Why we need the Draft Back!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The result is a relative small portion of the country fighting these wars...and that has resulted in a back door draft and abuse of our National Guard. THAT is the reality...

Yep, it's the reality that only a small portion of the American population, actually serves in the military of any kind. And of that small portion, an even smaller portion are ever engaged in combat, and even smaller portion is killed or wounded. 100% of them knew the risks, weighed the options, and chose to enlist and serve.

There is no back door draft, or any kind of draft. There are plenty of young people who legitimately want to serve, and believe in the job that is being done in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is reality. I agree on the National Guard, they should be home patrolling the Mexican borders... why don't you write President Obama on behalf of both of us, and request that be done?

 

[WinterBorn]

Yep, it's the reality that only a small portion of the American population, actually serves in the military of any kind. And of that small portion, an even smaller portion are ever engaged in combat, and even smaller portion is killed or wounded. 100% of them knew the risks, weighed the options, and chose to enlist and serve.

There is no back door draft, or any kind of draft. There are plenty of young people who legitimately want to serve, and believe in the job that is being done in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is reality. I agree on the National Guard, they should be home patrolling the Mexican borders... why don't you write President Obama on behalf of both of us, and request that be done?

A large part of those serving in the military are there to get training and because there were no decent jobs for them where they lived. Its also how a lot of kids pay for college. I am not taking away from them for their service. But don't make it sound like everyone in the military joined for some noble cause.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

A large part of those serving in the military are there to get training and because there were no decent jobs for them where they lived. Its also how a lot of kids pay for college. I am not taking away from them for their service. But don't make it sound like everyone in the military joined for some noble cause.

I understand a lot of people serving, are not there for some noble cause. Most people have self-serving reasons for whatever they choose to do in life. Particularly the young. I shared the story of my own nephew, who is not dumb or unable to find a job, but wanted to serve his country, and pay for college. Now, I think it is noble that he wants to serve his country, but I don't know that he has any particular cause for his nobility. As I said, when he is done with his first tour, his medical education is paid in full. I'm sure he saw this as a great opportunity for himself.

My only point is this.... If someone didn't believe in what we are doing in Iraq, they would have likely factored that into their decision to join the military, don't you think? If you happened to be in the military before Iraq, you've had at least one or two opportunities to end your military career, haven't you? So, wouldn't it be safe to say, if you are currently serving in the military, you probably believe in what we are doing in Iraq?

 

[WinterBorn]

I understand a lot of people serving, are not there for some noble cause. Most people have self-serving reasons for whatever they choose to do in life. Particularly the young. I shared the story of my own nephew, who is not dumb or unable to find a job, but wanted to serve his country, and pay for college. Now, I think it is noble that he wants to serve his country, but I don't know that he has any particular cause for his nobility. As I said, when he is done with his first tour, his medical education is paid in full. I'm sure he saw this as a great opportunity for himself.

My only point is this.... If someone didn't believe in what we are doing in Iraq, they would have likely factored that into their decision to join the military, don't you think? If you happened to be in the military before Iraq, you've had at least one or two opportunities to end your military career, haven't you? So, wouldn't it be safe to say, if you are currently serving in the military, you probably believe in what we are doing in Iraq?

I am sure many joined in the post 9/11 jump to "do something". Nothing wrong with that. But whether they agree with the invasion of Iraq may be a different matter.

If you get good technical training you probably had to sign up for 6 years of active duty. The war in Iraq started in 2003. So many who signed up prior to the war have only just now had the opportunity to get out.

The economy has been in the toilet for at least a year now. Unemployment has been very high for that long as well. Disagreeing with the war may be reason enough for some to hit the unemployment lines but not for a lot of them.

And the huge reenlistment bonuses have bought some of those people who would have gotten out.

