Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 11:20am PT
|
Great post imnotclever. I totally agree.
|
|
summerprophet
Mountain climber
Cali Via Canada
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 11:30am PT
|
Fact:
In 2004 while Bush was publically stating that there would be no draft, talks were going on with Canada to no longer harbor future draft dodgers.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 11:31am PT
|
This Congress will never go for it--not for this war, anyway. It would be political suicide.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 11:45am PT
|
I didn't say that Lois. All I am saying is that I am 99% certain it will not happen for this war, unless something unforeseen and drastic happens.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 11:46am PT
|
There will be no draft unless China goes to war with us. And once again, Healy makes alot of sense. Go back and read what he wrote.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 11:52am PT
|
Lois, the Dems just won Congress largely on a pledge to reduce troop levels in Iraq. Starting a draft for a war in which most people believe we should be ending--not escalating--is the exact opposite of their pledge and a great way for them to lose Congress. Getting voters' kids killed for no good reason tends to piss them off. Even Bush and the Republicans haven't had the nerve, so far anyway, to pull the draft trigger.
|
|
Karl Aguilar
climber
san francisco, ca
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 12:02pm PT
|
dirtbag,
You right about them not having the nerve, but the Republican candidates feel it's fine to consider using a "tactical" nuclear stike against Iran (during the debate this week). So, I guess the platform is bombs not bodies. Is that beyond insane or what?
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 12, 2007 - 12:02pm PT
|
imnotclever said In WWII there was rationing, women had to wear panties that had cinch strings on them so the elastic could go to the war effort.
you know damn well our panties would be in a bunch under those circumstances
good post BTW
|
|
Karl Aguilar
climber
san francisco, ca
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 12:04pm PT
|
"you know damn well our panties would be in a bunch under those circumstances"
I guess we will have to go "commando", literally
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 12:08pm PT
|
Injury prone,
There was a day when Republican candidates could discuss foreign policy like adults, and see the value in using carrots as well as sticks in getting what we need. Now it seems like each one of them--except for Ron Paul--wants to be the most macho, biggest bad ass poser of all. It's pretty juevenile.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 12:12pm PT
|
For a little bit of perspective,
WW11 consumed somewhere between 32 and 44 % of GDP with most estimates in the 40% range.
Present total Defense budget is 4% of GDP or only 0.4% higher than the 20 year average.
45% of the Marine Corps has never been to a combat zone
37% of the Army likewise
53% of the USAF and 50% of the navy have never even been in theater.
Both the USAF and the Navy are pink sliping people out.
Reenlistment rates are still far higher than historical averages and highest in combat units that have been deployed.
There will be no draft.
|
|
Karl Aguilar
climber
san francisco, ca
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 12:17pm PT
|
dirtbag,
Right on. The downside is that it's not a movie and we live on this planet (and this planet only) with other people. If we use nukes strategically, others will too. At least until we all die of nuclear related complications.
On topic: I agree that there won't be a draft.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 12:43pm PT
|
Lois, I'm not saying that. I'm not going to comment on or make general statements about other wars what because I only have a vague knowledge of the circumstances prompting a draft during those conflicts. All I am doing is commenting on is this war, not others.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 01:14pm PT
|
LEB so much has changed since then. For starters I am pretty sure that every single war, or close to it, since the inception of this country has included a draft. It was simply how things worked and was an accepted institution in this country. When Viet Nam ended and the draft was suspended, we raised a couple generations with a completely volunteer army and with the taint of government dishonesty and power abuse following the Nixon administration. This country had never experienced the level of backlash against a war or a draft like that seen in Viet Nam. This means that to institute a draft now would require that the American people overcome an enormous amount of baggage and also let go of the idea of optional service in the military to support it. Bush probably could have gotten away with it in the fall of 2001 just like the Patriot Bill slipped through, but not at any time since. People are simply far too informed, far too skeptical and far too questioning compared to how they were in say 1940.
Probably more important is the simple fact that not a single serving military commander has publicly supported anything but a volunteer army.
