burns in hell" because of it is a flame.

 

Please note I also fully supported his right to be a "situational patriot".

100% in agreement with Kotz here.

 

This nation was BUILT on our right to disagree with our government. We forget that at our own peril.

So I am not allowed to disagree with HIS actions?

 

The right to disagree is a one-way street?

 

If I told him I hope he burns in hell, then yes, I'd have been flame-baiting. I did no such thing. But, since people have an image of me being a flamer, I'm going to still get painted with the brush.

 

Oh well, I don't leave this folder for any reason for a good reason.

-=Mike

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

[

100% in agreement with Kotz here.

 

This nation was BUILT on our right to disagree with our government. We forget that at our own peril.

So I am not allowed to disagree with HIS actions?

 

The right to disagree is a one-way street?

 

If I told him I hope he burns in hell, then yes, I'd have been flame-baiting. I did no such thing. But, since people have an image of me being a flamer, I'm going to still get painted with the brush.

 

Oh well, I don't leave this folder for any reason for a good reason.

-=Mike

I didn't say that. I said you don't havbe the right to question HIS right to be against the Administration's military action and not want to take part in it, AND fight against taking part in it. The American Revolution was fought over less than that.

[Guest MikeSC]

I didn't say that. I said you don't havbe the right to question HIS right to be against the Administration's military action and not want to take part in it, AND fight against taking part in it. The American Revolution was fought over less than that.

Zsasz, if the right to disagree exists, I most assuredly DO have the right to question and disagree with his actions, just as he has the right to question the administration's.

 

Again, the right to disagree is not a one-way street.

-=Mike

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I didn't say that. I said you don't havbe the right to question HIS right to be against the Administration's military action and not want to take part in it, AND fight against taking part in it. The American Revolution was fought over less than that.

Zsasz, if the right to disagree exists, I most assuredly DO have the right to question and disagree with his actions, just as he has the right to question the administration's.

 

Again, the right to disagree is not a one-way street.

-=Mike

But since you're questioning HIS right to disagree, aren't you invalidating that in the first place? I mean, you can debate the veracity of an argument, but at the end of the day you cannot tell another member of this country "You can't disagree with the government's policies." That's archiac, at best.

[Guest MikeSC]

But since you're questioning HIS right to disagree, aren't you invalidating that in the first place? I mean, you can debate the veracity of an argument, but at the end of the day you cannot tell another member of this country "You can't disagree with the government's policies." That's archiac, at best.

I didn't question his right to disagree. I said I support his rights to do something I find personally loathesome. At no point did I say he can't do it or that I wish he'd burn in hell for doing it.

 

If you'll only serve your country if you think what they're doing is "just" --- you're a "situational patriot" in my eyes. If that bugs you, I can't imagine why, seeing as how you don't know me from a hole in the ground and my opinion of you shouldn't mean a damned thing.

 

I didn't say he had no right to do it --- I said very much the opposite. I just said I found his situational patriotism loathesome.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

In case you don't feel like reading this thread, allow me to summarize:

 

I refuse to be part of a draft.

Typical Mike stuff.

OMG QUESTIONING MY PATRIOTISM FUCK THE WAR FUCK MIKE!

I consider your post beneath my contempt but I will still rebut every sentence you type as if it were barbarians battering at the gates.

[Guest MikeSC]

Jesus Christ, I get flamed to hell and I'm STILL the bad guy to some.

 

Good God, people.

-=Mike

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

But since you're questioning HIS right to disagree, aren't you invalidating that in the first place? I mean, you can debate the veracity of an argument, but at the end of the day you cannot tell another member of this country "You can't disagree with the government's policies." That's archiac, at best.

I didn't question his right to disagree. I said I support his rights to do something I find personally loathesome. At no point did I say he can't do it or that I wish he'd burn in hell for doing it.

 

If you'll only serve your country if you think what they're doing is "just" --- you're a "situational patriot" in my eyes. If that bugs you, I can't imagine why, seeing as how you don't know me from a hole in the ground and my opinion of you shouldn't mean a damned thing.

 

I didn't say he had no right to do it --- I said very much the opposite. I just said I found his situational patriotism loathesome.

-=Mike

Okay, then I misunderstood your position.

[Guest MikeSC]

Okay, then I misunderstood your position.

No problem.

-=Mike

...Not as bad as people think. Honestly.

[Der Kommissar 0]

Oh, and I must say did anyone else think of our favorite Vietnam Veteran who also happens to be running for president every time he said "questioning my patriotism"?

 

I am glad I'm not the only one who thought that. I have to say that with the jokes in CE about him, it is hard for me take John Kerry seriously. Speaking of which, Dick Cheney questioned John Kerry's commitment to the flag. The Kerry group responded predictably.

 

"Did he forget his voting record, a voting record that makes him the most liberal member of the United States Senate?" Cheney asked. He cited Kerry's votes against a ban on flag-burning, tax relief and banning what opponents call partial birth abortion.

 

 

"On these and a whole host of values, John Kerry's votes and statements over the decades that he's been in office put him on the left, out of the mainstream and out of touch with the conservative values of the heartland."

 

 

The Kerry campaign was quick to respond. "Considering that Dick Cheney got five deferments from the military to avoid combat, he's the last person who should be attacking Vietnam veteran John Kerry's commitment to the flag," said spokesman Phil Singer. He added that if the Bush campaign choses to use "shrill speeches, they're going to do so at their own peril."

[Guest Jay Z. Hollywood]

There was a classification called Conscientious Objector, sanctioned by the government itself, for people who were "situational patriots," as you falsely put it.

Actually, this is incorrect.

 

CO status is given to people who are opposed to ALL wars, not just certain ones.

 

http://www.objector.org/conscription/co-definition.html

Edited July 4, 2004 by Jay Z. Hollywood