Travelling France

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > WASHINGTON (AFP) – A senior Republican lawmaker said that > deteriorating security in Iraq may force the United States to > reintroduce the military draft. > "There’s not an American … that doesn’t understand what we are > engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future," Senator > Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on > post-occupation Iraq. > "Why shouldn’t we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility > and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory > military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity > and depth of challenges we face." …

Yea, this is going to work!  Let’s send a bunch of troops who didn’t want to be in the military in the first place to fix the mess in Iraq. Of course, we could accuse them of being traitors if they refuse. Seriously, we are fortunate that no one thought of this right after 9/11.  There would have been political support for it then.  At least we are limited in our foreign adventures by our current supply of cannon fodder.

Response:

> I agree. They will at least wait for the election to be over. There is > no way in hell Bush would allow for this be done on his watch when he > can possible be elected to another term. Watch out after the election > though.

Even if Bush is re-elected it will not happen. Nothing short of another Pearl Harbor, mayhap a MoslemTerrorist attack on New York City with radiological weapons could bring the draft back. And if that happens watch out! If you thought Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fun, watch Meccah, Ryad, Bagdhad, Tehran and Damaskis go up in radioactive smoke. Jerusalem is safe. God lives there. Bob Kolker

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Look it is realy simple. > Bush wants to be re-elcted and so he says No Draft to the rich people so > they don’t worry about their kids being called up. > He wants the draft, but will do like his daddy did ("NO NEW TAXES") until > after the election and then call up the draft. > In the mean time he can use the issue against the democrats for bringing to > the floor and escape the fallout for it being his instigation. He expects > everyone to forget about the fact that he started this unwarranted holocost > in the first place. >   Can’t see a single flaw in your analysis.  You’re right, the gop’s >whole bait-and-switch scam is simple: convince the cannon fodder that >they won’t be called up, then grab them after they vote you back in. >   Luckily, our plan of action is simple, too: all we need to do is >not vote them back in. >   Among the many reasons that Kerry will be a better president than >the current incumbent – he’s not a halfwit hawk and he has been to >war.

I don’t believe either party wants a draft.  They know what the difference between Vietnam and Iraq is.  It’s the draft.  Support for our aggression over seas would dry up in a New York Minute if the draft was reinstated. Thumper

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> For your edification, not that you’ll likely understand: >> "Hagel served in Vietnam with his brother Tom in 1968. They served side by >> side as infantry squad leaders with the U.S. Army’s 9th Infantry Division. >> Hagel earned many military decorations and honors, including two Purple >> Hearts." >Indeed. >By the way there are two chances that the draft will be re-activated >anytime soon. Slim and None. >Bob Kolker >I agree. They will at least wait for the election to be over. There is >no way in hell Bush would allow for this be done on his watch when he >can possible be elected to another term. Watch out after the election >though.

He’s back to threatening Iran again. Even attacking Syria might require the draft. http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/04/22/bush_pledges_ira… http://eces.org/articles/000076.php

Response:

> Look it is realy simple. > Bush wants to be re-elcted and so he says No Draft to the rich people so > they don’t worry about their kids being called up. > He wants the draft, but will do like his daddy did ("NO NEW TAXES") until > after the election and then call up the draft. > In the mean time he can use the issue against the democrats for bringing to > the floor and escape the fallout for it being his instigation. He expects > everyone to forget about the fact that he started this unwarranted holocost > in the first place.

