Retreat Isn't an Option By Liz Cheney

[MachZer0]

Unless the men in charge decide that this is a real war, and enact a draft that will sign up their own children, as well other people's children,whom they are now sending for third and fourth tours.

That's a hypothetical that doesn't mean much for this conversation, but a draft could become a reality if the Democrats have their way

 

[ElvisFan42]

Are you familiar with current qualifications to enlist?

That would be reenlist, wouldn't it?

 

[MachZer0]

That would be reenlist, wouldn't it?

No it wouldn't. Not everyone is eligible to enlist

 

[ElvisFan42]

No it wouldn't. Not everyone is eligible to enlist

Yes, but we are talking about someone who was once enlisted already, so reenlistment options would be the term.

 

[christalee4]

That's a hypothetical that doesn't mean much for this conversation, but a draft could become a reality if the Democrats have their way

Are you referring the the Congressman Charles Rangel bill that asks for a draft bill that will draft both men and women, up to age 30 or something like that?

That bill was put forth to call attention to the fact that 1) our military is being spent and depleted wholesale, by abusive overuse in this Iraq War, and 2) that war participation by the Republicans is promoted without any kind of real sacrifice, mostly including those in the wealthy sector.

In my opinion, the first to be drafted should be the college Republican young men and women, who, if they really stood true to their views, would step up like the committed brave people they support in sending in harm's way. Unlike Vice President Cheney, who had opted for "more important priorities", during wartime deferments.:
http://www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks/chickenhawk_headquarters/

 

[Nathan Poe]

That's a hypothetical that doesn't mean much for this conversation, but a draft could become a reality if the Democrats have their way

Assuming this is true, wouldn't it mean that the Democrats are the only ones treating this war as a war, and not an excuse for political rhetoric and government pork?

 

[MachZer0]

Yes, but we are talking about someone who was once enlisted already, so reenlistment options would be the term.

Who would that someone be?

 

[MachZer0]

Assuming this is true, wouldn't it mean that the Democrats are the only ones treating this war as a war, and not an excuse for political rhetoric and government pork?

No, but it might mean that Democrats are playing political games with the draft

 

[Blackguard_]

Who would that someone be?

You. You said you served already didn't you?

(You're too old to re-enlist, aren't you? 35 is the cut-off IIRC)

No, but it might mean that Democrats are playing political games with the draft

yep. That, or they are madmen for supporting a draft for a war they oppose.

 

[ElvisFan42]

Who would that someone be?

It's in the thread, go back and read it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No, but it might mean that Democrats are playing political games with the draft

How so? If the war is as important as Bush claims it is, then why shouldn't America make the fullest possible committment?

Why is it than only a Democrat is willing to make the decisions that Bush is afriad to?

 

[MachZer0]

You. You said you served already didn't you?

I served, but I never said I enlisted

(You're too old to re-enlist, aren't you? 35 is the cut-off IIRC)

Then that should settle the discussion as to why I am not there now

yep. That, or they are madmen for supporting a draft for a war they oppose.

Agreed

 

[MachZer0]

It's in the thread, go back and read it.

If it's there, show me. You won't show me because you can't. Guaranteed.

 

[JustOneWay]

I've done my duty.

What duty have you done? Will you explain?

 

[MachZer0]

How so?

Maybe this post will clarify it for you

That bill was put forth to call attention to the fact that 1) our military is being spent and depleted wholesale, by abusive overuse in this Iraq War, and 2) that war participation by the Republicans is promoted without any kind of real sacrifice, mostly including those in the wealthy sector.

In other words, Rangel proposed a draft bill not wanting it to pass, but just to make a point. that's playing politics

If the war is as important as Bush claims it is, then why shouldn't America make the fullest possible committment?

Should we make the fullest possible committment or should we make whatever committment is necessary. The fullest possible committment would mean that every 18-30 year old would do a stint in the military. That is a massive logistical concern. Would you really propose that?

Why is it than only a Democrat is willing to make the decisions that Bush is afriad to?

Proposing a draft bill that he doesn't want to pass is not my idea of making a decision that Bush is afraid to make.

 

[ElvisFan42]

If it's there, show me. You won't show me because you can't. Guaranteed.

Nice try, but it's already in the thread, if you don't care to read through it, I can't help you.

 

[MachZer0]

Nice try, but it's already in the thread, if you don't care to read through it, I can't help you.

You proved my point. By the way, you can't read what isn't there.

 

[ElvisFan42]

You proved my point. By the way, you can't read what isn't there.

I see it, I'm sorry you don't.

 

[MachZer0]

I see it, I'm sorry you don't.

I said you wouldn't point it out, guaranteed. You did not, proving my point. Unfortunately, many of my left leaning friends make arguments based on what they assumed was said rather than on what was actually said. This would appear to me another incidence of such.

 

[Jacey]

Back to the draft, I've stated on here several times that I support it whole heartedly. Those who want us to go to war should also IMO.