Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I got into an argument with a few of my buddies today, even though it is a pointless debate at present time. Seems that I have a different view of a person's duty with the draft. I am as American as the next guy, but if I don't agree with something, I am not going to do it. If I don't want to drive drunk, I won't drive drunk. If I don't want to buy kids cigarettes, I won't buy kids cigarettes. I mean, I could. It would be illegal, but the reason I wouldn't do it is because I have morals. I believe the same follows for the draft. I abide by the laws. I do my part as an American citizen. But is it really fair that if you were drafted, you would have to go to war even though you are totally against the reasons for the war in the first place? How does that make the country any better than a dictatorship? My friends seemed to think that if you were drafted, you HAD to go, and it was your duty for living with the freedom we experience. Well, as far as I am concerned, I would rather not die for something I think is immoral and illogical. I would go to war if I was drafted and the cause was just, such as defense of the country from an aggressor. But when we are out to further someone's political career or what not, how many of you would be willing to drop everything at the whim of the government and run off to your deaths? I don't fear death, or not conciously at least. I would be willing to die for a just cause. But, say, hypothetically speaking, if the draft was reinstated with Iraq, would you go? I sure as hell wouldn't. I could stand being called a draft dodger and a coward. I could live with that. And I could tolerate it because I would know that I avoided something that was totally against my morals. I would like to see some other peoples' views on the subject. I know it really doesn't mean anything as the draft is unconstitutional at this point, but I just found it astounding that my friends would be so careless as to possibly throw away their lives, no matter what the cause for war or even without justification, for something they don't even necessarily agree with in the first place. I, as before, must again say I am a bit ignorant when it comes to politics, having just completed my senior year of high school, but I just feel strongly that someone should not have to do something they feel is not right and would enjoy seeing some more discussion on the topic (hypothetically if the draft was reinstated...what would you do? etc...You get the idea).
-----
Andy Maddox
AIM: SurfAndSkimTx04
MSN: Poloboy32486@hotmail.com
Yahoo:surfandskimtx04
Houston Herp Key
The Reptizone

If you steal in hunger, I will kick you when you try. These stand for me. Name your god and bleed the freak. I'd like to see. How you all would bleed for me.-Alice In Chains

Ok.....I come from the group that has been there-done that. When I was drafted (lottery) I enlisted in the Navy (which has never had a draft).

I'm not going to bury you in a bunch of Patriotic crap. But I will tell you that the military gave me things the civilian world couldn't.

Boot camp was Hell. It was not the soft Boot Camp of today. They threw everything they could at us. The benifit? Learning that nothing they could throw at us could beat us. A lesson that has got me through a lot of hard times in the real World.

Then they dumped me for two years in a country that was a Dictatorship. I saw first hand (in a benevelant dictatorship: Spain) What a tourist could not see. I lived close to those people and when I was not onboard ship, I lived subject to their laws. It taught me the value of those freedoms that today I hear everybody spouting off about and hiding behind when it is convieniant.

The biggest lesson I learned was that Everything has a PRICE. My father fought in WW2 where our survival was at stake. A strong military is necessary to keep those Freedoms we brag about safe from those countries that would conquer us if we didn't. Plain and simple. When I was overseas, I heard time and again how weak we were (from the people of the countries I served in) and how they admired strong countries like the Soviet Union (an interesting Eye opener).

Military service is a responsibility that goes beyound the immediate war (which I have repeadedly stated my opposition too).

Being there also taught me that being a War Hawk has it's price in blood. I lost friends. A man who has served in war knows the price better than anyone who has sat at home and watched it on TV.

I remember the draft Dodgers of my day and how demoralizing it was to those of us who were there. I remember losing an opportunity (a college scholarship)and arriving home three years behind those draft dodgers who stayed home and built their careers because we served for them.

I can tell you first hand how demoralizing it was to hear about draft dodgers at home when we were there.

So to answer your question. You think you are being moral to stand up for your beliefs even if it means defying the law. That you are comfortable with the label Coward is pathetic. I don't agree with what my country does all the time. But I do know that if our country was dependant on people like you, we would not enjoy what we do have now.

One other benifit of the draft is that it sends an equal representation of our country (except the rich punks that buy their way out). Our brightest and best ( note that I am reffering to of all races and genders)allways serve first. By having a cross section, more of those best come back alive.