   Can’t see a single flaw in your analysis.  You’re right, the gop’s whole bait-and-switch scam is simple: convince the cannon fodder that they won’t be called up, then grab them after they vote you back in.    Luckily, our plan of action is simple, too: all we need to do is not vote them back in.    Among the many reasons that Kerry will be a better president than the current incumbent – he’s not a halfwit hawk and he has been to war.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > WASHINGTON (AFP) – A senior Republican lawmaker said that > > deteriorating security in Iraq may force the United States to > > reintroduce the military draft. > > "There’s not an American … that doesn’t understand what we are > > engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future," Senator > > Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on > > post-occupation Iraq. > > "Why shouldn’t we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility > > and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory > > military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity > > and depth of challenges we face." … >   "All of our citizens". "All". This would be a little easier to take > if the word "all* weren’t a blatant lie.  Since "all" is inappropriate > here, the statement is merely stupid and arrogant offer to waste of > the lives of others, a designated victime group. He most certainly > does not include his own precious life and future. IOW, not "all". >   To redeem himself, this truculent fool could demonstrate what he’s > preaching and rush to Iraq as a member of the armed forces. > Immediately. It might take up to 20 minutes to replace him with a > similarly ruthless congressdroid. >   To reinforce the lesson to the rest of us, he should help enlist his > son(s). >   Yes, indeed: let’s hear it for ‘responsibility’, Chuckie! Then let’s > observe Chuck as he go about ‘understanding the intensity and depth of > challenges’ when they include the daily possibility of death for > himself and his own offspring, or exactly what he’s directing other > people to do. It would be edifying to watch Chuckie learn – doubtless, > to his utter astonishment – that bleeding to death in the dust of some > 3rd world oil resource isn’t as much fun as living a long, expensively > comfortable life as a congressperson. >   I’d buy the book. > For your edification, not that you’ll likely understand: > "Hagel served in Vietnam with his brother Tom in 1968. They served side by > side as infantry squad leaders with the U.S. Army’s 9th Infantry Division. > Hagel earned many military decorations and honors, including two Purple > Hearts."

   And he apparently hasn’t learned anything from that experience. For him, the VN War Memorial is just stone with names on it.  He’s willing to sacrifice more American citizens, to view their deaths as an reasonable instrument of national policy.   If, despite the failure of the entire VN venture, he still remains convinced that the draft is a good thing for all our country’s citizens, then let him volunteer to go again.  Let him lead troops, among them his own children.  Legislators who are willing to sacrifice lives must not exempt their own lives from this lottery.  It is not too much to ask that legislators demonstrate their own seriousness of purpose by obeying the laws they propose and enact.    Anybody can sit in a clean, comfortable room and debate how many tax exemptions it takes to destroy an economy.  There are more than enough volunteers for that kind of ‘work’.  Let’s see him back up his opinion about the value of individual lives by offering his own.

Response:

> > > "Why shouldn’t we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility > > and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory > > military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity > > and depth of challenges we face." … >   "All of our citizens". "All". This would be a little easier to take > if the word "all* weren’t a blatant lie. > Yeah, no women in the draft, so you’re safe to spread your bullshit.

  So, you’re volunteering.     I’d be out because of age and fragility.  But how about you?  Ready to "bear some responsibility and pay some price"?  Want to go help the bushboys & their ultrarich pals plunder oil from yet another 3rd world tyranny?  Going to help out by paying with your life for a rich man’s party that you weren’t invited to?

Response:

Here is the bill currently working it’s way through congress. How many of these sponsors are Republicans? H.R.163 Title: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors: 13 Related Bills: S.89 Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD. —- COSPONSORS(13), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:     (Sort: by date)       Rep Abercrombie, Neil – 1/7/2003 [HI-1]  Rep Brown, Corrine – 1/28/2003 [FL-3]       Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy – 1/28/2003 [MO-1]  Rep Conyers, John, Jr. – 1/7/2003 [MI-14]       Rep Cummings, Elijah E. – 1/28/2003 [MD-7]  Rep Hastings, Alcee L. – 1/28/2003 [FL-23]       Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila – 1/28/2003 [TX-18]  Rep Lewis, John – 1/7/2003 [GA-5]       Rep McDermott, Jim – 1/7/2003 [WA-7]  Rep Moran, James P. – 1/28/2003 [VA-8]       Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes – 1/28/2003 [DC]  Rep Stark, Fortney Pete – 1/7/2003 [CA-13]       Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. – 1/28/2003 [NY-12 Here is the bill currently working its way through the Senate. How many sponsors of this bill are Republicans? ----  S.89 Title: A bill to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Hollings, Ernest F. [SC] (introduced 1/7/2003)      Cosponsors: (none) Related Bills: H.R.163 Latest Major Action: 1/7/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. — If you don’t vote, you are the problem. Because by not voting, you have voted for the status quo. Brooks Gregory www.theaapc.org

