 user created polls & quizzes |
I was going back and forth between this option and the next (12 - 18 mos). It is simple logistics ... we're stretched to the breaking point now. Not only is Bush loudly proclaiming he will not 'Cut-n-Run,' but he is threatening military moves on additional countries. We do not have the manpower without a draft. And since a draft is politically unpalatable, look for one of the two following scenarios to come about: * Win-n-Run: Bush arbitrarily declares victory, dumps everything onto the locals, and scoots. When everything collapses, he tsks and blames the locals. * Some convenient 'attack' on US or ally interests. This will provide the excuse to 'retaliate' (which will actually be the primary aggression) and rally all of the people who are incensed and want revenge -- and are willing to tolerate a draft to get it. "Some convenient 'attack' on US or ally interests." So, are you now part of the conspiracy club on this website? If we keep getting into more of these oil wars, I don't see how the Republicans are going to be able to put enough soldiers on the ground without reinstating the draft. Of course, there will always be that group of pro-war rightwingers who will suddenly develop health problems, or turn gay, and have to beg off from joining the military. I'm as gay as a blade. A total pole-smoking picklekisser.  Good luck over there in Syria.
by _Beelzebubba
[+]
FF: If a lack of trust of this Administration puts me in "the Conspiracy Club" of this website, then I suppose I am. I believe it to be the height of naivete to believe that such actions are beyond the possibilities of this group of crooks & liars. FF: Especially since we know that this is not unprecedented in US history. ^^ Welcome to the club. Care to join my Anit-Semitic union too? 
by _Beelzebubba
[+]
Well to respond to the message cathexis left me. Yes, I am aware a naval task force is headed to that area. That happens from time to time, sometimes to replace other ships and less commonly when we are in a war there (Iraq 1&2). If Iran is close to detonating a weapon, this movement of ships is certainly called for. Even if not, it isn't like they are moving as many ships in like they did for the start of Iraq 2. There isn't any significant movement of other assets into the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia. So, do I think there is anything suspicious? No. One of my brothers served on a ship that was in the Persian Gulf for awhile. It was no big deal, routine duty. To answer the question... I don't know when it is coming or if. I've always been in favor of universal national service anyways. This does not have to be all military, but it does give people a better understanding, respect, and sense of responsibility for their country. beelze.. your comment is inane and irrelevant. "Yes, I am aware a naval task force is headed to that area. (To protect Israel) That happens from time to time, (To protect Isreal) sometimes to replace other ships and less commonly when we are in a war there (Iraq 1&2). (But always to protect Israel) If Iran is close to detonating a weapon, (Bad for Israel) this movement of ships is certainly called for. (Of, course, anything to protect Israel) Even if not, it isn't like they are moving as many ships in like they did for the start of Iraq 2. (Which was also to protect Israel) There isn't any significant movement of other assets into the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia. (Not yet. Better get on the stick, if the U.S. is going to protect Israel) So, do I think there is anything suspicious? (Nothing suspicious about protecting Israel) No. One of my brothers served on a ship that was in the Persian Gulf for awhile. (Protecting Israel) It was no big deal, routine duty. (Yes, the U.S. protects Israel everyday).
|