 

[Good Luck]

You've got a nasty attitude, bunky.....pity all you've got to follow up on it is the usual easily disposed of neocon propaganda. Wipe the spittle from your mouth, observe and learn, :


1. President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 that made the Selective Service System an independent Federal agency. People were DRAFTED during peace time That's a matter of fact & history. 10 million men were drafted between 1940 and 1947....DRAFTED, NOT volunteers....got that bunky?
http://www.selectiveservice.us/military-draft/7-use.shtml

2. Your supposition and conjecture loaded diatribe ingores this little FACT: Clinton's annual military budget was around 16% less than what Reagan/Bush had....a result of cutting the FAT from the Pentagon...or did you forget those lovely stories about the hammer costing around $1 grand? And remember, Clinton's military budget was balked at by Repubs still fuming that their speaker Gingrich was tossed out in disgrace. That budget did NOTHING like you suggest above http://fas.org/man/docs/fy01/b02072000_bt045-00.htm

3. We are currently living with the results of 30 years of a volunteer army. The Shrub & company ELECTED to invade/occupy a country that was NOT a threat to us...as did his father before him. The result is a relative small portion of the country fighting these wars...and that has resulted in a back door draft and abuse of our National Guard. THAT is the reality...you can spew all the venom and Rovian BS all you want, but you can't change the FACTS.

1) I already admitted my mistake about the 1940 draft. How many times must I do so? For each and every one of you midless twits who cannot read a complete thread before responding to one piece?

2) Try looking at the manpower figures for the military in 1992, and again in 1994. There were significant cuts made in military personnel and in material. It was not just the 1000 dollar hammers. 16% is a big cut when you consider the fact that a large portion of the military budget includes committed funds for things like military retirement benefits, veterans benefits, medical facilities, etc. Trying to account for it by not buying 1000 dollar hammers is bullshit. We didn't buy that many "hammers". People who continue to deny what Clinton and the 1992-94 democratic congress did to cut the military are either deliberately ignorant (since the information is available) or outright liars.


3)b) First, Bush 41 did NOT invade a country at choice. He used our forces, which were part of a multinational effort, to REPEL the foreign invasion of an economic ally - AT THE REQUEST OF THE ALLY. Bush 41 later refused to invade Iraq, even though historically no leader of an invading country had ever been left in power before. (Unless, of course, the invading country was successful - but that is another matter) If putting the Gulf war on the same level as Bush 43's Iraq invasion is the way you re-write history, you have no fucking business calling me on my mistake about the 1940 draft.

3)a) Yes, the current over extension of the military is due, primarily, to the stupid mistake of invading Iraq unnecessarily. However, for the purposes of discussing military strength and the wisdom of a military draft, whether it was a mistake or not is not relevant. This time it was... but next time? Maybe not so much.

The FACT is that historically every time we cut the military, we end up needing to build it back up later under adverse conditions and at far greater expense - both monetary and personnel - than it would have cost to maintain the size of force which was built up to meet the prior need. Whether one agrees with the necessity of a particular conflict or not, the FACT is we end always up needing a strong military for one reason or another. Cutting it back in times of "peace" (when has the world ever truly been at peace?) has always proven to be a mistake, and will always prove to be a mistake. As much as the world changes, some things will always be the same. One thing that will never change is that sometime, some when, liberty will always need to be defended. We can minimize that need by always having available the strength to do so.

Even so, a military draft is wrong. First, it violates the 13th Amendment of the Constitution which forbids involuntary servitude. (Funny how the democrats, and the idiot liberals who support them, being the political sector who have always been the instigators of a military draft keep forgetting that damned pesky Constitution.)

Second, conscript soldiers cause too many problems. Placing one's life on the line to protect the country is a particular type of civil virtue. There are other kinds of civil virtue as well, each having it's own characteristics, its own type of personal commitment. But regardless of the type of civil virtue, NO TYPE of civil virtue can be ever be forced on an individual. The individual either believes it/feels it, or they do not. Civil virtue of any type must come from within. If one does not/cannot accept the type of civil virtue involved in fighting and possibly dying for the body politic, then they are all too often a liability in combat. The crap we went through in Vietnam proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. We are no longer in the days when sheer mass of bodies to be used as cannon fodder makes for a strong military. The military of today needs intelligent, dedicated soldiers committed to the civic virtue of protecting liberty with one's own life. That level of commitment can only come from volunteerism.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Yep, it's the reality that only a small portion of the American population, actually serves in the military of any kind. And of that small portion, an even smaller portion are ever engaged in combat, and even smaller portion is killed or wounded. 100% of them knew the risks, weighed the options, and chose to enlist and serve.

There is no back door draft, or any kind of draft. There are plenty of young people who legitimately want to serve, and believe in the job that is being done in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is reality. I agree on the National Guard, they should be home patrolling the Mexican borders... why don't you write President Obama on behalf of both of us, and request that be done?

Choosing to enlist and serve is one thing......being sent to invade/occupy a country without the proper equipment or in some cases the proper training, and then being prohibited from leaving the National Guard after you served your contract and then some is something else. Add on to this the battle against the Shrub & company for decent VA benefits, and that's a whole other smoke!

