Reptile & Amphibian Forums

OK, we all know that some democrats tried to get the draft reinstated, even though the military didn't want one. We also know that the vote was overwhelmingly against a draft (402 against, and 2 democrats for) Even some of the democrats that authored this bill ended up voting against it. ---This was apparently all a scare tactic to try and hurt Bush.

But has anyone here thought about this. The military is overwhelmingly pro-Bush. (about 73-75% are voting for him in polls) In fact, almost everyone volunteering for service today is also pro-Bush, and the military currently has plenty of personnel. They are reenlisting at an alarmingly high rate. Plus, a much higher percentage of democrats are antiwar, anti Iraq war, etc. If Kerry is elected, how many people will continue to volunteer? How many people currently in the military today will decide to not reenlist under his command, considering the disdain they have for him? Kerry has said that he supports this war, and he even wants to send in more people to Iraq, which will add to this dilemma. (Personally, I think this will just result in more casualties, because there will be more targets for the terrorists to aim for.) If Kerry is elected, will this shortage of personnel cause the need for a draft, even though one isn't needed today? I suspect so.

Another point to consider is the fact that Bush and Chaney have said they can get more people just by increasing incentives. Bush has increased military pay, etc., and Kerry always seems to vote for military cuts. This is yet another burden which will make getting volunteers harder.

So logically, if you don't want a draft, voting for Bush would be a much better choice than Kerry would! Makes a lot of sense, think about it!

Rodney

I really think you have outdone yourself here. I mentioned Politics below but maybe law is your gig! You certainly get creative!

An interesting factual observation:

I keep hearing how the military needs more men. Yet my two nephews who are Navy both wanted to re-enlist (One is a Medic, the other a decorated Iraq combat veteran. Yet both (who are Petty officers) were refused and are being discharged early.

If we have a shortage of troops...Why?

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

The bill was some sort of protest I believe, I cant remember exactly. It never should have even come to a vote except the republicans rushed it to the floor. Its not actually a surprise everyone voted against it. Where are you getting your info from. If we have SO MANY people reenlisting and volunteering then why are people having to serve extended lengths of time. We had a guy here in NC who served his time, reported this to his commanding officer and was done. Almost. He never officially signed his papers and was forced back in to service. We have so many extras that this guy was forced to serve again? Thats ridiculous. More soldiers in Iraq will only provide more targets? I agree with you in the numbers department but this is also ridiculous. If we had enough people there maybe we could actually finish what we started; to end all terrorism because its all based in Iraq

EP
-----
Occupants not paying rent:
7 balls
2.1.10 corns(candy cane, creamsicle, ghost, 6 normal, 4 anery )
1 pueblan milk
1 everglades rat
1 cal. king
1 gray band king
1 w. hognose
1 bearded dragon
1 fish
1 mouse
3.3 cats

The bill was some sort of protest I believe, I cant remember exactly.

The bill was written by Charley Wrangle, because he said that poor minorities were over-represented in the military because they were joining for economic reasons. His reasoning was that more minorities were being killed in Iraq than "rich white kids", and he thought this was unfair. The only way to "even" out these "economic/racial" disparities, was to not have a volunteer military, but to enact a draft so the "rich whites" would be killed in the war zones, in proportional numbers, as well as the "poor blacks"----this is racist if you ask me. There are plenty of poor white kids that join the military, as well as rich white kids wanting to serve their country. In fact, we know from vietnam that whites were over-represented as casualties, not under-represented as many democrats try to argue to get some minority votes. How can something that is voluntary be racist, as he believes?

Where are you getting your info from. If we have SO MANY people reenlisting and volunteering then why are people having to serve extended lengths of time

Do a google search on enlistment/reenlistment and you will get your answer, there are plenty of articles on the subject. (I got it from an article by the associated press.) The military has set goals on the numbers they want to enlist/reenlist, and the are consistently breaking their goals. This is believed to be happening for two reasons. Patriotism after the 9/11 attacks has caused a wave of new enlistments, and being proud to be in a military (and a love for Bush) that is doing something good in the world, has caused a wave of reenlistment. The only thing I have seen to the contrary is the stop-loss policy (like your example), but that doesn't account for wave of new enlistments, or the higher than average voluntary reenlistment numbers. (average is about 17% not reenlisting compared to 10% today)

More soldiers in Iraq will only provide more targets? I agree with you in the numbers department but this is also ridiculous. If we had enough people there maybe we could actually finish what we started; to end all terrorism because its all based in Iraq

Not when most of the deaths have come from car bombs, suicide bombs, etc.! If most of the deaths came from regular combat, I would agree with you that increased numbers of troops could help.

