• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Mandatory Draft

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Everyone either says we should get out of Iraq or stay in with the low amount of troops we have. People don't seem to realize that the less troops we have in there, the longer it's going to take and the more casualties we're going to accumalate.

I say instead of cutting troops from 150,000 to 130,000. We get every male 18-21 at first to register for a draft.Service would be no more than 3 years. Instead of having a small amount of trrops, we could raise it to 500,000 and overwhelm the insurgents. That way we can finish the job faster and get back to real problems that we face here in America.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Che said:
Everyone either says we should get out of Iraq or stay in with the low amount of troops we have. People don't seem to realize that the less troops we have in there, the longer it's going to take and the more casualties we're going to accumalate.

I say instead of cutting troops from 150,000 to 130,000. We get every male 18-21 at first to register for a draft.Service would be no more than 3 years. Instead of having a small amount of trrops, we could raise it to 500,000 and overwhelm the insurgents. That way we can finish the job faster and get back to real problems that we face here in America.
Which would make the Iraqi population believe they are truly being overrun with an invading force to oppress them which ends up creating more animosity within the population which creates more insurgents...

:shrug:
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Er. . .I would never support a draft. Ever. King Bush really put us in quite a pickle didn't? Despite the fact that I disagree with going to war there origianlly, his strategy was so half assed that the insurgency is actually growing rather then being reduced. Its like a second vietnam.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
Er. . .I would never support a draft. Ever. King Bush really put us in quite a pickle didn't? Despite the fact that I disagree with going to war there origianlly, his strategy was so half assed that the insurgency is actually growing rather then being reduced. Its like a second vietnam.
Ya because the U.S. took Hanoi in a week right? :roll:
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Ya because the U.S. took Hanoi in a week right? :roll:
It hasn't been a week like we expected. It's been three years. When we went in there we expected them to bow down to our democrazy. They didn't. None of the generals thought it would take long but it did. We should finish it off and work to send more troops and more military advisors in ther to train there troops and destroy the insurgency. That way instead of us being there for 10 years (as most insurgency have tended to last these days according to General Casey) we will be there for maybe 2 years more.

This plan isn't popular as Cons would rather have the poor fight there wars then to be prone to serving themselves and Libs don't want to take any iniatives on the war. This is a good solid way to get us out of the craphole Bush got us into.

Besides I'd love to see the look on those pro-war cons when they get drafted :mrgreen:
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Che said:
It hasn't been a week like we expected. It's been three years. When we went in there we expected them to bow down to our democrazy. They didn't. None of the generals thought it would take long but it did. We should finish it off and work to send more troops and more military advisors in ther to train there troops and destroy the insurgency. That way instead of us being there for 10 years (as most insurgency have tended to last these days according to General Casey) we will be there for maybe 2 years more.

This plan isn't popular as Cons would rather have the poor fight there wars then to be prone to serving themselves and Libs don't want to take any iniatives on the war. This is a good solid way to get us out of the craphole Bush got us into.

Besides I'd love to see the look on those pro-war cons when they get drafted :mrgreen:
Insurgencies alone can't win wars only militaries can, we took Baghdad in a week the Iraqi military is totally destroyed and the resistance is now made up of people who blow themselves up to kill civilians, they can't do any real damage to our military and they know it, insurgencies alone always fail in the end, it's historical fact it just takes about 8-10 years.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Insurgencies alone can't win wars only militaries can, we took Baghdad in a week the Iraqi military is totally destroyed and the resistance is now made up of people who blow themselves up to kill civilians,
Inaccurate. There are in fact three types of insurgents. 1) The terrorists 2) Saddamists 3) The insurrectionists

they can't do any real damage to our military and they know it, insurgencies alone always fail in the end, it's historical fact it just takes about 8-10 years.
I guess you don't consider the IRA an insurgency then?
 

SixStringHero

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,586
Reaction score
133
Location
Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This 'King Bush' phrase is getting thrown around quite a lot lately.
I must say it's becoming quite trite and redundant.

Who the hell came up with that?

It's almost as bad as 'Slick Willie.'
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I didn't realize that it was "trite" and "redudant." indeed I thought I made it up. I started using it around the time I found out about the warrantless wire tapping.
 

SixStringHero

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,586
Reaction score
133
Location
Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
My local Liberal/Progressive magazine called the Alibi had an Op-Ed piece where they used the term fairly often.