And evidently you don't understand the definition of the term "back-door draft". Here, for your education: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0823/dailyUpdate.html

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Choosing to enlist and serve is one thing......being sent to invade/occupy a country without the proper equipment or in some cases the proper training, and then being prohibited from leaving the National Guard after you served your contract and then some is something else. Add on to this the battle against the Shrub & company for decent VA benefits, and that's a whole other smoke!

And evidently you don't understand the definition of the term "back-door draft". Here, for your education: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0823/dailyUpdate.html

But this is all overblown hype and propaganda from our earliest miscalculations in Iraq, the problems were corrected long ago. If someone was unhappy about the conditions, there has been opportunity for them to get out.

I understand what "back door draft" means, but I disagree that is what we have. It's comical to watch anti-war libs distort perspectives with the language. The common sense God gave a turkey, could figure out that people who are currently joining the U.S. Army, are not opposed to US policy in Iraq. It's not like there is this long line of liberal anti-war activists who want to join the Army, but can't because of that darn chance of going to war!

 

[Taichiliberal]

1) I already admitted my mistake about the 1940 draft. How many times must I do so? For each and every one of you midless twits who cannot read a complete thread before responding to one piece?

2) Try looking at the manpower figures for the military in 1992, and again in 1994. There were significant cuts made in military personnel and in material. It was not just the 1000 dollar hammers. 16% is a big cut when you consider the fact that a large portion of the military budget includes committed funds for things like military retirement benefits, veterans benefits, medical facilities, etc. Trying to account for it by not buying 1000 dollar hammers is bullshit. We didn't buy that many "hammers". People who continue to deny what Clinton and the 1992-94 democratic congress did to cut the military are either deliberately ignorant (since the information is available) or outright liars.


3)b) First, Bush 41 did NOT invade a country at choice. He used our forces, which were part of a multinational effort, to REPEL the foreign invasion of an economic ally - AT THE REQUEST OF THE ALLY. Bush 41 later refused to invade Iraq, even though historically no leader of an invading country had ever been left in power before. (Unless, of course, the invading country was successful - but that is another matter) If putting the Gulf war on the same level as Bush 43's Iraq invasion is the way you re-write history, you have no fucking business calling me on my mistake about the 1940 draft.

3)a) Yes, the current over extension of the military is due, primarily, to the stupid mistake of invading Iraq unnecessarily. For the purposes of discussing military strength, whether it was a mistake or not is not relevant This time it was...next time? Maybe not so much.

The FACT is that historically every time we cut the military, we end up needing to build it back up later under adverse conditions and at far greater expense - both monetary and personnel - than it would have cost to maintain the size of force which was built up to meet the prior need. Whether one agrees with the necessity of a particular conflict or not, the FACT is we end always up needing a strong military for one reason or another. Cutting it back in times of "peace" (when has the world ever truly been at peace?) has always proven to be a mistake, and will always prove to be a mistake. As much as the world changes, some things will always be the same. One thing that will never change is that sometime, some when, liberty will always need to be defended. We can minimize that need by always having available the strength to do so.

Even so, a military draft is wrong. First, it violates the 13th Amendment of the Constitution which forbids involuntary servitude. (Funny how the democrats, and the idiot liberals who support them, being the political sector who have always been the instigators of a military draft keep forgetting that damned pesky Constitution.)

Second, conscript soldiers cause too many problems. Placing one's life on the line to protect the country is a particular type of civil virtue. There are other kinds of civil virtue as well, each having it's own characteristics, its own type of personal commitment. But regardless of the type of civil virtue, NO TYPE of civil virtue can be ever be forced on an individual. The individual either believes it/feels it, or they do not. Civil virtue of any type must come from within. If one does not/cannot accept the type of civil virtue involved in fighting and possibly dying for the body politic, then they are all too often a liability in combat. The crap we went through in Vietnam proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. We are no longer in the days when sheer mass of bodies to be used as cannon fodder made for a strong military. The military of today needs intelligent, dedicated soldiers committed to the civic virtue of protecting liberty with one's own life. That level of commitment can only come from volunteerism.