Am I for the Draft? Yes...if the situation calls for it. I think at the very least a mandatory Boot Camp would be a great Idea. If only to teach some of the valuable lessons I learned.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

The United States has waged a war against a country that clearly
was NEVER a match for its military might and technology. The motive is very simple:Strategic power and Corporate Greed. The unfortunate soldiers that volunteered in these military installations, either because of patriotism or because of economic necessity are caught up in a war that is clearly going to be long sustained and with no obvious victory. The citzens of IRAQ by consensus, do not want us there, yet Rumsfeld has said the other day that our troops will maintain an even HEAVIER presence..AFTER we turn the country over to the incoming (sic) IRAQ(Pseudo Iraq U.S. puppet) government. Which will probably be openly rejected by the Shiites and the Sunnis.

So we continue throwing more men at the problem. But now we resort not to those that would willingly go,but to anyone of age using the rationale that patriotism is the reason that young men must serve to protect our country.

Invading...occupying....and controlling another country..controlling the use of its resources...and sending U.S. corporations there. All in the name of protecting our country.

But it doesnt protect the U.S.. Terrorism continues and escalates. A new crop of young, completely dissillusioned Iraq faces, and Saudi faces, and Jordanian faces seeks revenge for what has happened.

The draft? Thrwoing bad men after good is no solution to a bigger problem. The troops that are there shouild be brought home NOW. Corporate greed has not even been addressesd in this country, much less the ever expanding and spread thin use of our military WORLD WIDE. Under the guise of Democracy, in reality a control for world tion.

Screw the draft, they need to be thinking about a viable EXIT STRATEGY in the short term. Before more expendable , patriotic and hard working U.S. military forces die...or are d(As our forces have done to Iraq citzens). Adding more numbers to this isnt going to stop terrorism at home. But maybe thats not what the current administration really wants anyway. Bin Laden...alive and well. Yeah..its a war on terrorism, and a war on control of resources and strategic positions.

Cheers

Fred Albury

because of the political reprocusions.

But the very idea...for the purpose of continuing to occupy a country we've INVADED...a country who has NOT attacked us...except to defend itself against an undefeatable advisary. A country by the way, that is in WORSE condition than it was BEFORE we occupied it is not only ridiculous, but it is also POLITICAL BRUTALLITY.

A DRAFT does not meet the needs of a CIVILIZED, FREE nation...it cannot make AMERICA a better place...and we have already proven that it is not within our ability to "make Iraq a better place." Possibly because it is NOT our place.

my 2, Chris
-----
www.chrisolsonreptiles.com

Don't you remember something called the Gulf War? Iraq invaded Quait. After a coalition of nations forced them out of Quait and back into Iraq, they signed a peace treaty. This peace treaty called for a number of thing.

1)-no programs to develop WMDs, possession or WMDs, or long range missiles that could deliver WMDs into other nations.----this was VIOLATED

2)-stop killing their own people----VIOLATED

3)-comply with a no-fly zone, and let us (and the UN) fly over parts of Iraq----VIOLATED

Number 3 was violated on a daily basis for about 10 years. They continually shot at planes, that they previously agreed could fly over Iraq unmolested.

So, to say they did not attack us, is not at all accurate. They attacked us almost daily for 10 years, which violated the peace treaty they signed and it was multiple attacks on our military, period. They literally attacked us, not once, but thousands of times, and all in violation of the peace treaty they sighed after they, unprovoked, invaded Iraq.

(I think we have been wanting to go after them for years, because of their continual shooting of ground to air missiles at our planes.--and this was probably the main reason we decided to go after them. After all, Clinton got a bill passed through congress in 1998 to try and change the regime in Iraq.--A little point that those against this war often ignore.)

Rodney

np
-----
www.chrisolsonreptiles.com

np
-----
0.1 "Tremper" looking Albino Leopard gecko (Lex)
0.0.1 tiger crested gecko (peachs)
1.1 Feral cats that we adopted (Fuzzy, and Bear)

My image Gallery

People like me...as in people that stand up for their morals? Why should I fight for something that has absolutely nothing with furthering our freedom. I mean, I understand what you say. I would definitely fight for a just cause. After 9/11 I was quite ignorant and only heard what others said. I had such an itching and burning resulting from the anticipation of turning 18 a few years later as then I could go kill those "dirty towel heads." And now I know better.. And I realize that "just cause" is different for each person, but I can safely say that most people on here probably do not see the invasion of Iraq as having justification. I would happy to serve my country and die in protection and defense. Wild goose chases? Hell no.
-----
Andy Maddox
AIM: SurfAndSkimTx04
MSN: Poloboy32486@hotmail.com
Yahoo:surfandskimtx04
Houston Herp Key
The Reptizone

If you steal in hunger, I will kick you when you try. These stand for me. Name your god and bleed the freak. I'd like to see. How you all would bleed for me.-Alice In Chains

np
-----
0.1 "Tremper" looking Albino Leopard gecko (Lex)
0.0.1 tiger crested gecko (peachs)
1.1 Feral cats that we adopted (Fuzzy, and Bear)

My image Gallery

Rodney clearly describes the other side of the "coin" of democracy. While we are a "free society" The principle is that we elect our leaders to represent us. There is an element of trust that they do it correctly and in our best interests.

