Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There may be no choice but conscription. Whether or not the "progressives are ready to transform and roll out" only a person with little choice or political awareness would sign up under this CIC; yet like it or not, we're at war. Look at the CIA. Nuff said.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?
Don't even try that BS with me.
"Not approving funding" would have had no effect at all on the progress of the war. The President would have diverted funds from other areas anyway.
The only thing it would have accomplished is to allow the Republicans to score political points against their opponents by turning the lack of funding into some sort of "Anti-American conspiracy".
You are beyond ignorant. The Congress controls the purse strings, if they say no money for a war, the President has no power or authority to get money from anywhere else. In fact Congress can vote to specifically tell the Government what it will not spend money on from any source.
I would suggest you do a little more research into the presidents discretionary powers in this area, and then get back to us.
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?
No thanks.
Reservists and Guardsmen are bad enough (sorry guys) I can't imagine what a guy who REALLY didn't want to be in a war zone would be like.
Another example of a retard. The President has no authority or power to control the flow of information to the Congress from anywhere but the information out of the White House. Congress receives the EXACT briefs the President does. And in fact has the power to ask for MORE information and to ask for it from other sources.
You dumb fucks do not know history and haven't a fucking clue how our Government works. Next you will be telling us Bush controlled the European Nations intel as well.
LOL.
Who appoints the directors of the intelligence agencies?
I'll give you a hint, it's not congress.
And who was there the whole time directing the flow of information for the report to congress? Donnie Rumsfeld. Who appointed Rummy? Not congress.
If you would stop attempting to browbeat people with insults and expletives, maybe you'd learn something.
No thanks.
Reservists and Guardsmen are bad enough (sorry guys) I can't imagine what a guy who REALLY didn't want to be in a war zone would be like.
My son is a Sgt in the Army, and he's been to Iraq 3 times (he's there now). He said having the draft would be a very bad decision. He would probably think of getting out if they do it, and he loves the Army. But he doesn't want someone that doesn't want to be at war having to watch his back! He wants someone to watch over him to want to be there.
Besides, Reservists and Guardsmen go to war too...
But i agree with you....i couldn't imagine it either!
Reinstating the draft would be an anachronistic move.
The only positive a draft has to offer is the amount of people it can call up. The downside is that these people have varying levels of intelligence and dedication. The effort it takes to place these quantities of people in the correct roles that they would be able to effectively carry out saps man-hour resources that are better spent on something that has a higher ROI.
No. With today's technological advancements, a lean, mean EDUCATED military machine is the arbiter of success in today's conflicts. Impossible to effectively have this with a draft.
Reinstating the draft would be an anachronistic move.
The only positive a draft has to offer is the amount of people it can call up. The downside is that these people have varying levels of intelligence and dedication. The effort it takes to place these quantities of people in the correct roles that they would be able to effectively carry out saps man-hour resources that are better spent on something that has a higher ROI.
No. With today's technological advancements, a lean, mean EDUCATED military machine is the arbiter of success in today's conflicts. Impossible to effectively have this with a draft.
However, if you cannot recruit enough to fill the gaps of those opting out, there's little choice as the threat remains, regardless of politics.
Reinstating the draft would be an anachronistic move.
The only positive a draft has to offer is the amount of people it can call up. The downside is that these people have varying levels of intelligence and dedication. The effort it takes to place these quantities of people in the correct roles that they would be able to effectively carry out saps man-hour resources that are better spent on something that has a higher ROI.
No. With today's technological advancements, a lean, mean EDUCATED military machine is the arbiter of success in today's conflicts. Impossible to effectively have this with a draft.
However, if you cannot recruit enough to fill the gaps of those opting out, there's little choice as the threat remains, regardless of politics.
True, but thats why you monitor troop and threat levels and do things to maintain a proper balance. Such as incentives to join and re-enlist.
Nothing more than good business sense.
However, if you cannot recruit enough to fill the gaps of those opting out, there's little choice as the threat remains, regardless of politics.
True, but thats why you monitor troop and threat levels and do things to maintain a proper balance. Such as incentives to join and re-enlist.
Nothing more than good business sense.
Seriously, give me a good reason to join the military under Obama? Check Holder.