1. I answered your response to me.....I did not scan the thread to see if someone else took you to school on one of your many fanciful takes on reality. For someone who has demonstrated a penchant for pontificating on a subject the he is woeful uninformed, you are the last person to try to insult other people's intelligence.
2. Once again, you keep trying to pass of your supposition and conjecture for fact. You provide no facts regarding exactly what Clinton did cut in his annual budgets, and once again you display stunning ignorance of the history of the bloated spending and budgets...such as the overpriced hammers. Again, Observe and learn http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/repo...9990901.html#The_435_Hammer_That_Wont_Go_Away

3. The 13th amendment deals with slavery, NOT military service to the country (in peace time or war). To say that you are in error on this is an understatement. Once again, you dance all over the place trying not to admit that you were wrong regarding the draft and volunteer army status. You keep fostering all this supposition, conjecture and opinion while desperately trying to ignore the FACTS of what we are now dealing with regarding a volunteer army and a perpetual state of war the Shrub & company declared. I could forgive your insipid stubborness compounded by your sheer ignorance, but as your opening salvo was pure vindictiveness, I'll grant you no quarter. Carry on.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And how much longer is this "invade and occupy" bullshit going to continue? We liberated millions, who now live in a democracy instead of tyranny. Seems liberals could grasp the concept of helping people.

Not to mention, "Shrub" is choppin' wood in Crawford now, and has no authority regarding the troops in Iraq. The person you elected to be responsible, has sent 15k more to Iraq. I admit, this is a rather odd gesture for someone who doesn't believe in what we are doing in Iraq, but that is the case.

 

[Good Luck]

1. I answered your response to me.....I did not scan the thread to see if someone else took you to school on one of your many fanciful takes on reality. For someone who has demonstrated a penchant for pontificating on a subject the he is woeful uninformed, you are the last person to try to insult other people's intelligence.
2. Once again, you keep trying to pass of your supposition and conjecture for fact. You provide no facts regarding exactly what Clinton did cut in his annual budgets, and once again you display stunning ignorance of the history of the bloated spending and budgets...such as the overpriced hammers. Again, Observe and learn http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/repo...9990901.html#The_435_Hammer_That_Wont_Go_Away

3. The 13th amendment deals with slavery, NOT military service to the country (in peace time or war). To say that you are in error on this is an understatement. Once again, you dance all over the place trying not to admit that you were wrong regarding the draft and volunteer army status. You keep fostering all this supposition, conjecture and opinion while desperately trying to ignore the FACTS of what we are now dealing with regarding a volunteer army and a perpetual state of war the Shrub & company declared. I could forgive your insipid stubborness compounded by your sheer ignorance, but as your opening salvo was pure vindictiveness, I'll grant you no quarter. Carry on.

1) I made an official post admitting that I was wrong about the 1940 draft and assuming an all volunteer force in WWII. It's there for you to read if you care. I, for one, admit when I am in error.

2) You are still following the liberal lies about the military cuts that occurred between 1993 and 1995.
a: FACT - the 163rd Armored Brigade - an Army National Guard unit covering Montana and Wyoming was reduced to 2 Battalions under this plan at the loss of over 60% of the personnel alloted the Montana and Wyoming National Guards. You can look it up. And that is but one - though admittedly among the worse - examples of the cuts made in the ready reserves.
b: FACT - the voluntary separation programs initiated between 1992 and 1994 were part of the "solution" to downsizing active duty military units with the resulting displacement of military personnel with nowhere to go. Look it up - they are fact.
c: FACT - Statement from article AD-A274-932 from the Congressional Budget Office, dated February, 1992: "As a result of the collapse of communism and the political and economic disintegration of the Soviet Union, the composition and size of U.S. military forces will undergo great changes. Initial reductions are already under way, and major cuts are being planned." Note it does not say BUDGET it says FORCES are being cut and MAJOR CUTS were in the works (which were, BTW, implemented along with the voluntary separation programs). Look it up. Educate yourself with something besides liberal rhetoric.


3) The exact wording of the 13th amendment is thus:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Show me where there is a provision for involuntary military service. Involuntary servitude is involuntary servitude no matter who is forcing it. I guess you could constitutionally make cannon fodder of convicted felons. But not out of every day citizens.

If you want to debate the Constitution, you better try actually reading it first.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

1) I made an official post admitting that I was wrong about the 1940 draft and assuming an all volunteer force in WWII. It's there for you to read if you care. I, for one, admit when I am in error.

