Poll: If the Draft is Reinstituted....

This is nothing but Harlem Democrat scare tactics started by Charles Rangel and now the Peroutkite LE. The vote in the House only had two supporters of the draft, as everyone knows. The Democrats and the Constitution Party are shameless. Peroutka is a cut-and-run politician of the sort that should be sent to a well-deserved political obscurity until the end of the world.

 

Hackworth is always "interesting" even if off base with a frequent "anti-establishment" tone to this comments. He certainly "earned" the right - even though not required - to voice his ideas. He's made a second career of it!

If our nation needs a draft to meet the needs of national defense as determined by Congress, then we should support it. Right now, given the present situation, the military and the Executive says it doesn't need nor want it. That could change depending upon needs. I wouldn't make too many promises either way!

There is a tremendous strain on regular, reserve, and guard components that's requiring repeated deployments of many units. It's very difficult for those deployed as well as their families. We owe them our gratitude. Never the less, the hardship does not mean that we should stop sending them. We need them and they have a mission to fulfill.

There's nothing new about "stop loss" which is, as its name suggests, keeping needed troops otherwise eligible to be released so unit effectiveness is not lost. There's nothing wrong with that either. If the nation needs your services you need to do what's required.

The IRR is also nothing new. It is exactly what its name implies - individual ready reserve - meaning you're available for service beyond your release from active duty, if needed, even though you don't have a duty to attend regular drills. This is a known possibility on the front end of an enlistment. It's the individual's responsibility to remain "ready" but troops called up this way are requalified as necessary and brought back up to standards if required.

We need a larger regular military force than we have and we should not have cut back so much several years back. We probably couldn't see then what we see now. America has done that many times in its history and we come up short, temporarily, when problems arise. Somehow we've always managed to meet the challenge.

More challenges await us and we'd better get ready and toughen up our attitudes about it.

Patrick

 

I am always fascinated by the both-sides-of-their-mouth mumbling from the "I support the troops, but not the war"crowd. It is my sincere contention that the two are inseparable on many fronts.

All this whinging about "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" provides the enemy (remember those guys? The ones that are shooting/bombing our guys) with encouragement that their guerilla/terror tactics are working against the "home front."

"Hey, X% of Americans oppose war in Iraq! Keep bombing the infidels! We are winning!"

Please explain to me (in small words because I am obviously not as intelligent as you folks) just how this is different from what Kerry did to aid and comfort the VC when he came back from Vietnam?

 

You are right on target!

Patrick

 

I AGREE - AND WILL NOT VOTE YOUR POLL AS WELL!!!!!!
Kerry is the one with plans for our youth!!!!!

 

I'll try.

When Kerry came back from viet Nam, he, as far as I know, trashed the entire military establishment, and did not attempt to point out that the enemy was communist, the most evil political force on earth at the time.

He would have done better to limit his criticism to guys like McNamara who, like the Neocons in the Bush administration, escalated a war that was not in the interest of the American people.

The military is honorable and necessary.

 

You aren't quite making it, there, Jim.

Decrying the job the troops are doing is exactly equal to decrying the troops. Please convince me otherwise, because history is behind my position.

 

OK, let's suppose that we got a madman for President. Suppose, further, that he launched an attack on Montreal, becuase he decided he hates Canadians.

Would we have to go along with it, or else be accused of "not supporting the troops" or being "un-patriotic"?

See, disagreeing with foreign policy/wars is not the same as undermining the troops.

Actually, from my perspecteive, I support the troops MORE THAN YOU DO, because I don't want them sent into wars thar are not in our interest.

You may argue that this war is in our interest, but that's a different argument.

 

*post deleted*

[ October 19, 2004, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

Deal with realities...

Suppose a group of people planned an invasion of a country that had not attacked us, their goal for invading this nation was to remove it's President in order to use that nation to set up a military base to launch more invasions into other nations in that area.

Suppose this group of people had been planning this invasion for many years, but were waiting for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor", before they could justify this invasion to the nation.

Suppose these same people became the descision makers for a US Presidents defense department and used an event like 9/11 as their "new Pearl Harbor", and then went on to use scare tactics and lies to "bang the drums of war".

Would it be possible in this scenario to support the troops but not support the leaders or the invasion that these leaders sent the troops to die in?

 

Or what about a possible scenario in the future...

Suppose the AntiChrist were elected to office in the US, and he wanted to use the troops to round up all of the Christians, or at least those who refused to take the mark.

Would it be possible to support the troups without supporting the leaders or the "war"?

 

Again, we can create possibilites until Christ indeed returns. Doomsday scenarios are not realities.

 

My first post here IS a reality.

 

No, sweetheart, it's an opinion. There is a marked difference.

 

Can you point out one part of the post that is not based on facts?

 

Sure! Here ya go:

 

Look, [snipped], My father was a WWII veteran, and I lost a brother to Agent Orange in Viet Nam. I was next to go, right on the verge, and thankfully the mess ended before I had to. I've never had to fight in a war, but at least have worked very hard, giving up family time, money, and at times a measure of health, to try to turn the political situation in our country.

DON'T YOU EVER ACCUSE ME OF BLOOD GUILT FOR OUR SOLDIERS, YOU [snipped]. If you can't defend your childish positions without maling [snipped] out of yourself, why don't you stick to video games.

[ October 19, 2004, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

 

While all you whiners and potential draft dodgers are pontificating on why you fear the draft and are opposed to it, a young man in my church is preparing for a year's deployment to the Middle East.

No, he wasn't drafted. He volunteered because of a God-Given Conviction that he needed to serve his country in the military. He's 32 years old, Director of Parks and Recreation in a County Seat Town, is married and has two small girls.

My eyes fill with tears when I think of men like him who are willing to sacrifice everything because of a deep conviction that America is worth it and the Cause for Freedom around the World is Worth it.

 

I applaud him, and anyone else who volunteers for military service to protect and defend our country. I too have friends who are in the military, but it doesn't change the fact that I am against the draft, or that I am against the current invasion in Iraq.

 

So far the only people advancing the idea of restarting the draft are Democrats.