Should The US Reinstate The Draft or Some Other Mandatory Service?

[Xenophon]

Since "the State" is starting the wars in the first place, mainly due to the support of older voters, then those older voters should have to have a stake in the fight.

In the last war, there were a whole bunch of people, mostly older voters, who felt that they wanted to fight a war, but they didn't want to pay for it through higher taxes.

Hell, we're still fighting those two wars, and people on the right are STILL complaining about their taxes!

Really?

It was the government, the GoP and the Democrats that caused the Iraq and Afghan wars, not the voters.

I don't recall a speacil public vote for war, when was that held exactly?

The government is voted in by the voters. The majority of the voters who put the GoP regime in place were older voters.

The makeup of our government is the responsibility of the people who voted for them.

And in this case, the people who voted them BACK INTO OFFICE again in 2004.

You just condemned THE LEFT for the Iraq war.

DEMOCRATS controlled the senate in 2003 when they held the Iraq vote.

Didn't you know that?

Again, this is where my other axiom comes to ind about both sides being the same.

You are trying to blame one side and hold your side as noble, when your side is as guilty as the opposite.

If 'the left' as described as Democrats had voted 'no' there would have been no Iraq war.

BOTH parties and sides are gulity.

 

[Newby]

Since the loudest and largest group supporting the Iraq war was above the current draft age, and most of them have never fought in a war? Yes, it most certainly applies.

Especially since the political leaders themselves had mostly never fought in a war either.

Older folks are quite happy to send young soldiers off to war, but GOD FORBID they should be asked to do anything to help in the effort. Including paying for it with tax increases.

No, they're more than happy to pass the bill, as well as the responsibility of fighting, off to younger generations.

The only 'voice' that counted was the Congressional voice that voted to go to war.

Oh, so the "Decider" had nothing to do with it then, hmmm???

And who voted for the Republican President, the Republican House, and the barely Democratic Senate at the time?

Are you seriously insinuating that they didn't approve funding for the war during or after 2006 when the Dems had control of Congress? Are they still approving funding today with a Democrat President, A Democrat House, and a veto proof Democrat Senate? Give me a break.

 

[Jay Canuck]

I was rather clear on this, cowards do that, not 'the rich' as some of you seem to believe.

The most likely candidate to get his head shot off is a military school graduate.

way to dodge the question!

Your question was answered clearly, there was no 'dodge.'

You asked if 'the rich' did something, and the answer is no, the cowards did so, as 'the rich' sent their kids happily off to wars quite often.

another dodge....try reading my question again.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Back in the days of WWI, war was still considered a glorious adventure.

I'm trying to get you and the others to understand there are no 'good' or 'just' wars, that is just something said to make people go and fight.

You keep saying 'war of choice' but the fact is they are ALL wars of choice.

As long as you preserve the fiction of 'the good war' you allow some moron to use that for some fool's errand such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

When Polish fighters, French fighters and England fought back against Nazi Germany, what were their choices?

There are no good wars depending on the definition of the term good. There is always choice leading up to war, but sometimes the choices are very grim...as in occupation or rape of resources or relocation of a populace.

get real. your morality is quite boring when it is only showing it's black and white side.

The US was in no danger of invasion, nor any of the problems associated with it. Never have been since the War of 1812.

 

[Vast LWC]

I seem to remember your Democratic representatives voting to go to war, I also remember them voting to approve funding for the war. You're not cleaning a damn thing up, they're still both going on. Why aren't you out there critisizing Obama and offering your protests? And while they're still going on, he's domestically making a mess that's not going to be able to be cleaned up for decades by anyone.

OK, first of all, both the Presidency and the House were Republican.

Secondly, the executive branch lied to the legislative branch in order to convince them to vote the way they wanted, just like they lied to the American people.

But third, and perhaps most important, since older people were by far the largest voting block in all the elections, it's still their fault that those particular Democrats were there anyway.

 

[Vast LWC]

You just condemned THE LEFT for the Iraq war.

DEMOCRATS controlled the senate in 2003 when they held the Iraq vote.

Didn't you know that?

Again, this is where my other axiom comes to ind about both sides being the same.

You are trying to blame one side and hold your side as noble, when your side is as guilty as the opposite.

If 'the left' as described as Democrats had voted 'no' there would have been no Iraq war.

BOTH parties and sides are gulity.

And Republicans controlled both the House and the Presidency.

And, most importantly, they controlled the flow of intelligence information.

