this is why you dont fight a war without enough soldiers

[Truthmatters]

When rich peoples kids get caught buyoing their way out of war then they cant run for high office.

Unless you are a Bush of course

 

[hortysir]

New Photos Released of Iraq Atrocity, With Documents and Video | War Is A Crime .org


Bush NEVER allowed there to be a draft in the Iraq war.

He knew if he tried to draft Americans he could not have pulled off the lies about Sadam and AQ.

He fired generals for saying we didnt have enough troops to fight it.

Now we have to face what your right wing policy gave this country.

Never fight a war on the cheap

Did you read the article you linked?
It's ok if you didn't. It wouldn't be the first time.

None of your statements have shit to do with the piece.

 

[bripat9643]

The PEOPLE have to have skin in the game so they can make sure all share the burden.

Why?

When you draft all levels of society have a draft card.

without it ONLY the poor become soldiers

You're devotion to the principle of freedom is heartwarming. I admire the way you would force people to perform military service against their will. That is the essence of liberty and the principles this country was founded on.

 

[Ernie S.]

You are really going to claim that the reason we went into Iraq was because the Democrats insisted we invade Iraq?

Enough did so that the C in C had Congressional approval.
Suck it up, idiot! Based on available intelligence, most collected during the clinton administration, it was reasonable to believe Sadam had WMD's.

 

[JoeB131]

Because of Veitnam and what heppened there Americans pay attention to the facts when you draft.

NO, they really didn't.

Actually, Vietnam and Iraq pretty much followed the same pattern. We went into a war we thought was going to be an easy fight, we found dogged resistance, and we found a face-saving way out. Vietnam lasted 8 years, Iraq lasted 9.

The ironic thing was, Americans didn't give a flip about dead Vietnamese and they don't give a flip about dead Iraqis. They cared about dead Americans, even though a lot less Americans died in Iraq.

 

[bripat9643]

Very true, however that is why you need to pay for the wars you start so that the burden of that war is not just on the shoulders of those who fight it. Even though, the poor generally are the only one's who find themselves in a draft, if perhaps we had bothered to pay for these two wars which is also true they were authorized by congress, but I might add that that they were NOT authorized under Res. 687 especially when it came to Iraq. My bottom line on these Wars is that if someone claims to support the sailors, soldiers, airmen, and marines fighting the wars then they cannot support cutting taxes in a time of war, and if they do then they simply are allowing someone else to fight for them without supporting them.

How did we avoid paying for the war? Are you claiming the defense contractors didn't get a check from the federal government? The soldiers? Anyone? Who was involved in prosecuting the war who didn't get paid?

 

[bripat9643]

then lets make the peopel who gain the most from our system pay the most.

When we draft we dont draft 8 year old girls now do we?

So we need to draft everyone collecting Social Security?

 

[Unkotare]

Another thread started by a left wing troll based on a false premise. Imagine that.

 

[bripat9643]

When rich peoples kids get caught buyoing their way out of war then they cant run for high office.

Unless you are a Bush of course

How about anyone who gets a check from the government can't vote?

 

[JoeB131]

When rich peoples kids get caught buyoing their way out of war then they cant run for high office.

Unless you are a Bush of course

Can you please do us a favor and spell check your posts? They don't make you sound very intelligent.

Fact is, lots of people got out of the Vietnam draft, some rich, some poor. Meanwhile, 2/3rds of the guys who did go there were volunteers, not draftees.

Another point. One of the uglier parts of the Vietnam legacy was that it was a common practice for certain counties to take their "problem children" and give them a choice of military service or prison. In some cases, it probably did these guys good in that they straightened out their lives. In other cases, you took a criminally troubled person and gave him a gun and helpless civilians to abuse. Probably not a good idea.

The military largely stopped that practice in the 1980's, and rightfully so.

 

[Ernie S.]

The PEOPLE have to have skin in the game so they can make sure all share the burden.

Let's apply that to the tax code and make 100% of the people pay taxes so that everybody has skin in the game.

then lets make the peopel who gain the most from our system pay the most.

When we draft we dont draft 8 year old girls now do we?

They already do, fool. If I make 200 grand and am taxed at 20%, I pay 40 G's. If you make 35 G's, you pay $7,000. Gee! That sounds almost like a poll tax to me. Why is the cost of my citizenship nearly 6 times the cost of yours?

 

[Navy1960]

Didn't work like that for every draft they have ever had, you could pay your way out of.

Only the poor have ever gotten drafted, fact. If a rich person didn't wanted to fight, they never had to lay down their life.

Very true, however that is why you need to pay for the wars you start so that the burden of that war is not just on the shoulders of those who fight it. Even though, the poor generally are the only one's who find themselves in a draft, if perhaps we had bothered to pay for these two wars which is also true they were authorized by congress, but I might add that that they were NOT authorized under Res. 687 especially when it came to Iraq. My bottom line on these Wars is that if someone claims to support the sailors, soldiers, airmen, and marines fighting the wars then they cannot support cutting taxes in a time of war, and if they do then they simply are allowing someone else to fight for them without supporting them.

Heads up though, most wealthy people make money from wars, they don't lose the money helping to support the war effort.