But we do elect these people to make the laws that govern us and in that there is a covenant. We agree to abide by those laws. If we disapprove then we take steps to change that law.

It is a flawed system no doubt. But acountry cannot exist without a governing body and this is the best system so far. It will only continue if we defend it.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

s
-----
0.1 "Tremper" looking Albino Leopard gecko (Lex)
0.0.1 tiger crested gecko (peachs)
1.1 Feral cats that we adopted (Fuzzy, and Bear)

My image Gallery

` The fact that some people are willing to follow orders, and that some are willing to be forced to do so, is why wars are possible.
` It is very rare, especially in the present, that the class of people who are responsible for doing the fighting gain anything from that fighting.
` There are many examples, but Vietnam and Korea are the most recent that are clear. What good did they do either side? Unless you are that grateful for being able to buy a Hyundai, what noble ideals were preserved?
` As long as our people, and any people, can be manipulated into things like believing that Iraq was responsible for the World Trade Center attack, we're doomed to continue fighting wars for those who profit from them.
` In 1968, I was drafted while in college, with a high grade point average. I considered my options, all of them. My father was a World War 2 Veteran of the South Pacific, and it would have broken his heart had I evaded service. I checked on the National Guard, and enlisted reserves, and an honest enlistment officer simply asked me, " Who do you know?" When I told him that I was neither connected, nor affluent, he advised me to forget it. So, I went in, and I learned the lesson of my life about the stupidity, corruption, and waste that is military service. ALL of basic training was about killing the "gooks". By the time basic was finished, the majority of my company absolutely hated "gooks". Fortunately, even at 19, it disgusted me to the point that I refused to comply, and I paid heavily for not conforming.
` As long as people, US or the people of the Middle East or anywhere, are willing to follow, willing to believe the dogma they're fed, willing to accept the bribery they receive to follow the wishes of those with power and influence, willing to feel "patriotic" about war, it will continue to be a world where people of wealth and privilege get to that position by standing on the backs of the poor.
` Those in power always have, and always will be happy to sacrifice a few thousand, or tens of thousands of us, to get what they want.
` I used to hope that my generation would be the one to yank the rug out from under those who feed until gut-full, then hoard what they can't swallow at the time. Protecting their avaricious life style at the expense of those less fortunate.
` Sadly we sold out for Rolexes, BMWs, polyester and all the other phony symbols of wealth that they make us believe are so valuable.
` It still may not be too late. I'm old and gray now, but I'd still be up for some of what Thomas Jefferson recommended as the cure for governmental corruption.
-----

dfr You say you refused to comply. By that I am wondering were you a Conciensious objecter, did you desert or just refuse your orders?

While you make some valid points about the "money wars" of our generation...I don't think Jeffersonian Isolationism is the answer. Not when a two bit country in some obscure corner of the world could be crazy enough to start something Atomic.

In fact Jefferson's slashing of the Army and Navy's budjet weakened those services and made us vulnerable to the British invasion in the war of 1812.

Ironically...Jefferson's one big military expenditure was against Moslems! That was the war against the Barbary Pirates.

Personally I am reminded of a line from a story I read many years ago..."And China...with nothing to lose but people, laid it's demands before the world". I would change the line to North Korea. Today we don't even have to be involved. Radiation kills equally.

Nice as it sounds we just can't afford to bury our heads in the sand. For the record...it didn't save the ostrich either. We must keep a military for national defense.

The sad truth (you are so right)is that the cowards that sat at home profit off the soldier's sacrifice.