All terrorism is based in Iraq? Where did you get that from? These Islamic fundamentalist terrorists have attacked or had attacks thwarted in the Philippines, Indonesia, Russia, France, Spain, many countries in Africa, Israel, and the U.S. and they have been based in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Indonesia, Russia, Pakistan, many countries in Africa, etc.

Rodney

There should have been a smiley face after that Iraq comment. I was making the point that with all of the terror networks in other countries, as you so listed, Bush focuses on Iraq like its the key to ending all terrorism. You just made a good observation. The fight agianst terrorism cant be won in the way we are going about it. You said yourself that more troops will not help. In your opinion how should we continue to fight terror if its not with more military? Sounds like you agree more with Kerry than Bush on this one.

EP
-----
Occupants not paying rent:
7 balls
2.1.10 corns(candy cane, creamsicle, ghost, 6 normal, 4 anery )
1 pueblan milk
1 everglades rat
1 cal. king
1 gray band king
1 w. hognose
1 bearded dragon
1 fish
1 mouse
3.3 cats

Blacks accounted for 22% of the casualties, made up 12% of the army and comprised less than 11% of the population of the United States. LBJ specifically ordered the military to shift their policies because black kids were dying in such HUGELY disproportionate numbers. So do some research before you speak. The army CONSCIOUSLY switched the rotations of primarily black units to help offset these stats, and CONSCIOUSLY pushed blacks into rear-echelon positions, so at this point they are over-represented in todays army in support positions. This has all been very well documented, and I can refer you to a number or articles and books that substantiate it.

As to Chuck Rangle's comments...how is that racist? Telling the truth isn't racist--rich white males get a disproportionate portion of the benefits of American society, and contribute disproportionately less. How many people in congress with children of the appropriate age are serving in the military? One. Just one. How many ENLISTED soldiers are drawn from the ranks of the upper class?
Exactly.

You've got it all backasswards. Its like when people talk about "draft-dodging." Nobody dodged the draft in Vietnam. Its called Selective Services---ie, they CHOOSE. And of course they don't choose the wealthy and the elites, which is why Clinton and Cheney and Bush could so easily avoid real active duty, and why Joe Schmoo (black, white, hispanic or native american) couldn't.

Can agree with some of that but...Draft dodging. People took off for Canada or elsewhere to avoid military service durring the "nam" thing. How many I cannot honestly say but it was happening.

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

As to Chuck Rangle's comments...how is that racist?

To say that a volentary draft is racist because certain races/economic backgrounds may be over-represented, so we need to have a forced draft to "equal things out" is racist in my opinion. Any attempt to change the makeup of a group by artificially making it consistent with the ratios in the general population is racist. When asking for volunteers to do something, how can you analyze the make up of the group after a group has volunteered, and then claim it is a racist process based on the make up of the volunteers? They are volunteers!! No one says, we need 5 whites, 3 blacks, 2 Hispanics, 3 Asians, etc.... to do that is racist because you are basing your selection on a race quota, instead of some other criteria (like ability to do the job or in this case, volunteerism) Not having a race quota, and allowing anyone to volenteer, like the workings of the current volenteer system, is not racist just because you don't like the make up of the volenteer group. What if there had been more whites volenteering? Would that make it a racist process? NO. And to claim that it is racist, so we have to draft people to artificially get a "better" mix is racist because you are choosing people to serve based on their race.

He could just have easily said that Walmart is racist because more minorities work for them. That doesn't make them racist in my opinion, and forcing them to hire more whites and fewer minorities is racist because you are basing a hiring quota on each race in question, just like a forced draft would be.

If a certain economic background is over-represented, so what? Just because a certain race may have more members in the economic background in question doesn't make the process racist.

As for the numbers, I have done some research, as this has been argued on this forum before...

Myth: A disproportionate number of blacks were killed in the Vietnam War.

Vietnam Veterans were the best educated forces our nation had ever sent into combat. 79% had a high school education or better

The same can be said of the war in Iraq, except that casualty rates are much much smaller, and the pilot/infantry officer to grunt ratio is much higher due to the fact that we fight wars more with technology than with overwhelming numbers of men, than we ever have in the past.