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I think a small minority of Americans support this idea. How much > money are Bush’s friends making off this war again? What did the stock > market do in protests in the 60’s? This is now CLEARLY a war of > convenience. The USA has no business other than greed to remain in > Iraq. The offending regime has been removed and the Iraqi people > should be allowed to find their own way… >On June 30 sovreignty will be transferred pro-forma. By June 30 of next >year we will be gone. The idea is to leave and save face. We never >should have invaded Iraq. We should have massively attacked it with >nuclear weapons. That way, not one American solider would have been >killed. The best Wogs, are dead Wogs. >Bob Kolker

Get back on those meds. Thumper

Response:

> I think a small minority of Americans support this idea. How much > money are Bush’s friends making off this war again? What did the stock > market do in protests in the 60’s? This is now CLEARLY a war of > convenience. The USA has no business other than greed to remain in > Iraq. The offending regime has been removed and the Iraqi people > should be allowed to find their own way…

On June 30 sovreignty will be transferred pro-forma. By June 30 of next year we will be gone. The idea is to leave and save face. We never should have invaded Iraq. We should have massively attacked it with nuclear weapons. That way, not one American solider would have been killed. The best Wogs, are dead Wogs. Bob Kolker

Response:

> For your edification, not that you’ll likely understand: > "Hagel served in Vietnam with his brother Tom in 1968. They served side by > side as infantry squad leaders with the U.S. Army’s 9th Infantry Division. > Hagel earned many military decorations and honors, including two Purple > Hearts."

Indeed. By the way there are two chances that the draft will be re-activated anytime soon. Slim and None. Bob Kolker

Response:

> WASHINGTON (AFP) – A senior Republican lawmaker said that > deteriorating security in Iraq may force the United States to > reintroduce the military draft. > "There’s not an American … that doesn’t understand what we are > engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future," Senator > Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on > post-occupation Iraq. > "Why shouldn’t we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility > and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory > military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity > and depth of challenges we face." …

I think a small minority of Americans support this idea. How much money are Bush’s friends making off this war again? What did the stock market do in protests in the 60’s? This is now CLEARLY a war of convenience. The USA has no business other than greed to remain in Iraq. The offending regime has been removed and the Iraqi people should be allowed to find their own way… it is THEIR country after all, or is it? The are better able to establish a strong country now than they were and will scarcely be better able if we continue to meddle in their affairs. Destroying the USA to meddle with another’s country is like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. TimJowers

Response:

Look it is realy simple. Bush wants to be re-elcted and so he says No Draft to the rich people so they don’t worry about their kids being called up. He wants the draft, but will do like his daddy did ("NO NEW TAXES") until after the election and then call up the draft. In the mean time he can use the issue against the democrats for bringing to the floor and escape the fallout for it being his instigation. He expects everyone to forget about the fact that he started this unwarranted holocost in the first place.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> WASHINGTON (AFP) – A senior Republican lawmaker said that > deteriorating security in Iraq may force the United States to > reintroduce the military draft. > "There’s not an American … that doesn’t understand what we are > engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future," Senator > Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on > post-occupation Iraq. > "Why shouldn’t we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility > and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory > military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity > and depth of challenges we face." … >   "All of our citizens". "All". This would be a little easier to take > if the word "all* weren’t a blatant lie.  Since "all" is inappropriate > here, the statement is merely stupid and arrogant offer to waste of > the lives of others, a designated victime group. He most certainly > does not include his own precious life and future. IOW, not "all". >   To redeem himself, this truculent fool could demonstrate what he’s > preaching and rush to Iraq as a member of the armed forces. > Immediately. It might take up to 20 minutes to replace him with a > similarly ruthless congressdroid. >   To reinforce the lesson to the rest of us, he should help enlist his > son(s). >   Yes, indeed: let’s hear it for ‘responsibility’, Chuckie! Then let’s > observe Chuck as he go about ‘understanding the intensity and depth of > challenges’ when they include the daily possibility of death for > himself and his own offspring, or exactly what he’s directing other > people to do. It would be edifying to watch Chuckie learn – doubtless, > to his utter astonishment – that bleeding to death in the dust of some > 3rd world oil resource isn’t as much fun as living a long, expensively > comfortable life as a congressperson. >   I’d buy the book.

For your edification, not that you’ll likely understand: "Hagel served in Vietnam with his brother Tom in 1968. They served side by side as infantry squad leaders with the U.S. Army’s 9th Infantry Division. Hagel earned many military decorations and honors, including two Purple Hearts."