This country only loves their veterans when they feel they are in danger.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

` In "refusing to comply", I refused to swallow the Army's line of " whoever we ( the Army re: the government ) decide is the enemy of my country is my enemy."
` While that may be true at times, nobody is going to decide who is my enemy but me. Of course, once you're in combat it gets personal. Anyone trying to kill you is an "enemy".
` I served my time, and got discharged honorably, with scars to show for it.
` By the way, the Navy did benefit from the draft. In 1969, I watched an Army captain walk down a line of draftees who had just passed the physical, and count off, army, army, army, marine. That was at AFEES, Los Angeles.
` I'm no hypocrite about that. I tried to get into the National Guard. Had I made it, I would have been happier than I turned out to be.
` The sad truth is that most of the "cowards" who sat home managed it through being connected, in one way or the other. Two of them are in charge, right now!

`

` As far as Jefferson is concerned: My reference to him was to his writing. These three, in particular.
`
` " If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
`
` "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws our country."
`
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

-----

Actually the Navy did not benifit. The Marines were part of the draft. The Navy never was....And any sailor can tell you "Marine's aint Navy (lol)"

As to Jefferson....I couldn't resist the irony.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

but it doesn't..
-----
www.chrisolsonreptiles.com

First of all, our leaders are elected.

They are elected to make decisions for the entire nation.

That is how we are different from dictatorships. They are not elected, they use force to take leadership. (Usually from those that are more civilized and realize using such force to take leadership is wrong.)--Thus, many dictatorships end up being "the most brutal" rule. Also, they are almost always "the minority" rules.

As for the morality of it, I think you have it all wrong. As a citizen of the U.S., you are obliged to obey what those who where elected ask of you. What good is it not to obey laws you don't agree with? We might as well do away with all laws then, as no one is morally obligated to obey them. What good is democracy, if you don't believe in majority rules, when no ones has to do what "higher-ups" say?

Basically, your position is nothing more than endorsing anarchy. No one has to do anything they don't believe in, even if those they have elected to represent them (and those that have all the best information) want it done. Again, what good is democracy then?

Your argument is basically, I don't believe in democracy or a representative govt., and that is a moral choice I make, by not doing what those elected decide? I live in the US, and enjoy all it's benefits, but I won't support the US, or democracy, if I disagree with what duly elected officials decide? How is that moral? I know better, what needs to be done, on every issue, than the elected officials do, so I don't need to comply with their decisions, unless I happen to agree with them? I don't find that moral at all.

I have been fortunate, and never had to serve. (I did have to register for the draft at 18 years of age, but was never chosen.) But I would willingly go to war, regardless of whether I personally agreed with that particular war or not, because of my support for democracy and to honor the decisions made by our elected leaders. That should be the deciding factor in any citizens decision, not their personal belief about a particular conflict. If you decide you don't want to go to war for moral reasons, then you are saying you don't believe in democracy. If this is your position, then you are exactly
like those dictatorships, since they don't care about democracy, or a representative government, either. And this decision of yours, is making the US appear more like a dictatorship, than it would be if you took an opposing view that supported democracy.

So, in a way, you are right when you ask, "How are we different from dictatorships?" We aren't if we take the view you are proposing.

It would be far more moral, to go to war and to try and elect someone else in the future, than it would be to try and dodge the draft and not support democracy and the decisions that our elected leaders have made.

Rodney

The part about "elected officials" brings me to another point. I just turned 18. I did not elect anyone. The first election that has come up since I have been 18 is a school board election, which has little effect on Iraq, I suppose. Should I have to throw away my life for someone that I did not even elect? I know what I say sounds like pandemonium. And I posted in a follow up that "just cause" is just an opinion. And if everyone had their own opinion about what just cause could or couldn't be, there would be no one to fight wars, no one to carry out laws, etc. I am definitely still green. I have not entered the real world yet. Maybe I will change my views and see the other side when I get there. I have grown up in this little sugar-coated bubble called Memorial where none of the kids really have problems other than finding someone to drive them home if they are drunk. So who knows??? I know my ideas are "rebellious" and sound like "anarchy," but...I am a teenager still so what can I say? They sound good in theory to me, but yes, I concede that on a large scale what I am saying would basically ruin the country and toss it into chaos.
-----
Andy Maddox
AIM: SurfAndSkimTx04
MSN: Poloboy32486@hotmail.com
Yahoo:surfandskimtx04
Houston Herp Key
The Reptizone

If you steal in hunger, I will kick you when you try. These stand for me. Name your god and bleed the freak. I'd like to see. How you all would bleed for me.-Alice In Chains

That was one of our arguements when we were drafted for the Nam war. Old enough to die...but too young to vote.

Then after getting a good look at the world from other countries and perspectives, I grew to understand that to obtain that vote was not just my birthright. It was also my obligation to protect it.

