Bush says we will have a draft.

[SPG]

Bush Stumbles on Military Draft (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&u=/afp/20041016/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_bush_draft&printer=1)
My opponent seems to be willing to say almost anything he thinks will benefit him politically," he said. "After standing on the stage, after the debates, I made it very plain we will not have an all-volunteer army

If you read the whole story it is obvious that's not what he intended to say, but sometimes the truth just slips out anyway!
You really have to wonder just what will happen as things drag on in Iraq. If it keeps going this way, or if tensions increase with North Korea or Iran, or Russia destabilizes and threatens the Baltics which are now part of NATO, how is the US going to project strength, let alone take on another shooting war? For the head of the RNC to threaten to sue Rock the Vote for just talking about the obvious possibility is ludicrous, and points to the fact that it's a major issue that the bush administration wants kept in the closet until after the election. Bush's people have already admitted that they're holding off with major assaults in Iraq until after the election so we know they're gaming the ground war for political advantage.
Oh yeah, and what about the very real "backdoor draft" of stop loss orders keeping soldiers in, unit cohesion keeping entire units in combat even though members of the unit have their commitments finished, and the recall of the Individual Ready Reserve, the guys who've been out of active duty for years being called back?

[pseudobrit]

That's so cool I had to add it to the sig.

[skunk]

The conjunction of Serge and George in your sig is interesting: "saying abominable things while sinking into quicksand" is a very apt quote for the Bush Administration! Was this intended? ;)

[solvs]

Freudian slip anyone? :p

As someone who knows people who are caught in the backdoor draft it wouldn't surprise me. Kerry would never get re-elected if he instituded a draft after promising not to. Bush doesn't need to worry about that, and was evasive when asked the question. Doubt either of them would, but Bush is more likely and people know it. No matter how he tries to spin it towards his candidate.

[Desertrat]

Freud's no part of any slip of the tongue on Dubya's part. I think his momma was scared by the late Rev. Spooner. He sorta reminds me of a vignette from long ago:

A lady pulled into a filling station owned by a buddy of mine. She inquired about "the fellow with the speech impediment". The response was, "Speech impediment? Hell, he ain't got no speech impediment! He just never learned how to talk!"

Face it: Dubya can out-tang-toungle anybody!

As far as a Draft, the only VIP person really talking openly is Congressman Rangel, and he's only doing it for political purposes. There's no need for it.

Funny-odd: Back in WW II and earlier, most anybody who met the basic physical requirements was acceptable to the military. Now, with all the high-tech wartoys we use, the intellectual requirements in many units is equal to or greater than the physical. "Dropouts need not apply."

(Many years ago, John D. McDonald pointed out that the video-arcade kids were spending their own money in training for future wars...)

'Rat

[skunk]

Back in WW II and earlier, most anybody who met the basic physical requirements was acceptable to the military. Now, with all the high-tech wartoys we use, the intellectual requirements in many units is equal to or greater than the physical.
Except in the 372nd Military Police?

[SPG]

A couple things to add:
re: mental requirements. Wasn't there just an announcement last week that the armed forces were lowering the standards to accept more new recruits?

Here's a scenario. Saudi Arabia is in a tenuous political position already, if there is a fundamentalist driven Al Quaida supported coup, what is the US going to do? Would we allow our oil supplies to be controlled by bin Laden? Would we step in to prevent a modern fundamentalist domino effect throughout what's left of the relatively free mideast?
The loss of Saudi Arabia would be such a shock to the energy system that the US could very potentially be thrown into a DEPRESSION, not just a recession and the US would be very keen to use military might to stop that. Where would the troops come from?

[Desertrat]

Per SPG: "The loss of Saudi Arabia would be such a shock to the energy system that the US could very potentially be thrown into a DEPRESSION, not just a recession and the US would be very keen to use military might to stop that."

This supposes that the new bosses of Saudi Arabia would not sell oil into the world supply; eight percent of our imported oil comes from there.