Maybe you should attempt to sue them for trying to coin your phrase.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
Inaccurate. There are in fact three types of insurgents. 1) The terrorists 2) Saddamists 3) The insurrectionists

I guess you don't consider the IRA an insurgency then?
The IRA wasn't successful Northern Ireland still belongs to the British, the original IRA wore uniforms and fought real battles it was an actual Irish Republican Army they fought under Michael Collins that's how they got a free Ireland, but the new IRA has not been successful because their goal was to free Belfast and Northern Ireland to unify with the rest of the Island and in that goal they haven't been successful.
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Insurgencies alone can't win wars only militaries can, we took Baghdad in a week the Iraqi military is totally destroyed and the resistance is now made up of people who blow themselves up to kill civilians, they can't do any real damage to our military and they know it, insurgencies alone always fail in the end, it's historical fact it just takes about 8-10 years.
Real damage isn't 2,000+ casualties right? How many more do we need by Trajan standards?
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Che said:
Real damage isn't 2,000+ casualties right? How many more do we need by Trajan standards?
Relatively speaking no. Though the casualies are tragic they have little to no impact on the fighting capability of the U.S. military. And the only way you can win a war is by ending your enemies ability to wage battle. In that regard the insurgency is little more than an annoyance, they have no real fighting capacity, and alone it is impossible for them to win. The only way they could win is if the U.S. pulls out on its own accord. The insurgency hasn't won a single battle and all they do is terrorize the Iraqi populace, they don't effect the fighting capacity of the U.S. military.
 
Last edited:

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The IRA wasn't successful Northern Ireland still belongs to the British, the original IRA wore uniforms and fought real battles it was an actual Irish Republican Army they fought under Michael Collins that's how they got a free Ireland, but the new IRA has not been successful because their goal was to free Belfast and Northern Ireland to unify with the rest of the Island and in that goal they haven't been successful.
The IRA fighting against the British for Northern Ireland weren't the real IRA.

The Old Ira (the real IRA being led by Michael Collins) was an insurgency that was ultimately succesful in establish a free state through gurrelia tactics. Michael Collins wore a uniform during the Civil War but before that, his followers wore regular clothing and used gurrelia tactics.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
The IRA fighting against the British for Northern Ireland weren't the real IRA.

The Old Ira (the real IRA being led by Michael Collins) was an insurgency that was ultimately succesful in establish a free state through gurrelia tactics. Michael Collins wore a uniform during the Civil War but before that, his followers wore regular clothing and used gurrelia tactics.
That's what I said except that the old IRA wasn't an insurgency it was an actual army they wore uniforms and had a chain of command.
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Relatively speaking no. Though the casualies are tragic they have little to no impact on the fighting capability of the U.S. military. And the only way you can win a war is by ending your enemies ability to wage battle. In that regard the insurgency is little more than an annoyance, they have no real fighting capacity, and alone it is impossible for them to win. The only way they could win is if the U.S. pulls out on its own accord. The insurgency hasn't won a single battle and all they do is terrorize the Iraqi populace, they don't effect the fighting capacity of the U.S. military.
Right well the ****ing annoyance, as you call them are keeping us there. If you 10 guys vs 1 or 1 vs 1 which battle is going to be easier? The 10 vs 1 battle is. So because of this I think we should all be patriots like the cons who support the war but don't support a draft are, and swamp the insurgency until they give up.

BTW we actually have lost. There were a bunch of battles in Falluja, but recently guerilla forces took an Iraqi out post killing 20. A bunch of cheap shots but you have to recognize them and find out how to better stop them.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Che said:
Right well the ****ing annoyance, as you call them are keeping us there. If you 10 guys vs 1 or 1 vs 1 which battle is going to be easier? The 10 vs 1 battle is. So because of this I think we should all be patriots like the cons who support the war but don't support a draft are, and swamp the insurgency until they give up.

BTW we actually have lost. There were a bunch of battles in Falluja, but recently guerilla forces took an Iraqi out post killing 20. A bunch of cheap shots but you have to recognize them and find out how to better stop them.
The insurgency hasn't been able to hold any territory they haven't won a single god damn battle, you're nuts, and the fact of the matter is that an increased troop level will not help the war effort it will hurt it; furthermore, if you start a draft you'll end up getting troops in there who don't want to be there and are not professional soldiers this will only lead to another Vietnam mantality, allthough that's probably what you want.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
galenrox said:
If I was drafted I'd go, no questions asked. I'd prefer not to, obviously, but still, I think this plan has some merit to it.
That being said, the argument cnredd presented has merit to it too. The question raised then is when is it maintaining strength to stare down the terrorists, and when is it simply sacrificing our soldiers?
I'll willing to let the miltary decide...some aren't...
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
galenrox said:
To be perfectly frank, I don't trust the generals that Bush keeps around and empowers. Throughout his presidency he has rewarded telling him the what he wants to hear truth far more than he ever has rewarded the actual truth. I think if he wants to pull out some of the troops for political reasons, the generals will justify it for him, and so on.
That being said, you're right. People in the military understand whats going on, and the appropriate strategy to win in this situation far better than you or I.
So now Democrats talking points are the end all and be all of what the truth is?
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
galenrox said:
yes, because I said that. No really, I said that, see, look

