Couldn't find the "draft" thread... so here

[NOLABroncofan]

Guess GW is answering the question...


President Bush Says No Draft



"No, we're not going -- we don't need the draft. Look, the all-volunteer Army is working. The all-volunteer Army... I know Senator McCain and I agree on this issue for certain, the all-volunteer Army works."



~ President George W. Bush, August 10, 2004



President Bush is committed to keeping participation in the United States Armed Services voluntary. The President's cabinet has stated that a draft is not being considered. Recruitment and retention rates remain strong, and the military has not had any problem maintaining a strong force. President Bush is confident in the current state of the military and has assured that Nation that the all-volunteer military force is working well.



President Bush's Administration has Remained Consistent on the Draft



ü Vice President Cheney says all volunteer force "works extraordinarily well."

"I don't foresee a situation in which we'd want to go back to the draft. We made a decision after Vietnam to go with an all-volunteer force... The all-volunteer force has produced an absolutely remarkable group of men and women in the service. And I think it works. It works extraordinarily well. And I'm a great believer in it... I suppose, at some point down the road we'd have such a national crisis or emergency, but it would have to be on the scale of World War II before I would think that anybody would seriously contemplate the possibility of going back again to the draft. I think what we have works very well." (Vice President Cheney, Oregon City, OR, September, 17, 2004)



ü Secretary Rumsfeld calls suggestion of Bush initiated draft "nonsense."

When asked if by the Armed Services Committee about initiating the draft, Secretary Rumsfeld replied, "That is absolute nonsense... It's absolutely false that anyone in this administration is considering reinstituting the draft." (Donald Rumsfeld, Senate Armed Services Committee, September 23, 2004)


John Kerry is using the draft to scare young voters and veterans.

During campaign stops, John Kerry has worked to scare voters by suggesting that President Bush will initiate a draft. "If George Bush were to be re-elected, given the way he has gone about this war and given his avoidance of responsibility in North Korea and Iran and other places, is [a draft] possible? I can't tell you." (John Kerry, September 22, 2004)

Nuff said...

[Booher]

I saw on cnn that scare tactics were being used to get soldiers to reenlist or they were gonna to finish their service in iraq or afghanistan......It was being investigated.

[NJBRONCOSFAN]

The National Guard and Reserves are in trouble. Guard recruitment is down 12 percent, and Reservists as old as their late 40s are being mobilized. Some heavy-duty arm-twisting is underway. According to the Rocky Mountain News, soldiers at Fort Carson, Colo., for instance, have been told that if they don't re-up to 2007 they will be shipped out pronto for Iraq.

[NJBRONCOSFAN]

While Bush has no plans to reinstate a draft, he could be forced into it by events. Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, a likely presidential candidate in 2008, says that a draft "might become necessary" in the years ahead. The threshold question before the election is this: which candidate is more likely to have so few international friends amid a crisis that he would have to move beyond the all-volunteer force? This question takes the seemingly arcane issue of burden-sharing and brings it home to the American heartland. If we need, God forbid, to occupy another country that truly threatens the United States, we will either do it with the help of our allies or with the conscription of our kids.
It doesn't take a nuclear scientist to figure out which presidential candidate this year would have a better chance of making a fresh start in securing the cooperation of our allies when the world erupts again, in Iraq, Iran, North Korea or anywhere else. Diplomacy works. Five years after Bill Clinton's war in Kosovo, 100 percent of the peacekeeping is handled by foreign troops.

"Not. Gonna. Happen," concludes conservative columnist Michelle Malkin.

"Not. Gonna. Happen." That's what President Bush's father used to say about raising taxes

[NOLABroncofan]

Originally posted by NJBRONCOSFAN
While Bush has no plans to reinstate a draft, he could be forced into it by events. Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, a likely presidential candidate in 2008, says that a draft "might become necessary" in the years ahead. The threshold question before the election is this: which candidate is more likely to have so few international friends amid a crisis that he would have to move beyond the all-volunteer force? This question takes the seemingly arcane issue of burden-sharing and brings it home to the American heartland. If we need, God forbid, to occupy another country that truly threatens the United States, we will either do it with the help of our allies or with the conscription of our kids.
It doesn't take a nuclear scientist to figure out which presidential candidate this year would have a better chance of making a fresh start in securing the cooperation of our allies when the world erupts again, in Iraq, Iran, North Korea or anywhere else. Diplomacy works. Five years after Bill Clinton's war in Kosovo, 100 percent of the peacekeeping is handled by foreign troops.

"Not. Gonna. Happen," concludes conservative columnist Michelle Malkin.