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 01:17pm PT
|
No George, it's draft, not draught.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 01:21pm PT
|
For Lois (from Wikipedia);
The Selective Service Act (40 Stat. 76) was passed by the Congress of the United States on 18 May 1917 creating the Selective Service System. The Act gave the President the power to draft men for military service. The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 was passed by the Congress of the United States on September 16, 1940, becoming the first peacetime conscription in United States history. The original Act was allowed to expire in 1947 because it was thought that a sufficient number of volunteers would enlist for the nation's defense.[citation needed] The number of volunteers was not enough, however, and a new draft act was passed in 1948. Between 1948 and 1967 several draft laws were enacted.
On March 25, 1975, Pres. Gerald Ford signed Proclamation 4360, Terminating Registration Procedures Under Military Selective Service Act, eliminating the registration requirement for all 18-25 year old male citizens. Then on July 2, 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed Proclamation 4771, Registration Under the Military Selective Service Act, retroactively re-establishing the Selective Service registration requirement for all 18-26 year old male citizens born on or after January 1, 1960. Only men born between March 29, 1957, and December 31, 1959, were completely exempt from Selective Service registration.[1] The first registrations after Proclamation 4771 took place on Monday, July 21, 1980, for those persons born in January, February and March 1960 at U.S. Post Offices. Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays were reserved for persons born in the later quarters of the year, and registration for persons born in 1961 began the following week [2]
...because you asked about the draft. I think it's origins had alot to do with a weak military in the past because we were so isolated geographically from the threats around the world. After WW1 and especially WW2 and the Cold War we saw a need to give the government the tools to gather an army very quickly if it was needed. The peace/love movement of the 60's coupled with a controversial war kinda soured people to the effects of a draft. As stated by alot here, our current military has no need for a draft currently because of our Naval/Air superiority around the world. A large ground conflict could change that quickly i.e. China, Russia, or full-blown Mid-East war.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 01:26pm PT
|
Lois, that is what Rumsfeld thought about Iraq.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 01:41pm PT
|
Rumsfeld thought he didn't need very many people to succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don't know what he is up to these days. Ideally he's giving $2 blow jobs on skid row, but I'm sure he's doing something that makes a lot of $.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 01:47pm PT
|
"This following comment might be slightly off topic but I believe related. Whatever the Bush administration did or did not do right, there seems to be some success at thwarting another major attack. I think however much he f*#ked up in other arenas we need to give credit where credit is due. We have NOT had a significant homeland attack after 9/11 and it would appear that his administration uncovered a few. Perhaps, in part, that is what fuels him and keeps him going inspite of the plummeting pole numbers. That was, in part, on what platform he got elected so it could be argued that he is carrying forth that mandate.
It seems that, however much he f*#ked up in Iraq, he is not doing a terrible job at keeping the terrorists away from here. Two bad he mixed up his mandates so. The one has little to do with the other but somehow he comingled and conflated them into one package"
.................................................
Lois, You are making a conclusion that can't be reached from the info that we have. That we haven't had a major attack against us can't be ONLY attributed to George's policy. It could also be attributed to the fact that there were no other attacks planned. It could also be attributed to our security forces waking up to the need to work together. They had become insular. ( not that its perfect now)
America hasn't had that many terrorist attacks. Its not that easy to attack America. Our Moslem community, unlike Europe, is mostly well integrated. They don't want America to be attacked anymore then we do so it makes it difficult for terrorist of the Moslem persuasion to operate here. Before 911, most of the biggest attacks were homegrown.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 02:08pm PT
|
It has nothing to do with being fair. It has to do with correct logic. I don't think Bush is evil. He is an incompetent man being led by others. I don't want to see him hung unless he really has done war crimes. ( hung=figure of speech, I don't beleive in capitol punishiment ) I want him out of office and now, before his incompetence gets us into a worse situation. I wouldn't leave an incompetent surgeon alone to do more surgeries and I wont leave George alone just because it is difficult to take him on.
Besides your feelings that we haven't had any attacks because of George taking the war to the terrorist, ( completely ignoring that it is our troops who are being attacked now instead ) what other good has George done?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!