The issue then arises as to what other countries do as the price of oil rises--for at least the short term. China and Japan would be dramatically impacted, as China's demand is rising 10% per year and Japan depends 100% on imported oil.

Invest in Canada's tar sands. (China is already contracting.) The developing technology there, at today's oil prices, is increasing the availability of syn-crude. If oil prices rise much more, the proven economically-recoverable syn-crude makes Canada #1 in the world in oil reserves.

Invade Canada?

:D, 'Rat

[LeeTom]

Canada has another thing going for it: It's the largest producer of Canola in the world.
Why is Canola important?
One word: Biodiesel.

Lee Tom

[pseudobrit]

Canada has another things going for it: It's the largest producer of Canola in the world.
Why is Canola important?
One word: Biodiesel.

I was thinking Pam.

[relimw]

Just a point of fact, which most of you seem to be completely ignoring:

It's quite true that the two bills mentioned would require both men and women aged 18 through 25 to perform a two-year period of "national service," which incidentally could be either military or non-military service. But the bills are sponsored only by Democrats, and there's not the slightest evidence that the Bush administration is pushing for them, quietly or otherwise.

One bill is HR 163 , whose principal sponsor is Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York. It has 14 co-sponsors, all of them Democrats in a Congress controlled by Republicans.

...

The identical Senate bill, S. 89 , introduced by Democratic Sen. Ernest Hollings, and also was DOA.


The above is here (http://www.factcheck.org/article200.html).

I also realize that Democrats/liberals are perfect, and therefore never mis-speak about anything. :p :eek:

[SPG]

relimw, Yes Rangel is sponsoring it. He has brought the bill to the floor to make people think about who fights the wars. He did this before the invasion of Iraq to bring attention that the boots on the ground are disproportionately drawn from the poorer communities. There is no double standard in a dem bringing this up and Bush making it a forseeable reality. Do you think we would have invaded Iraq so easily if everyone had a friend or family member in the service?

This supposes that the new bosses of Saudi Arabia would not sell oil into the world supply; eight percent of our imported oil comes from there.

The issue then arises as to what other countries do as the price of oil rises--for at least the short term. China and Japan would be dramatically impacted, as China's demand is rising 10% per year and Japan depends 100% on imported oil.


If, Allah forbid, this were to happen, the very shock to the system even if the coup is quick and doesn't affect the supply would be catastrophic. Oil jumped to over $50 a barrell from the hurricanes. Imagine the fear that a coup in Saudi Arabia would create.
As far as alternatives to oil, how many are in any kind of position to take over for 8% of our usage? How many are in an advanced enough developmental position to do that in five years let alone at the flip of a switch? How many require a massive shift in infrastructure to be competitive.
And even if a new government of fundamentallists were to take over in Saudi Arabia, would they sell to us? For how much? And the nastier question, what will they do with the money? ...shudder...

[pseudobrit]

Just a point of fact, which most of you seem to be completely ignoring:

Uh, we know. It's been discussed before. And we know it's merely symbolic and has no chance of getting passed, nor do the authors or sponsors actually want them passed.

Don't try to play us up as idiots.

[zimv20]

Don't try to play us up as idiots.
or at least uninformed idiots :-)

[solvs]

I also realize that Democrats/liberals are perfect, and therefore never mis-speak about anything.
I don't remember ever saying I liked liberals. Quite the opposite really. And if you notice, some of the people posting are not from the US, so you can't really call them Democrats. Sympathizers maybe. Most of us are well aware of what they are doing (even forgetting why they are doing it).

Bush may not have a draft if he is re-elected, but it's not like he would have much to lose if he went back on his promises, like I said. Not that he's actually promised anything, but he also said we wouldn't invade Iraq unless we had to. And when we did, he told us he had a plan. Which turned out to be saying mission accomplished and completely underestimating how bad it would get.