"Not. Gonna. Happen." That's what President Bush's father used to say about raising taxes

I agree that the "possibility" of a draft will always loom over our heads depending on what the current status of the international community is.

I do not agree however, that this threat depends on the candidate chosen in the upcoming election.

Forced Diplomacy ( the tactics Clinton utilized in Kosovo ) work only when the enemy is weak enough to in effect "push around". Equating an enemy such as Iraq, Iran or Korea for that matter, to the likes of the uprising in Kosovo is just plain idiotic. Iraq & Iran have traditionally considered the US as the "Great Satan" since we initiated diplomacy with those countries. Korea has hated us since the 50's due to the war. The Kosovo uprising had little chance of success from inception & in essence was a cake walk for us to quell.

As I've mentioned previously, Clinton tried diplomacy in Korea in the form of a $20 billion dollar bribe. Sure, it kept him out of the hotseat so to speak during his presidency, but only delayed the inevitable. As soon as he left office, Korea demanded more $$$ and threatened nuclear weapons development. Sadly, the majority of the money Clinton gave them ( our tax dollars ) went towards this Nuke development long before he left office.

Bottom line, diplomacy works when utilized with countries willing to accept it. None of the three you mentioned above are willing or capable of doing so. They understand only one thing... force of arms. This is specifically why we are currently in Iraq. We set up the Govt and train it's army to counter the threat of force from the power hungry local terrorists ( ala Hussein ). The goal being to give them the independance their people want and the capability to survive as a democratic society.

Note: I don't claim the GW Bush is the smartest of presidents, however, he was smart enough to sorround himself with a very intelligent and capable staff. This country would be in a very desperate situation indeed if Kerry some how miracuously wins the presidency. He ( and indeed this entire country ) will be continually stepped on and harrassed by outside forces because quite simply... he doesn't have the nads to step up to the plate when the crap hits the fan.

Speaking of which... Kerry supporters; how many times do I have to hear "I have a plan", which interestingly enough has never been revealed? I'll chastise both candidates on this. Quit focusing on downplaying eachother and tell me what you plan on doing to make the country better! Then again..... at least GW has been doing what he said he would ( and it seems to be working ).

Nuff said...

[NJBRONCOSFAN]

Nola, you miss the point.
Diplomacy is not something only used against your enemies.
You use it with those who you would like to make your allies.
That what i was using diplomacy in reference to.
For Clinton, that meant getting the support of the international community to act in Kosovo, thus eventually securing the oppurtunity to withdraw all troops long before the peacekeeping process even took place...thus the peacekeeping force was made up of 0% american troops.
According to what you say, it seems almost immiment that we WILL have a draft, because all those countries i mentioned are problems that we need to address according to you.
If we decide to address these problems on our own, their WILL be a draft. President Bush feels this countries are a direct threat, and if he decides to intervene unilaterally, basically as he did in Iraq, then we WILL have a draft.

[NJBRONCOSFAN]

Originally posted by NOLABroncofan
at least GW has been doing what he said he would ( and it seems to be working ).

Nuff said...

How is it working?
What has been accomplished?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3695684.stm

yes, saddam is out of power, but that means nothing. He was not a terrorist...i guarentee you saddam was more interested in keeping his own power than bombing america.

The white house now states that the war in Iraq will experience the same amount of insurgency for at least 12-18 months more.
Bush declared the war over so long ago, yet, more than 75% of the deaths have come after that declaration. He lied to the public on that one.

We haven't even been able to secure Afghanistan, yet there's already talk of going into Iran, or syria....if that's the case, there will most certainly be a draft.
Now, whether you think this is a question of having nads or not, is a whole nother story.

[StlBroncosFan]

I too saw this.

I also tend to believe that it doesn't matter WHO is in the White House if things get really bad. If a need arises that the draft be reinstated then it will be done by Congress and whomever holds the office of Presidency.

Not to highjack this thread but since diplomacy with our "allies" was mentioned, did anyone else read the continuing story of how our "allies" were getting BIG time money from Iraq via the food for oil program? Yup, France, Russia and Germany (Security Council members) were getting vouchers (to be determined if illegal) from Saddam. The oil for food program was also funding terrorist organizations.
No offense meant frenchfan cause you are tops in my book.

If anyone wants more info here is the link. (we can start another thread if anyone wants to discuss).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133484,00.html

[NJBRONCOSFAN]

Originally posted by StlBroncosFan
I too saw this.

I also tend to believe that it doesn't matter WHO is in the White House if things get really bad. If a need arises that the draft be reinstated then it will be done by Congress and whomever holds the office of Presidency.

