Posted on 09/22/2004 4:55:02 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
Interesting read.
Ping.
They are counting on the ignorance of the public, especially the young, to sucessfully propagate this spin. It is truely a loathsome performance by them.
Excellent read... Fox needs to do a story on this issue... NOW...
An excellent read about the draft.
Fox news should do an exclusive indepth report of this call it "Proud to Serve".
It's not just the draft. Check the title and the text of
HR 163. It's National Service.
Ask Kerry & Edwards, who pretend to oppose the Draft, if
they also oppose National Service.
_____________________
Standard summary #4F:
Yes there are draft proposals, almost all Democrat,
such as HR 163, which is entirely Dem.
They have NOTHING to do with military manpower requirements.
As intended-to-fail proposals, they are straw men set up
so that Kerry+Edwards can promise to oppose them (even
though they probably support them - see below). When do
you need to worry about what Kerry's plans are on an
issue? When he takes a position, any position.
Bush already opposes draft proposals, but don't expect
the legacy media to tell you this. They also won't pass
either the House or the Senate, but Bush wouldn't sign
them if they did.
As serious proposals, "draft" revival proposals have
everything to do with Universal National Service -
stealing two years from every life, then 3, then 4,
and why stop there ...
And National Service has nothing to do with service.
It has everything to do with indoctrination of the slaves.
Which means that if the "progressives" ever get control
again, kiss your liberty goodbye.
From HR 163: "...or a period of civilian service in
furtherance of the national defense and homeland
security, and for other purposes."
"other purposes"
The Democrats would love to bring back slavery.
Egalitarian slavery, but slavery all the same
(except for their own kids, of course).
BTTT
I think that if Kerry wins, you will need the Draft to meet minimum enlistment in any branch of the Service.
My son wants to join the Marines, he is 18 and can do as he pleases, but he should wait until after the election to decide. My reasoning is that if Kerry wins, I don't think my son would want to join the U.N. Marines.
I agree that there's good information in this article, but I think it's poorly arranged.
An old maxim applies: Bottom line up front.
Not only are you 3 to 4 paragraphs into the article before you realize that it's not the Republicans who are pushing a draft, but the 1st few paragraphs in being coy, actually give the impression that it's those dirty Republicans.
Some people read no further than the 1st few paragraphs, so I'd rearrange the article a bit.
Absolutely nothing wrong with the article other than that criticism.
Their real motive was to stop the war. They were trying to popularize the notion that we could not have a war unless we were going to have a draft. Seems reasonable. Afterall, we've never had a war without a draft before--at least no significant war.
I'm sure that they knew Bush would get the blame for both the war and the draft, so obviously that was part of it. But the main idea was to popularize the notion that if we had a war, the draft was inevitable.
For all the reasons the Defense establishment is on record opposing the draft--it is not economic to make real soldiers out of draftees in the modern world. Not necessary either--you make pay and benefits sufficient to induce enlistment and then you don't need the draft.
All said, it is a reasonable argument that George will need an expansion of military forces and attempt to get it by installing conscription because it would be cheaper. If George does not intend to reinstitute the draft, all he has to do is get the Selective Service Registration Act repealed. The young people of the era are well informed and have heard all the arguments about it being only liberal dems who support the draft bill and the response is that if Bush really opposes the draft, he gets rid of Registration. If he does not do so, they all vote for Kerry.
Ping to post and link................
Beck in June 8 column
I explained the Republican heroes in the White House, the Congress, and the Senate have introduced pending bills mandating the nation bring back the draft.
Beck in June 14 column (after Margolis response)
He cried foul not because it wasn't true. He cried foul because Democrats introduced both bills. True enough but how does that make me a bigot? And, how does the fact Democrats introduced the bills make what I said about the Republican heroes of the Bush administration, Georgie Bush himself, any less eager to have their draft and continue their wars on the world?
Actually, it makes him a liar.
I call the Dems, and raise -- let's bring this puppy to the floor, and see how many of them actually want to vote for it!
The DOD does not want any part of a draft. All branches of the military will LOSS if the draft is re-instated.
DAMN IT. The military talked the law makers into abandoning the draft and providing a the funds to create an all volunteer military, so that we would only have those that want to serve would be trained. Thereby:
* Insuring that we have a strong and reliabile military.
* Not waste man power resources on training those that hate the military to try to turn them into fighting men/women.
* Not waste huge amounts of tax dollars on trying to train people who do not wish to serve honorably.
* One benifit of not having a draft is that there is much less chance of having another Big John Kerry help the enemy
win the war.
Those that sign up. Sign up willingly. They take the oath to protect the United States of America. They take the oath
to protect the Constitution of the United States. And they
hang their hides out on the line when they are required to go into harms way!
Those bills as many have said above are simply clever attempts by the far left to further weaken our nation.
GWB better make this clear, if it comes up in the debates,
that is if the debates will happen. After all Lurch's voice is going grok.....pretty soon he will only be able to speak French at his rallies.....His advisers will use his failing voice as a clever excuse to beg out of the debates,
just you wait and see. Then again maybe since he is a stranger in a strange land (still free) maybe all he will be able to say is grok............grok that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.