I opposed the Vietnam war when I was able to get away from my war hawk friends and get a more accurate view of what was going on(irronically) by getting into the military. How ever, seeing the importance of home support for my comrades made draft dodging unthinkable.

We serve a government that is often wrong, but without the government we would not have the freedoms we have.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

First of all, I wouldn't call defending your country, or serving your country, throwing your life away. Second, less than one percent of those sent to Iraq have died. And less than 1/2 of one percent have died due to combat. So even if you were to be drafted (very unlikely), and sent to Iraq, your chance of coming back is very likely! And, I understand, you can ask for non-combat positions if you object to the war.--like working with supplies, clerical work, etc.

Want to know about throwing your life away? (Here's a can of worms that I am sure I will be blasted for! ) Look to all the criminals, homeless (the ones that are there because of drug problems, lazy, etc.), welfare dependents (non handicapped), etc. (I am only talking about able bodied individuals that are just too lazy, or drug dependent, to work.)

As for voting, you now are old enough to vote! Just because you didn't vote in the last election, doesn't mean that changes anything. Look at it this way, "all your elders made the decision of who to elect in the last election". That doesn't change anything at all. Do you really think that adding the votes of those that are also in your shoes (those that are now old enough to vote, but weren't old enough in the last election) would change the result of the vote? (It might have, considering the vote was so close last time, but normally, it would have very little influence.) If the general population voted about 50/50, wouldn't your age group probably vote at close to the same ratio? And wouldn't your age groups (18-20) much smaller numbers, when added to the much larger group (20 year old voters and on up) make that influence on the outcome very small?

(not to mention that younger people tend to support Bush)
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/US/youth_voters_poll_040315.html

There is even a good argument to raise the voting age. Some have argued that it sould be raised to 30, because the youth aren't as informed as the elders are, so they shouldn't be involved in decision making yet.

Your argument that just because the courts have decided that you weren't old enough to vote last time, but are old enough now, to both vote and go to war now, doesn't really wash. This argument is more a function of the length of the term of the presedency and the legal definition of an adult. For instance, if we elected presidents for a 20 year term, and you are considered a legal adult at 18, you could be sent to war by a president that was elected before you were even born! Does this change the fact that you are supporting your country, and democracy, by serving?--Nope!

Rodney

have elected them to do...
-----
www.chrisolsonreptiles.com

>>

-----

And we didn't shoot back! That'd be a sad outcome, wouldn't it.

I've said this before, but I will say it again, "Put one Al Qaeda member (or terrorist), with a weapon, in a room full of anti-war pacifists, and only one person walks out alive. (Unless he has a suicide bomb, then no one walks out!) Now, put that same terrorist in a room full of marines, all with weapons, and see what the outcome is!--much much better in my opinion"

And if they gave a war and no one came, that would be called peace.--It happens all the time! I wouldn't call it an "if". You make it sound like this never happens.

Rodney

That sounds like what the US soldiers do when being fired upon, run for cover. no shooting back no protecting themselves.
-----
0.1 "Tremper" looking Albino Leopard gecko (Lex)
0.0.1 tiger crested gecko (peachs)
1.1 Feral cats that we adopted (Fuzzy, and Bear)

My image Gallery

` It a satirical statement. The point is that the people profiting from most wars are not the people dying. The public tends to play follow the leader and die for someone else's profit.
`
` The last western head of state to lead his troops into battle was Napoleon. He may have been nuts, but he was willing to fight, and die if necessary, alongside his troops.

` Can you imagine Johnson, or Bush ( either one ), leading the charge, amid bullets flying. Kerry did it when he was a kid. I'd bet he has too much to lose, to do it now.
`
` As long as they're willing to go, those in power will keep on using them up. What a shame.
-----

It a satirical statement. The point is that the people profiting from most wars are not the people dying.

We all profit, from being protected by the brave soldiers that are sent to fight for us. We profit by not being in harms way, and by living free. Even those that oppose any war will profit just as much as those who support that war, or those who actually fight it and return alive. The only ones who don't profit, are those that die. Fortunatly, that is a very small number in this case.

Can you imagine Johnson, or Bush ( either one ), leading the charge, amid bullets flying. Kerry did it when he was a kid. I'd bet he has too much to lose, to do it now.

