Printable View
There will be no draft anytime soon. Since October all military branches have met there recruitment goals except for the national guard. Hardly anything to get worried about.
Now look are these statistics....
Vietnam war = 58,226 American casualties
WW2 = 295,000 American casualties
war in Iraq since the start in 3/19/03 = 866
:hello:
just to let ya know, the way wars are waged today is much differant from WW2 and Vietnam. so your statistics while true, are kinda skewed do to the way war is waged in this day and time of history. since the beginning of time deaths in war have slowly but surely lessened. so why dont ya go pick up a history book before misleading peopleQuote:
Originally Posted by RageControl
not only that but more then 866 service men and women have died in iraq to this date.
Besides... does anyone here that honestly believe that middle eastern pïsshole was worth 1 single American life?Quote:
Originally Posted by jcstomper
Red
Hey enlighten me? Who (Which congressman) was it that proposed the Draft legislation in the house last month???
Ohhhh yea,,, I forgot
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/
Rangel introduces bill to reinstate draft
Rumsfeld says he sees no need for military draft
Wednesday, January 8, 2003 Posted: 4:28 AM EST (0928 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. Charles Rangel introduced a bill in Congress Tuesday to reinstate the military draft, saying fighting forces should more closely reflect the economic makeup of the nation.
The New York Democrat told reporters his goal is two-fold: to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a possible unilateral strike against Iraq, which he opposes, and "to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices."
"I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that's involved, the sacrifice that's involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility," Rangel said.
"Those who love this country have a patriotic obligation to defend this country," Rangel said. "For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance."
According to Rangel's office, minorities comprise more than 30 percent of the nation's military.
Under his bill, the draft would apply to men and women ages 18 to 26; exemptions would be granted to allow people to graduate from high school, but college students would have to serve.
Anyone who didn't qualify for military service because of impairments would be asked to perform community service.
The lawmaker has said his measure could make members of Congress more reluctant to authorize military action. The Korean War veteran has accused President Bush and some fellow lawmakers of being too eager to go to war.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters Tuesday he sees no need for a draft. He said the military is managing to attract enough skilled recruits without one.
"We're not going to re-implement a draft. There is no need for it at all," Rumsfeld said. "The disadvantages of using compulsion to bring into the armed forces the men and women needed are notable."
Draft controversy
The nation had a draft in place between 1948 and 1973. It grew to become the center of controversy during the Vietnam War, 1964-1975, an undeclared war that was the most unpopular conflict America has fought.
Anger over the war led many young men to flee to Canada and elsewhere to avoid the draft, and violent protests were rampant. When the draft ended, the United States set up an all-volunteer military.
Since 1980, the Selective Service has required men 18 to 26 to register to give the government a pool of men it could draw from in case troops were needed in an emergency.
As of October 31, 14.1 million men would be eligible for a draft, said Selective Service spokesman Pat Schuback. Twenty-year-olds would be called up first, followed by others -- year by year. In the age group 20 to 26, 11 million would be eligible.
The average number of men registered per year during the Vietnam War era was 18.4 million. That covers the period from July 1, 1964, through June 1973.
Not a single one!Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Ketchup
What was your point in that whole draft thing??? DId that have to do with the topic or are you still stuck on this draft thing?
Im stuck on the email I got saying if I dont send out 5 emails to my friends I will have bad luck. I really think that email is true since it came from the internet. Im gonna send it to 10 of my friends. I am also gonna tell them that each time they send it, I personally will give them five dollars each time.....