I'm well aware of that too, Eisenhower made that painfully clear to everyone, however my point is that the American people in general rich and poor need to support any war this nation engages in, in terms of financial support as well as moral support. Now again this is just my humble opinion here, in doing so it enlists the American public into the War in such a way as to bring it to a quick conclusion. If for example the vast majority of the American public do not have much interest in the war other than save for the occasional news blurb then who cares how long it lasts other than the Military member or their family who has been deployed 5 or 6 times to combat or perhaps that wealthy person who is making the money off the deal. As far as the draft goes , I have mixed feelings on it, my first instinct is to say that a draft generally makes force readiness less effective because of the sheer amount of training needed for those who really do not want to be there. On the other hand, it engages a larger portion of the American public into the war effort and leads to a generally faster conclusion, with the exception of Viet-Nam. Again this is just a personal opinion, had the American public been more engaged in the Iraq war especially, I have a feeling it would not have lasted for as long as it did.

 

[JWBooth]

You don't know your ass from an excavation, and go around proving it with threads like this.

 

[Truthmatters]

then you should be for the wealthy paying for all they get from our system

 

[Ernie S.]

OH really ?

go get ONE lie of mine

Didn't we spent several hours yesterday on that?

 

[Navy1960]

Very true, however that is why you need to pay for the wars you start so that the burden of that war is not just on the shoulders of those who fight it. Even though, the poor generally are the only one's who find themselves in a draft, if perhaps we had bothered to pay for these two wars which is also true they were authorized by congress, but I might add that that they were NOT authorized under Res. 687 especially when it came to Iraq. My bottom line on these Wars is that if someone claims to support the sailors, soldiers, airmen, and marines fighting the wars then they cannot support cutting taxes in a time of war, and if they do then they simply are allowing someone else to fight for them without supporting them.

How did we avoid paying for the war? Are you claiming the defense contractors didn't get a check from the federal government? The soldiers? Anyone? Who was involved in prosecuting the war who didn't get paid?

As U.S. operations in Iraq end, tallying up the costs and benefits of a nine-year ordeal is a daunting task. Estimates on Iraq War spending vary. The Congressional Research Service has put the Operation Iraqi Freedom pricetag at $806 billion. President Obama said that the Iraq War would cost over $1 trillion, all told. Either way, compared to past U.S. conflicts, spending on the Iraq war has been relatively small—at its height, spending on WWII helped drive government spending to 42 percent of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office. At its height, operations in Iraq cost around 1 percent of GDP.
What Did the Iraq War Cost? More Than You Think. - US News and World Report

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA)
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA)

No what I am claiming is this, when you prosecute a War and at the same time cut taxes to the American public, you fail to engage the American people in paying for the cost of War, further you put the burden of war on the shoulders of those who have to fight it and their familes alone. As to who did and did not get paid I think the debt speaks for itself, don't you ?

 

[bripat9643]

then you should be for the wealthy paying for all they get from our system

The wealthy get very little from "the system." Welfare turds get all the benefits, not rich people.

 

[bripat9643]

No what I am claiming is this, when you prosecute a War and at the same time cut taxes to the American public, you fail to engage the American people in paying for the cost of War, further you put the burden of war on the shoulders of those who have to fight it and their familes alone. As to who did and did not get paid I think the debt speaks for itself, don't you ?

Total horseshit. One way or another, the taxpayers have to pay for the war. It's impossible to have a war without paying for it. All you liberal turds are doing is lobbying for a tax increase on the rich.

Who do you think you're fooling?

The soldiers volunteered to fight the war. If they don't like it, they shouldn't have enlisted. See, that's how freedom works: you get to choose what to do with your life. According to your totalitarian principle, we could never use our military, ever, or we would all have to serve in the military.

Note: you couldn't name anyone who didn't get paid for participating in the prosecution of the war. Therefore, the war was paid for.

 

[Photonic]

Very true, however that is why you need to pay for the wars you start so that the burden of that war is not just on the shoulders of those who fight it. Even though, the poor generally are the only one's who find themselves in a draft, if perhaps we had bothered to pay for these two wars which is also true they were authorized by congress, but I might add that that they were NOT authorized under Res. 687 especially when it came to Iraq. My bottom line on these Wars is that if someone claims to support the sailors, soldiers, airmen, and marines fighting the wars then they cannot support cutting taxes in a time of war, and if they do then they simply are allowing someone else to fight for them without supporting them.

Heads up though, most wealthy people make money from wars, they don't lose the money helping to support the war effort.

I'm well aware of that too, Eisenhower made that painfully clear to everyone, however my point is that the American people in general rich and poor need to support any war this nation engages in, in terms of financial support as well as moral support. Now again this is just my humble opinion here, in doing so it enlists the American public into the War in such a way as to bring it to a quick conclusion. If for example the vast majority of the American public do not have much interest in the war other than save for the occasional news blurb then who cares how long it lasts other than the Military member or their family who has been deployed 5 or 6 times to combat or perhaps that wealthy person who is making the money off the deal. As far as the draft goes , I have mixed feelings on it, my first instinct is to say that a draft generally makes force readiness less effective because of the sheer amount of training needed for those who really do not want to be there. On the other hand, it engages a larger portion of the American public into the war effort and leads to a generally faster conclusion, with the exception of Viet-Nam. Again this is just a personal opinion, had the American public been more engaged in the Iraq war especially, I have a feeling it would not have lasted for as long as it did.

Actually, I believe it is our duty as citizens to criticize very heavily any act of hostility our country engages in.

 

[Photonic]

then you should be for the wealthy paying for all they get from our system

The wealthy get very little from "the system." Welfare turds get all the benefits, not rich people.

Do those rich people struggle to feed their children and pay for gas, or go in massive debt when they try to further their education?

Last I checked, no.