home

Say Hello

By Jeralyn, Section Military Draft
Posted on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 08:21:44 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Say hello to:

[Comments closed. Thread hijacked.]

< Beware Bush and Stealth Supreme Court Nominees | School Tracks Kids Via Badges and Radio Frequencies >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Say Hello | 20 comments (20 topical)
    Re: Say Hello (none / 0) (#1)
    by roy on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 10:57:49 AM EST
    These mothers are redundant. Everybody is against the draft. Republican voters and legislators are against the draft. Bush is against the draft. Everyone in the military is against the draft. Speculation about the draft is fueled by people thinking Bush should be for a draft in order to achieve his goals, but since when does he do what anybody says he should?

    Re: Say Hello (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 11:03:47 AM EST
    The Army said it needs 750,000 people in now! the fact is our non government is getting ready for a world war, and we can say anything we like, but if you are dead who cares, its 1939 march and just wait and see what will happen in 6 months, think that is nut's do you? it was called nut's by people in 1939, God help us all.

    Re: Say Hello (none / 0) (#3)
    by roy on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 11:21:38 AM EST
    Fred, what's your source for that 750,000 number? And where are they all supposed to be "in"? If you go beyond regular Army, we have over 750,000 military people already. And we've had a 750,000-person regular Army before (2nd to last paragraph), without a draft.

    Re: Say Hello (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 12:07:52 PM EST
    to;Roy Fox news, CNN News name it, people are not watching and don't get it. people are not watching the world or what is really happening around the world. and yes if you we have well over one million in all of the armed forces, so why are people being kept in iraq so long? its this fact almost no combat arms people only about 10 percent of the people in can be called combat guys most of the military non combat people. world war one about 15 percent of guys saw combat, 20 percent were combat armes people. world war two about 11 percent of the people saw combat, 15 percent were combat armes people. iraq war 7 percent combat armes people. the U.S Is now moveing to encircle china, just check it out, look at the map and think about why we have had wars, the onslaught of chinese power is not liked in washington and why the big boys never dreamed that china would become so economically powerful.

    Re: Say Hello (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 12:30:37 PM EST
    The social security talking points must be getting too little traction - the Left end of the blogsphere is flogging "here comes the draft!" again. Try some research: 1) What was the size of the Active duty armed forces in 1987? 2) Note that the current size is smaller 3) Ask yourself "gee, did we have a draft in 1987?" 4) Either (a) realize that we could grow the armed forces without a draft, or (b) remain completely delusional

    Re: Say Hello (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 01:13:56 PM EST
    James, James, James, these are the same people who are happy to see Dean in charge of their party's machinery. I guess Kucinich was busy making home-made Tofu or something. -C

    Re: Say Hello (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 07:50:15 PM EST
    > Ask yourself "gee, did we have a > draft in 1987?" Ask yourself, "gee, did we have an active war in 1987, where soldiers were getting killed (and perhaps more importantly for recruiting, maimed) regularly? Had we invaded one country and threatened two more with invasion?" No? Hmmm....

    Re: Say Hello (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 09:54:43 PM EST
    The military isn't having any trouble recruiting for the active force - although they are having some difficulties with the reserves. I suspect that upping the legal allocation for the active duty and reducing the deployment of the reserve would work pretty well.

    Re: Say Hello (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 10:23:37 PM EST
    Well, that explains the stop-loss policy holding active duty soldiers in the war zones. Thanks for straightening all that out for me.

    Re: Say Hello (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 10:24:56 PM EST
    JR, enlist. Please. They don't need you of course because they aren't having any trouble, but your clarity and intelligence would be such a boon to the military. Please enlist.

    Re: Say Hello (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:58:48 AM EST
    To conscious angel - what you are trying to get at is "those not willing to enlist have no right to an opinion on the subject". Well - I'm not sure you want to extend that point to other areas - ponder it for a few minutes. Not to mention that at 43, I'm well outside the range of people who could enlist. What we have right now is a legacy of the cold war - neither Bush 41, Clinton, nor Bush 43 have really reorganized the military (although that is finally starting to happen) in light of the end of the cold war. We are still organized as a tripwire force deployed to blunt an initial attack (Europe, Korea) followed by a large scale reinforcement from the US by reserve/guard units). That organization is obsolete now; what we need is a larger active duty force, and relatively fewer reserves. Additionally, the forces need to be organized such that critical combat components are not (as they are now) in the reserve force. Rumsfeld is actually pushing that with the reorganization of the force from large divisions into brigade level forces - but more needs to be done. We neither need nor want a draft. What we need is a force that is oriented towards the kinds of threats we face now, as opposed to the ones we faced 20 years ago.

    Re: Say Hello (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 09:42:27 AM EST
    Come on, JR. At 43, there are many ways you could drop everything and be directly involved in these battle in which you believe fervently. Absent some real commitment - you take part, you pay higher taxes to support the war, you find a contracting job supporting the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan - you are just an armchair warrior and subject to questions about your willingness to risk any of your comfort in these causes.

    Re: Say Hello (none / 0) (#13)
    by john horse on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 10:46:18 AM EST
    JR, So far there have been 56 Americans killed in Iraq who were 43 years old or older. I guess their lives were expendable, unlike yours. I agree with CA. Too many people who support this war are like armchair quarterbacks. They treat war like it is some sort of a spectator sport.

    Re: Say Hello (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:18:44 PM EST
    I see two more people have decided to pile on with the "if you won't fight, you can't be in favor" argument. So I guess that means: 1) Men cannot express an opinion (pro or con) on abortion? 2) Anyone who wasn't an immigrant can't have an opinion on immigration policy? 3) People who don't smoke can't have an opinion on tobacco? Do you have any actual comments on the substance of what I said, or are you only capable of making junior high level arguments?

    Re: Say Hello (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:20:40 PM EST
    Oh, and one more thing to the people who want anyone who backs the war to join up - I had a Congressional nomination to West Point at 18. Unfortunately, I also had horrendous myopia, and was ruled 4F. I tried to sign up, and wasn't able to.

    Re: Say Hello (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 06:47:29 AM EST
    No, you can be in favor of the war, you should just expect to be called the armchair warrior that you appear to be. You are entitled to an opinion. But if you risk nothing in an endeavor that you believe in so much, the opinion rings a little hollow. Come on, try a tour in Iraq, then come back and let's talk more. I think it might open your eyes. More of your type need to do a tour, but your style may be to send someone else or their kid to deliver your convictions and risk their *ss.

    Re: Say Hello (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 06:49:11 AM EST
    You see, I definitely feel you have a right to an opinion, I just think it is not well informed. Come on, just drive truck for a month in Iraq. Then let's talk more.

    Re: Say Hello (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 06:54:34 AM EST
    Reading your posts again, JR. I don't think the myopia has improved any. That explains much. Now that I understand you as a right wing Mr. Magoo, I feel much more kindly disposed towards you. I don't think you should drive truck, maybe just gas them up. How do you read these weblogs with that awful myopia? Maybe you could do a stint in Iraq and still not see what is obvious. Myopia is a tragedy. It's heartbreaking.

    Re: Say Hello (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 02:10:45 PM EST
    conscious angel - you might try looking up the term 'ad homeneim attack'. You haven't addressed anything I've actually said; you keep trying to make personal attacks. Unless you are still in middle school, I'd expect better.

    Re: Say Hello (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 12:41:02 AM EST
    She's telling you to put up or shut up, JR. "It's just that simple!"

    Say Hello | 20 comments (20 topical)