So, no, I didn't "Condemn the left" thank you very much.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And isn't it odd how the left is completely silent about the fact that we're still fighting those wars? They didn't give a damn about the wars, they only cared about using whatever tool they could get their hands on to bash their enemy Bush as much as possible. If they had truly cared about the so-called injustice of the war, they'd still be out there protesting.

The Right started the wars, now the left is trying to clean them up.

And now you're trying to blame the left for finishing the job that you people screwed up so royally?

And most of the left didn't complain about Afghanistan, most of the left only complained about Iraq, which if you haven't noticed, we are slowly withdrawing from.

A place your ilk claimed we would never win and we had no exit strategy. By the way dumb fuck the left did not win in Iraq. Bush did. If the left had their way we would have left Iraq in 2004.

 

[Mr Natural]

I'm trying to get you and the others to understand there are no 'good' or 'just' wars, that is just something said to make people go and fight.

You keep saying 'war of choice' but the fact is they are ALL wars of choice.

As long as you preserve the fiction of 'the good war' you allow some moron to use that for some fool's errand such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

When Polish fighters, French fighters and England fought back against Nazi Germany, what were their choices?

There are no good wars depending on the definition of the term good. There is always choice leading up to war, but sometimes the choices are very grim...as in occupation or rape of resources or relocation of a populace.

get real. your morality is quite boring when it is only showing it's black and white side.

The US was in no danger of invasion, nor any of the problems associated with it. Never have been since the War of 1812.

What about Pearl Harbor?

Were we not attacked by a military super power who was allied with Nazi Germany?

 

[Xenophon]

way to dodge the question!

Your question was answered clearly, there was no 'dodge.'

You asked if 'the rich' did something, and the answer is no, the cowards did so, as 'the rich' sent their kids happily off to wars quite often.

another dodge....try reading my question again.

The dodge appears to be your reading comprehension.

What part do you not understand?

And if you say 'dodge' again don't look for an answer.

 

[Vast LWC]

Are you seriously insinuating that they didn't approve funding for the war during or after 2006 when the Dems had control of Congress? Are they still approving funding today with a Democrat President, A Democrat House, and a veto proof Democrat Senate? Give me a break.

Don't even try that BS with me.

"Not approving funding" would have had no effect at all on the progress of the war. The President would have diverted funds from other areas anyway.

The only thing it would have accomplished is to allow the Republicans to score political points against their opponents by turning the lack of funding into some sort of "Anti-American conspiracy".

 

[Xenophon]

I seem to remember your Democratic representatives voting to go to war, I also remember them voting to approve funding for the war. You're not cleaning a damn thing up, they're still both going on. Why aren't you out there critisizing Obama and offering your protests? And while they're still going on, he's domestically making a mess that's not going to be able to be cleaned up for decades by anyone.

OK, first of all, both the Presidency and the House were Republican.

Secondly, the executive branch lied to the legislative branch in order to convince them to vote the way they wanted, just like they lied to the American people.

But third, and perhaps most important, since older people were by far the largest voting block in all the elections, it's still their fault that those particular Democrats were there anyway.

That is just spin, the legislative saw the same intell the executive branch did.

The Dems voted for the war because they thought it would be short and sweet and didn't want to go into the 2004 election with a 'no' vote on a war against a supposed 'islamic type' enemy.

You are being hyper partisan here.

I opposed that stuip war from the start, I remember quite clearly how happy many dems were to go fight it.

 

[Xenophon]

What about Pearl Harbor?

Were we not attacked by a military super power who was allied with Nazi Germany?

What about that embargo of Japan and those illeagal arms and funds the USA supplied China against our own neutrality laws?

Why exactly do you think Japan attacked the USA?

That they just didn't like us?

FDR had been provoking them for over a year hoping for a 'backdoor' way into WWII since he knew congress would NEVER allow US intervention without being attacked.

 

[Vast LWC]

A place your ilk claimed we would never win and we had no exit strategy. By the way dumb fuck the left did not win in Iraq. Bush did. If the left had their way we would have left Iraq in 2004.

Whatever, you people have re-defined "winning" in Iraq like 50 times now.

We didn't have an exit strategy, we're still there, that was the point, genius.

And what exactly did WE "win" in Iraq? Hmm? We spent trillions of dollars and wasted thousands of lives and we haven't gained anything at all.

The current Iraqi regime looks as though they'll probably go the way of Iran, who they are much more closely tied to than the US.

How the hell is that "winning" anything?

 

[Ringel05]

When Polish fighters, French fighters and England fought back against Nazi Germany, what were their choices?

