Maybe but the only way to hold ground is to have a boot on it.
And we're pretty short on boots. Two-thirds of the Army's active-duty combat brigades are currently deployed overseas. The only thing keeping body & soul together (to the deteriment of the soul, though) are stop orders and massive, repeated employment of the Guard to relive the active duty troops.
Maybe but the only way to hold ground is to have a boot on it.
So is the right saying that we're trying to hold lands around the world? We're a new empire? Wow, you used to fight against that idea. What's with the sudden turn around in your opinion?
What a fine little piece of political chicanery this site is....does it link back to that site that SJO likes to use for her sources? Yes, what a brilliant campaign plank that would be "vote for me, I'll draft your ass". On the internet nobody knows you're a dirt-flinging campaign manager.
I looked at the site....sure its an anti-Bush site....bring 'em on I say....but its no worse than any of Rupert Murdoch's scummy offerings...such as Fox News in the US or The Sun in the UK, which are some of the worst examples of trash "media" on the planet. Murdoch et al makes Al Jazeera look fair and balanced. Murdoch makes the old Soviet press seem positively angelic.
So..Dewprops...when you trash some of my sources..(which admittedly are often anti-Bush)...just remember that the most popular television "news" source (Fox) in this country is a festering source of lies and propaganda....and the scariest thing is... millions of Americans actually believe that they present facts, news and reality.
Why are so many people so scared of the draft anyway? The last time we had a draft here, it meant that middle and upper class Americans ended up being sent to dangerous places, with many losing their lives or being permanently disabled. Imagine the same thing with the recent and ongoing Iraq war?...All those folk just out of college were gung-ho for the war probably because they didnt have to go and fight it. If had there been a Iraq war draft, the college campuses would have been like they were in the 1960s...during that other devastating and unnecessary war, Vietnam. It takes a sharp pointed stick....
A point against having a draft: the military ends up full of people who probably wouldnt have joined up voluntarily, implying a possibly lower quality fighting force, than is probable within an army of people who join voluntarily, as we have now.
A point pro-draft...if worked correctly that is: Everyone of able body would have to do national service..and if implemented properly, anyone who who ends up in the military should have equal access to promotion according to ability and merit...rather than what family, college, etc they attended. Currently many of those being sent to tyhe most dangerous combat zones are people, often of working class background or color who join up because gainful employment in civilian life has been transferred overseas, such as S.Korea or communist China.
A compulsory draft would also render the burgeoning species of "wealthy, well-connected chickenhawks" extinct. And *that* I would welcome.
And we're pretty short on boots. Two-thirds of the Army's active-duty combat brigades are currently deployed overseas. The only thing keeping body & soul together (to the deteriment of the soul, though) are stop orders and massive, repeated employment of the Guard to relive the active duty troops.
i think all the people in the national guard should ask for early leave to go to business school...the current president should understand that and grant their requests
i think all the people in the national guard should ask for early leave to go to business school...the current president should understand that and grant their requests
IT's time our standing military was drastically reduced so a president couldn't be so quick to pull the trigger and attack.
Well, that was sort of the idea of the late 70s reorganization of the Guard. It was though that if we made it so you'd have to call up the Guard to go to war, you'd be less likely to start a war like Vietnam again (no Guard unit was ever sent to Vietnam, quite purposefully).
So a bunch of specialist units were made Guard-only, and Guard units were paired with active-duty units in front-line brigades and divisions. The end result was to reduce the ability of the active-duty military to do any major operation without large numbers of Guard units. And it worked - we couldn't be in Iraq at all without the Guard. But, in this case at least, huge Guard call-ups haven't been as disruptive or dissuasive as it had been assumed they would be.
But, in this case at least, huge Guard call-ups haven't been as disruptive or dissuasive as it had been assumed they would be.
How much of the Guard is on the front lines shooting and getting shot at? Just curious. Also, having such a large free standing military reduces the impact on the Guard in the long run. Maybe they should have to be 50% of any operation to keep the politicians honest.
