Bush wants Draft

[Makain]

What are these rumours I keep hearing about that Bush isconsidering initiaiting a Peace Time Draft now that he controls the Senate and House?

Because when I turn 18 I will not be fighting in Iraq. I don't have a problem with defending my country, but that I will no sacerifice my life to save the economy and his political career. If he thinks he is going to get support for this **** after screwing up the Mideast to an even further level (instead of salvaging the progress Clinton made) by supporting Israel, and then saying he wants to attack Iraq then I truly hope he has an accident going down the stairs (or maybe he will hold a gun the wrong way like he held that book upside down). The pathetic thing is that all of the United States' problems in the Mideast can be traced back to 6 adminstrations of pure Pro-Israeli support, which is way undeserved seeing as they ignore UN resolutions and human rights. So I reiterate my stance, I am not staying in this country if the Draft is initiated. I won't risk my life, or the lives of Iraqi civilians in a war to make Bush feel better about himself. Those who will, I pity your ignorant and blindly patrotic ways.

[WarFalcon]

I don't agree with a draft or with your analysis of the problems behind the Middle East...

Originally posted by WarFalcon
I don't agree with a draft or with your analysis of the problems behind the Middle East...

and i dont agree with you

you are a tool altho your beliefs in the consitution bar gun control are good

now toss off

[Nofutcha]

aint no vietnamese called me a nig*er

Tell him to shove his draft where the sun don't shine.


Nobody should have the power to conscript, Dubya least of all.

[ChubbyChecker]

I'm 28, they're gonna take you before they take me!

Plus, I'm not American

PS: I am not 28

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
I'm 28, they're gonna take you before they take me!

Plus, I'm not American

PS: I am not 28

YOU ARE NOT FKING EMINMEM EITHER!!!

[CamelToe]

draft rumors? pfft.. stop your paranoia. besides, there are enough brave souls to fight the battles you are afraid of.

just relax... keep buying more computer games, and chee-toes, and you'll be doing your best for your country.

[Ent]

Originally posted by Makain
instead of salvaging the progress Clinton made

HAHAHAHAHAHAA!

Originally posted by Makain
What are these rumours I keep hearing about that Bush isconsidering initiaiting a Peace Time Draft now that he controls the Senate and House?

Because when I turn 18 I will not be fighting in Iraq. I don't have a problem with defending my country, but that I will no sacerifice my life to save the economy and his political career. If he thinks he is going to get support for this **** after screwing up the Mideast to an even further level (instead of salvaging the progress Clinton made) by supporting Israel, and then saying he wants to attack Iraq then I truly hope he has an accident going down the stairs (or maybe he will hold a gun the wrong way like he held that book upside down). The pathetic thing is that all of the United States' problems in the Mideast can be traced back to 6 adminstrations of pure Pro-Israeli support, which is way undeserved seeing as they ignore UN resolutions and human rights. So I reiterate my stance, I am not staying in this country if the Draft is initiated. I won't risk my life, or the lives of Iraqi civilians in a war to make Bush feel better about himself. Those who will, I pity your ignorant and blindly patrotic ways.

nice to see that there are americans with some sense of reason on the gd boards.

b the way , they cant force you to join the military do they??

Originally posted by WarFalcon
I don't agree with a draft or with your analysis of the problems behind the Middle East...

now thats a surprise

now that he controls the Senate and House?

I was and am infuriated that they gave him sole discretion. It completely undermines the system of checks and balances, and no one person should ever have that kind of authority. Especially not George. He shouldn't have sole discretion over what he has for breakfast.

*cough*

such a draft would end his political career.

[W]

I sense another precidental assasination comming up.





*) To the secret service agents reading this, it is a joke, and can in no way be construed as a threat. No reason to do a background check on me or start any surveilance.

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by RaR



you are a tool

RaR
ensign

irony

[xtrasyn]

Originally posted by Makain
What are these rumours I keep hearing about that Bush isconsidering initiaiting a Peace Time Draft now that he controls the Senate and House?

Because when I turn 18 I will not be fighting in Iraq. I don't have a problem with defending my country, but that I will no sacerifice my life to save the economy and his political career. If he thinks he is going to get support for this **** after screwing up the Mideast to an even further level (instead of salvaging the progress Clinton made) by supporting Israel, and then saying he wants to attack Iraq then I truly hope he has an accident going down the stairs (or maybe he will hold a gun the wrong way like he held that book upside down). The pathetic thing is that all of the United States' problems in the Mideast can be traced back to 6 adminstrations of pure Pro-Israeli support, which is way undeserved seeing as they ignore UN resolutions and human rights. So I reiterate my stance, I am not staying in this country if the Draft is initiated. I won't risk my life, or the lives of Iraqi civilians in a war to make Bush feel better about himself. Those who will, I pity your ignorant and blindly patrotic ways.