Rodney

I think the important point is that Kerry wouldn't get us in useless, and elective wars. Kerry gave Bush the authority to wage war with the understanding that he would exhaust all options. Of course, Bush manipulated the information and public impression much as LBJ did in order to escalate the Viet Nam war. But then he rushed to war, with no plan, ignoring what General Tommy Franks has said was a real shortage of troops. And now we're seeing this poor planning has resulted in high density explosives getting in to the hands of terrorists who rushed into Iraq after we invaded.

If any CEO made as many big mistakes as Bush has, the shareholders would demand his removal. Yet Bush is argueing this is no time for change. BS. When someone shows themselves to be so misinformed, so unrestrained, so unthoughtful, you certainly don't leave him in power to exercise his poor judgement again!

Iran is developing into a severe nuclear threat. If our intelligence determines that we really are under threat, who do you think will believe us? Who do you think will support us? Bush has done severe damage to out national security by alienating allies. The "coallition of the willing" are a very few from generally insignificant countries. Almost any state in the US has more citizens in Iraq than any nation other than the UK.

Bush has wasted our nations treasure and its troops fighting a senseless war in Iraq when we should have spent the money and the National Guard energy securing our own borders, our shipping and subways. We are weaker at home and abroad with this group of nuts in charge.

I want to live in a country that is free and strong. Bush has nmade us much less free and much less strong.

I think the important point is that Kerry wouldn't get us in useless, and elective wars.

Where did you get that idea? Not from Kerry I hope!--as he has said the exact opposite many times.

Just about a month ago he said that if he were president, and knowing what we now know about WMDs in Iraq, he would have gone to war with them!--then a week later, he said it was the wrong war at the wrong time with the wrong country!

He also said, "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

-------------------------
Of course, Bush manipulated the information

What did he manipulate? Every intelligence agency in the world said Saddam had WMDs. Even his opponent, John Kerry, said so!

But then he rushed to war

How did he rush? In my opinion, he took far too long, and Clinton should have done so many years earlier. He went to congress to get approval, he went to the UN and got unanimous approval of resolution 1441,(a last chance to avoid war) and the UN found Iraq in material breach. How many last chances do you have to give someone before it isn't called rushing?

And now we're seeing this poor planning has resulted in high density explosives getting in to the hands of terrorists who rushed into Iraq after we invaded

First of all, we have destroyed over 1000 times more weaponry than what went missing. (400,000 tons vs. 377 tons). If we didn't invade, there could be 1,000 times more of this stuff out there! Second of all, why didn't the UN do something about these dangerous weapons when they found them? How do we know Bush's planning had anything to do with them currently being missing? They could have been found somewhere else and already been destroyed in the 400,000 tons worth, or they could have been removed before we even got there. WMDs may have disappeared in a similar fashion. Who knows? (Iraq had a reputation for playing cat and mouse, moving arms, complying until the heat let off, then violating agreements, etc.)

When someone shows themselves to be so misinformed, so unrestrained, so unthoughtful, you certainly don't leave him in power to exercise his poor judgement again!

While I don't agree with your premise at all, (I see very few mistakes that Bush has made) why you want to remove someone with these fault, to replace him with someone who has far worse faults, is beyond me! Maybe if Kerry had (r) next to his name, and Bush had a (d) you would think differently? I wouldn't. Someone who can't make a decision, someone who changes his position on every issue out there every other week!---except for tax increases, and that would devastate our economy, according to economists, is no leader.

Iran is developing into a severe nuclear threat. If our intelligence determines that we really are under threat, who do you think will believe us? Who do you think will support us?

Does it really matter? The UN has done nothing without the US doing all the lifting anyway. And now with the "food for oil scandal" in the UN, we know that countries like France and Germany put contracts with Iraq above not only doing the right thing, but also above complying with the sanctions on Iraq that they voted for!

Rodney

Rodney - you poor fool.
Your either the Most Gullible Man in the World, or just deliberately disingenuous. Either way, your very tedious. You seem to argue like the right wing zealots on talk radio do - with endless strings of unrelated assertions regurgitated from right wing talking points. You don't really seem stupid - maybe your just insane?

yawn....

I don't drink Cool-Aid, I think for myself, why don't you try it sometime?

Rodney