Should The US Reinstate The Draft or Some Other Mandatory Service?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And let me be absolutely clear.

When Bush struck against Afghanistan, I had been out the the Army for about 10 years, but I was seriously considering re-upping.

I considered Afghanistan to be a just war of retribution against an enemy that attacked us, and was fully behind it.

One of the main reasons why Iraq upset me so much, and stopped me from putting the uniform back on, was that it diverted our national attention and our military from the main target.

Afghanistan didn't attack us.

 

[bodecea]

And let me be absolutely clear.

When Bush struck against Afghanistan, I had been out the the Army for about 10 years, but I was seriously considering re-upping.

I considered Afghanistan to be a just war of retribution against an enemy that attacked us, and was fully behind it.

One of the main reasons why Iraq upset me so much, and stopped me from putting the uniform back on, was that it diverted our national attention and our military from the main target.

Afghanistan didn't attack us.

No, the government of Afghanistan just gave refuge to the Monster who gave us 9/11. No biggee.

 

[Fatality]

every registered democrat, green, and the rest of the wing nut lefty parties should be forced into the draft. everyone else will have the right to choose.

 

[Vast LWC]

And let me be absolutely clear.

When Bush struck against Afghanistan, I had been out the the Army for about 10 years, but I was seriously considering re-upping.

I considered Afghanistan to be a just war of retribution against an enemy that attacked us, and was fully behind it.

One of the main reasons why Iraq upset me so much, and stopped me from putting the uniform back on, was that it diverted our national attention and our military from the main target.

Afghanistan didn't attack us.

Au contraire.

By supporting the military organization Al Qaeda, they attacked us via proxy.

I considered that to be the same thing.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

perhaps a list of those in Government who voted yes for the invasion of Iraq whose sons or daughters where sent as grunts to fight there would be some interesting history?

I have the list of those who voted for it if you want me to post it let me know.

 

[bodecea]

every registered democrat, green, and the rest of the wing nut lefty parties should be forced into the draft. everyone else will have the right to choose.

You sir, are a Great American!

You are a credit to your political persuasion.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And let me be absolutely clear.

When Bush struck against Afghanistan, I had been out the the Army for about 10 years, but I was seriously considering re-upping.

I considered Afghanistan to be a just war of retribution against an enemy that attacked us, and was fully behind it.

One of the main reasons why Iraq upset me so much, and stopped me from putting the uniform back on, was that it diverted our national attention and our military from the main target.

Afghanistan didn't attack us.

No, the government of Afghanistan just gave refuge to the Monster who gave us 9/11. No biggee.

They also offered to turn him in if we could provide some evidence that he committed the terrorist attack. That shouldn't have been too difficult.

 

[Vast LWC]

every registered democrat, green, and the rest of the wing nut lefty parties should be forced into the draft. everyone else will have the right to choose.

So the people who were the war's most ardent supporters get to not make a contribution?

Wow, you've GOT to be a Neo-Con, armchair-warrior. No-one else woud make such a usless comment.

 

[bodecea]

Afghanistan didn't attack us.

No, the government of Afghanistan just gave refuge to the Monster who gave us 9/11. No biggee.

They also offered to turn him in if we could provide some evidence that he committed the terrorist attack. That shouldn't have been too difficult.

So, you are saying we didn't have evidence that Osama committed 9/11?

 

[Vast LWC]

Afghanistan didn't attack us.

No, the government of Afghanistan just gave refuge to the Monster who gave us 9/11. No biggee.

They also offered to turn him in if we could provide some evidence that he committed the terrorist attack. That shouldn't have been too difficult.

That was a piece of BS propaganda. They wouldn't have accepted our proof, and he would have just left the country if things got too hot.

The Taliban provided support for AlQaeda, effectively making that organization an arm of it's military. Just like when we supported all those Cubans for the bay of pigs invasion, it was an "American" military operation.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, the government of Afghanistan just gave refuge to the Monster who gave us 9/11. No biggee.

They also offered to turn him in if we could provide some evidence that he committed the terrorist attack. That shouldn't have been too difficult.

So, you are saying we didn't have evidence that Osama committed 9/11?

Not at all. I'm saying rather than provide that evidence we decided to invade Afghanistan.

 

[Smartt33]

It seems that ever since mandatory drafting was done away with, each and every American family didn't have a stake in war any more. It became only those "patriotic enough" to want to serve, in that capacity, who "had a stake in war/policy/etc." Which, in turn, makes it easy for the average American/American family to not be too concerned or involved in the war policy decisions the country makes. Which in turn gives the military more incentive to rush into war without consequence, well political/domestic consequence. As the general thought would be, "Well those boys knew what they signed up for; Well, they chose it," so its not much a care as well as for many folks, dare I say most, they don't have an immediate stake in the game or concern cause "its not MY son/cousin/father."

Notice how most of the rest of the the civilized industial western countries aren't too keen to rush into war as Americans have been in the last few decades. I believe many, if not most of those countries have some form of mandatory service on the books. Doesn't it make a difference in the policies the countries make? They know they can't tell their citizens some BS to rush to war...their sons and daughters are on the line, they don't wanna hear that nonsense. They won't accept it.