If you would stop attempting to browbeat people with insults and expletives, maybe you'd learn something.
You must have an IQ of 50. Ok, lets play your dumb ass game..... provide for us some evidence that any briefer to Congress was ordered to falsify or delete information. Provide for us any evidence that the President or the Directors of the intel services EVER broke the law and altered data and information to Congress.
The rank and file members of those organizations are NOT political appointees. NEVER have been and never will be. It is completely retarded to claim that one director managed to order an entire Agency to lie for him, to break the law. Every piece of intelligence is handled by rank and file members of the Agency. They would know if information was deleted, altered or withheld. Use that pea sized brain of yours and think.
Further under Bush there was no lack of whistleblowers out of the CIA for things Bush did or did not do. Yet not a single one for your ludicrous claim.
Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq
Intelligence 'Misused' to Justify War, He Says
Washington Post
February 10, 2006
The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, acknowledges the U.S. intelligence agencies' mistakes in concluding that Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction. But he said those misjudgments did not drive the administration's decision to invade.
"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."
"It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote.
True, but thats why you monitor troop and threat levels and do things to maintain a proper balance. Such as incentives to join and re-enlist.
Nothing more than good business sense.
Seriously, give me a good reason to join the military under Obama? Check Holder.
I don't know your personal situation. For many though, it is a way to a better life for them, what with the GI Bill and such. These people also have a higher level of dedication since they are also trying to better themselves, instead of just marking time like many conscripts.
Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq
Intelligence 'Misused' to Justify War, He Says
Washington Post
February 10, 2006
The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, acknowledges the U.S. intelligence agencies' mistakes in concluding that Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction. But he said those misjudgments did not drive the administration's decision to invade.
"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."
"It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote.
Here's a link to the article:
Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq - washingtonpost.com
But hey, I guess you know better than him, right, asshole?
Look you PEA BRAIN, Congress CONTROLS the money. If they pass a bill that cuts off all funding for the war the President has few options, he can rob the training budget but that is gone real quick. Further Congress can pass a bill that FORBIDS any money be spent on the war.
Perhaps you were asleep when they tried to claim Reagan broke the law by selling weapons to Iran through Iraq to fund the Contra's after Congress ordered no funds could be used to fund them? They could not prove that Reagen knew anything about it but they sure tried.
Before you retards try to lecture anyone on how the Government works actually LEARN how the fuck it works. All you are doing is proving you are so fucking STUPID it boggles the mind.
What do you expect (concerning his language), he's a Gunnery Sgt.
BTW here's a rebuttal to Paul Pillar:
A Wall Street Journal criticized Pillar's choices in releasing information. [20] Its author observed that " CIA officers on the cusp of retirement often enroll in a seminar that is supposed to help them adjust to life after the agency--teaching them, for example, how to write a résumé. I've begun to wonder if part of that program now includes a writing seminar on how to beat up on the Bush administration."
The author, Guillermo Christensen, agrees Pillar was central in the CIA's analysis of Iraq. Regarding the Foreign Affairs article, Christensen questions if that was the place to publicize that he thought the war was a bad idea and the President and advisors ignored him. He makes the assumption that But Pillar "actually did change his mind about all that work he'd done, and that he really did think the intelligence didn't support the case for war. If that was truly so, no one was better positioned to make the case against war within the government than Mr. Pillar himself." Christensen suggested that Pillar could have sent personal observations, with all relevant classified data, to senior Executive Branch officials. Further, Christensen suggested "that analysis with every single member of Congress by writing less-classified summaries of the conclusions, as is often done."
Thomas Joscelyn, in the Weekly Standard, writes that "Pillar demonstrates that he himself is a master of the art of politicizing intelligence. Far from being a dispassionate analyst, Pillar practices the very same 'manipulations and misuse' he claims to expose."
You might be amazed at the number of government personnel who use "similar" tactics for personal/political/monetary gain.
That being said, I'm sure there were in fact a few opportunists buried in that pile. But most of those were quickly discredited factually.
And concerning the language, I was in the Army, I don't really care about bad language...
I'm referring more to his liberal use of insults as a replacement for backing up his points.
