Why we need the Draft Back!

[Taichiliberal]

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

*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?

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.

 

[Taichiliberal]

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.

Yeah, it's called an honest debate based on all the facts and the logic derived from them. When someone brings up a point, you address it accordingly. If the facts contradict that point, then so be it. Since you're not part of the debate, what I do should be of no concern to you, unless you are willing to participate directly.

 

[DamnYankee]

YOU implied that "volunteers" out of a drafted army did such....

Where did I do that?

 

[Good Luck]

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.

LOL Talk about falling back on semantics. A 23% active/30% reserve "cutback" is fucking gutting the military. I did look it up, and gave you the figures and the links to the charts that track the force structure. You come up with fucking lies and links to partisan analyses (ie: lies) about it.

Under Bush 41 active duty went from 2.04 to 1.81 million - a drop of 230K. It did NOT go from 2.2 million as you claim.

Look at the charts again. The active duty component started at 2.05M in 1980, peaked at 2.16M in 1987, and then fell again to 2.04M in 1990 and 1.81M as they PURPOSELY shifted force structure to the reserves. Meanwhile reserves went up from 1.35M in 1980 to 1.67M in 1988. Reserves under Bush 41 went from 1.67 million to 1.88 million, an INCREASE of 210K, for a GRAND TOTAL loss from 1988 to 1992 of approximately 180K in personnel force structure. Not the 400K you lie about.

Again, for the partisan "I am the master (de)bater" brain dead, the focus of Reagan was to build up the military, which he did the first four years while whiney twits like yourself cried and moaned and protested. THEN, starting in 1984 they started shifting the force structure to bear more heavily on the reserves - which he did, though with Reagan's plan we were supposed to end up with about 200-300K more soldiers in the reserves. Bush 41 continued with the plan, though made some cuts from Reagan's original plan for the reserves. But the "cut" in reserves was a cut in the planned buildup, not a cut in the force structure as you are trying to claim, and Bush 41 still maintained a net INCREASE in reserves force structure.

Then along comes Clinton, who cuts 23% from active duty, and 30% from the reserves. And you don't call that significant? He cut over 400K from the active duty rolls and over 500K from the reserves. His cuts totaled over 1 MILLION soldiers cut from our military over 8 years. 1 million out of a total of 3.7 million I call gutting the military. You call it whatever you want to call it. The fact remains we'd have a MILLION more military personnel on the roles if Clinton had left things alone. And you don't think that would make a BIG difference in rotation schedules in Iraq? You don't think that would have so minimized the issue of repeated TODs that it would completely ruin your totalitarian call for a draft? As you say, facts are facts. Quit trying to spin them, or fall back on some idiot semantics defense - it is not working.

 

[Good Luck]

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.

WHO is it that is conjecturing? The 13th Amendment prohibits ALL forms of involuntary servitude - unless it is part of a criminal sentence. Now YOU explain to me exactly how forced military service is NOT involuntary servitude to the military. I am not the one saying "oh, involuntary servitude is just another way of saying slavery." I am taking the Constitution as it is written, not as how you WISH it to be. Involuntary servitude is forbidden. A military draft is involuntary servitude to the military. If it were VOLUNTARY, then it would be an all voluntary military. If it is FORCED, then it is INVOLUNTARY.

Definition of servitude (Mirriam Webster Online)
1 : a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life.

Military service is servitude, by definition. The soldier gives his oath to obey the legal orders of his military superiors. Those orders can and do often conflict with one's individual liberty. They tell you where to live and what to do. The soldier does not have the liberty to just quit as one can a civilian job. Quitting can mean a jail sentence. Quitting in time of war, or in the face of the enemy can get one shot. Disobeying orders can end in a jail sentence, or another sentence to include dishonorable discharge, which is the equivalent to a felony conviction. But the trick is with a voluntary military force, the servitude is voluntary, as was indentured servitude back when it was allowed and practiced. The constitutional prohibition is against involuntary servitude.

Now you tell me, does or does not involuntary military service, getting sent somewhere against your will to be shot at or blown up by people our government has determined to be the bad guys fit "INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE"? Can you explain exactly how being involuntarily inducted into military service does NOT meet the definition of being place involuntarily into a condition of lacking the liberty to determine one's own course in life?