HA HAH HAAA

Not like us EU residents haven't warned you...

I hope you like GRUB and CHOW, boy!

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by MonotoneMan


I was and am infuriated that they gave him sole discretion. It completely undermines the system of checks and balances, and no one person should ever have that kind of authority. .

Checks and balances just get in the way and prevent anything being major done. When your system is in need of a gross rehaul, the best thing to have is a person/party in full and complete control. Remember - this is politics. The opposition will disagree with anything the ruling party propose, simply because its 'expected' of them. Whether they agree with the principles behind it or not, they will campaign against it because they want the power for themselves. This is why nothing positive ever gets done. Theres nothing wrong with having one person in full power, so long as its the right person. George Bush isnt the right person.

[BuddhistPunk]

Originally posted by WarFalcon



RaR
ensign

irony

Regardless of the reasoning in his arguments, since when has postcount been directly related to intelligence or a tool to indicate the validity of a persons opinion.

I could name a few people on this board who have high postcounts, who IMHO have the judgement skills of a knuckle dragging neanderthal

[Dibdevlin]

Originally posted by Makain
What are these rumours I keep hearing about that Bush isconsidering initiaiting a Peace Time Draft now that he controls the Senate and House?

Because when I turn 18

Okay, you need to stop getting your news/rumors from MTV.

Hopefully by the time you reach eighteen you will start reading newspapers and become a little more educated in the powers of the government so you wont be so ignorant.

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by BuddhistPunk


Regardless of the reasoning in his arguments, since when has postcount been directly related to intelligence or a tool to indicate the validity of a persons opinion.

He is most likely using a gimmik account, or he is a rude person to make such a comment towards me when I had said nothing to which warrented such an ill tempered response. I go with the former, since his tone suggested he already didn't like me...


btw, he didn't have any reasoning to accompany his arguements, such as they were...

Originally posted by W
I sense another precidental assasination comming up.





*) To the secret service agents reading this, it is a joke, and can in no way be construed as a threat. No reason to do a background check on me or start any surveilance.

i will do it for 16 billion

Originally posted by WarFalcon



He is most likely using a gimmik account, or he is a rude person to make such a comment towards me when I had said nothing to which warrented such an ill tempered response. I go with the former, since his tone suggested he already didn't like me...


btw, he didn't have any reasoning to accompany his arguements, such as they were...

oi tool, at least i sed i respected ur fckin opinions on thse subjects

anyway blah blah blah blah blah, you need to get a map of the world and see how small america really is

then notice how many of your enemies have nukes aimed at you and then understand that i dont give a crap if you and them blow each other to hell. just so long as you die a painfull death dickhead

[Mirai]

Originally posted by RaR

then notice how many of your enemies have nukes aimed at you and then understand that i dont give a crap if you and them blow each other to hell. just so long as you die a painfull death dickhead

Let's see..

Russia probably still has a few aimed at us
China has one or two

Can't think of any more.

Whereas we have about 300 aimed at foriegn targets. Which is lower than from the cold war era where we had almost 10 thousand.

By the way, if we did go to war, I think you would 'give a crap' as nuclear weapons tend to have this annoying attribute to spread death by means of radiation. And this radiation doesn't go away all that fast.

Now let's assume you live in australia- the furthest spot away from warring countries, so you won't give a crap. At least you think so now. Note that the earth has this interesting force known as 'wind' that tends to spread sickness and radiation very fast, as air from the northern hemisphere can reach the southern hemisphere in about 3 months. So now you have 3 months to live until the radiation starts pouring in like chicanos into florida.

Let's also realize that all the oil comes from the nothern hemisphere, where everyone is dead. Now you have no way to leave your country, so fleeing to a safer zone is impossible.

Note I don't know where you live, but if the world goes to war as you said, you won't live to long regardless of where you are.

Originally posted by Mirai


Let's see..

Russia probably still has a few aimed at us
China has one or two

ofc russia has nukes aimed at you, they are prolly the ones that are missing, after all who would trust a nation that asks for dissarmament and not demand the same of its own military. and china may have one or two, thousand, because it is the most powerful nation on earth because of its economic isolation and it having the worlds largets airforce which is what war is all about these days, edjeet

Originally posted by Mirai

Can't think of any more.

