Dims want to bring nack the draft!!!!!

[90K]

Well it is a nice thought but it would be the dems who would make exceptions to all it's rich kids who would be exempt from service due to economic status. The poor folk who have no choice would get jammed up.

 

[KarlMarx]

Hey Kids,

Thought it was a bright idea to put the Dims into a power position again????
Charles in charge is sure to love this one.....Ha ha ha ha ha!:rotflmao: :happy2: :usa:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900376_pf.html

...

Another political move by Hurricane Rangel, I wouldn't take it at face value, there's a catch...

Rangel's motto... there's a sucker born every minute, and many of them live it my district!!!!

Perhaps this forces Bush to sign it into law, making him a bad guy because he signed the draft back into law... that will be used in the '08 campaign.

On the other hand, if he vetoes it,, then the Dems make him a bad guy because although he "lied" to get us into this war, he won't support "measures" to get troop levels increased... that will be used in the '08 campaign, too.

Q: What do you get when you cross Charles Rangel with a pig?
A: Nothing, pigs have a sense of honor, too you know!

 

[theHawk]

Rangle isn't fooling me by saying this draft is to "prevent" war. I can see it already, libs in power drafting kids to go fight for the Zionists. I'm sure they'll sneak in some measure to protect the "poor and disenfranchised" (i.e. non-whites).

 

[flaja]

I'm well aware of when the registration was re-started. My brother got a summons to appear in court for failing to register. So he proceeds to show up in Marine Corps "charlies" with Sgt stripes on the sleeve and asking WTF the problem was.

I don't see the US having selective service having any bearing on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

By the end of the Vietnam War, going into the Carter Administration, this nation's military capability was the worst it had ever been since the Revolution. By the time Carter left office we couldn’t even mount a successful military operation against a 3rd world equivalent nation such as Iran.

If you cannot see the connection between the draft and an effective military, you’re as ignorant as your language indicates you are.

 

[Avatar4321]

By the end of the Vietnam War, going into the Carter Administration, this nation's military capability was the worst it had ever been since the Revolution. By the time Carter left office we couldn’t even mount a successful military operation against a 3rd world equivalent nation such as Iran.

If you cannot see the connection between the draft and an effective military, you’re as ignorant as your language indicates you are.

That had nothing to do with the draft. That had everything to do with an incompetant commander in Cheif. Clinton faced the same problems. Meanwhile, Reagan, and the two Bushes didnt face that problem. Why? Because they've been effective commanders.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The only reason a Dim is pushing for the draft (besides political gain) is because he knows that without it there won't be anybody to replace the troops who will leave the service in droves if a Dim is elected commander-in-chief. Who then would be left to march out their socialist "do-gooder" programs?

 

[theHawk]

The only reason a Dim is pushing for the draft (besides political gain) is because he knows that without it there won't be anybody to replace the troops who will leave the service in droves if a Dim is elected commander-in-chief. Who then would be left to march out their socialist "do-gooder" programs?

Exactly.

 

[sitarro]

By the end of the Vietnam War, going into the Carter Administration, this nation's military capability was the worst it had ever been since the Revolution. By the time Carter left office we couldn’t even mount a successful military operation against a 3rd world equivalent nation such as Iran.

If you cannot see the connection between the draft and an effective military, you’re as ignorant as your language indicates you are.

Man, are you barking up the wrong tree! Get ready to run because that tree will certainly come crashing down on you soon!

 

[flaja]

The only reason a Dim is pushing for the draft (besides political gain) is because he knows that without it there won't be anybody to replace the troops who will leave the service in droves if a Dim is elected commander-in-chief. Who then would be left to march out their socialist "do-gooder" programs?

How many troops left when Clinton was in the White House? Rank and file troops are in the military now mainly for the pay and benefits. As long as there is no combat deployment, I doubt that many of these troops would leave simply because of whom they have as CinC.

 

[flaja]

That had nothing to do with the draft. That had everything to do with an incompetant commander in Cheif. Clinton faced the same problems. Meanwhile, Reagan, and the two Bushes didnt face that problem. Why? Because they've been effective commanders.

Clinton had the benefit of the first class military that Reagan and Old Bush left him. Clinton did not face a military that was short of manpower, short of materiel and low on moral. But these were problems that faced Ronald Reagan when he became President.

Furthermore, the lack of things like body armor, that our troops have endured in Iraq, can be laid at the doorstep of the Republicans who have controlled Congress, and thus military spending, since 1995.

 

[Annie]

By the end of the Vietnam War, going into the Carter Administration, this nation's military capability was the worst it had ever been since the Revolution. By the time Carter left office we couldn’t even mount a successful military operation against a 3rd world equivalent nation such as Iran.