Hey now, where did I claim that FOX News was a bastion of unbiased reporting?? There are three network news outlets (NBC, CBS, ABC), CNN and MSNBC out there, all arguably operating from an opposite and equally polarized stance, so being agitated about one conservatively oriented news agency is hardly worthy of a total demonization of that news agency. Fair's fair. Balance is necessary. Don't like it? Don't watch it. I don't even have cable.
Not singling you out Sammi but AppleOutsider seems to be full of dyslexics lately.....
Read the screen name carefully gang, it's DREWPROPS. Not that I even care...I have nothing against morning condensation.
Hey now, where did I claim that FOX News was a bastion of unbiased reporting?? There are three network news outlets (NBC, CBS, ABC), CNN and MSNBC out there, all arguably operating from an opposite and equally polarized stance, so being agitated about one conservatively oriented news agency is hardly worthy of a total demonization of that news agency. Fair's fair. Balance is necessary. Don't like it? Don't watch it. I don't even have cable.]
You didn't, as such. But in (your) trashing of certain independent news sources I have used, as "flaky" or "uneliable", (presumably because they are lesserknown or independent sources) you automatically imply that the sole sources of reliable information are the large media corporations. Just because an organization is long-established, has a recognizable name, is very powerful and its CEO is paid an 8 digit salary doesn't doesn't mean that the news it puts across is accurate. If anything, the character of the media can be defined by the news they refuse to print or broadcast than the news that is included.
For an indication of the bias of the regular US corporate media, just take a look at the recent survey done by former BBC Director General' Greg Dyke. In the run up to the (Iraq) war, out of 844 commentaries aired on CNN/Fox/CBS/MSNBC/ABC etc etc, 840 were "pro war/pro Bush and only FOUR were against. Fair and balanced...what a sick state our media is in: it abdicated its public responsibility to inform, and became government puppets , spewing propaganda...just like in those old Communist regimes of Eastern Europe.
Were I of age, any draft instated by Bush (which by definition would be for his own Administration's purposes and not the urgent defense of the nation), I would be tempted to dodge. Still, I think this is a bit far-fetched. Also, doesn't there have to be Congressional approval to reinstate something as dire as the draft? Bush can't just restart it by fiat, as it were... can he?
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Maybe but the only way to hold ground is to have a boot on it.
And we're pretty short on boots. Two-thirds of the Army's active-duty combat brigades are currently deployed overseas. The only thing keeping body & soul together (to the deteriment of the soul, though) are stop orders and massive, repeated employment of the Guard to relive the active duty troops.
Cool links:
Deployment status of active brigades
Deployment status of Guard brigades
Lotta blue in those charts.
Originally posted by Scott
Maybe but the only way to hold ground is to have a boot on it.
So is the right saying that we're trying to hold lands around the world? We're a new empire? Wow, you used to fight against that idea. What's with the sudden turn around in your opinion?
Originally posted by drewprops
What a fine little piece of political chicanery this site is....does it link back to that site that SJO likes to use for her sources? Yes, what a brilliant campaign plank that would be "vote for me, I'll draft your ass". On the internet nobody knows you're a dirt-flinging campaign manager.
I looked at the site....sure its an anti-Bush site....bring 'em on I say....but its no worse than any of Rupert Murdoch's scummy offerings...such as Fox News in the US or The Sun in the UK, which are some of the worst examples of trash "media" on the planet. Murdoch et al makes Al Jazeera look fair and balanced. Murdoch makes the old Soviet press seem positively angelic.
So..Dewprops...when you trash some of my sources..(which admittedly are often anti-Bush)...just remember that the most popular television "news" source (Fox) in this country is a festering source of lies and propaganda....and the scariest thing is... millions of Americans actually believe that they present facts, news and reality.
Why are so many people so scared of the draft anyway? The last time we had a draft here, it meant that middle and upper class Americans ended up being sent to dangerous places, with many losing their lives or being permanently disabled. Imagine the same thing with the recent and ongoing Iraq war?...All those folk just out of college were gung-ho for the war probably because they didnt have to go and fight it. If had there been a Iraq war draft, the college campuses would have been like they were in the 1960s...during that other devastating and unnecessary war, Vietnam. It takes a sharp pointed stick....