Whereas we have about 300 aimed at foriegn targets. Which is lower than from the cold war era where we had almost 10 thousand.

uhhhh huh, like i m going to believe that your government says about where your numerous nukes are pointed

Originally posted by Mirai

By the way, if we did go to war, I think you would 'give a crap' as nuclear weapons tend to have this annoying attribute to spread death by means of radiation. And this radiation doesn't go away all that fast.

blah blah blah blah blah

Originally posted by Mirai

Now let's assume you live in australia- the furthest spot away from warring countries, so you won't give a crap. At least you think so now. Note that the earth has this interesting force known as 'wind' that tends to spread sickness and radiation very fast, as air from the northern hemisphere can reach the southern hemisphere in about 3 months. So now you have 3 months to live until the radiation starts pouring in like chicanos into florida.

okay now here is the only thing i care about, please dont mention that **** nation, say New Zealand, or South Africa

Originally posted by Mirai

Let's also realize that all the oil comes from the nothern hemisphere, where everyone is dead. Now you have no way to leave your country, so fleeing to a safer zone is impossible.

if we are assuming that i am from austrila like u sed i believe that they are ready for non fossil feul power and one tenth of them have it and the rest are going over to it, doesnt change the fact that they are ar*eholes for sticking with the USA and letting nukes into their waters unlike a certain brave nation in the pacific called NZ that allows no nukes in territorial waters

Originally posted by Mirai

Note I don't know where you live, but if the world goes to war as you said, you won't live to long regardless of where you are.

bull****, NZ would declare itself nuetral

and i didnt want all americans dead, just WF and GWB (but i would rather be more personal and televised with GWB)

[BuddhistPunk]

Originally posted by RaR
bull****, NZ would declare itself nuetral

You sir are a first class moron, and nothing more than a forum troll

IIRC from my basic physics/chemistry lessons from way back then, political neutrality is not an effective defence agasint nuclear winter.

[Mirai]

Originally posted by RaR
bull****, NZ would declare itself nuetral

You missed the point. Wind and radiation care not who's 'neutral' and who isn't.

[Makain]

Originally posted by m.ar.d


nice to see that there are americans with some sense of reason on the gd boards.

b the way , they cant force you to join the military do they??

The American Draft works like this. When you turn 18 if your birthday has already been called you are conscripted into the military. So those who are 17 who have already been called tend to enlist before their 18 and join the Coast Guard. Now if it we were going to fight for Taiwan's indepence and freedom I wouldn't mind. But I have a problem of being forced into a war I think is completely erroneous.

Originally posted by BuddhistPunk


You sir are a first class moron, and nothing more than a forum troll

IIRC from my basic physics/chemistry lessons from way back then, political neutrality is not an effective defence agasint nuclear winter.

You call him a troll, but continue to argue with him. Interesting.

[WarFalcon]

I take it this Rar person was deleted (from reading another thread) and so will simply not bother with any serious reply.



The draft is still a bad idea since we clearly have no need for one as our current military has enough personal for immediate actions. Bringing back the draft would also divide the nation since many people still harbor ill feelings about the draft (for good reason).

[Mirai]

I would only willingly go to war if it was against my country, ie someone invaded america. Otherwise you military recruiters can go to hell.

btw RaR is Shai Gar.

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Mirai


Shai Gar.

who is that?

[Nixjim]

For Pete's sake people, no where but here have I even heard a rumor about a Draft, I do believe something like that would at LEAST make the CBS Evening News, as well as the local news, newspapers, and Radio I listen to all day at work, yet I've heard nothing about it. It won't happen, so quit worrying about it. I was young once myself, and there was always a WAR about to start somewhere, complete with the same rumors. I worried about the rumors then, but nothing happened, and it won't now either.
So relax and enjoy being young while you can, you'll be old before you know it.

Checks and balances just get in the way and prevent anything being major done.

They prevent anything largely considered bad from happening, which is the entire point of them.

When your system is in need of a gross rehaul, the best thing to have is a person/party in full and complete control.

No it's not. When that happens, that one party does things that are only self-serving and allow that party to dominate into the unforseeable future. And it is especially bad with the person who is currently president.

The opposition will disagree with anything the ruling party propose, simply because its 'expected' of them. Whether they agree with the principles behind it or not, they will campaign against it because they want the power for themselves. This is why nothing positive ever gets done.

A) That's not close to true.
B) How would it be relevant anyway?

Theres nothing wrong with having one person in full power, so long as its the right person.

This statement is true. But, unfortunately, that one person doesn't won't, and can't exist.

bull****, NZ would declare itself nuetral

"We have declared ourselves neutral and are therefore immune to radiation and it's biproduct: death." Cunning strategy.

[Monkeypimp]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH America...




