[Badandy]

Hi everybody. First of all, I would like to say I am a conservative, but don't think you are all bad people :)

I would just like to convey one thing, and I hope some of you read it.


There are several liberals today accusing the Bush administration of trying to "quietly" pass legislation to reinstitute the draft. I just posted to hope you didn't believe that. You can hate Bush all you want, but don't add the "draft" to that list. If you would like, you can check out www.factcheck.org and search for the draft there. It explains that the legislation is actually dormant right now and was proposed by Charles Rangel. The bill is only backed by Democrats, and no republicans.


Here is the story http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=200

I am not trying to say Democrats are bad, so please don't misconstrue my words, I am merely pointing out a topic that some people are VERY misinformed over.


Thanks for listening,


Badandy

[-V-]

Welcome B. I hope you become a regular poster here. It is helpful to hear other sides of the issues. Of course you can expect a lot of passionate rebuttals but don't let it deter you from speaking your mind.

[amylee]

As we speak, we already have a back door draft.. many people in the military are on stop loss and can't get out of the military for any reason. I consider this somewhat of a draft already... many of these people would like to get out, but can't no matter what..
I would like to say , just because you are conservative doesn't mean your a bad person. it just means that maybe you weren't nurtured enough as a baby...seriously... I won't hold your conservative nature against you..:)

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_loss_092704,00.html

Its a shame that the people who are serving now, the people who are fighting these wars can't even remove themselves..

A

[Badandy]

lol. I see how it is. I was nurtured as a baby, I just don't expect the government to nurture me. I guess that is just a difference of opinion ;)


I didn't want to make this thread to elicit an arguement, just pointing out that an email that has been making its way around the internet is blatantly false.


See ya,

badandy

[JamesP]

Actually, I understand that there are 2 bills proposing to reinstitute the draft now lying dormant in congress. One is sponsored by a Democrat (Rangel) and the other by a Republican. Neither one is currently moving forward.

Rangel believes that enacting such a bill would bring the reality of warfare into the homes of the American public, thereby preventing us from getting involved in future mis-adventures such as Iraq. He believes that it's too easy for middle & upper class Americans to support war as long as the front line of the military is composed primarily of young people from poor backgrounds and the middle and upper class don't have to personally sacrifice. The Republican bill is looking ahead to how our overstretched military will be able to cope with the new "challenges" we may face, particularly with the Neo-cons at the helm for another 4 years.
For me, anyone who supports the war should be willing to go themselves or send their children.

[Badandy]

Another mistake. Read that article I posted James.


BOTH bills were proposed by democrats. Both of them.

And don't give me this "they are trying to send a message" becuase you know if they were republicans who made this bill you would be jumping all over them.


I'm glad this thread helped a little bit, because now all of you see both bills were pushed by democrats. Nothing against democrats, but you guys are just so misinformed and seem to believe everything you hear judging by the response I am getting from this thread.

[JamesP]

Bad Andy: You win one on "fact-checking".

I was mistaken and will now, as a result, "flip-flop" on this matter. In checking further, it seems in that both bills were, indeed, sponsored by Democrats. The second one is sponsored by southern Sen Hollings who is retiring and has been criticized for being in bed with the Bush administration on this issue (can you say: Zel Miller?).

Now for the true reality check (the core of this issue).....
I can see that you had the facts right on who sponsored the bills... now a test of your intellectual honesty:

Even you, and real conservatives, would have to admit that:

1 - Bush's actions and policies have overstretched our military (this problem is further exacerbated by poor planning and intelligence for which the buck stops at Bush).

2 - The neo-cons that dominate in this administration do seem likely to push us into further conflicts. It is in their interest to do so and their past actions have given a clear indication that they lean toward military action as a means of solving problems.

3 - The public has good reason to be concerned that 4 more years of a Bush administration may make a draft necessary. That is why the issue has wings.

We will not be able to pursue the Neo-cons aims to "change the world" through military action with an all volunteer army, even if the economic trend under Bush does lean toward a permanent poverty class with few options other than military service.