2) You are still following the liberal lies about the military cuts that occurred between 1993 and 1995.
a: FACT - the 163rd Armored Brigade - an Army National Guard unit covering Montana and Wyoming was reduced to 2 Battalions under this plan at the loss of over 60% of the personnel alloted the Montana and Wyoming National Guards. You can look it up. And that is but one - though admittedly among the worse - examples of the cuts made in the ready reserves.
b: FACT - the voluntary separation programs initiated between 1992 and 1994 were part of the "solution" to downsizing active duty military units with the resulting displacement of military personnel with nowhere to go. Look it up - they are fact.
c: FACT - Statement from article AD-A274-932 from the Congressional Budget Office, dated February, 1992: "As a result of the collapse of communism and the political and economic disintegration of the Soviet Union, the composition and size of U.S. military forces will undergo great changes. Initial reductions are already under way, and major cuts are being planned." Note it does not say BUDGET it says FORCES are being cut and MAJOR CUTS were in the works (which were, BTW, implemented along with the voluntary separation programs). Look it up. Educate yourself with something besides liberal rhetoric.


3) The exact wording of the 13th amendment is thus:

Show me where there is a provision for involuntary military service. Involuntary servitude is involuntary servitude no matter who is forcing it. I guess you could constitutionally make cannon fodder of convicted felons. But not out of every day citizens.

If you want to debate the Constitution, you better try actually reading it first.

Be prepared for your entire response to be dissected and responded to, on freaking phrase at a time.
I've seen him do this before.

 

[DamnYankee]

Where do you get this fantasy that only the "best" who volunteer from draftees get to fight? Please do a little research into what a G.I. is, and who did the dirty, nasty ground fighting during WWI, WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam.

Now...are you aware as to WHY people criticized Haliburton and Blackwater?
And are you aware as to WHY Charlie Rangel (D-NY) put forth the the Draft proposal he did? And WHY the neocon driven GOP wailed like stuck pigs against it?

Only the best did the dirty, nasty ground fighting during WWI, WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam.

Rangle did it to get attention.

 

[Good Luck]

More specific information showing the Clinton force reductions were very real:

A table of active duty forces:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html
Personnel force strength starts at 2,050,627 in 1980, increases to 2,151,032 in 1985, then falls again to 2,043 as the plan to shift force focus to the reserve component (as a cost cutting measure) starts to take effect. Note in the reference below that the reserve component continues to increase while the active duty components slightly decrease.

It falls more, to 1,807,177 at the end of 1992, which is a 10% reduction from peak, but with a corresponding continued rise in reserve component strengths. (see below) Then starting in 1993 and continuing through 2000, strength falls over 23% to 1,384,338 with an ADDITIONAL 30% reduction in reserve component forces - which is a full reversal of the build up plan under Reagan/Bush 41.

Corresponding reserve component forces figures:
http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/586_military_reserve_personnel.html
Total reserves start at 1,349,000 in 1980, and rise to 1,677,000 under Reagan, and increase to a maximum of 1,883,000 in 1992 under Bush, all of which was part of their plan to shift focus of military force to a large reserve force to reduce the associated costs of a large military. Then the forces reduce between 1993 through 1999 from 1,883,000 to 1,304,000 - a reduction of over 30% And THERE is the reason the reserve component is over stretched now. An additional 579,000 soldiers in the reserve, cut by Clinton, would be making a huge difference in the strain the reserves are under, wouldn’t it?

A discussion of end strengths in the U.S. Army
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/end-strength.htm

In the 1990s the Army dropped from 780,000 to 480,000 active duty end strength.*

*End strength means the count of deployable combat duty soldiers.

A paper written in 1993 that discusses the need for more effective, high-tech military assets to counter the effect of coming force reductions: http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cach...y+force+reductions"&cd=16&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Why would they be anticipating the need to compensate for a reduction in force unless they are anticipating a significant reduction of force?


In short, your continued denial of the military force policies of the Clinton administration is pure partisan hackery. You are either so full of their lies and rhetoric you can no longer think for yourself, or you are choosing to deliberately spread their lies - which makes you a liar yourself. Which is it?

 

[Good Luck]

Only the best did the dirty, nasty ground fighting during WWI, WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam.

Sorry to disagree, but I can guarandamntee your "only the best" conscripts were NOT the ones fighting in Vietnam. They were shoving any available warm body in a combat uniform, handing them a rifle, and sending them to combat units. From distant observation, the army was even worse, since even at the height the Marine Corps was still over 50% volunteers while they were only around 20% volunteers. But having 50% unwilling, under trained, scared conscripted kids in a combat platoon was plenty bad enough. They not only got themselves killed or injured unnecessarily, they got seasoned combat veterans killed or injured in the process.