The Constitution says what it says. The 13th Amendment specifically is very clear and concise. I need no "conjecture" to understand it. However you do need conjecture to circumvent it.

 

[christiefan915]

LOL

Tell me again what branch of the military, Clinton or Obama served in.

Tell me again where in the Constitution it says that military service is required for a presidential aspirant.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Where did I do that?

Right here, I'll highlight it for you. If you want to see for yourself, just click the little arrow next to the name at the upper left until you reach the original post:

I think a draft is a good idea. Instead of hearing the Left whine on and on about Haliburton this, Blackwater that, we'll do like we used to do and have a huge support organization of draftees supplying food, fuel, ferry troops and weapons, and provide security. Only the best who volunteer from within that group get to actually fight. Maybe we'll get rid of some lard asses around here as well.

 

[Good Luck]

Tell me again where in the Constitution it says that military service is required for a presidential aspirant.

There is no such requirement. There are arguments either way whether there should be considering that the president holds the ultimate military authority in the U.S.

Frankly, we dodged a bullet that Clinton never faced a serious military situation while he was president. To give him credit, a huge part of dodging that bullet was due to his abilities when it came to international policy. But I also believe he would have been an outright disaster had he needed to actually exercise any significant military authority. There is no proof of that feeling, of course, just based on those small military decisions he did make.

Obama does face the chore of making significant military decisions. I only hope he has the wisdom to know what he does not know, and listen to those who do know and follow their advice even if he disagrees with their advice on a philosophical plane. He does not have the knowledge or experience to disagree on a professional plane.

 

[Taichiliberal]

WHO is it that is conjecturing? The 13th Amendment prohibits ALL forms of involuntary servitude - unless it is part of a criminal sentence. Now YOU explain to me exactly how forced military service is NOT involuntary servitude to the military. I am not the one saying "oh, involuntary servitude is just another way of saying slavery." I am taking the Constitution as it is written, not as how you WISH it to be. Involuntary servitude is forbidden. A military draft is involuntary servitude to the military. If it were VOLUNTARY, then it would be an all voluntary military. If it is FORCED, then it is INVOLUNTARY.

Definition of servitude (Mirriam Webster Online)
1 : a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life.

Military service is servitude, by definition. The soldier gives his oath to obey the legal orders of his military superiors. Those orders can and do often conflict with one's individual liberty. They tell you where to live and what to do. The soldier does not have the liberty to just quit as one can a civilian job. Quitting can mean a jail sentence. Quitting in time of war, or in the face of the enemy can get one shot. Disobeying orders can end in a jail sentence, or another sentence to include dishonorable discharge, which is the equivalent to a felony conviction. But the trick is with a voluntary military force, the servitude is voluntary, as was indentured servitude back when it was allowed and practiced. The constitutional prohibition is against involuntary servitude.

Now you tell me, does or does not involuntary military service, getting sent somewhere against your will to be shot at or blown up by people our government has determined to be the bad guys fit "INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE"? Can you explain exactly how being involuntarily inducted into military service does NOT meet the definition of being place involuntarily into a condition of lacking the liberty to determine one's own course in life?

The Constitution says what it says. The 13th Amendment specifically is very clear and concise. I need no "conjecture" to understand it. However you do need conjecture to circumvent it.

You wasted a LOT of space and time trying build a bridge to support your claim....but unfortunately for you the CONSTITUTION does NOT make generalized Amendments as you perceive them. The 13th Amendment states the following:

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

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

Now as for the military, the Constitution breaks down between the 3 branches as to who can do what.....and it refers to TROOPS or militia in reference to national/state military when it does (example being Article 1, Section 8 or Section 10. They were careful NOT to confuse serving in the military with indentured servants or slaves. I previously asked you to provide at least one sentence from the constitution that validates what you suggest in no-uncertain terms. To date, you haven't. All you've done is regurgitate your supposition....and that is all you will continue to do, as it seems. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

LOL Talk about falling back on semantics. A 23% active/30% reserve "cutback" is fucking gutting the military. I did look it up, and gave you the figures and the links to the charts that track the force structure. You come up with fucking lies and links to partisan analyses (ie: lies) about it.

Under Bush 41 active duty went from 2.04 to 1.81 million - a drop of 230K. It did NOT go from 2.2 million as you claim.

