Vile Requiem Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 You're right, I forgot about Zell Miller. My bad
BeWaRe Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 Draft...isnt that when the window isnt closed all the way and you feel a breeze?
»Ducky Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 Way to bring unheard life altering views to the discussion.
Dark Nexus Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 I for one am opposed to it, for several reasons, the main one being i dont have a will to go fight in a war, yet the draft is against the ideals of freedom and choice, people volunteer so they can fight, thats the whole idea yeah but the problem with that is, not everyone really wants to go off to war since they have better things to do right here in america. social contracts 2 win
»Ducky Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 Yeah but the problem with that is, not everyone really wants to go off to war since they have better things to do right here in america.Omg, you mean the people who don't sign up for the military? No !@#$%^&*.Isn't that what he said though.
Aileron Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 ROFL Nobody in the Congress is a moron, and who in their right mind would expect a Draft Bill to be ratified NOW? It's political suicide to vote for it. aka they brought the bill up so the issue gets media coverage (Which is something a LOT of senators/congressmen do), and it obviously worked The PDF I link to originally however is the Selective Service, and they ARE in a position to do something. Bush can NOT continue his policy of preemptive war without a draft. We're stretched thin as it is. Or do you think them recalling 60 year olds to go to Iraq doesn't mean something? (Oh, and because my Kreskin like powers sense the word "Clinton" coming up in the next 2 posts: Cheney cut more of the military budget as Sec. of Defense then Clinton ever did as President. Facts Suck. Ironically, this is the site Mr. Cheney was refering to yesterday to prove his case, except he used .com instead of .org :\ )<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Vile you fell into the trap. We don't need extra military forces to occupy third world countries. No world power needs to draft in order to occupy a nation like Iraq. There is no army standing against us...only a group of terrorirsts. A draft is a move one does to fight standing armies. The armies are easy to find...but if they have more soldiers than yours, you need to increase the size of your army. However, we are fighting terrorists. If they we standing like an army, we could probably eliminate all terrorists worldwide with as little as 1000 troops. However, they hide, and we are having problems finding them. But the point is that a draft won't help. We already have hundreds of times the muscle power we need over there, why would we ever need more muscle? The point of this bill was to imply a need for a draft. We don't need a draft, nor would a draft even help the unique situation. Every congressman knows this. The reason this bill was proposed is to convince people like yourself that we do need a draft. It was proposed for the shock value "Oh gosh, they are proposing a draft!" despite the fact that our military does not need or even want new soldiers. Besides at this point, I'd say Kerry's policy of bilateral talks with North Korea and "leading" the pressure on Iran have a higher chance of bringing another preemptive war that Bush's can.
Bacchus Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 We already have hundreds of times the muscle power we need over there, why would we ever need more muscle? Hence the 1000+ deaths and injured? You're getting quite a beating if you ask me.
Vile Requiem Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 Last I checked, Iran has a standing army
Dr Brain Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 We already have hundreds of times the muscle power we need over there, why would we ever need more muscle? Hence the 1000+ deaths and injured? You're getting quite a beating if you ask me.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> More people die every day on the nation's highways than have died in Iraq. Get some perspective. And no, I'm NOT complaining about highway safety.
Bacchus Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 More people die every day on the nation's highways than have died in Iraq. Get some perspective ok. so it's okay to have people killed because the death toll i lower than car accidents related death? is that what you call perspective?
Dr.Worthless Posted October 8, 2004 Report Posted October 8, 2004 You're getting quite a beating if you ask me. Actually, I'd call 1k deaths in a 12+ Months of operation quite a success. I wouldn't expect a frenchman to have any scope of military success, so i'll forgive you.
A Soldier Posted October 8, 2004 Report Posted October 8, 2004 what about 15k+ civilians?and not counting the wounded
Dr Brain Posted October 8, 2004 Report Posted October 8, 2004 American Deaths: War Dates Killed in Battle Died of Disease, Total or Died of Wounds Accident, etc. World War II 1941-45 291,557 113,842 405,399 Civil War (US+CS) 1861-65 204,070 414,152 618,222 [US: 110,070] [US: 250,152] [US: 360,222] [CS: 94,000] [CS: 164,000] [CS: 258,000] World War I 1917-18 53,402 63,114 116,516 Vietnam War 1965-73 47,378 10,799 58,177 Korean War 1950-53 33,741 2,827 36,568 Revolutionary War 1775-83 6,500 18,500 25,000 Indian Wars 1775-1891 2,613+ War of 1812 1812-15 2,260 17,200 19,460 Mexican War 1846-48 1,733 11,550 13,283 Philippine Insurgency 1899-1902 1,018 3,216 4,234 Iraq War 2003- 805 255 1062 (as of 1 Oct. 2004) Seriously, we're doing AWESOME. This doesn't even take into account the population growth of the country. The facts don't lie.