Plus, wasn't it his Dad who said "no new taxes". Maybe he meant "know new taxes".

[SPG]

From the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/opinion/19krugman.html?oref=login&hp)
Those who are worrying about a revived draft are in the same position as those who worried about a return to budget deficits four years ago, when President Bush began pushing through his program of tax cuts. Back then he insisted that he wouldn't drive the budget into deficit - but those who looked at the facts strongly suspected otherwise. Now he insists that he won't revive the draft. But the facts suggest that he will.

[solvs]

From the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/opinion/19krugman.html?oref=login&hp)
If he does decide to re-instate a draft, which apparently is already kind-of happening with them trying to recruit doctors (according to Air-America this morning... yeah, I know, a little partisan), there will be Hell to pay. Watch his popularity take a nose dive and a Democrat as President in 2008, no matter who they are. The next round of Senators and Representatives as well. National upheaval, worse than today. People moving out of the country. A sudden upsurge in homosexuality (at least people saying they are - don't ask, don't tell). Vietnam all over again.

Anyone who voted for Kerry should be exempt.

[yellow]

Thanks goodness I'm too old and fat to be drafted.

[SPG]

If he does decide to re-instate a draft.... Watch his popularity take a nose dive...


If bush actually gets elected this time there is no stopping him and his agenda. If anything we've seen him holding back to get through the election, but I truly fear what would await us in a second term of GWB.

Anyone who voted for Kerry should be exempt.
I like this idea. I've used something similar in talking to Iraq war supporters. I ask them since usually we're both too old to go over and fight, that the war supporter cut me a check to cover the cost in my tax dollars for the war that I didn't want and protested against. Most shut up when asked for $3500 to cover their support of the war.

[solvs]

If bush actually gets elected this time there is no stopping him and his agenda. If anything we've seen him holding back to get through the election, but I truly fear what would await us in a second term of GWB.
The sad thing is that most of the Bush supporters actually want things to be different the next term according to recent polls. They do not like the way the country is headed in regards to domestic and international policy. Yet they still support a man who cannot take responsibility for, nor admit to, a single mistake. I think if people took a look at what was really going on, they would not be supporting this man.

[SPG]

The sad thing is that most of the Bush supporters actually want things to be different the next term according to recent polls. They do not like the way the country is headed in regards to domestic and international policy. Yet they still support a man who cannot take responsibility for, nor admit to, a single mistake. I think if people took a look at what was really going on, they would not be supporting this man.
The people who think of him as a decisive steely eyed man of moral direct strong action would be blown away by what he's done, but the single issue voters wouldn't care. The wingers and the fundies would be less comfortable, but as long as he pays them lip service to their issues they'd vote for Satan himself. I saw former NYC mayor Ed Koch on the Daily Show the other night and he said he was supporting bush solely for the war on terror. The thing about it is that Koch knows bush botched the WOT, but he supports the invasion of Iraq as a method of eliminating a threat against Israel. This was a big reason of the neocons who engineered the invasion of Iraq.

[pseudobrit]

The conjunction of Serge and George in your sig is interesting: "saying abominable things while sinking into quicksand" is a very apt quote for the Bush Administration! Was this intended? ;)

No, the Serge lines were added a day prior.

But I'll take the irony credit anyway. ;)

[solvs]

I saw former NYC mayor Ed Koch on the Daily Show the other night and he said he was supporting bush solely for the war on terror. The thing about it is that Koch knows bush botched the WOT, but he supports the invasion of Iraq as a method of eliminating a threat against Israel.
I saw that too. Again, I wish Stewart would have pushed it more, but he did get his point accross. Thing is, this is exactly why I am against Bush now. His botching of the war on terror. And his making it seem like he is the best choice against the problem when he is the one screwing it up. Not that he will admit to a mistake, or take responsiblity for anything going wrong. I used to respect Koch, but he needs a better reason to support Bush, because the handling of this war is not it.