 

[DamnYankee]

Sorry to disagree, but I can guarandamntee your "only the best" conscripts were NOT the ones fighting in Vietnam. They were shoving any available warm body in a combat uniform, handing them a rifle, and sending them to combat units. From distant observation, the army was even worse, since even at the height the Marine Corps was still over 50% volunteers while they were only around 20% volunteers. But having 50% unwilling, under trained, scared conscripted kids in a combat platoon was plenty bad enough. They not only got themselves killed or injured unnecessarily, they got seasoned combat veterans killed or injured in the process.

I'll take your word on that, which is why I believe that combat soldiers should be volunteers as now, with conscripts providing some level of logistical support, depending on their ability and level of dedication. Some pissant like WaterMark would be cleaning toilets, and 1b1yysguy would be peeling potatoes. It would keep them busy instead of posting total shit on message boards all day long.

 

[Good Luck]

I'll take your word on that, which is why I believe that combat soldiers should be volunteers as now, with conscripts providing some level of logistical support, depending on their ability and level of dedication. Some pissant like WaterMark would be cleaning toilets, and 1b1yysguy would be peeling potatoes. It would keep them busy instead of posting total shit on message boards all day long.

I'll go ya one better than that. At home and military bases in friendly countries, you don't need military personnel, conscript or otherwise, to clean toilets, type reports, or peel potatoes. Hiring civilians at market wages would be cheaper as they would not need special training.

In the field, in modern warfare, there is no such thing as a safe position. There is no such thing as a support unit that has no chance of facing combat situations. Just look at our convoys in Iraq. Transport units are supposed to be non-combat. But they aren't. If you're deployed in a modern combat zone, you are a combat soldier no matter what your official MOS is. As such, there are no cushy "conscript appropriate" jobs in a deployed unit.

 

[Taichiliberal]

But this is all overblown hype and propaganda from our earliest miscalculations in Iraq, the problems were corrected long ago. If someone was unhappy about the conditions, there has been opportunity for them to get out.

I understand what "back door draft" means, but I disagree that is what we have. It's comical to watch anti-war libs distort perspectives with the language. The common sense God gave a turkey, could figure out that people who are currently joining the U.S. Army, are not opposed to US policy in Iraq. It's not like there is this long line of liberal anti-war activists who want to join the Army, but can't because of that darn chance of going to war!

You can "disagree" all you want, but the FACTS that I sourced remain the same. In order to maintain viable manpower for an illegal and elected invasion/occupation, the Shrub & company inacted policies that are wrong. Common sense should tell YOU that it's not about who opposes what, but who is being screwed over by those in charge, and the disasterous results of those policies put in motion. Check out www.optruth.org you had career soldiers who had been there and went back, and who tell it like is regarding the screw ups and official lies of the Shrub & company. Or look into lawsuits filed by National Guardsmen, or the statements by the Veterans Admn. Or maybe you weren't aware of what Gen. Baptiste or Eaton or Shenseki had to say. As for you absurd notion that all the "problems" were corrected long ago, you're obviously not aware of those nasty little situations with KBR and water filtration or showers, or the latest attacks, etc. So you can either claim (willful) ignorance or insipid stubborness. Neither bodes well for you.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Only the best did the dirty, nasty ground fighting during WWI, WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam.

Rangle did it to get attention.

YOU implied that "volunteers" out of a drafted army did such....that is an absurd statement based on either pure stupidity or ignorance.....or are you going to discount the documented history of the GI in the forementioned wars? Hell, Gen. Patton was the strongest advocate for the GI, but I guess he was lying too, according to you? Puh-leeze!

Rangle served during the Korean War with honor, dimbulb. That is why he put his proposal forward, to keep the Shrub & company from perpetuating the abuse of our military and National Guard. He knows what he's talking about, not unlike neocon gasbags and BS artists. And FYI, ANYTHING ANY politician does garners publicity....that's the whole point, to get the attention of the citizens of this country.

 

[Taichiliberal]

And how much longer is this "invade and occupy" bullshit going to continue? We liberated millions, who now live in a democracy instead of tyranny. Seems liberals could grasp the concept of helping people.