Look at the charts again. The active duty component started at 2.05M in 1980, peaked at 2.16M in 1987, and then fell again to 2.04M in 1990 and 1.81M as they PURPOSELY shifted force structure to the reserves. Meanwhile reserves went up from 1.35M in 1980 to 1.67M in 1988. Reserves under Bush 41 went from 1.67 million to 1.88 million, an INCREASE of 210K, for a GRAND TOTAL loss from 1988 to 1992 of approximately 180K in personnel force structure. Not the 400K you lie about.

Again, for the partisan "I am the master (de)bater" brain dead, the focus of Reagan was to build up the military, which he did the first four years while whiney twits like yourself cried and moaned and protested. THEN, starting in 1984 they started shifting the force structure to bear more heavily on the reserves - which he did, though with Reagan's plan we were supposed to end up with about 200-300K more soldiers in the reserves. Bush 41 continued with the plan, though made some cuts from Reagan's original plan for the reserves. But the "cut" in reserves was a cut in the planned buildup, not a cut in the force structure as you are trying to claim, and Bush 41 still maintained a net INCREASE in reserves force structure.

Then along comes Clinton, who cuts 23% from active duty, and 30% from the reserves. And you don't call that significant? He cut over 400K from the active duty rolls and over 500K from the reserves. His cuts totaled over 1 MILLION soldiers cut from our military over 8 years. 1 million out of a total of 3.7 million I call gutting the military. You call it whatever you want to call it. The fact remains we'd have a MILLION more military personnel on the roles if Clinton had left things alone. And you don't think that would make a BIG difference in rotation schedules in Iraq? You don't think that would have so minimized the issue of repeated TODs that it would completely ruin your totalitarian call for a draft? As you say, facts are facts. Quit trying to spin them, or fall back on some idiot semantics defense - it is not working.

Typical response of a frustrated neocon........you just ignore all else and just parrot the same old dreck. I'm not "spinning" anything, genius. I'm telling you FACTS that undercut your BS. You just keep frothing at the mouth what Giuliani tried to pull off during his failed campaign. Well, it didn't work for him, and it's not going to work for you. When you tell a half-truth, you telling half a lie. Observe and learn: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...iuliani/the-peace-dividend-began-with-a-bush/

 

[Good Luck]

You wasted a LOT of space and time trying build a bridge to support your claim....but unfortunately for you the CONSTITUTION does NOT make generalized Amendments as you perceive them. The 13th Amendment states the following:

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

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

Now as for the military, the Constitution breaks down between the 3 branches as to who can do what.....and it refers to TROOPS or militia in reference to national/state military when it does (example being Article 1, Section 8 or Section 10. They were careful NOT to confuse serving in the military with indentured servants or slaves. I previously asked you to provide at least one sentence from the constitution that validates what you suggest in no-uncertain terms. To date, you haven't. All you've done is regurgitate your supposition....and that is all you will continue to do, as it seems. Carry on.

So, you are saying that because they did NOT specifically state that involuntary military service is involuntary servitude that means involuntary military service is therefore not involuntary servitude? And you think I am making suppositions? That is the most convoluted (and pathetic) thinking I have seen in a long time. It's like saying Native Americans are not covered by the 14th Amendment because they are not specifically named as persons.

Article 1, Section 8 defines the authority Congress has, and several of those authorities are over military funding, organization and training. They have the power to raise and fund a standing army. Nowhere does it say they can force citizens to be members of that army. There are many ways of raising an army. Forced service is only one of them.

Since neither involuntary servitude nor slavery are even mentioned in the Constitution except to forbid both in the 13th A, and military service is not mentioned at all, let alone defined, your statement that they were careful to "not confuse" one with another is a load of garbage. In fact I am calling it a flat out lie.

Involuntary military service is by its very definition, involuntary servitude. First and most obvious, involuntary military service is involuntary. There ya go, point one made and you cannot refute it without showing you are simply blowing totalitarian bullshit around to defend your pathetic political philosophy.

Point two: military service itself is servitude to the body politic. A soldier, once having taken the oath, has committed their lives to the body politic and from that point in time until the end of their contract do not have the liberty to determine their course in life. (Remember the definition of servitude?)

