The US draft
 

edit: They moved it. Here ya go

http://www.frontsteps.com/creations/100 ... 1110665700

This may be a joke but this video brings up some serious points about the war and the different fronts. IMO The draft will happen within in the next five years unless the situation in Iraq improves. The fact of the matter is the troops levels are already extreme low and the situation in Iraq isn’t improving – in fact many sectors are progressively getting worse. Unless other nations join this effort the draft is bound to occur in the US.

404.

y helo thar kanada

It's only a matter of time....

LOL. that was funny

the thing that most people dont know is that the draft bill was passed by Democrats to scare people into voting against Bush. Now the bill is dead. There will be another civil war before there is another draft-id be willing to put money on that.

Your right and wrong.

Yes, a democrat did start the bill, Sen.blahblah from New York. Last time I checked though he didn't start it to scare people into voting for Kerry(pussy), unless Americans are that stupid and think "Hmmm, a Democrat started a Draft bill, lets vote for a Democrat!"

[quote="$p!k3":d49b0]Your right and wrong.

Yes, a democrat did start the bill, Sen.blahblah from New York. Last time I checked though he didn't start it to scare people into voting for Kerry(pussy), unless Americans are that stupid and think "Hmmm, a Democrat started a Draft bill, lets vote for a Democrat!"[/quote:d49b0]

I believe the theory is that most Americans don't pay enough attention to know that a Democrat drafted the bill. And, even if it did become widely known, I'm sure the Senator - especially if he is from New York - was already chosen to be a sacraficial lamb for the party. Taking one for the team and all. Especially if it was New York, you know the Democrats want nothing more than to see Hilary gain power. Dumbass New Yorkers who voted her into office. Just usher in the Antichrist why don't you? annoy:

Anyway, sparing an attack on the United States itself, there will be no draft. A draft bill would have to pass both the House and the Senate and then be approved by the President. Few politicians are stupid enough to touch the draft because it is political suicide. Which further supports the theory that the Democratic senator who initiated the bill during the run-up to the election was coerced by the party into doing so.

You guys seem to forget that the US is fighting a war... unless other nations join effort the draft will be necessary in order to meet the required troop levels needed to gain control of Iraq.

I only know that the bill is dead.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm

As of December 2004, there were 1,411,287 officers and enlisted personnel in the United States military branches.

As of January 2005, there were approximately 150,000 officers and enlisted personnel deployed in Iraq. This is about 10% of the United States military capacity.

Pre-requesite for this topic? Know what you're talking about.

But how many of the other 90% can be moved from their current post to iraq without weakening those other posts?

You have to look at that on a case-by-case basis and make that decision. If we reduce troop levels in the middle US states or allied countries like Germany, we aren't looking at getting ourselves into too much trouble.

If I recall correctly, US doctrine is set up to be able to mobilize 40% of our personnel within two years.

hake:

Ok I didn't know that, thank you for enlightening me... If that it true than maybe there isn't a need for a draft, at least not immediately. But why hasn't Bush send more troops in when the current ones are struggling?

hake:

AH WELL.

You just made me feel bad for being an ass wallbash:

Anyway, I get a bit heated about this kind of issue because so many people - especially US citizens - have no clue whatsoever when it comes to issues like this.

lol

There is no need to apologize for that. You should see some of the shit I walk through in political threads.

I don't know what you mean by struggling. It doesn't matter how many military personnel are in an area when you're getting weekly potshots or civilians are being attacked randomly. There's definately enough personnel that would be needed for an offensive in Iraq, but there's nothing to take offensive action against for now. And when that fighting is needed it's done, the beginning parts of the war for example. Fallujah also showed there were enough personnel for an offensive during the "peacekeeping."

Until this North Korea, Iraq, Syria, etc situation actually escalates more than just "SECRET FBI FILES THAT SAY BUSH SUCKED OFF SYRIANS FOR OIL" ...if you know what I mean - I wouldn't worry about them, well moreso let the people that it's their jobs to worry about it.

I find people in general are believing the negative conspiracy theories just because they're negative or "spicy". Somewhat puts a damper on what the people go through over there and some things they might've done right.

You also have to take into account not only our armys weakness but the iraqi's themselves. During the recent Iraqi elections the candidate that the United States was hoping would win was in fact not elected by the people. They chose in stead another man. They then told the US troops we dont need you anymore please leave. Now if bush starts throwing more troops over there then they will flip out and think that he is infact trying to gain power over there.
I very much doubt that there will be a draft in Iraq. If another conflict flares up within the next ten years however. I would not at all be surprised to see a draft of some sorts happen.

we arent stuggling, your just used to the loeft wing media. We have fought the most succesfult War in military history (based on our goals)

oOo: X infinity

Wasn't the original goal to get rid of WMD?

No, thats what the liberals want you to think.

wallbash:

Are you related to a wet sock with a hole in the big toe which is wrapped around a half eaten cheese sandwich which has been stomped on several hundred times because it was dropped in the middle of a sidewalk in New York City? The only reason I have such an inquiry is because you seem to have an intelligence level reminiscent of such an obscure item. The most successful war in history you say? You have either terribly mixed up the definition of “success” and “failure” or you happen to be the type of person who enjoys watching NASCAR, drinking abnormally extensive amounts of Budweiser and protecting your family from robbers, terrorists and liberal pussies with an array of high powered assault rifles; because only a person who meets that criteria would be able to be so blissfully ignorant. You didn’t find any WMD, the majority of the country doesn’t have basic utilities, there are constant attacks on the US despite the fact that Bush declared the end of the war nearly two years ago and the entire would thinks Americans are lairs, criminals, imperialists and even terrorists – success you say?