Not to mention, "Shrub" is choppin' wood in Crawford now, and has no authority regarding the troops in Iraq. The person you elected to be responsible, has sent 15k more to Iraq. I admit, this is a rather odd gesture for someone who doesn't believe in what we are doing in Iraq, but that is the case.

"We" didn't give a damn about those millions until Hussein got some crazy idea about sovereignty of his country to handle it's own border disputes. What you desperately want to ignore (or are ignorant of) is that American supported and financed Hussein right up to and through his gassing the Kurds...http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

And then lied our asses of via Amb. Glaspie, telling Hussein it was our policy not to interfer in the border disputes of other countries (i.e., Kuwait). Do some research as to who annexed Kuwait from Iraq, Kuwait's oil status and how they now own Britain, and the lie Daddy Bush sold to the UN for the Gulf War.

What you have now in Iraq is a gov't that is more sympathetic to Iran's ideology, the largest anti-gov't faction being bribes by the US NOT to attack folk, and another faction poised to start up hostile actions if things don't go their way. Hardly a democracy, as the majority of Iraqi's didn't even know who the hell they were actually voting for on the "party" ticket. How much longer? Damned if I know, because as Colin Powell warned, " you broke it, you own it."

And PUH-LEEZE don't be so stupid as to propose in 100 days Obama is to correct all the fuck-ups as a result of 8 years of the Shrub's illicit policies in 100 days. Grow-up, the Shrub legacy is Iraq...and beyond the headlines in NewsMax and the WND, Iraq is far from being completely stable. Obama has to fix the Shrub's mess....as President he assumes responsibility, understand?

 

[Taichiliberal]

1) I made an official post admitting that I was wrong about the 1940 draft and assuming an all volunteer force in WWII. It's there for you to read if you care. I, for one, admit when I am in error.

2) You are still following the liberal lies about the military cuts that occurred between 1993 and 1995.
a: FACT - the 163rd Armored Brigade - an Army National Guard unit covering Montana and Wyoming was reduced to 2 Battalions under this plan at the loss of over 60% of the personnel alloted the Montana and Wyoming National Guards. You can look it up. And that is but one - though admittedly among the worse - examples of the cuts made in the ready reserves.
b: FACT - the voluntary separation programs initiated between 1992 and 1994 were part of the "solution" to downsizing active duty military units with the resulting displacement of military personnel with nowhere to go. Look it up - they are fact.
c: FACT - Statement from article AD-A274-932 from the Congressional Budget Office, dated February, 1992: "As a result of the collapse of communism and the political and economic disintegration of the Soviet Union, the composition and size of U.S. military forces will undergo great changes. Initial reductions are already under way, and major cuts are being planned." Note it does not say BUDGET it says FORCES are being cut and MAJOR CUTS were in the works (which were, BTW, implemented along with the voluntary separation programs). Look it up. Educate yourself with something besides liberal rhetoric.


3) The exact wording of the 13th amendment is thus:

Show me where there is a provision for involuntary military service. Involuntary servitude is involuntary servitude no matter who is forcing it. I guess you could constitutionally make cannon fodder of convicted felons. But not out of every day citizens.

If you want to debate the Constitution, you better try actually reading it first.

1. You're not too bright, are you? READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY WHAT I STATED, GENIUS. It not only renders what you print here moot, but irrelevent.

2. You keep confusing downsizing and cut backs with the severe hyperbole that Clinton "gutted" the military. PAY ATTENTION GENIUS! I never denied Clinton cut backs, but neocon parrots love to ignore the FACT that at the end of the Cold War, military cut backs began under DADDY BUSH. Look it up, active-duty military declined from 2.2-million to 1.8-million. Total defense forces also shrank, from 3.3-million to 2.9-million. Under Clinton, active-duty military totaled 1.8-million in 1993 and declined to 1.4-million in 2000. Also note, the Navy had 454 ships in 1993, but as vessels were retired and not replaced, the fleet was down to 341 by 2000. When you add to the mix Clinton's military budget, then you get a very different picture. See, unlike you, I don't have a neocon (or liberal) myopic viewpoint. Maybe you should stop trying to insult people and learn to honestly research and debate an issue, instead of this lame half-truth and insult nonsense your keep peddling.

3. For the last time.....the 13th Amendment has to deal SLAVERY and all attempted forms of it.....it has NOTHING to do with military service. If you have a sentence that DIRECTLY states such, then please supply it.. Otherwise, spare us all this supposition and conjecture BS.