The body politic gives its orders to the soldier through the military hierarchy. The military cannot order the soldier to do illegal things (though they could at one time....). But the military DOES have the authority to order the soldier to do anything that is legal. They can send the soldier to Antarctica. They can (and do - even in peace time) separate the soldier from their family for indeterminate periods of time - up to 8 years under the current enlistment contract if they determine there is the need to do so. They can order a soldier into a situation from which there is little chance of survival. All those are legal orders that the soldier does not have the liberty to refuse. (I must add that the military tries to avoid giving such orders that are detrimental to the soldier as an individual. But the mission of the military comes before the concerns for the individual, so such orders are given especially when at war.) The condition of military service meets exactly the definition of servitude.

Thus, we have a simple definition. Military service is servitude, by definition. Period. Involuntary military service is involuntary by definition. Add the two together and you get the dictionary definition of involuntary servitude. I do not need to come up with some statement put in the Constitution, as the English language itself is the statement. Since involuntary servitude is prohibited, so is involuntary military service.

 

[Good Luck]

Typical response of a frustrated neocon........you just ignore all else and just parrot the same old dreck. I'm not "spinning" anything, genius. I'm telling you FACTS that undercut your BS. You just keep frothing at the mouth what Giuliani tried to pull off during his failed campaign. Well, it didn't work for him, and it's not going to work for you. When you tell a half-truth, you telling half a lie. Observe and learn: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...iuliani/the-peace-dividend-began-with-a-bush/

Once again, I gave you hard figures. Those are the REAL facts. All you give is opinion after opinion after opinion, NONE of which have any genuine facts referenced. You CLAIM that Bush 41 cut active duty by 400K and total forces by the same. I have shown you solid facts that refute that claim - the drop in active duty forces was far less, and reserve forces increased to almost offset the active duty decrease. Yes, it was Under Bush 41 - but actually was part of the military plan designed under Reagan. The claim that there was a significant TOTAL draw down under Bush 41 is simply not true, and the figures prove it. Active decreased, but reserve increased. It is your argument that is lying by half truth by ignoring the fact that reserve components continued to grow until Clinton got in power.

You cannot tell me where your figures came from. They are simply repeated time and again in the opinion articles you link to. Do you remember what the democrats said about repeating a lie in the 2004 election?

I gave you the exact source my figures came from. And if you read them (assuming you can without help) those sources both cite the U.S. Department of Defense for their data. The hard data I gave you refutes the claims you make and that data came from the DOD. So who is the liar?

"observe and learn"? The only thing I can learn from your type is how to be a petulant lying twit. It's not something I care to learn, but thank you for offering.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You would have better luck doing this......; because he will return and continue to........

Once again, I gave you hard figures. Those are the REAL facts. All you give is opinion after opinion after opinion, NONE of which have any genuine facts referenced. You CLAIM that Bush 41 cut active duty by 400K and total forces by the same. I have shown you solid facts that refute that claim - the drop in active duty forces was far less, and reserve forces increased to almost offset the active duty decrease. Yes, it was Under Bush 41 - but actually was part of the military plan designed under Reagan. The claim that there was a significant TOTAL draw down under Bush 41 is simply not true, and the figures prove it. Active decreased, but reserve increased. It is your argument that is lying by half truth by ignoring the fact that reserve components continued to grow until Clinton got in power.

You cannot tell me where your figures came from. They are simply repeated time and again in the opinion articles you link to. Do you remember what the democrats said about repeating a lie in the 2004 election?

I gave you the exact source my figures came from. And if you read them (assuming you can without help) those sources both cite the U.S. Department of Defense for their data. The hard data I gave you refutes the claims you make and that data came from the DOD. So who is the liar?

"observe and learn"? The only thing I can learn from your type is how to be a petulant lying twit. It's not something I care to learn, but thank you for offering.

 

[DamnYankee]

Right here, I'll highlight it for you. If you want to see for yourself, just click the little arrow next to the name at the upper left until you reach the original post:

I think a draft is a good idea. Instead of hearing the Left whine on and on about Haliburton this, Blackwater that, we'll do like we used to do and have a huge support organization of draftees supplying food, fuel, ferry troops and weapons, and provide security. Only the best who volunteer from within that group get to actually fight. Maybe we'll get rid of some lard asses around here as well.

