Army Calls Up 5600 More Retired Soliders

[Styles 0]

You're missing the entire point - the only reason a draft may be necessary is that thousands of US soldiers are being injured and they are also DYING on a regular basis in Iraq. Add that to regular wastage (medical dischahrges) and the guys being booted out for torturing prisoners (!), as well as the guys who get to go home on leave. If Bush mounts an invasion on Iran or Syria (or both, why the hell not!), there is going to be an even greater need for more troops!

 

Yes it's unlikely that a draft will happen but it's a distinct possiblity, a much great possibility than say four years ago.

 

The Dems might even HAVE to do something about a draft, especially if they win in November and have to go around the world shovelling Bush's shit up after him.

READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm

It answers every baseless accusation being thrown out there.

In short, We have MORE than enough volunteers, the only reason our troops are stretched is because Congress won't allow our armed forces to expand its number of recruits. The reason? The same reason a draft will never happen-MONEY. Its too much fucking money, so they're stretching the troops they've got. They reluctant to even allow more volunteers because of the costs so they sure as hell aren't going to give credence to a bill in Congress by liberal Democrats, meant as a political statement, that would require madatory service for ALL people between 20-26 for 2 years. Furthermore, the army relies on technology and training far more now than sheer manpower. By the time the proper training is completed-about 2 years, the draftees would be free to go before even being deployed, so that sure doesn't solve the "problem". Not to mention all the political bullshit this would bring.

Just read it, it does far better than I can explaining it, even to incredibly dense simpletons like you, INXS.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm

[Justice 0]

You're missing the entire point - the only reason a draft may be necessary is that thousands of US soldiers are being injured and they are also DYING on a regular basis in Iraq.

You do understand, son, that it took 2 years to hit the 1000 mark for deaths, correct? And cops die every day in our streets. Why aren't you going "OMG GET THEM OFF THE STREETS!"

 

Seriously, save people time and just shut up already. Soldiers die. Yes, it happens. When you enter into the Armed Services, there is the chance that you may die in service of your country. It's people like you that cause things like Somalia.

 

Add that to regular wastage (medical dischahrges)

 

You don't think the Armed Services compensate for those?

 

guys being booted out for torturing prisoners (!)

 

OMG, a maybe a hundred out of 140,000 troops are getting booted. All operations in Iraq will surely collapse!

 

If Bush mounts an invasion on Iran or Syria (or both, why the hell not!), there is going to be an even greater need for more troops!

 

I, in all honesty, doubt he'd do that until Iraq is a bit more stable and they have their own security forces. It would take something absolutely dire for them to do that right now.

 

Of course, you don't understand things like that, so I'm not really surprised.

 

Yes it's unlikely that a draft will happen but it's a distinct possiblity, a much great possibility than say four years ago.

 

No, you just don't understand. It's not a possibility. Anyone in the Government can tell you this. It simply won't happen. The military won't let it happen. There wasn't a possibility 4 years ago, and there isn't one now.

 

The Dems might even HAVE to do something about a draft, especially if they win in November and have to go around the world shovelling Bush's shit up after him.

 

...

 

...

 

For the love of God, just shut up.

[Guest GreatOne]

KKK, you think you can go a week without your 'INXS fix', his latest shit (to be used literally) should be able to last you that long

[Guest Cerebus]

I was half done with a detailed description of why there won't be a draft but you know what? Fuck it.

 

If you want to continue believing that there will be a draft (Thanks to OMGBUSHISTEHDEBBIL~!!1) go ahead. No skin off my nose.

[Guest Jdogfour20]

The draft will most likely not come back, but dont just rule it out completely because if shit doesnt start to go our way in Iraq it could just happen.

[Guest GreatOne]

Oh wow, another BUSH=HITLER2004 lapdog!

[Guest Jdogfour20]

Oh wow, another BUSH=HITLER2004 lapdog!

lol if you say so, then that makes you a Bush Loving lapdog

[Guest Cerebus]

The draft will most likely not come back, but dont just rule it out completely because if shit doesnt start to go our way in Iraq it could just happen.

There are other ways to expand the Army that don't involve ripping up 30 years worth of doctrine and training, cost hundreds of billions of dollars, create social unrest, take two years to get off the ground, water down the effectiveness of the entire armed forces, and run up against the opinions of the entire DoD.

 

There really are.

[Guest GreatOne]

lol if you say so, then that makes you a Bush Loving lapdog

 

Well seeing as there are plenty of Bush-haters who DON'T think Bush is Hitler, I'd say my assertion is right. And you might notice the lack of 'OHGODBUSHISSOGREATVOTEFORHIMGEORGEWBUSH.COM!!!!!!' in my sig.