Your right StL., but remember, it is ultimately up to the commander and chief to go to war.
Nola said it himself, Bush has the balls to act on his own instead of waiting around for other countries to help. This is the type of situation were a draft might arise. We are making up 85% of the forces in Iraq right now..and we have many troops in Afghanistan...apparently we already don't have enough troops in either of those places because peace is not being kept.
Now, obviously no one knows for sure, but it seems that Kerry would be willing to seek more support from the international community before invading another country...i can't say the same for Bush...there have been constant talk of what the next nation we invade will be.
You need look no further than Bush's foreign policy to realize this. He decided to go to war before having all the full facts. Yes, true, those other countries were benefiting from Iraq, but why not? We always do what's in our best interest, disregarding all other countries.
A side note...Do you understand the embargo we placed on Iraq many years ago was starving thousands of people? that in itself is basically a terrorist act (and i'm not trying to make that a dem. vs. rep. argument)

[StlBroncosFan]

Originally posted by NJBRONCOSFAN
How is it working?
What has been accomplished?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3695684.stm

yes, saddam is out of power, but that means nothing. He was not a terrorist...i guarentee you saddam was more interested in keeping his own power than bombing america.

The white house now states that the war in Iraq will experience the same amount of insurgency for at least 12-18 months more.
Bush declared the war over so long ago, yet, more than 75% of the deaths have come after that declaration. He lied to the public on that one.

We haven't even been able to secure Afghanistan, yet there's already talk of going into Iran, or syria....if that's the case, there will most certainly be a draft.
Now, whether you think this is a question of having nads or not, is a whole nother story.

Hi NJ!

Couple of things.
Bush declared mission accomplished which it was....Ousting Saddam. The war with Saddam's regime is over. Now we are fighting the militants and other terrorists that have entered the country.

Afghanistan is coming along as well as to be expected. There are still a lot of Warlords and Militants that feel they should be in power. This doesn't suprise me. Heck, I was told personally that someone was going to hold my family hostage until I voted for Kerry and then they would let them go. Seriously! That is no joke.

It is a little stronger in Afghanistan but do you see my point? These Warlords are scared because they are LOSING their power in Afghanistan and they are having to try scare tactics to get people to vote for who they want because they know they are losing. Sounds familiar. Sounds like politics with a gun.

[NJBRONCOSFAN]

Originally posted by StlBroncosFan


It is a little stronger in Afghanistan but do you see my point? These Warlords are scared because they are LOSING their power in Afghanistan and they are having to try scare tactics to get people to vote for who they want because they know they are losing. Sounds familiar. Sounds like politics with a gun.

Your totally right, but you know what...It Works.

[StlBroncosFan]

Originally posted by NJBRONCOSFAN
Your totally right, but you know what...It Works.

Maybe. Time will tell.

[NJBRONCOSFAN]

Well, in the past it has proven a very effective tool to sway voter results and the only way to ensure it is to keep troops there.

funny side note...isn't it ironic that we are trying to set up free and democratic elections in other countries when for sure, we obviously haven't totally figured it out for ourselves?

[mattos]

Originally posted by NJBRONCOSFAN
it is ultimately up to the commander and chief to go to war.

. . .

A side note...Do you understand the embargo we placed on Iraq many years ago was starving thousands of people? that in itself is basically a terrorist act (and i'm not trying to make that a dem. vs. rep. argument)

glad to see some user-rebellion against the man (mods) in the recreation of some political threads.

first, the president doesn't have the power to go to war. the constitution gives this power to congress. "but" you say "pres are constantly deciding to go to war!" true, but that is b/c 90% (i'm making that number up) of what our federal gov does today is unconstitutional (measuring "constitutional" by what the framers envisioned). congress passed a law in the 70's called the war power's act that gave the president the right to use the military for 60-90 days before getting congressional consent, and that is what presidents act under today, but the act itself violates the constitution. all that is to say, the president doesn't have the power to go to war under the constitution, but in our modern unconstitutional government, he does have the ability to use the military temporarily w/o congressional support.

i also wanted to echo what you said about the embargo. some politicians like to pretend that they are seeking a diplomatic solution by calling for embargo's. in reality, this is the worst type of warfare b/c those who are harmed by it are the civilians.

one other thing. bush's assurances that he has no intention of using the draft is only good if you trust him. in light of the fact that the administration has been getting the draft machinery ready for months and bush's claim that we will not let iran develop nuclear weapons (he made that last night on the o'reilley interview), i have my doubts as to the trustworthiness of this statement.

this political thread gets deleted by mods in . . .
3
2
1

[NJBRONCOSFAN]

Mattos, thanks for bringing up the War Power's Act...i didn't wanna even try to explain because i remember when i learned about it in class i was confused