You're talking apples and oranges. There was a draft during WW2 and it was luck-of-the-draw from that pool who saw combat. I have proposed that everyone gets drafted regardless of the state of war and that volunteers from within that group see combat; the rest peel potatoes and stuff that Halliburton does.

Do you see the difference?

 

[Taichiliberal]

So, you are saying that because they did NOT specifically state that involuntary military service is involuntary servitude that means involuntary military service is therefore not involuntary servitude? And you think I am making suppositions? That is the most convoluted (and pathetic) thinking I have seen in a long time. It's like saying Native Americans are not covered by the 14th Amendment because they are not specifically named as persons.

Article 1, Section 8 defines the authority Congress has, and several of those authorities are over military funding, organization and training. They have the power to raise and fund a standing army. Nowhere does it say they can force citizens to be members of that army. There are many ways of raising an army. Forced service is only one of them.

Since neither involuntary servitude nor slavery are even mentioned in the Constitution except to forbid both in the 13th A, and military service is not mentioned at all, let alone defined, your statement that they were careful to "not confuse" one with another is a load of garbage. In fact I am calling it a flat out lie.

Involuntary military service is by its very definition, involuntary servitude. First and most obvious, involuntary military service is involuntary. There ya go, point one made and you cannot refute it without showing you are simply blowing totalitarian bullshit around to defend your pathetic political philosophy.

Point two: military service itself is servitude to the body politic. A soldier, once having taken the oath, has committed their lives to the body politic and from that point in time until the end of their contract do not have the liberty to determine their course in life. (Remember the definition of servitude?)

The body politic gives its orders to the soldier through the military hierarchy. The military cannot order the soldier to do illegal things (though they could at one time....). But the military DOES have the authority to order the soldier to do anything that is legal. They can send the soldier to Antarctica. They can (and do - even in peace time) separate the soldier from their family for indeterminate periods of time - up to 8 years under the current enlistment contract if they determine there is the need to do so. They can order a soldier into a situation from which there is little chance of survival. All those are legal orders that the soldier does not have the liberty to refuse. (I must add that the military tries to avoid giving such orders that are detrimental to the soldier as an individual. But the mission of the military comes before the concerns for the individual, so such orders are given especially when at war.) The condition of military service meets exactly the definition of servitude.

Thus, we have a simple definition. Military service is servitude, by definition. Period. Involuntary military service is involuntary by definition. Add the two together and you get the dictionary definition of involuntary servitude. I do not need to come up with some statement put in the Constitution, as the English language itself is the statement. Since involuntary servitude is prohibited, so is involuntary military service.

All you've done here is just give another version of the same BS you previously posted.

Bottom line: NOWHERE in the Constitution, it's amendments or Bill of Rights do they confuse military service with slavery or indentured servitude. With regards to all 3 branches, they are VERY specific as to who is responsible for support, what they can and cannot do regarding the country's military, and what constitutes military service.

Your entire case is based upon YOUR supposition and conjecuture .... you think that because you can seperate words by definition and take them out of context of the Constitutional Amendments and Articles, you have a valid point.

You don't....you just have an opinion that is not supported by anything in the Constitutional.

Also, you suggest that since the Constitution doesn't state that Amendment 13 does not refer to the military, then your assertions are justified. That is just plain absurd, because the Amendement DIRECTLY refers to slavery. Period. Whether like it, believe it or accept it is irrelevent.

Your insipid stubborness belongs in the category with the jokers who insist Obama isn't a legal citizen....despite evidence to the contrary, you'll just keep creating these bogus yes or no scenarios that will satisfy your viewpoint. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You're talking apples and oranges. There was a draft during WW2 and it was luck-of-the-draw from that pool who saw combat. I have proposed that everyone gets drafted regardless of the state of war and that volunteers from within that group see combat; the rest peel potatoes and stuff that Halliburton does.

Do you see the difference?

I see you're just spewing a lot of BS.....YOU denied what you said....I provided PROOF of your absurd statement. Then to add insult to injury, you push forth more nonsense. The DRAFT wasn't a lottery, genius. EVERYONE had to register, and then the random selection was to who would serve first, second and third. Volunteers didn't get any preferential treatment, and they weren't from a "group". Either you went on your own steam or they came and got you....that's like being served a subpeona....you either show up or they come and get you. Jeezus, you neocon's really do love revisionist history, don't you.