So, the questions for you:
- Is the necessity of a military draft more likely under a Bush (unilateralist)administration or a Kerry administration?
- Is the public not justified in it's concern about a draft given the state of the world under Bush leadership?

Bush says there won't be a draft, but he also said he was against "Nation-building" in his last campaign. Once he's re-elected, and can not run again, the realities of his policies may well necessitate the re-institution of the draft. It's a real concern.

[Badandy]

1. Our military would not be overstretched if the liberals in the house (like John Kerry) kept denying increased defense spending.

2. No. Lean towards military to solve problems? 12 years of unenforced and unmet sanctions is not enough for you?

3. No again. The draft will not happen under the Bush administration. Again, you know as well as I that it is two liberals who are pushing this bill. The administration has not endorsed it, nor will they.

As I said before, the Bush administration will not institute a draft, and even if they tried (which they won't) it would have to be approved by the legislative branch.


And in the future, please stop referring to the administration as "new-cons". To tell you the truth, they really aren't conservatives. At all.


Thanks for listening,

badandy

[JamesP]

Disappointing, Bad Andy.

It is hard to believe that one as well read and intelligent as you really still believe that Saddam was a threat to the United States at all, much less one that had to be dealt with while there was still work to do in Afghanistan and Osama was still at large.

It is one thing to have believed it before the war, based on bad intelligence (mostly provided by people who turned out to be operatives for Iran) and the excessive hype of the Bush administration. It is quite another to continue to cling to this belief now.
One can tell that even George doesn't believe it. he just has no option, but to keep repeating it or admit such a grievous error.

Anyway, we agree only that those leading the Bush administration are not true conservatives. It's as obvious as the fact that Saddam was contained, that sanctions, inspections and the UN were working and the invasion was un-necessary.

[Badandy]

Disappointing, Bad Andy.

It is hard to believe that one as well read and intelligent as you really still believe that Saddam was a threat to the United States at all, much less one that had to be dealt with while there was still work to do in Afghanistan and Osama was still at large.

It is one thing to have believed it before the war, based on bad intelligence (mostly provided by people who turned out to be operatives for Iran) and the excessive hype of the Bush administration. It is quite another to continue to cling to this belief now.
One can tell that even George doesn't believe it. he just has no option, but to keep repeating it or admit such a grievous error.

Anyway, we agree only that those leading the Bush administration are not true conservatives. It's as obvious as the fact that Saddam was contained, that sanctions, inspections and the UN were working and the invasion was un-necessary.

Did I ever say Saddam was a threat to the US?

[JamesP]

Then we agree again.
The invasion was un-necessary.
Iraq was a war of choice.
The Bush administration sent American young people to kill and be killed for reasons having little to do with the defense of our nation: as grievous an offense as an American leader can commit. And in doing so, he diverted resources from Osama and drained our the budget.

[Badandy]

Then we agree again.
The invasion was un-necessary.
Iraq was a war of choice.
The Bush administration sent American young people to kill and be killed for reasons having little to do with the defense of our nation: as grievous an offense as an American leader can commit. And in doing so, he diverted resources from Osama and drained our the budget.


No, we don't agree again :)


I do agree with you on one thing, it was an aweful thing to liberate (whether they know it or not at this point in time) millions of people, depose a ruthless dictator who has used WMD's in the past, and someone who is bent on the destruction of our only large ally in the Middle East, Israel.


</sarcasm>

[JamesP]

Bad Andy: Why do I doubt the sincerity of your deep concern for the Iraqi people?

Are you a citizen of Iraq, Israel, the USA or do you consider yourself a "world" citizen?

My guess is that you're not a "world citizen" type and that, as a conservative, you could not justify budget-busting unilateral action, costing hundreds of billions of dollars and the sacrifice of thousands of American lives, to liberate just one of dozens of oppressed people in the world.

Is the key to your position on Iraq that you perceived them as a potential future threat to Israel?

[Badandy]

No, its not the key, but a major issue that is rightly founded. I am a United States citizen. While it is tragic that Iraqi people died in this ordeal, we liberated millions more, and if Saddam was left unchecked, it would have taken a VERY short while for that many Iraqis to die and it would have increased as the months went on. So you are going to say that just because there are more people like Saddam we shouldn't have gone in? I hope you are joking.