MonteZuma Posted October 8, 2004 Report Posted October 8, 2004 Seriously, we're doing AWESOME.If your daddy was one of the dead you might think differently. This doesn't even take into account the population growth of the country.It doesn't take into account technology or context either. By your logic, you were doing awesome when the planes flew into the WTC. Only 3,000 deaths out of a population of 300,000,000! 0.001% of the population! Insignificant! Awesome! The fact is, avoidable deaths are bad. Those 1,000 soldiers would still be alive if this pointless war was avoided. So would the 15,000 civilian casualties. The facts don't lie.They don't tell the full story either.
Dr.Worthless Posted October 8, 2004 Report Posted October 8, 2004 You're getting off base folks.. Bacchus said "You're getting quite a beating if you ask me" The simple fact is we're not taking any kind of beating... 1k casualties in 1+ year of involvement is excellent.
MasterDrake Posted October 8, 2004 Report Posted October 8, 2004 here is a good site for you people to look at factcheck.org
Vile Requiem Posted October 8, 2004 Report Posted October 8, 2004 !@#$%^&* Cheney> No, it's factcheck.COM doofus
Bacchus Posted October 8, 2004 Report Posted October 8, 2004 considering the fact that your commander in chief declared victory on may 1st and that american are still being skewered by ennemy (and friendly) fire...more then ever before... I'd say you're getting quite a beating. Not to mention that your pres look like an overgrown idiot. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2003/10/30/wirq30.jpeg
Dr Brain Posted October 8, 2004 Report Posted October 8, 2004 -*BAD WORD*-o? Are you a complete re-*BAD WORD*-, Bacchus? We beat Saddam on May 1st. What we're facing over there now is not the Iraqi army. We're facing terrorists. We DID win in Iraq.
Dr Brain Posted October 8, 2004 Report Posted October 8, 2004 Seriously, we're doing AWESOME.If your daddy was one of the dead you might think differently. And I might not. You're trying to erase the cause that good people have been dying for. You're tarnishing their memory. This doesn't even take into account the population growth of the country.It doesn't take into account technology or context either. By your logic, you were doing awesome when the planes flew into the WTC. Only 3,000 deaths out of a population of 300,000,000! 0.001% of the population! Insignificant! Awesome! The fact is, avoidable deaths are bad. Those 1,000 soldiers would still be alive if this pointless war was avoided. So would the 15,000 civilian casualties. Pearl Harbor? Do you think that was a American Catastrophie? Because we lost a -*BAD WORD*-uva lot more people in the WTC attack. We went to war in both cases. Yes, I think the WTC could be insignificant if the terrorists ever got a hold of something more lethal than flight training. A fission bomb comes to mind, but as it stands now, the WTC is the worst attack on American soil, ever. The facts don't lie.They don't tell the full story either.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> They aren't outright lies like some are spreading (like the start of this topic).
Dr.Worthless Posted October 8, 2004 Report Posted October 8, 2004 considering the fact that your commander in chief declared victory on may 1st and that american are still being skewered by ennemy (and friendly) fire...more then ever before... I'd say you're getting quite a beating. Not to mention that your pres look like an overgrown idiot. First of all, the soldiers on the carrier put the sign up, it was unbeknownst to the President until he got onto the carrier. Second of all, The president said multiple times in that speech that there was still alot of work to be done, and that the road would be long and tough. Thirdly, I'd rather have a president that looks like a baboom than be living in a country that has to get their !@#$%^&* bailed out by the world community everytime It participates in a war. I don't blame Chirac for not wanting to help in Iraq, If France would have contributed to the coalition the casualties would be well over 10k by now.
Bacchus Posted October 8, 2004 Report Posted October 8, 2004 yea, whatever. I'd be surprised that something as big as a "possible mediatic error" would be overlooked by the pres staff and secret service.
MasterDrake Posted October 8, 2004 Report Posted October 8, 2004 Well let me see I think the only countries the opposed us going into Iraq were the ones getting kick backs from mister sadaam. So stfu now kids
Recommended Posts