I love the idea of being forced to go to war in a free country...where the war they're fighting isn't even about protecting America.

Havoc--I guarentee you that I know more about military history than you ever will. First, name one war that armies did not occupy after it was over. Secondly, everyone will always hate America -just as they did the Brittish. My favorite example is how the tsunami people, and other countries, complained about America not contributin enough money. Then, when we send our red cross, more money, and blahblahblah over there they tell us they dont need our help-and the world thinks we have overstepped our boundaries. I grew up in an area where you support your government-as I enjoy the best education (for free), best opportunities, and freedom to do whatever I want-but it seems that people have lost that thought (except for britain). Personally, I dont care what the world thinks because we could beat them in a war.
We did not find any WMD, so maybe we were wrong about that-but who cares. The dominos are falling in the middle east, and anyone who cant see that is blind. Since we didnt find WMD, we must now concentrate on destroying the enemy. And we have done that.

"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy." - General Tommy Franks

Better to date a "pussy" than someone who drops bombs on/shoots innocent men, women and children.

Yeah, what's with all this macho "my political spectrum's dick is bigger than yours" bullshit?

I am so close to making this thread disappear. If you guys are gonna bitch at eachother, at least try to be a little bit more constructive and try to look credible.

[quote="Mr.Buttocks":98d02]
Better to date a "pussy" than someone who drops bombs on/shoots innocent men, women and children.[/quote:98d02]



where do you get your info? I havent heard about mass bombing, of cluster bombings like WWII. Now in WWII there aere alot of innocents killed. The bombings have been very persise in this war. The people living in Iraq have bombed more innocents than we ever have

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4336929.stm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Oct28.html

When compared to other wars, those numbers are small. Of course you can't compare different eras of history since the weaponry and tactics of fighting are different. But nevertheless.

I might be getting the wrong signal but are you trying to say American pilots/soldiers,etc shoot at Civilians on purpose???

It seems people are trying to "suprise" me with news of death tolls and the like, but really they match to any other war in history...especially one that's longer than a year and involves an insurgency.

I'm not sure if your addressing me or not, but i'll try and address your post.

I agree. Compared to other wars those numbers are extremly small.

[quote:99bb1]I might be getting the wrong signal but are you trying to say American pilots/soldiers,etc shoot at Civilians on purpose???
[/quote:99bb1]

Not at all. I can sympathize with the troops over there. To tell you the truth, i'd much rather shoot a civilian and be safe than hesitate and be dead. When those guys hear and see that shit every day, I don't blame them for what goes on over there. I'd be the same way.

[quote:99bb1]
It seems people are trying to "suprise" me with news of death tolls and the like, but really they match to any other war in history...especially one that's longer than a year and involves an insurgency.[/quote:99bb1]
It's a different day and age. Back in the good ol days war was different. I don't know how or why, but today any casualties seem unappropriate. If 10,000 troops die in Iraq, do you think that will be tolerated? I don't. I think it's pushing it right now with 1,500 or around there.

You need to mix in all the circumstances involved in that unique war not what year it is when saying what's a right death toll and what isn't.

When you look at how most of these American soldiers are killed, it's usually in a vulnerable vehicle catching shrapnel or one getting totally blown to bits. A mortar round lobbed into a barracks,etc. A lot of people can usually fit in certain vehicles/barracks, so that's a lot of bodies. A war involving an insurgency is much different than any convential war.

By the way, how many of the civilians were killed by insurgents?

This wasn’t directed towards me but I still feel the need to respond. Your engagement policies are reckless that is why there are so many friendly fire instances. IMO The US militarily would benefit greatly with some self reflection over this policy.

I can't get much from that, but as far as I know it's the same policies as any other country following the Geneva convention. You can go ahead and post as many stories of soldiers going nuts, friendly fire, etc but that happens in every war.

If you want to talk about reckless engagement policy, how about the Soviets in the afghan war?

You have some nice points though HaVoc.

the US has the best engagement policy-the same as other nations. we tried to use the Israeli tactics, but they didnt work. War is war

Fuck I could give a shit anymore.. Why argue ? Proof could come in tommrow (not that it hasn't already), That the war was not over WMDs etc etc etc. It could show that infact it was wrong, every concept behind it was completely wrong yadda yadda yadda, and most of you would still indeed support the war. Nothing nayone could show you, or say will sway your minds. To you........

"we are the enemy". annoy:

Ahh… Well I can’t find the article but it was in Calgary Herald a few years ago when the war started. Now don’t quote me on this because I don’t have the article to confirm it, however it was comparing the British engagement policy with the American one and it mention that the British used a five step system to confirm hostile targets while the US used a two step system. My point is the US policy is not the same as other countries in fact it is one of the most aggressive engagement policies of any military.

Our wars in history were necessary.

And im sure there must be some soldiers who shoot civilians on purpose...fuck it is a serial killers dream. But over 90% don't.