There are no good wars depending on the definition of the term good. There is always choice leading up to war, but sometimes the choices are very grim...as in occupation or rape of resources or relocation of a populace.

get real. your morality is quite boring when it is only showing it's black and white side.

The US was in no danger of invasion, nor any of the problems associated with it. Never have been since the War of 1812.

What about Pearl Harbor?

Were we not attacked by a military super power who was allied with Nazi Germany?

He specifically stated invasion, that was an attack not an invasion. The Japanese did not invade the Hawaiian Islands how ever they did invade and occupy part of the Alutian Islands, a historical fact many seem to overlook

 

[RetiredGySgt]

When Polish fighters, French fighters and England fought back against Nazi Germany, what were their choices?

There are no good wars depending on the definition of the term good. There is always choice leading up to war, but sometimes the choices are very grim...as in occupation or rape of resources or relocation of a populace.

get real. your morality is quite boring when it is only showing it's black and white side.

The US was in no danger of invasion, nor any of the problems associated with it. Never have been since the War of 1812.

What about Pearl Harbor?

Were we not attacked by a military super power who was allied with Nazi Germany?

Once again WE cut Japan off from Oil and metal because we opposed the War in China. Japan wanted no war with us, they just wanted to capture all of the South East Asia. YOU really should learn to read some history.

Now I think we were right to cut them off. But the fact is if we had continued to sell them oil and metal and other goods they never would have attacked us or the British or the Dutch. They only went after the British and Dutch because we cut them off from oil. They only went after us because the Philippines was in the way and they knew if they attacked England we would respond.

Thus a war of choice.

 

[Xenophon]

You just condemned THE LEFT for the Iraq war.

DEMOCRATS controlled the senate in 2003 when they held the Iraq vote.

Didn't you know that?

Again, this is where my other axiom comes to ind about both sides being the same.

You are trying to blame one side and hold your side as noble, when your side is as guilty as the opposite.

If 'the left' as described as Democrats had voted 'no' there would have been no Iraq war.

BOTH parties and sides are gulity.

And Republicans controlled both the House and the Presidency.

And, most importantly, they controlled the flow of intelligence information.

So, no, I didn't "Condemn the left" thank you very much.

Which now nullifies everything you say on this issue as partisan nonsense.

Since you refuse to hold ALL the people who committed the USA to a war based on party affiliation, everything you say on the topic is now suspect as just more us/them partisan claptrap.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Are you seriously insinuating that they didn't approve funding for the war during or after 2006 when the Dems had control of Congress? Are they still approving funding today with a Democrat President, A Democrat House, and a veto proof Democrat Senate? Give me a break.

Don't even try that BS with me.

"Not approving funding" would have had no effect at all on the progress of the war. The President would have diverted funds from other areas anyway.

The only thing it would have accomplished is to allow the Republicans to score political points against their opponents by turning the lack of funding into some sort of "Anti-American conspiracy".

You are beyond ignorant. The Congress controls the purse strings, if they say no money for a war, the President has no power or authority to get money from anywhere else. In fact Congress can vote to specifically tell the Government what it will not spend money on from any source.

 

[Ringel05]

What about Pearl Harbor?

Were we not attacked by a military super power who was allied with Nazi Germany?

What about that embargo of Japan and those illeagal arms and funds the USA supplied China against our own neutrality laws?

Why exactly do you think Japan attacked the USA?

That they just didn't like us?

FDR had been provoking them for over a year hoping for a 'backdoor' way into WWII since he knew congress would NEVER allow US intervention without being attacked.

Not to mention the undeclared war we were pursuing againt Germany in the Atlantic a year before we were formally at war.

 

[Vast LWC]

That is just spin, the legislative saw the same intell the executive branch did.

The Dems voted for the war because they thought it would be short and sweet and didn't want to go into the 2004 election with a 'no' vote on a war against a supposed 'islamic type' enemy.

You are being hyper partisan here.

I opposed that stuip war from the start, I remember quite clearly how happy many dems were to go fight it.

buuuuuzzzzz, wrong answer.

The legislative branch received their intel AFTER it had been cherry picked by Bush appointees.

Remember all that BS about "imminent threats", "WMDs" and "Terrorist Training Camps"? None of which actually existed...

 

[Jay Canuck]

"The dodge appears to be your reading comprehension.

What part do you not understand?

And if you say 'dodge' again don't look for an answer."


I didn't ask if the wealthy were cowards or brave I asked if they have throughout the history of warfare used their position to influence their position in war..... a yes or no will suffice just fine as an answer.