Alright, let’s get to the bottom of this. There will be no draft whether Bush gets re-elected or Kerry gets elected. Just as Jon Stewart begged Crossfire, I beg you: stop with the spin. Stop making this out to be a two-sided election. The world is not black and white, good and evil and neither are the two main candidates this election season. It amazes me how many people reacted so positively to Jon Stewart’s criticism of the media on Crossfire and yet continue to ride the spin, distortion, and outright lies, on both sides of the aisle. No we can’t change the system overnight, but the democrat/republican spin machines are absolutely hurting this country. Back to the draft–I am willing to bet USD $100 that there will be no draft if Bush gets re-elected to *anyone* willing to take me up on this.
I’m doing this to prove a point. Let’s talk about facts; not spin. So, any takers?
Tags: Personal
October 23rd, 2004 at 5:02 am
Slightly off topic, but since I have entered the No Spin Zone: Did you hear about Bill O’Reilly being sued for sexual harassment by one of his producers? As it turns out, the plaintiff is a graduate of WCA (1989). Just one of those weird “small world” things.
October 23rd, 2004 at 5:25 am
I did hear about the suit, but had no idea it was a WCA graduate. That’s very weird.
For those of you confused, Ryan and I graduated from WCA (Westminster Christian Academy) in 1996. How did you hear about that?
October 23rd, 2004 at 9:09 am
Let’s hear it for those WCA alumni, eh?
October 23rd, 2004 at 10:26 am
Of course their will not be a direct draft. That would be political suicide. However, there is already a “backdoor” draft that does exist. Many solders with commitments that are nearly complete are suddenly sent to Iraq for 18 month tours of duty. The military issued “stop loss” orders which allows the military to suspend their own regulations and keep soldiers past their original commitments. So your bet on a direct draft is meaningless since our government has already figured how to draft people without really drafting people.
October 23rd, 2004 at 10:30 am
Why put $100 at risk?
You could simply swear to volunteer for front-line service if there’s a draft after Bush’s re-election.
October 23rd, 2004 at 11:42 am
You continue to annoy. You dumb ass Bush supporter.
Can you have your shit not aggreated on planet gnome.
October 23rd, 2004 at 12:25 pm
There will be no announced draft, but there is already a de facto draft. It is implemented via laws regulating the use of the reserves, laws enacted for use in times of national crisis when reserve duties must be extended. I leave it up to the reader to determine if the occupation of Iraq is a national emergency.
October 23rd, 2004 at 1:46 pm
I think a draft is the only solution. Since not enough troops were committed early-on the the country was not secured. Whats needed now is more cannon fodder than the military currently has at its disposal. Kerry’s suggestion that America’s allies will send their troops is ridiculous. Most european allies still have conscription armies and those countries aren’t going to send their conscripts while America doesn’t.
Of course, I think both Presidential candidates are far too cowardly to have a draft. Whoever is elected will pull out of Iraq having left the job unfinished before the the next election, leaving America the laughing stock of the world - the big global military bullies who couldn’t even invade a little country of 20 million people who’d had essentially complete economic sanctions for 12 years.
I think its a pity theres no real leadership on offer.
October 25th, 2004 at 10:50 am
I am actually considering enlisting. If there was a draft, then I almost certainly will enlist in the armed forces. I have no problem at all with a draft if it is needed. Our government has the right to call a draft. It is the price we pay for our freedom. Evil men seek to take our rights away, so at times we must sacrifice our lives to defend our liberty. During this difficult time, we need men of courage and vision at all levels to lead us through it.
October 26th, 2004 at 2:02 pm
One thing that I have been thinking about on this topic: Kerry has promised to increase the amount of troops in Iraq if he is elected. This seems like the intelligent thing to do. A lot of military experts have come out saying that there never were enough troops on the ground to begin with. So, during the initial period after the invasion, people in Iraq figured out that no one really had control, and that is when we started to see the insurgency.
Kerry’s plan of sending more troops to Iraq sounds like the proper solution. However, the military is now having trouble covering its recruiting requirements. It appears to me that, without more international help, Kerry will have to call a draft to deliver on this promise.
What I think most of the Kerry supporters (the better informed ones anyway) are upset about is the way that the Bush administration handled the war. If you read what former administration insiders like Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill have been saying, the Bush administration had been focused on Iraq from day one. Trying to find an Iraq connection was a topic of conversation on September 12, 2001. The intelligence used to justify the war was questionable at best. Moreover, Bush tried to fight this war on the cheap, underestimating the manpower cost of the postwar effort. And now, because there were not enough troops on the ground immediately after “combat operations were over,” we are left trying to un-ring the bell so to speak.