I agree 1000% with this statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Ketchup
YOu guys are totally missing the big picture... Its not about the middle east.. its about fighting for us here. Its about preventing another attack. Its about spreading freedom and democracy so that we won't have to fight it here in the states. Its not about saving lives in Iraq or Afaganastan.. its about saving lives here in Colorado, Michigan, and Iowa.Quote:
Originally Posted by big k.l.g
yeah it is. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawg50
My god you swallowed that hook, line an sinker huh? Democracy will never flourish in the ME......Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawg50
**** democracy in the Middle East. Please don't fall for the sales pitch of spreading democracy or WMD. That's all horseshiet. Don't get me wrong, I DO believe that we SHOULD be there, but I have my own opinions about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawg50
dude, fell for what? Sure, I don't believe that place is worth one single American life.....but like Jdawg said.....its worth saving lives here in our own country.....how can you genius libs not understand that? Oh wait, I know how....you believe if we would just leave them alone, they'll leave us alone.....just like they have done the last decade.....newsflash....they HATE us....ALL of us.....no matter if your a peace loving hippy, a far left college professor, or even an angelic Republican ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by big k.l.g
lol sorry bro but if i was americian i'd be right-wing by your standards......the point is Iraq is out of control.....for every terrorist that is killed 10 more take his place......one thing the Saddam knew how to do was to hold down that country by any means nessary........you have to little boots on the ground.......Iraq prolly has 10 time more the forgien fighters then when saddam was in power........ppl are being beheaded on the net.........attacks in the GREEN zone........things are not going good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy34
Your point make little sence IMO.....go to IRAQ to attract thousands of terrorist ( using u.s. soldiers as bait) so we dont have to stop a few at home.....look its 4.00 in the mornin here i post my poirt later lol peace out bro
Can u drink winny?
~SC~
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy34
newsflash genius (just using your words) if 15 of the ninteen terrorists that attacked our country were from saudi arabia, why in the **** are we in iraq? im not against attacking, i just think we should attack the appropriate people. and do you really think that attacking them is going to stop their attacking us? they have been killing one another for a few thousand years and were going to waltz in there and make everything pretty. the reality is were stirring up a hornets nest.
In my opinion...
It's not just about retaliating against ONE country or ONE group responsible for 9/11. Not Iraq, N. Korea, Afganistan (sp?), Iran, etc, etc. I belive that Iraq was simply an "entrance" strategy for something greater. None of those countries would of been an appropriate place to start (politically or strategically). Iraq was just the easiest way INTO the middle east.
What good would hundreds of thousands of troops do in Afgan.? More people to turn over rocks? Our troops there are doing what they need to be doing. Living in the villages, talking to people, and trying as hard as they can to "win the hearts and minds" if for no other reason just to hear any evidence of where that dickhole is.
Want to declare war on Saudi Arabia because Bin Ladens are Saudis? Are you kidding? VERY delicate situation, not just because Bush is buddy-buddy, but becuase THEY ARE US ALLIES. M. Moore's summary of the Saudi/Bush connection is the all-time best logical fallacy I've heard yet.
Where should you go if you want a chance to kill Americans and support your cuase? Iraq. I think there is already evidence of this happening now. I know this is an unpopular decision, however, I believe that we need to stop pussyfooting around Mosques (read: weapon storage) and such, and increase the pressure even more. I believe that we are capable. It is always a balance though, between kicking ass and preserving civilian life (and thankfully the US still cares about that).
But, just my opinion... and I don't know, can you drink winny?
LMAO :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by SwoleCat
We are doing the right thing by being there. "Is it worth losing one American life over ther?" Of course its not but it is also fighting for the 3000+ people who died in Wash., PA,and NY on 9/11. If we take Kerrys plan and slowly pull the troops out we can open the doors for a breding ground for terrorists once again. They WANT us to leave, just like we did in Kosovo, Beiruit,Libya and so fourth. Now we have a president who is staying the course and will protect this country AND American interests abroad. When Clinton was in office we had numerous chances at striking Bin Laden and the govt was worried about "collatoral" damage to mosques and everything so no action was taken. Sadaams regime had meetings with the ringleaders of 9/11..What more proof is needed?,.,,Bin Laden and Sadaam had the same exact formula for chemical weapons...by coincidance?...This country can no longer pussy foot around while these radical muslims cut our peoples heads off, bring down our buildings and plot to attack our country. Bush is doing a great job in the war on terror and has disrupted many plots. Now we need Iran in the sights next.
Just my peace on the matter.
Pussyfoot is my word, though... :D
You must be retarded if you think the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 had anything to do with iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy34
I disagree with that Chris Adams.