A point against having a draft: the military ends up full of people who probably wouldnt have joined up voluntarily, implying a possibly lower quality fighting force, than is probable within an army of people who join voluntarily, as we have now.
A point pro-draft...if worked correctly that is: Everyone of able body would have to do national service..and if implemented properly, anyone who who ends up in the military should have equal access to promotion according to ability and merit...rather than what family, college, etc they attended. Currently many of those being sent to tyhe most dangerous combat zones are people, often of working class background or color who join up because gainful employment in civilian life has been transferred overseas, such as S.Korea or communist China.
A compulsory draft would also render the burgeoning species of "wealthy, well-connected chickenhawks" extinct. And *that* I would welcome.
Originally posted by Towel
And we're pretty short on boots. Two-thirds of the Army's active-duty combat brigades are currently deployed overseas. The only thing keeping body & soul together (to the deteriment of the soul, though) are stop orders and massive, repeated employment of the Guard to relive the active duty troops.
Cool links:
Deployment status of active brigades
Deployment status of Guard brigades
Lotta blue in those charts.
i think all the people in the national guard should ask for early leave to go to business school...the current president should understand that and grant their requests
g
Originally posted by thegelding
i think all the people in the national guard should ask for early leave to go to business school...the current president should understand that and grant their requests
g
Originally posted by bunge
IT's time our standing military was drastically reduced so a president couldn't be so quick to pull the trigger and attack.
Well, that was sort of the idea of the late 70s reorganization of the Guard. It was though that if we made it so you'd have to call up the Guard to go to war, you'd be less likely to start a war like Vietnam again (no Guard unit was ever sent to Vietnam, quite purposefully).
So a bunch of specialist units were made Guard-only, and Guard units were paired with active-duty units in front-line brigades and divisions. The end result was to reduce the ability of the active-duty military to do any major operation without large numbers of Guard units. And it worked - we couldn't be in Iraq at all without the Guard. But, in this case at least, huge Guard call-ups haven't been as disruptive or dissuasive as it had been assumed they would be.
Originally posted by Towel
But, in this case at least, huge Guard call-ups haven't been as disruptive or dissuasive as it had been assumed they would be.
How much of the Guard is on the front lines shooting and getting shot at? Just curious. Also, having such a large free standing military reduces the impact on the Guard in the long run. Maybe they should have to be 50% of any operation to keep the politicians honest.
Not singling you out Sammi but AppleOutsider seems to be full of dyslexics lately.....
Read the screen name carefully gang, it's DREWPROPS. Not that I even care...I have nothing against morning condensation.
I am glad we don't have an army.
Originally posted by soulcrusher
<Points at stupid americans and laughs>
I am glad we don't have an army.
Hey, let's take over this stupid little country that doesn't have any way to protect themselves
Originally posted by drewprops
Hey now, where did I claim that FOX News was a bastion of unbiased reporting??
You didn't, as such. But in (your) trashing of certain independent news sources I have used, as "flaky" or "uneliable", (presumably because they are lesserknown or independent sources) you automatically imply that the sole sources of reliable information are the large media corporations. Just because an organization is long-established, has a recognizable name, is very powerful and its CEO is paid an 8 digit salary doesn't doesn't mean that the news it puts across is accurate. If anything, the character of the media can be defined by the news they refuse to print or broadcast than the news that is included.
For an indication of the bias of the regular US corporate media, just take a look at the recent survey done by former BBC Director General' Greg Dyke. In the run up to the (Iraq) war, out of 844 commentaries aired on CNN/Fox/CBS/MSNBC/ABC etc etc, 840 were "pro war/pro Bush and only FOUR were against. Fair and balanced...what a sick state our media is in: it abdicated its public responsibility to inform, and became government puppets , spewing propaganda...just like in those old Communist regimes of Eastern Europe.
The White House web site hasn't been updated.
Among its many jewels we learn that Saddam is a threat because he still has:
26,000 liters of anthrax?enough to kill several million people
38,000 liters of botulinum toxin
500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents
and
Almost 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents
and that
From three Iraqi defectors, we know that Iraq in the late 1990s had several mobile biological weapons labs. But he has not disclosed them.
He's a bad man! I'm convinced.