Folks, There Could Still Be A Draft!

Penn

Dancing Up A Storm
http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=6&aid=D85O201O0_story

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD height=5></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top noWrap align=left width=10 background=http://eimg.net/img/channels/news/story_hdr_bg.gif height=22>http://eimg.net/img/channels/news/story_edge.gif</TD><TD vAlign=center noWrap align=left background=http://eimg.net/img/channels/news/story_hdr_bg.gif height=22><SMALL>U.S. News -<SCRIPT>document.write(showtoday)</SCRIPT> October 15, 2004 </SMALL></TD><TD vAlign=center noWrap align=right width=* background=http://eimg.net/img/channels/news/story_hdr_bg.gif height=22>http://eimg.net/img/x.gif</TD><TD vAlign=top noWrap align=right width=10 background=http://eimg.net/img/channels/news/story_hdr_bg.gif height=22>http://eimg.net/img/channels/news/story_edge.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=4>http://eimg.net/img/x.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left colSpan=2>[size=+1]Kerry Says Bush Plan Could Lead to Draft[/size] <SMALL>

</SMALL><SCRIPT language=JavaScript type=text/javascript> writeNewsImg( "Story Image", "http://eimg.net/harvest_inc/NEWS/img/x.gif", "", "" ); </SCRIPT><SMALL>
</SMALL>
[size=-2]October 15, 2004 02:07 PM EDT[/size] <SMALL>

</SMALL>There is a "great potential of a draft" to replenish U.S. forces in Iraq if President Bush wins a second term, Democratic challenger John Kerry said on a campaign stop in Iowa.

Bush said in the second presidential debate that there would be no revival of the military draft under any circumstances if he is re-elected. "We're not going to have a draft, period," the president said.

However, Kerry told The Des Moines Register, "With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same and the great potential of a draft." The interview was published Friday as Kerry was leaving for Wisconsin and a speech on the economy.

__________________________________________________________________


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I cannot believe this guy; he's a fear-mongering, lying SOB. So there he is, out on the campaign trail, De Moines, Iowa, trying to scare the crap out of moms and dads that GW, is somehow going to re-institute the draft, probably so he can so he can score points with them about how many of our young men and women have died in a war that Is "the wrong time, in the wrong place, and blah, blah, blah, blah...............:ohwell:

The democrats have been harping on this for quite a while now, so I believe I read where House Republicans forced the measure, introduced, but sat on by the democrats, and put it up for vote. The bill, offered by Rep. Charles Rangel(D-NY) last winter, was soundly defeated in the House 402 - 2.

See the following article:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6422347

So, here's our very own snake-in-the-grass, John Kerry, crowing about the potentialiality of it being reinstituted under GW, should he win in November.

I wonder who maps out this guys' stategy? James Carville? Terry McAuliffe?
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Maybe the Senator should try to understand the process. After 20 years in the Senate one would think he at least knew how things worked. For the record an initiation of a draft would require action by Congress. Congress would have to pass legislation initiating a draft, and the legislation would have to be passed into law by not being vetoed by the President.
 

Penn

Dancing Up A Storm
Ken King said:
Maybe the Senator should try to understand the process. After 20 years in the Senate one would think he at least knew how things worked. For the record an initiation of a draft would require action by Congress. Congress would have to pass legislation initiating a draft, and the legislation would have to be passed into law by not being vetoed by the President.
The thing is Ken, he's playing to the fears of these people, trying to get them all upset - over the very same Bill in the House that was just defeated.

It's an outright lie, and he knows it.

It ought to be regarded as sedition, or fraud, or somesuch crime. What a bastage.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Penn said:
The thing is Ken, he's playing to the fears of these people, trying to get them all upset - over the very same Bill in the House that was just defeated.

It's an outright lie, and he knows it.

It ought to be regarded as sedition, or fraud, or somesuch crime. What a bastage.
Actually, if you are referring to HR163 introduced by Rep. Rangel, it required mandatory service for all citizens between 18 and 26 to serve a two-year term in the military and not a draft.

No doubt Kerry will use whatever he thinks will give him a leg up, truth is not a factor with him.
 

Penn

Dancing Up A Storm
Ken King said:
Actually, if you are referring to HR163 introduced by Rep. Rangel, it required mandatory service for all citizens between 18 and 26 to serve a two-year term in the military and not a draft.

No doubt Kerry will use whatever he thinks will give him a leg up, truth is not a factor with him.
I posted an article from Reuters from Tues, Oct 5th, that describes this Bill, but they didn't mention the designation HR163.

I just think it's horrendous politics that the democrats are practicing. They're trying to lead people to false conclusions because the can't stomach Pres. Bush, still think the last election was stolen from them, and because they are a bunch of lowlife scumbags with no sense of honor. :loser:s!


Oh, and did I mention I will never , ever vote for a democrat as long as I live?
 

Vince

......
Ken King said:
Actually, if you are referring to HR163 introduced by Rep. Rangel, it required mandatory service for all citizens between 18 and 26 to serve a two-year term in the military and not a draft.

I'd love to see these kids do a mandatory term in the military. Some of them need it. Of course some need prison too. :lmao:
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Vince said:
I'd love to see these kids do a mandatory term in the military. Some of them need it. Of course some need prison too. :lmao:
Not me, I think it would hurt more then help the military to force people to serve. Look at all the whinning going on from some of the reservists that have been called up. Makes you wonder why they signed on the dotted line in the first place. Imagine what it would be like if all youngsters had to serve.
 

