US draft bill to be introduced to congress

[Touchstone]

I really don't see this passing, considering with Democrats holding the house. Honestly, the public would freak if the draft was reinstated. I probably wouldn't get drafted, my epilepsy-disorder pretty much saves me. I would go if forced, but I'm not going to support this way in any shape.

you are aware it is a democrat trying for this right?

 

[Touchstone]

I'm all for defending the country if there is an immediate threat. If this had been World War II I would be right there on that beach. However this is not that war and nor are they the same circumstances. I don't want to be shipped off to a war I don't believe in to die for people who really don't give a damn. Helping the Iraqi people gain a stable nation is a very noble cause but they way it's been handled from all sides has made it a extremely bleak.
Sometimes I wonder why all the politicians are pro-life when they just want to send us off to die anyway.

this isnt an immediate threat. if we werent over there theyd be over here. who'd you be crien to then? perhaps u forget islamofascists want you dead?

 

[Elpon]

this isnt an immediate threat. if we werent over there theyd be over here. who'd you be crien to then? perhaps u forget islamofascists want you dead?

Well no shit of course they'd be over here. I wouldn't be crying jackass I WOULD be FIGHTING. That is the immediate threat I was talking about and I don't need you telling me the situation. Islamofascists want me dead? Really? Here I thought 9/11 was just a big misunderstanding. Thank you so much for clarifying.
Any one in the armed forces is a better person than me. I have friends already over in Iraq, kids my age, and more friends that are going right into the armed forces after they graduate high school. You know how much respect I have for them doing what I cannot? No obviously not.
Like I said, I don't like being forced into anything. If I'm going to serve my country it's going to be of my own free will for the cause I see as just. It might not be as clearcut as the Nazis but I'll see the threat for what it truly is and act.

 

[Halifirien]

this isnt an immediate threat. if we werent over there theyd be over here. who'd you be crien to then? perhaps u forget islamofascists want you dead?

They're free to want me dead all they want. It falls apart at their inability to act on their desires. Those deluded thugs don't have the means of destroying our country.

 

[Reauland]

They're free to want me dead all they want. It falls apart at their inability to act on their desires. Those deluded thugs don't have the means of destroying our country.

Honestly? That's one of the things that concerns me most. While they don't appear to have the means at present, does that mean that we should sit back and wait til they do?

It's such a razor's edge that we're walking in world affairs right now. If we're truly proactive, we're the evil aggressors. If we sit back and send nasty notes to them like the U.N. seems to favor, we're the complacent fools who thought no one would ever again attack us on our own soil.

And frankly, it will take a lot of convincing on someone's part to dissuade me from the notion that we're in Afghanistan and Iraq for any other reason than to have forces ready to commit to action against Iran.

 

[Halifirien]

Honestly? That's one of the things that concerns me most. While they don't appear to have the means at present, does that mean that we should sit back and wait til they do?

Pretty much.

 

[Reauland]

Pretty much.

And actually, I'd agree with you. But if that's always the answer, why so much uproar over the possibility that F.D.R. had some advance warning of the attack on Pearl Harbor?

I mean, let's face it. In the climate of the world today, had he acted preemptively and attacked the Japanese fleet, there would be a hundred naysayers to claim that the Japanese were only conducting war games and that the U.S. had acted as an aggressor. Since he didn't in fact do that, he's now blamed by some as having been negligent in his duties to the men and women who died there.

The real questions become:

1) How much proof is sufficient?
2) At what point does military action become justifiable?

So let's say that a nuclear arms program isn't sufficient. Let's further say that attaching said nuclear arms to missiles only becomes sufficient when they are capable of reaching our soil.

If that's the proof some would have us wait for, our first warning is very likely to be our last.

 

[Arctyrael]

Democrats won't pass this, they want to gain seats in Congress and the Presidency - not lose them.

 

[Halifirien]

So let's say that a nuclear arms program isn't sufficient. Let's further say that attaching said nuclear arms to missiles only becomes sufficient when they are capable of reaching our soil.

If that's the proof some would have us wait for, our first warning is very likely to be our last.

I don't buy that for a minute. There's a reason we have nice little phrases like "nuclear deterrence" and "mutually assured destruction." Even if a country like Iran built a nuke and had the capability of getting it to us, you make it clear to them that using it on us or our allies will result in their entire nation being wiped off the map.

 

[Reauland]

It's not Iran itself I'm worried about, to tell you the truth. What concerns me is that I don't see them having any real qualms about handing off whatever they produce to someone who truly doesn't care what the consequences of their actions are.

That's the very heart of the matter to me - nuclear weapon tech ending up in the hands of the real fanatics, mind you, fanatics that allow their sponsors to maintain another of those quaint 20th Century phrases - "plausible deniability."

 

[Halifirien]

Again, make it clear that their nukes -- no matter who delivers them -- will result in destruction. It's a sobering thought.

Like I said before, this whole draft thing is just more of an image thing. It's not a real attempt. We don't require that kind of action for the current "war."