You're statement is a crock.....whether you believe in it or not is irrelevent to actual historical facts.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Once again, I gave you hard figures. Those are the REAL facts. All you give is opinion after opinion after opinion, NONE of which have any genuine facts referenced. You CLAIM that Bush 41 cut active duty by 400K and total forces by the same. I have shown you solid facts that refute that claim - the drop in active duty forces was far less, and reserve forces increased to almost offset the active duty decrease. Yes, it was Under Bush 41 - but actually was part of the military plan designed under Reagan. The claim that there was a significant TOTAL draw down under Bush 41 is simply not true, and the figures prove it. Active decreased, but reserve increased. It is your argument that is lying by half truth by ignoring the fact that reserve components continued to grow until Clinton got in power.

You cannot tell me where your figures came from. They are simply repeated time and again in the opinion articles you link to. Do you remember what the democrats said about repeating a lie in the 2004 election?

I gave you the exact source my figures came from. And if you read them (assuming you can without help) those sources both cite the U.S. Department of Defense for their data. The hard data I gave you refutes the claims you make and that data came from the DOD. So who is the liar?

"observe and learn"? The only thing I can learn from your type is how to be a petulant lying twit. It's not something I care to learn, but thank you for offering.

I gave you solid facts from the same sources that give the WHOLE story, and not just half or some myopic neocon view point. Like it or not, the hype that Clinton "gutted" the military is just that, "hype". When the FACTS are shown, Clinton's reductions were LESS than what happened under Daddy Bush. THAT is something you just won't acknowledge...so you repeat yourself ad nauseum.

And note that YOU have not produced any links to verify what you've stated....yet I produced a link that showed how YOU parroted the exact bullshit Giuliani tried to pull. Like I said, half a truth is half a lie......

 

[Taichiliberal]

You would have better luck doing this......; because he will return and continue to........

And since you neither have the intelligence or the courage to honestly debate the issue yourself, this is the best you can do....so much more to pity you.

 

[Good Luck]

All you've done here is just give another version of the same BS you previously posted.

Bottom line: NOWHERE in the Constitution, it's amendments or Bill of Rights do they confuse military service with slavery or indentured servitude. With regards to all 3 branches, they are VERY specific as to who is responsible for support, what they can and cannot do regarding the country's military, and what constitutes military service.

Your entire case is based upon YOUR supposition and conjecuture .... you think that because you can seperate words by definition and take them out of context of the Constitutional Amendments and Articles, you have a valid point.

You don't....you just have an opinion that is not supported by anything in the Constitutional.

Also, you suggest that since the Constitution doesn't state that Amendment 13 does not refer to the military, then your assertions are justified. That is just plain absurd, because the Amendement DIRECTLY refers to slavery. Period. Whether like it, believe it or accept it is irrelevent.

Your insipid stubborness belongs in the category with the jokers who insist Obama isn't a legal citizen....despite evidence to the contrary, you'll just keep creating these bogus yes or no scenarios that will satisfy your viewpoint. Carry on.

Right, I am the one repeating myself without anything (like dictionaries, the Constitution itself, data directly derived from the DOD, etc.) to back up my statements.

Your drivel is no longer worth responding to.

 

[DamnYankee]

I see you're just spewing a lot of BS.....YOU denied what you said....I provided PROOF of your absurd statement. Then to add insult to injury, you push forth more nonsense. The DRAFT wasn't a lottery, genius. EVERYONE had to register, and then the random selection was to who would serve first, second and third. Volunteers didn't get any preferential treatment, and they weren't from a "group". Either you went on your own steam or they came and got you....that's like being served a subpeona....you either show up or they come and get you. Jeezus, you neocon's really do love revisionist history, don't you.

You're statement is a crock.....whether you believe in it or not is irrelevent to actual historical facts.

I suggest that you re-read the posts that you responded to because you seem to be confused at my position. For instance, I wrote "luck-of-the-draw from that pool who saw combat" and you appear to have read 'the draft was a lottery'. There were many soldiers who were in support roles. For instance my wife's uncle fixed Jeeps in Vietnam, and my Dad designed missiles during the Korean conflict. Although both were drafted, neither saw combat due to "luck-of-the-draw".

There are similar apparent mis-reads from other portions of my statements.

And, why the vitriol?