If you cannot see the connection between the draft and an effective military, you’re as ignorant as your language indicates you are.

If you don't think today's military is the best we've fielded, ever-prove it. That doesn't mean that the numbers are there for an attack on Iran, NK, etc., without nukes. So they better damn well hope, they don't provoke one.

We don't need a draft, but a real support of those currently serving, such as not undermining their missions would help with both recruitment and retention.

 

[Gunny]

By the end of the Vietnam War, going into the Carter Administration, this nation's military capability was the worst it had ever been since the Revolution. By the time Carter left office we couldn’t even mount a successful military operation against a 3rd world equivalent nation such as Iran.

If you cannot see the connection between the draft and an effective military, you’re as ignorant as your language indicates you are.

I see. To prove my intellect I must post in proper English, even though NO ONE speaks it anymore? We;;, except for pompous asses who think it makes them somehow appear smarter than everyone else.

I agree that the military was in the worst shape in had been for quite some time. But you don't have to go back to the Revolution. Our pre-WW II military was antiquated and just sucked.

I do not agree however, that the draft was the reason. Government neglect was.

I would like to add that since by your own admission you were an adolescent during the Carter Administration, while I was already in the Corps, that you don't presume to tell ME what the Hell it was like. All the reading in the world can't replace LIVING it, Eggbert.

 

[Gunny]

If you don't think today's military is the best we've fielded, ever-prove it. That doesn't mean that the numbers are there for an attack on Iran, NK, etc., without nukes. So they better damn well hope, they don't provoke one.

We don't need a draft, but a real support of those currently serving, such as not undermining their missions would help with both recruitment and retention.

Flaja is one of "them." You know .... those people who want to tell people who were there what's up because he read about it.

 

[Gunny]

That had nothing to do with the draft. That had everything to do with an incompetant commander in Cheif. Clinton faced the same problems. Meanwhile, Reagan, and the two Bushes didnt face that problem. Why? Because they've been effective commanders.

Dead on.

 

[Annie]

Flaja is one of "them." You know .... those people who want to tell people who were there what's up because he read about it.

For sure. He's a 'talker' without any respect for those that walk. Seriously, if 'they' keep pushing, they are going to end up with more than they bargained for. (They being our domestic 'saints' and those of Iran, Syria, SA, etc.)

 

[Gunny]

Clinton had the benefit of the first class military that Reagan and Old Bush left him. Clinton did not face a military that was short of manpower, short of materiel and low on moral. But these were problems that faced Ronald Reagan when he became President.

Furthermore, the lack of things like body armor, that our troops have endured in Iraq, can be laid at the doorstep of the Republicans who have controlled Congress, and thus military spending, since 1995.

Smoke and mirrors. Clinton had the "benefit" of a downsizing military that by default always seemed to have too many people.

And make up your mind. In one thread you insisted the President was responsible for submitting the budget to Congress. Now you're saying Congress controls spending.

Clinton continuously deployed us with the same old broken-down crap, incrased our OPTEMPP while simultaneously cutting manpower. But he DID try to get fags in for us.

There is no lack of body armor. That's even more leftist bullshit. The body armor issued to troops was sufficient. Enter some left-wingnut who comes up with the high-speed, low-drag latest-greatest and starts fanning the fire. If you were as educated on the military as you think you are, you'd know it takes quite awhile for the military to get anything new and improved.

So, some troops had new armor, and some had old armor, but they ALL had body armor.

 

[Gunny]

For sure. He's a 'talker' without any respect for those that walk. Seriously, if 'they' keep pushing, they are going to end up with more than they bargained for. (They being our domestic 'saints' and those of Iran, Syria, SA, etc.)

He's so convinced he's smarter than the average bear he doesn't respect anyone but himself. I have continually found it quite amusing that people who think they're so much smarter than everyone else are the most transparent.

 

[Annie]

He's so convinced he's smarter than the average bear he doesn't respect anyone but himself. I have continually found it quite amusing that people who think they're so much smarter than everyone else are the most transparent.

and idiotic.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

By the end of the Vietnam War, going into the Carter Administration, this nation's military capability was the worst it had ever been since the Revolution. By the time Carter left office we couldn’t even mount a successful military operation against a 3rd world equivalent nation such as Iran.

You're seriously comparing our military preparedness during the 70's to the capabilities of our revolutionary militias? I think you're exaggerating just a wee little bit.

Also, you make it sound like we went in with the intention of conquering Iran and got defeated. It was a rescue operation that was botched due to hasty planning, not military weakness.

If you cannot see the connection between the draft and an effective military, you’re as ignorant as your language indicates you are.

Why do most all of our generals oppose a draft then?