 

But whatever floats your boat.....................

[Guest Jdogfour20]

The draft will most likely not come back, but dont just rule it out completely because if shit doesnt start to go our way in Iraq it could just happen.

There are other ways to expand the Army that don't involve ripping up 30 years worth of doctrine and training, cost hundreds of billions of dollars, create social unrest, take two years to get off the ground, water down the effectiveness of the entire armed forces, and run up against the opinions of the entire DoD.

 

There really are.

I know there are other ways to go about it, but ala I said was it could happen and dont completely rule it out, and as much as i hate bush I think if it were to come back it would be kerry doing it not bush, If bush brought back the draft the shit would hit the fan.

[Guest Cerebus]

The draft will most likely not come back, but dont just rule it out completely because if shit doesnt start to go our way in Iraq it could just happen.

There are other ways to expand the Army that don't involve ripping up 30 years worth of doctrine and training, cost hundreds of billions of dollars, create social unrest, take two years to get off the ground, water down the effectiveness of the entire armed forces, and run up against the opinions of the entire DoD.

 

There really are.

I know there are other ways to go about it, but ala I said was it could happen and dont completely rule it out, and as much as i hate bush I think if it were to come back it would be kerry doing it not bush, If bush brought back the draft the shit would hit the fan.

It would take something HUGE (like bigger than 9/11) to even make Congress (or the DoD for that matter) to be receptive to a huge Vietnam-type draft. Even if things go worse in Iraq, there is no possibility of us needing a draft.

[UZI Suicide 0]

Bush has EXPRESSLY stated an all-volunteer army is his policy. Kerry has not.

          -=Mike

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselect...5-edwards_x.htm

 

""There will be no draft when John Kerry is president," Edwards said, a statement that drew a standing ovation."

 

"Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, has complained about the extent of the Bush administration's use of Reserves and National Guardsmen and a device called "stop loss," which prevents soldiers from leaving when typical obligations end. "They have effectively used a stop-loss policy as a backdoor draft," Kerry said."

 

http://www.channelone.com/news/2004/09/23/ap_election_draft/

 

"Kerry said he would not bring back the draft and questioned how fairly it was administered in the past."

 

 

As far as Dems proposing the draft bill, Charles Rangel proposed that right before we went into Iraq, to get children of Senators and Representatives who were sending America's youth to die in Iraq, to also go to Iraq, and then to see how they would feel about it. It was, as most expected it to be, DOA.

[Guest GreatOne]

"Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, has complained about the extent of the Bush administration's use of Reserves and National Guardsmen and a device called "stop loss," which prevents soldiers from leaving when typical obligations end. "They have effectively used a stop-loss policy as a backdoor draft," Kerry said."

 

http://www.channelone.com/news/2004/09/23/ap_election_draft/

 

"Kerry said he would not bring back the draft and questioned how fairly it was administered in the past."

One thing, that's ALWAYS been in effect. If your term ends and you're at war, TOUGH and SHIT. As usual the Bush-haters continue on with their 'This all happened yesterday thanks to Bush' drivel.

[Justice 0]

As far as Dems proposing the draft bill, Charles Rangel proposed that right before we went into Iraq, to get children of Senators and Representatives who were sending America's youth to die in Iraq, to also go to Iraq, and then to see how they would feel about it. It was, as most expected it to be, DOA.

It's not as though these kids are impressed into the Service. You join the service with the knowledge that you might go into hostile places and, sadly, die in combat. But if you don't realize this might happen beforehand, well... you are as dumb as INXS ("Where's my opt-out clause?").

 

Seriously, "Sending them over there to die"? Shut the hell up! You are the people that get everyone angry. No one is sending people over to Iraq to fucking die. We are sending them over there to stablize the country so we can have an Arab Democracy in the Middle East. As though they are going into a meat grinder like WWII was. I never had any respect for Rangel before, and I definitely haven't changed my opinion of him. He's still the stupid bastard I remember him as.

[UZI Suicide 0]

We're sending them over, and they're dying. We aren't sending them over for the purpose of dying, but that's what they're doing.. dying.

[Guest GreatOne]

Where's a good violin when you need one?

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Where's a good violin when you need one?

What? You don't support the troops???? Play a violin??? Thats not very conservative!

[Guest GreatOne]

Violin would be in response to your non-stop whine, which is apparently why you picked Cheese as your poster name.

 

Under your logic, since we've never fought an on-field war where no one died, all wars were unjust....................

[UZI Suicide 0]

The difference is we shouldn't be in this war in the first place.

[Justice 0]

We're sending them over, and they're dying. We aren't sending them over for the purpose of dying, but that's what they're doing.. dying.