Huh? Oh right, it's empty because I NEVER SAID THAT!
I'm just wondering why you consider the Generals who say that the ground situation in Iraq doesn't call for more troops are the ones who are lying and the ones who say that there is a need for more troops are the ones telling the truth unless of course you believe the Democrats talking points?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
galenrox said:
To be perfectly frank, I don't trust the generals that Bush keeps around and empowers. Throughout his presidency he has rewarded telling him the what he wants to hear truth far more than he ever has rewarded the actual truth. I think if he wants to pull out some of the troops for political reasons, the generals will justify it for him, and so on.
That being said, you're right. People in the military understand whats going on, and the appropriate strategy to win in this situation far better than you or I.
Your speculation flies in the face of logic...

The longer we're there, the more damaging politically the situation becomes...So why would the President continue?

Because he does what is the right thing to do, and damn the political aspect...If he heard from the generals things that would hurt him politically...which we all agree he has...and he CHANGED his policies to reflect that...he should be taken out back and shot...

What he's doing is a helluva lot more encouraging to me than having a President decide what to do based on where his polls are this week...
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I'm just wondering why you consider the Generals who say that the ground situation in Iraq doesn't call for more troops are the ones who are lying and the ones who say that there is a need for more troops are the ones telling the truth unless of course you believe the Democrats talking points?
Really? that's bizzare. I could've swarn that I read somewhere that we didn't reach our recruitment goals this year.

http://rncwatch.typepad.com/counterrecruiter/military_recruiting_news/
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
galenrox said:
Did I say that either?

.
Well this statement sounds like that to me:
Galenrox said:
To be perfectly frank, I don't trust the generals that Bush keeps around and empowers. Throughout his presidency he has rewarded telling him the what he wants to hear truth far more than he ever has rewarded the actual truth.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
galenrox said:
It seems to come down to how much you trust the president to act a-politically. If I was a political strategist I'd tell Bush to do exactly what he's been doing with Iraq, and then announce some significant amount of troop withdrawl at the state of the union for later in the year, and then actually do it towards the end of August, for the reason that people will think what you're thinking. People will be happy, cause troops have been withdrawn, and also be proud of the president because he showed that he was a strong leader in the face of adversity.
What you said seems right...NOW...

People have been calling for withdrawal of troops for 2+ years...To say that he would do it NOW so "People will be happy" is illogical...

After one month - "Pull out the troops!"
Bush - "No...It would be the wrong thing to do"
After six months - "Pull out the troops!"
Bush - "No...It would be the wrong thing to do"
After twelve months - "Pull out the troops!"
Bush - "No...It would be the wrong thing to do"
After - twenty-four months - "Pull out the troops!"
Bush "No...It would be the wrong thing to do"

After thirty months - "Pull out the troops!"
Bush "NOW it's the right thing to do"
Response - "Oh, you're just doing that because of political pressure."

See how dumb that sounds?....:confused:

galenrox said:
The essential difference between our perceptions about this is solely that you seem to trust Bush, while I don't trust him at all. I don't really put anything past him, I think he is willing to do anything, regardless of the reprucussions, for political power. We both know that Karl Rove is a political genius, and so if I can see the political merit in doing what he's doing, God knows that he has too.
I wouldn't trust him either if I believed everything thrown at us from the MSM or other media outlets...What makes you not trust him?...And therefore, the decision of the country to elect, then re-elect him?

The way he pronounces "nuclear"?...The way he jumbles words?...His little "smirk"?...

Surely you can do better than this...

As far as political power...He has less than three years...wanna make a bet on it?...He wants his policies continued by others...There is no political power, and in fact, much more damaging, to look back on his Presidency and see that NOT being done...

You can be sure the very same accusations were made at Lincoln and FDR...

What happened with them?...How are they looked at now?...:2wave:
 
Top Bottom