 

[CmdrFly]

I also think its funny when ppl say they will bail out of american and go to canada. But what if America loses? whats going to stop the enemy from going into Canada? politics?

Hey now, we have more fighter jets than I can count on one hand. That'll stop 'em.

That, and no one attacks canada. We're just too awsome.

Aren't we on the top of Osama's hit list right now?

 

[Reauland]

Again, make it clear that their nukes -- no matter who delivers them -- will result in destruction. It's a sobering thought.

Like I said before, this whole draft thing is just more of an image thing. It's not a real attempt. We don't require that kind of action for the current "war."

That's where the problem arises, though. What evidence would remain of a nuclear device's origin after it had already been detonated? It's one thing to backtrack an inbound missile; it's quite another thing if it's delivered downtown by a panel truck, or from some boat off the coast. Who gets nuked if no one but some nutbag terrorist organization is claiming responsibility?

As far as the draft thing goes, I quite agree. It's much political ado about nothing.

 

[Fonzy]

Again, make it clear that their nukes -- no matter who delivers them -- will result in destruction. It's a sobering thought.

well, we aren't dealing with a country so much as an ideal of extremist islomasofascist ideology. Basically, they have proven through tactics on many many occasions that they don't care about threats or their own destruction. These people are not reasonable, like say the soviet threat or /shudder, Cuba and many of the other previous threats we have faced with nuclear proliferation. Instead they are fanatics which in itself denotates a lack of common sense and/or reason.

Right now, you have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a clear fanatic, in charge of a nation attempting to harness a nuclear weapon. He has previously implied his intent to wipe Israel and all other non-musslim nations from the map. Deterence is generally a means of preventing war with a nation that already poses an imminent nuclear threat. The fact is, noone knows if these religous wackos are reasonable enough to play their side of the game and may just be extremist enough to not give a crap about their own destruction. That is the treat of islamofacist obtaining WMD's.

Like I said before, this whole draft thing is just more of an image thing. It's not a real attempt. We don't require that kind of action for the current "war."

very much agreed

 

[K. Ishitar]

I think wars happen on small scales and large, if you kill one person you kill part of a nation. The war(thankfully) hasn't escalated to that of a world war or something of that tier but the situation needs to be addressed somehow

I guess with the above statement you could assume that I'm for the draft however I'm not entirely sure this is what I have so far...

A. I'm leaning against the draft because of our past history of just the nuke it all and let it solve it self later.

B. The strat on how we have been fighting the war according to that new book(can't remember name) and NewsWeek that more terroists are being made than killed. Pouring more of our future supporters(read:the 18-27) of the U.S. may weaken our nation more and of course imho will get more of us killed more than should be neccesarily

C.It is very controversial my people on both sides need protection(Americans and Muslims) but frankly I'm not sure if I want to suit up and just start shooting people where the people "look" all the same. I strongly feel that I would be propelling a more dangerous future for both by going over there

That is all I guess

 

[Strid]

That, and no one attacks canada. We're just too awsome.

I think it has more to do with who they'll have to fight off if they attacked Canada rather than Canada being "awesome". Attacking Canada is like attacking the U.S. and the only people dumb enough to do it, would rather attack the U.S. as it means a little more and accomplishes a lot more. Canada isn't really worth a shit to anyone so what's the point of stirring up trouble? And by that I don't mean Canada is a crappy country you just dont really have anything anyone wants except good beer, maybe.

 

[Direwolf]

Aren't we on the top of Osama's hit list right now?

Nah America by far ranks number one, on so many damn lists its not funny, that alone does more to protects the rest of the free world...

 

[Halifirien]

Right now, you have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a clear fanatic, in charge of a nation attempting to harness a nuclear weapon. He has previously implied his intent to wipe Israel and all other non-musslim nations from the map. ... The fact is, noone knows if these religous wackos are reasonable enough to play their side of the game and may just be extremist enough to not give a crap about their own destruction. That is the treat of islamofacist obtaining WMD's.

If I was the leader of nation and listening to a super power like America label his country part of an "Axis of Evil," I'd be scrambling to get a nuclear weapon, too. Iran and N.Korea want a certain measure of diplomatic respect. Getting a nuke is one way you get to sit at the big kids' table. They're crazy but they're not stupid, if you catch my drift.

 

[Darkdante]

"It will never pass"

Its a ploy against the war.

 

[RoM]

Nah America by far ranks number one, on so many damn lists its not funny, that alone does more to protects the rest of the free world...

Let's not be biased or anything you left out: "and destabilizes the rest for future political gain."

It's ok to accept the fact that while we live in a great country we've boned up quite a few situations for political manuevering one way or another. It's just glaringly clear that this whole middle-east thing isn't/hasen't/won't pan out given the current strategies and leadership. Truth be told given the history i'd push for a more Truman-esque end to the "war on terror" (lolwarsonideals) but that's just me. I'm sure the bleeding hearts can flood the basement on that note...