If your countries stupid enough to vote for him, you deserve everything you get.

If your countries stupid enough to vote for him, you deserve everything you get.

Al Gore won by 500,000 votes.

[Makain]

Originally posted by MonotoneMan


Al Gore won by 500,000 votes.

With today's communications and technology the electoral college should of been abolished decades ago and the presidency should of become popular vote.

Originally posted by Makain


With today's communications and technology the electoral college should have been abolished decades ago and the presidency should have become popular vote.

That it should have.

[deerbarn]

Explain the whole electoral college thingy

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Makain
With today's communications and technology the electoral college should of been abolished decades ago and the presidency should of become popular vote.

The electoral college was not established because of limitations in communications and technology. The framers of the Constitution considered direct election of the President but rejected it for many reasons, both practical and philosophical.

If you think the Florida recount(s) were a nightmare, imagine a nationwide recount.

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by Tactitus

The electoral college was not established because of limitations in communications and technology. The framers of the Constitution considered direct election of the President but rejected it for many reasons, both practical and philosophical.

If you think the Florida recount(s) were a nightmare, imagine a nationwide recount.

that and the fact that without a represenatative system, a large portion of the nation would be completely ignored. Any president could entirely ignore 9/10ths of the nation, give Florida, California, Texas, and New York everything they want and win.

While the electoral college may suck, direct election would be even worse. This country is entirely too big to operate on some of the systems practiced by nations smaller than half our states.

oh, and a peacetime draft? not bloody likely. Unsubstantial rumor at best.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by deerbarn
Explain the whole electoral college thingy

The US electoral college is an indirect election. Votes for each candidate are used to select electors who, in turn, elect the President. Most states have a winner-take-all rule whereby the candidate who gets the most votes in that state gets all that states' electors. Essentially, it's a form of block voting.

[deerbarn]

Originally posted by Tactitus

The US electoral college is an indirect election. Votes for each candidate are used to select electors who, in turn, elect the President. Most states have a winner-take-all rule whereby the candidate who gets the most votes in that state gets all that states' electors. Essentially, it's a form of block voting.

ta, kinda makes sense considering size et al.

[Monkeypimp]

so the problem is with the allocation of blocks, not with the system??

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by Monkeypimp
so the problem is with the allocation of blocks, not with the system??

not particularly. The problem is the system isn't "perfect." The president that gets elected should be the one that appeals to the nation as a whole, rather than a few key states.

The electoral college helps this along but doesn't quite do the job. However, popular election would be a dire mistake in a nation of this size. The needs and concerns of the people are as wildly varied as they are in various European countries.

In effect, if the EU elected a President by popular vote, you would see many portions of the constituants virtually ignored while the urban centers and most populated "states" got everything they wanted. Democracy is flawed, and a Representative Republic was the "answer."

The US voting system is like the estates general in 18th century france. It lead to revolution, lets hope the same happens in the USA. heh in 50 years they could all be living in communes and hugging trees.

[Cuddley_Battleship]

Funny, when I saw the thread title I thought it was going to say Bush picked up his alcohol habit again.

Originally posted by Sandsnake
not particularly. The problem is the system isn't "perfect." The president that gets elected should be the one that appeals to the nation as a whole, rather than a few key states.

The electoral college helps this along but doesn't quite do the job. However, popular election would be a dire mistake in a nation of this size. The needs and concerns of the people are as wildly varied as they are in various European countries.

In effect, if the EU elected a President by popular vote, you would see many portions of the constituants virtually ignored while the urban centers and most populated "states" got everything they wanted. Democracy is flawed, and a Representative Republic was the "answer."

im sorry i really dont insult people alot and specially not on the boards, but sir your stupidity really frustrates me. you are so stupid that its starts giving me a headache. the electoral voting system destroys alot of votes. it mathematically makes it possible for someone to get president with 10000000!!!!!!! votes less than the other candidate.
and here you are claiming that a popular vote would destroy votes. why must you be so stupid?????

if you dont believe the 10 million less vote fact!!! i can take you through the whole calculation .

and yeah feel free to delete this post and cover up your stupidity

i feel so sorry for you

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by m.ar.d

...

The electorates are broken up by population. Each state has as many electorates as they have house members. The reason why a President can be elected without the popular vote is because of the 'winner take all' aspect of the electorates. If you have three districts of 10,000 people you need 5001 to take the electorate. Imagine that candidate A gets 10000 in one district and 4999 in the other two. He gets 19998 of the vote while candidate B only gets 10002 votes. This can cut both ways though, so its still a fair playing field. I really don't see what the whining is about...