Response:

I enthusiastically support compulsory military service. One of the GREAT, GREAT, GREAT tragedies of American politics is apathy. At one end of the American economic spectrum are the Americans who have the GOOD LIFE. Life is so good that politics is often boring. They often gravitate to the Republican Party because of tax incentives, and their general philosophy is: WHY ROCK THE BOAT–LIFE IS GOOD. They have a 3,000 square foot home in suburbia, 2.4 kids attending prep school, a vacation home at the beach or in the mountains, two or three SUVs, and of course, granite countertops. On Saturday afternoons, soccer moms drop the kids off at the mall, and the cash registers start ringing. Of course, cell phones are a mandatory teenage fashion accessory. At the other end of the American economic spectrum are the Americans who live from paycheck-to-paycheck. Life is a daily struggle just to have food on the table, and to pay the bills. Mom and dad are exhausted from work and worry. Not having medical insurance is frightening. Unfortunately, these families view politics as boring too, because they don’t see much of a political difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.They are still exhausted from work and worry, whomever is in office. Many young women and men currently fighting DUBYA’S WAR were raised in families at the lower end of the economic spectrum. Not all–but a sizeable percentage. Very few American rich kids are in the Middle East. For the vast majority of Americans, myself included, life has been pretty damn good. Life is always a struggle with overtones of Hell, but we were fortunate to have been born during an era of unparalleled economic prosperity, and a low ebb of military hostility. Our GOOD LUCK is slowly running out. We have lived a sheltered life in which many of the the world inhabitants have a disconnect, and can only observe American society through envious, and sometimes hostile, eyes. Apathy is about to turn a corner, and it’s the shot in the arm that will improve our political system. When Congressional leaders’ kids are subject to the draft, wars might give our leaders’ pause, when their kids are wearing combat boots. Some Congressional leaders will pull strings to have JUNIOR in cushy military jobs ( Off hand, I can’t think of instances where this has happened. COUGH! COUGH! ), but fewer kids of privilege will be able to wiggle out of military service. The paycheck-to-paycheck families will have less resentment when their sons and daughters die in combat, and the burden of fighting wars will be more evenly distributed. In the past apathy and 50% of the electorate voting, have morbidly shaped our political system. LET’S JUST HOPE APATHY IS DEAD. IF APATHY IS DEAD, MAYBE FEWER AMERICAN SOLDIERS WILL BE DYING IN THE MIDDLE EAST. If apathy is dead, maybe the American electorate will vote for QUALIFIED men and WOMEN to serve our country. Qualified leaders should be America’s future. Cameron

Response:

> No you don’t. >  This is a democrat thing all the way. > Mr. RANGEL[D], Mr. MCDERMOTT[D], Mr. CONYERS[D], Mr. LEWIS[D] of > Georgia, Mr. STARK[D], and Mr. ABERCROMBIE[D] in the House of > Representitives.   > In the Senate it was introduced by Mr. HOLLINGS[D], Senator from South > Carolina.

  Then a pox on all of them also, in addition to Mr. C. Hagel[R]. > The question is if passed by the House and by the Senate would President > Bush sign this into law? > According to > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/07/politics/main535532.shtml > President Bush has no plans to reinstitute the draft.

   ’Had’ no plans, past tense.  Not ‘has’ no plans.  We don’t know and can’t reasonably guess what the Resident will do next.  While this was a vitally important news at the time, that time was January 7, 2003. I suspect the posturing being done by protected ultra-patriots in the last few weeks concerns more timely proposals than those reported 16 months ago.    It was December 31, 2002 when CBS/AP reported on Mr. Rangel [D-NY] and his planned introduction of legislation regarding the draft. Below is a brief quote from that report: > Call To Restart Military Draft

   NEW YORK, Dec. 31, 2002 (CBS) Rep. Charles Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War, says he plans to introduce legislation to resume the military draft in the event of a war with Iraq.    In an opinion piece published in Tuesday’s editions of The New York Times, the Democrat from New York said he would ask Congress next week to support his proposal.    Rangel said the prospect of a draft would make Congress less likely to support a war. "I believe that if those calling for war knew their children were more likely to be required to serve