That's a piss-poor argument. In a military engagement, people die. That's what happens in reality. If you can't understand that, you are a child. Just because people die in a military engagement doesn't mean that 'we are sending them over there to die', or that it's a 'quagmire'. These things happen. But to simply say that 'they are dying' ignores everything that they are actually doing over there: Stabilizing the first Arab Democracy in the Middle East.

 

The difference is we shouldn't be in this war in the first place.

 

Yes, yes we should. We should have finished it back in 1990, but we didn't. Iraq has always been a threat, and we had to take care of it, especially in today's day and age.

[UZI Suicide 0]

We're sending them over, and they're dying. We aren't sending them over for the purpose of dying, but that's what they're doing.. dying.

That's a piss-poor argument. In a military engagement, people die. That's what happens in reality. If you can't understand that, you are a child. Just because people die in a military engagement doesn't mean that 'we are sending them over there to die', or that it's a 'quagmire'. These things happen. But to simply say that 'they are dying' ignores everything that they are actually doing over there: Stabilizing the first Arab Democracy in the Middle East.

 

The difference is we shouldn't be in this war in the first place.

 

Yes, yes we should. We should have finished it back in 1990, but we didn't. Iraq has always been a threat, and we had to take care of it, especially in today's day and age.

Iraq is "a threat", but not nearly a big threat compared to our other threats. What were they going to do to us? They had no WMD's.

[2GOLD 0]

We're sending them over, and they're dying. We aren't sending them over for the purpose of dying, but that's what they're doing.. dying.

That's a piss-poor argument. In a military engagement, people die. That's what happens in reality. If you can't understand that, you are a child. Just because people die in a military engagement doesn't mean that 'we are sending them over there to die', or that it's a 'quagmire'. These things happen. But to simply say that 'they are dying' ignores everything that they are actually doing over there: Stabilizing the first Arab Democracy in the Middle East.

 

The difference is we shouldn't be in this war in the first place.

 

Yes, yes we should. We should have finished it back in 1990, but we didn't. Iraq has always been a threat, and we had to take care of it, especially in today's day and age.

Iraq is "a threat", but not nearly a big threat compared to our other threats. What were they going to do to us? They had no WMD's.

 

...do to us?

 

I hate Americans.

 

I am one and I hate them.

[Guest INXS]

We're sending them over, and they're dying. We aren't sending them over for the purpose of dying, but that's what they're doing.. dying.

That's a piss-poor argument. In a military engagement, people die. That's what happens in reality. If you can't understand that, you are a child. Just because people die in a military engagement doesn't mean that 'we are sending them over there to die', or that it's a 'quagmire'. These things happen. But to simply say that 'they are dying' ignores everything that they are actually doing over there: Stabilizing the first Arab Democracy in the Middle East.

 

The difference is we shouldn't be in this war in the first place.

 

Yes, yes we should. We should have finished it back in 1990, but we didn't. Iraq has always been a threat, and we had to take care of it, especially in today's day and age.

wrong. Iraq has NOT alway been a threat at all. Infact, they were good buddies of ours when they were waging war with Iran.

 

In the years leading up to the invasion, Saddam had pretty much kept himself to himself....he wasnt busy buying nukes, he wasnt making chemical weapons, he wasnt making other so-called "WMD's". The Iraqi army had about 3 rifles and one tank for godsakes. Justifying the war over some threat that Saddam never posed is a joke.

 

As for those above, thanks for the links to the draft stuff - interesting enough but doesnt alter my thought that there is a possibility of a draft of some kind.

[Guest GreatOne]

Infact, they were good buddies of ours when they were waging war with Iran.

And we were such 'good buddies' with Stalin when we fought alongside him!

 

Fuck, do you even TRY anymore?

[Guest INXS]

My point is, is that Iraq were allies and business partners when it suited.

[Guest GreatOne]

Oh Fox Nazis now? Cools, duder.........................

[Guest MikeSC]

We're sending them over, and they're dying. We aren't sending them over for the purpose of dying, but that's what they're doing.. dying.

So, we send police out to get killed? That's the purpose?

-=Mike

[lomasmoney 0]

But to simply say that 'they are dying' ignores everything that they are actually doing over there: Stabilizing the first Arab Democracy in the Middle East.

More like creating the first Arab Democracy.

[Guest MikeSC]

But to simply say that 'they are dying' ignores everything that they are actually doing over there: Stabilizing the first Arab Democracy in the Middle East.

More like creating the first Arab Democracy.

And that's an incredibly important and worthwhile goal.

-=Mike

[lomasmoney 0]

Why is it. Not everyone wants democracy and it should dont be our job to go around the world telling everyone else how they should be governed