Nickel

curiouser and curiouser
Ken King said:
Not me, I think it would hurt more then help the military to force people to serve. Look at all the whinning going on from some of the reservists that have been called up. Makes you wonder why they signed on the dotted line in the first place. Imagine what it would be like if all youngsters had to serve.
I agree. Also, if you voluntarily served, and were sent to war, would you want the guy (or girl) next to you, who theoretically "has your back" to not want to be there? To have been forced to serve?
 

oldman

Lobster Land
Vince said:
I'd love to see these kids do a mandatory term in the military. Some of them need it. Of course some need prison too. :lmao:

In the mid 60's, the (at least white) high school graduates had to do either 2 years in the military OR 2 years on the police force. I can't see anything wrong with that because at that age they didn't have a direction to go in. Either force would allow them to learn a little something about life, get away from Mom and Dad, and just give them a better understanding about the real world. To me it would just be a stepping stone at that age, which is/can be a difficult age for anyone.
 

Penn

Dancing Up A Storm
I'm not so sure a 2 year mandatory military requirement wouldn't do our young men some good. Most guys I knew, including myself, really didn't know how to manage their own life, money, take care of a car, and etc., anyhow. It wasn't easy living paycheck to paycheck every 2 weeks, but you learn.

You're not going to starve, because they feed you 3 meals a day. You won't have to worry about a roof over your head, because they even give you a place to stay!
What they do try to provide is a sense of responsibility, not that everyone of us picked up on it right away, but eventually, it dawns on you.

Countries like Israel have a military requirement for their male population; is it doing them any harm?
 

Pete

Repete
Vince said:
I'd love to see these kids do a mandatory term in the military. Some of them need it. Of course some need prison too. :lmao:
No freaking way, I had a hard enough time with some of the goobers that actually volunteered. You know how hard it is to get rid of a loser once they are in? Admin boards, coutrs martials are a pain. Luckily we got an old wiley Doc who would give them a :boo: psych evals and we could get rid of them right away.
 

SmallTown

Football season!
Penn said:
Countries like Israel have a military requirement for their male population; is it doing them any harm?
They are contantly doing battle. If it wasn't a requirement, they wouldn't have anyone left to fight.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Penn said:
I'm not so sure a 2 year mandatory military requirement wouldn't do our young men some good. Most guys I knew, including myself, really didn't know how to manage their own life, money, take care of a car, and etc., anyhow. It wasn't easy living paycheck to paycheck every 2 weeks, but you learn.

You're not going to starve, because they feed you 3 meals a day. You won't have to worry about a roof over your head, because they even give you a place to stay!
What they do try to provide is a sense of responsibility, not that everyone of us picked up on it right away, but eventually, it dawns on you.

Countries like Israel have a military requirement for their male population; is it doing them any harm?
It wouldn't have been just men but women too (equal rights and all). And for those that are or have served I will say for the most part that it did good to help shape the person, but is it right for everyone and is it right to maintain a quality force? Considering that the House vote for the measure was 2 for and 400+ against (Rangel even voted against it) it doesn’t seem very popular for our free society.

Israel is in a unique position being a nation of 6 or so million surrounded by hundreds millions of folk that hate them and want them gone. They require their people to serve for obvious self-defense reasons that we currently do not require.

When the war on terror started with the attack upon our soil we had many immediately and voluntarily join up. We had no problems with quotas or such. I think we would have many troops sitting around with their thumbs up their butts being bored silly if the Rangel bill had passed.
 

Penn

Dancing Up A Storm
SmallTown said:
They are contantly doing battle. If it wasn't a requirement, they wouldn't have anyone left to fight.
Good point. They are between a rock and a hard place though.
 

sunflower

Loving My Life...
Ken King said:
Not me, I think it would hurt more then help the military to force people to serve. Look at all the whinning going on from some of the reservists that have been called up. Makes you wonder why they signed on the dotted line in the first place. Imagine what it would be like if all youngsters had to serve.
IMO I think the whinny ones signed up for the college benefits, and to play with guns???:confused: Im glad most of the men/women know what their job is and most are proud to be serving and protecting us.:patriot:
 

Pete

Repete
Penn said:
Countries like Israel have a military requirement for their male population; is it doing them any harm?
They are surrounded. On 3 sides Arabs who want them all dead, and on the 4th a sea. They have a different situation that requires each citizen have some training because they could be litterally overrun in a matter of hours.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
sunflower said:
IMO I think the whinny ones signed up for the college benefits, and to play with guns???:confused: Im glad most of the men/women know what their job is and most are proud to be serving and protecting us.:patriot:
No doubt that was a major reason for most of them or to learn a skill and I have no problem with that at all, but to whine when they are called to duty just baffles me. What did they think they were joining, the scouts?
 

sunflower

Loving My Life...
Ken King said:
No doubt that was a major reason for most of them or to learn a skill and I have no problem with that at all, but to whine when they are called to duty just baffles me. What did they think they were joining, the scouts?
I agree. People need to put more thought into it. Having the thought in their head that ill never go to war and put my life at risk isnt a good reason to join It has to be something they want to do.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
elaine said:
Why is this an issue?
Because Kerry is saying that with Bush there will be a draft and it migrated to talking about Charley Rangel's plan for required service.
 
Top