I keep hearing this "unilateral" action, and frankly, the arguement doesn't hold ketchup....err....I mean water. I don't know how you can say it is the administrations fault for going in "unilaterally" while we were just enforcing existing UN resolutions.

[JamesP]

I agree that, in and of itself, the fact that Iraq is just one of so many trouble-spots in the world does not necessarily preclude our acting.
But are there any other UN resolutions you would like to enforce with American lives and money?
If not, why not?
Isn't Israel, for example, in violation of a UN resolution.
Do you genuinely think we would be in Iraq if not for the "oil-factor" and the Bush administrations ties to the industry?
Do you understand how it is so difficult for many Americans to trust the administration's motives in the matter of Iraq? Particularly when they kept changing the rationale and used such extreme rhetoric (that turned out to be wrong)?
Throw us a bone here Bad-boy. No oil, no Iraq war.

[Badandy]

I agree that, in and of itself, the fact that Iraq is just one of so many trouble-spots in the world does not necessarily preclude our acting.
But are there any other UN resolutions you would like to enforce with American lives and money?
If not, why not?
Isn't Israel, for example, in violation of a UN resolution.
Do you genuinely think we would be in Iraq if not for the "oil-factor" and the Bush administrations ties to the industry?
Do you understand how it is so difficult for many Americans to trust the administration's motives in the matter of Iraq? Particularly when they kept changing the rationale and used such extreme rhetoric (that turned out to be wrong)?
Throw us a bone here Bad-boy. No oil, no Iraq war.

Israel is our ally first of all. People should also realize that Bush does more to help Israel than Kerry would. That is a debate for another thread, however.

"are there any other UN resolutions you would like to enforce with American lives and money?
If not, why not?"

O wait, are you admitting that we were just enforcing a UN resolution, and in the end, it wasn't that we moved unilaterally, it is that the UN doesn't have the guts to enforce their own resolutions? O, ok, good, I didn't think so.



Basically here is the deal:

-We need oil
-We use oil
-With Saddam who has a bunch of oil and has invaded an oil producing country, that is not good.
-Oil makes our economy turn.

If you are so against any action concerning oil (I am not talking about this Iraq war, just in general, so don't twist my words) then where are we going to get it from? Well, we could always drill in some remote area in Alaska with minimal environmental impacts but liberals keep not allowing that. So, until liberals fess up to not allowing us to drill in our own country, I don't know how they can keep spewing this "we need energy independence"

[JamesP]

Bad -

We moved unilaterally...and irresponsibly...and illegally...and immorally.

You didn't answer my question about the other resolutions that you want to enforce.... or did you? (Is your answer perhaps the "no child left behind" act?)

You seemed to indicate that you're in favor of the blood-for-oil policy. I assume that, like your heros in the administration, the only caveat is that it has to be someone else's blood. Let me guess: you were not in the military and, in your heart of chicken-hearts, you have to admit that you wouldn't be willing to risk your life for oil, Israel or Iraqi "liberation". Like Cheney, you have "other priorities".
Another intellectual honesty test here.
You're not doing very well well on these at all.

[Badandy]

Bad -

You seemed to indicate that you're in favor of the blood-for-oil policy. I assume that, like your heros in the administration, the only caveat is that it has to be someone else's blood.

No. I am not in a blood for oil policy. I just believe that if our oil dependency is being severely threatened we need to do something about it. Seems like you are turning all of my comments into some heartless factoid.

Let me guess: you were not in the military and, in your heart of chicken-hearts, you have to admit that you wouldn't be willing to risk your life for oil, Israel or Iraqi "liberation". Like Cheney, you have "other priorities".

I'm sorry you don't feel Israel is an important ally and needs our assistance. Our discussion is over here, I will not be responding to this thread in the future. Nor will I be reading it.
Another intellectual honesty test here.
You're not doing very well well on these at all.[/QUOTE]

[PatriotforPeace]

Clean a mirror for conservative to peer into and even they must look away.