Today, most of America's sons and daughters asses are not on the line, so they are easily convinced or tricked to rush into war..any war, for any reason. Americans, especially those of the conservative stripe seems to have never come across a war that they didn't wanna rush into naked. The rich, whom almost NEVER have any "stake in the game" are amongst the most war-mongering bunch of the lot.

Isn't it time to re-examine this policy? Or should we just continue to make it easier for the powerful war-mongerers amongst us to trick us?

What say you?

At this point I believe the US needs to back off on trying to force the American people to do anything contravercial! I think a war is brewing.

 

[Jay Canuck]

perhaps a list of those in Government who voted yes for the invasion of Iraq whose sons or daughters where sent as grunts to fight there would be some interesting history?

I have the list of those who voted for it if you want me to post it let me know.

Why not? let me have it.

 

[Xenophon]

Considering I was protesting the war before it started, I know how wrong you are.

Chimpola never said 'imminent threat' that was said by BOTH Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.

The admin could not 'cherry pick' ANYTHING as the raw data went to the senate comittees at the same time it went to the POTUS and they decided what to reveal and not to reveal to their fellow politicians.

You will NEVER get away with absolving the guilt of ALL of them by trying these tricks to just blame chimpola.

The words "imminent threat" were used by Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld speaking on behalf of the President of the United States on national television, multiple times, as part of the administration's campaign to sell the war.

I can provide video if needed.

And I can provide video of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry saying the same thing.

You remmeber them, they VOTED FOR AND SUPPORTED THE WAR, until they discovered it was politically unwise.

Learn and understand the democrats lied to you, they are the same as teh GoP.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

 

[Vast LWC]

Here's the thing, you can go on and on and on with as many quotes as you want from Democrats, I've already stated that the Democrats who did vote for the war are just as culpable as the Republicans in congress who voted for the war. Thought there were in fact democrats in congress who did not vote for the war.

That doesn't change the fact that the intelligence they were relying upon when they made these statements, had been manipulated by the administration, and the administration's appointees in the intelligence agencies. Which makes the Administration MORE culpable that anyone in congress.

In addition, Republicans continued to fully support the war politically after the deceptions had been discovered. That made them more culpable.

And none of that changes my assertion that older voters were generally responsible for just about all of those representatives being in office, Republican or Democrat...

...Older Voters that had generally not been in the millitary, yet were happy to send their sons and daughters off to fight, as well as make their sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons pay for it because they didn't want to pay higher taxes.

 

[Xenophon]

That doesn't change the fact that the intelligence they were relying upon when they made these statements, had been manipulated by the administration, and the administration's appointees in the intelligence agencies. Which makes the Administration MORE culpable that anyone in congress.

This is why you are in the partisan hack zone.

On the one hand you say they are responsible, then you give them a phoney alibi.

THEY LIED TO YOU.

They saw the same thing Bush did.

When you finally admit that to yourself, you will have escaped the partisan hack zone, and not before.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Should The US Reinstate The Draft or Some Other Mandatory Service? No.

 

[Vast LWC]

This is why you are in the partisan hack zone.

On the one hand you say they are responsible, then you give them a phoney alibi.

THEY LIED TO YOU.

They saw the same thing Bush did.

When you finally admit that to yourself, you will have escaped the partisan hack zone, and not before.

OK, I'll bite, let's break it down:

BUSH APPOINTEES RAN THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES.

What you're saying is that congress was shown every piece of every intelligence report, prior to any editing by any other organization, as if they were the heads of the intelligence agencies, right?

I don't believe that's true. In fact, I have a bit of experience in intelligence gathering myself, though admittedly not a lot of it, and I am sure this is not true.

Which means, all spinning aside, that if the above is not the case, then it stands to reason that before congress was given any documentation by the intelligence agencies, they were edited and summarized by Bush appointees.

Get it?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Which now nullifies everything you say on this issue as partisan nonsense.

Since you refuse to hold ALL the people who committed the USA to a war based on party affiliation, everything you say on the topic is now suspect as just more us/them partisan claptrap.

More BS.

You said I was "condemning the left", as if I had implied that they were more culpable than anyone else. I did not.

The people on the left who voted for the invasion are just as culpable as the right-wing members of congress who voted for it.

However, the executive is MOST culpable, as they lied and cherry-picked until they had everyone convinced.

And, not ALL democrats voted that way.

Once again you fucking dim wit, The President has absolutely no power or authority to cherry pick what Congress gets. Congress gets the EXACT same reports and briefings the President gets and further they can at ANYTIME ask for more briefings, more indepth briefings, other briefer, outside sources, Any thing they want.

Any attempt to suppress intel from Congress is a CRIME. Any attempt to alter Intel Congress receives is a crime. Once again you dumb ass, how did Bush alter foreign intel sources to toe the party line? How come, if Bush arranged the intel not a single person from any intel agency has EVER come forward to report they were ordered to alter reports given to Congress?

Why haven't the Democrats found evidence of these supposed crimes? In fact how come every investigation has found no such thing happened?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Another "no" vote here.

IMO it would be a detriment to the effectiveness of our armed forces.