Yes, I could imagine Bush doing that. After all, he has taken many unnecessary risks that the secret service didn't like at all, to support troop moral. Like landing on an aircraft carrier (the most dangerous plane landing there is, except for doing it at night), or going to Baghdad, a war zone, to have Thanksgiving dinner with the troops. He didn't need to take these risks. Kerry, however, got out of combat as soon as possible! As soon as he got his 3 purple hearts, he was out of there on a technicality to come home and protest his comrades with Jane Fonda!

Rodney

>>Yes, I could imagine Bush doing that. After all, he has taken many unnecessary risks that the secret service didn't like at all, to support troop moral. Like landing on an aircraft carrier (the most dangerous plane landing there is, except for doing it at night), or going to Baghdad, a war zone, to have Thanksgiving dinner with the troops. He didn't need to take these risks. Kerry, however, got out of combat as soon as possible! As soon as he got his 3 purple hearts, he was out of there on a technicality

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! RODNEY STOP YOUR KILLING ME!! PLEASE STOP!!

Man o man o Dubya got you seeing thangs..lol

To boost troop moral? lol He landed on the air craft carrier for a photo op.

He snook into Baghdad, again, for a photo Op. Its good PR, and you cant deny that. Well maybe you could Rodney..lol

Did you even read the last few lines of your paragraph Rodney?

>>Kerry, however, got out of combat as soon as possible! As soon as he got his 3 purple hearts,

lol Man thats the winner there..lol I am by no means a fan of Kerry, but you do every soldier who dawned that uniform a injustice, to compare Bush popping up for photo op's to Kerry's ACTUALLY GOING TO WAR!

lol Bush leading the Charge..lol

Yea in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION of combat..lol

Ahh the Draft

Its like this. Comparing a draft that would take place soon, to the draft in Vietnam has many flaws.

One of the most important being, the abundance of information sharing that we have come to enjoy.

While Frank is right about first hand experience, In todays world I can turn on my Tv, or better yet go online, and find all types of subjects, taken form all types of views. Something Frank, and his generation could not do so as easily, if so at all.

By that I mean, It was easier to hide the truth from people then, But not so today. One can take their time ,and research, and play the grand ol "connect the dot" game. And really take notice whats going on in the world. OUR PERSPECTIVE IS 10X, and even the average citizen, can broaden their base of knowledge with the net.

We can see the Best, and worst of human nature. We can see up close, and in vivid detail, the atrocities of war...

I would fight, and I would DIE, to protect my family, and loved ones. I would fight and die, along side any of you, to protect your family, and loved ones, BUT I WILL NOT FIGHT, AND I WILL NOT DIE, FOR SOME COWBOYS PERSONAL GAIN!!

I've done my homework, and I have "connected enough dots" to understand, that "certain people" are benefiting of this, and it ain't me, or my family. And it would do my family no good, for me to go over their and get killed or, hurt.

Who ever said Bush would not reinstate the draft, was right. They need a Democrat to push that big of a change, I.E. "Operation Kerry".

Abraham Lincoln initiated the largest draft in US History (up to the 1860's) for the Civil War. He was of course, a Republican. Both parties have initiated drafts.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

` Of course, during the Civil War, you could pay a commutation fee, per battle. You could also hire someone to take your place in the draft, entirely.
` That seems a bit more honest than the Selective Service of the last century. Still favors those with bucks.
` Remember the Golden Rule: Those who have the gold, make the rules.
` It ain't no joke.
-----

BUT I WILL NOT FIGHT, AND I WILL NOT DIE, FOR SOME COWBOYS PERSONAL GAIN!!

Don't remember 9/11, the gulf war, terrorism attacks all over the world?--terrorism is the reason, not personal gain.

And who is making all this personal gain that the Bush bashing liberals keep talking about? I have asked this dozens of times, and no one has been able to answer this question yet. Seems like just some more unsubstantiated allegations. Chaney broke all ties to Halliburton long ago (holds no stock what-so-ever), and wealthy democrats as well as republicans are just as likely to own stock in various companies.

I've looked into it too, and companies like Halliburton had a huge loss last year. Not to mention their profit ratio, on government contracts, is governed by congress to be a small percentage of their expenses, and no more. (And this is called profiteering?) Based on their record, I wouldn't buy stock in Halliburton if it was the last investment on Earth!

If you can tell me who is making all this "claimed" profit liberals keep talking about, please let me know, so I can check out their charts and decide if it is worth investing in them or not. Maybe if I can make a few extra buck this way, I can buy some more Ball Python morphs!

Rodney

` Haliburton is a corporation. As such, they can end a year with losses only, but the top dogs still get their bucks.
-----