Two More Army Divisions?

[CvilleFencer]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

If you sincerely believe that Bush has made your future scary, it sounds like you need a perspective pill.

Alienated our allies.
Declared war on and invaded two countries.
Responsible for the deaths of over a thousand US soldiers and 10's of thousands of Arab civilians.
Increased the threat of terror and proved to the Arab world that yes, indeed we do want to conquer them all.
Severely damaged sports and the arts in our schools by passing silly legislation without the promised funding.
Decreased personal privacy with the patriot act and homeland security department.
Gutted many of our most important medical and scientific boards of their best and brightest and replaced them with Christian zealots.
Passed legislation to dump millions of tax dollars to Christian groups.
Ran up a record national debt.
Cost 2.5-3.5 million jobs.
Has done a horrible job of keeping the dollar in line with the euro making it really hard to get good fencing gear at fair prices for all Americans.
Shown a complete inability to admit when he has made an error.

Just a few scary highlights from my "perspective". I don’t want to turn this into a "Why Bush is a scary evil ill-spoken troll of a despot" thread (there are plenty of those after all), but since your mentioned it...

[Army Fencer]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Scary NPR show a couple weeks ago that said that basically Bush is planning on having a draft right after elections, and that they've doubled the number of draft boards in the last two weeks, etc., etc. Anyone else know about this?

You can't just throw that out there. See if you can get some resources on this. NPR.org would be a good place to start.

I listen to NPR regularly, and I have heard nothing of the sort. Perhaps you interpreted an editorial?

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Army Fencer

You can't just throw that out there. See if you can get some resources on this. NPR.org would be a good place to start.

I listen to NPR regularly, and I have heard nothing of the sort. Perhaps you interpreted an editorial?

I agree, I don't know where the resources are. I didn't actually hear it, I heard of it. I was wondering if someone else heard it. I can't back it up.

[damion18d]

Originally Posted by CvilleFencer

Well said. I have a pretty big problem with trying to have soldiers act as local police. It was the wrong answer in Somolia and is the wrong answer in Iraq.

The biggest problem is that soldiers are not trained to be police. People have screwed up ideas about what our military is for. We are to shoot, move, and communicate in order to close with and destroy our enemy. Soldiers are not trained to be peacekeepers, jailers, or police. Not even MPs. MPs are primarily a field unit used for rear area security and convoy security. IMHO things would run much more smoothly if the politicians(for those uninformed this would include most high ranking officers, once past lite COL you're more a politician than a soldier)said do your job and kept their pencil pushing fingers out of it. Vietnam should have been enough of a lesson to prove that point.
On a side note the administration during the Somalia battle is the reason for that horrible day. The ground commander asked for all of the equipment and weaponry to do the job properly. The white house denied it because it would be too high profile. Translation the pres. second guessed an extremely well trained and experienced group of war fighters because he was worried it would make him look bad. He got those men killed with arrogance.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by Army Fencer

You can't just throw that out there. See if you can get some resources on this. NPR.org would be a good place to start.

I listen to NPR regularly, and I have heard nothing of the sort. Perhaps you interpreted an editorial?

Howard Dean wrote a piece about it in Sept of 2004. Not the most unbiased source but the points he brings up are indisputable, from there it becomes a matter of opinion as to whether they point to a draft or not. I suggest one look at it from the opposing angle, IF the facts don't support a theory that a draft is imminent then what is likely to happen based on the known information?

Available here: http://www.democracyforamerica.com/f...the_future.php

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Not necessarily. I would normally agree with you on that, but I really disagree with everything Bush says. But it appears that Kerry's intentions are good, and the worst he can realistically do with the situation in Iraq is keep a static number of troops, and beg our allies to help us.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Keep making points - let's see how long I can keep dismissing them with colloquialisms!

But seriously, the worst Kerry could do could be to just yank troops out of Iraq, before the country is stable, seriously impede US interests by becoming a lap-dog to the UN, drastically chop the military, tax the hell out of us...and probably more I can't think of right now. You may say "He'd never do that!", but I'm not so sure. He says he has a plan to get troops out of Iraq quickly, but not what that plan is - I have nothing to reassure me that he won't just yank them out, in order to follow through with what he said. He talks about a myriad of programs that would all cost a lot of money; where will that money come from? Military cuts and tax hikes are good sources.

So, I'd prefer to stay with the devil I know, then hit the road of good intentions to go meet the devil I don't.

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Yes.

Umm...yes what?

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by CvilleFencer

Responsible for the deaths of over a thousand US soldiers and 10's of thousands of Arab civilians.

Without touching the rest, I'd like to ask how Bush is responsible for this. I'd be more inclined to say that Islamic militants, terrorists, and Iraqi soldiers were more responsible. The same, in fact, for most of the civilian deaths.

And where, by the way, did you get that "tens of thousands" figure? Or that they're all caused by Americans?

[telkanuru]

The current statistic is approximately 20,000 civilian casualties, 1,000 american deaths and 10,000 american wounded.

[Soldier]

Okay, where does that statistic come from?

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Sad that you would go out of your way to mention that you would, in fact, do your civil, legally required duty...as if it should be expected otherwise, just because you're against it...

Yeah, I didn't explain myself well before.

What I mean to say is that I don't think it's special that I would dodge the draft. But I wanted to make it clear that I wouldn't before people started making assumptions.

And I agree that it is sad that it's even discussed.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by Soldier

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Keep making points - let's see how long I can keep dismissing them with colloquialisms!

But seriously, the worst Kerry could do could be to just yank troops out of Iraq, before the country is stable, seriously impede US interests by becoming a lap-dog to the UN, drastically chop the military, tax the hell out of us...and probably more I can't think of right now. You may say "He'd never do that!", but I'm not so sure. He says he has a plan to get troops out of Iraq quickly, but not what that plan is - I have nothing to reassure me that he won't just yank them out, in order to follow through with what he said. He talks about a myriad of programs that would all cost a lot of money; where will that money come from? Military cuts and tax hikes are good sources.

So, I'd prefer to stay with the devil I know, then hit the road of good intentions to go meet the devil I don't.


Umm...yes what?

Soldier, I really don't mean to be following you around and replying in the negative to every post you write, and I do respect highly, and thank you profusely for your putting your life on the line to defend my freedoms (presuming you're nom de plu is accurate).

Nonetheless, mentioning tax hikes as a distinctly Kerryesque feature seems absolutely outrageous when the largest tax hike in the HISTORY of any country ever was administered by none other than the man in the White House right now. Any way you look at it a 7 trillion dollar debt is guranteed to be one hell of a tax hike for some generation in the future and at this point the only fingerprints on that number are a Republican President and a Republican Congress. To scream "tax and spend liberals" is laughable in the giant void of the current US debt.

us.gov numbers on us debt to the day and penny:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

[Inquartata]

Uh...no. Deficits and debts can be grown away. They aren't synonymous with tax increases.

But you may have a promising career as a political spin doctor.

[Soldier]

Read a little more carefully, Drifter. I said I could see it as a distinct possibility. I pointed it out as one of the few possible means I see for Kerry to follow through with his many Secret Plans. The main point, again, was "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

[Artisan]

Originally Posted by Soldier

....Kerry to follow through with his many Secret Plans. The main point, again, was "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

What secret plans? Have you looked at his website or listened to him speak? He's written more about his ideas for policies than W ever did while he campaigned in 2000.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/policy.html

Talk about secret? Kerry has spoken more about his ideas and plans than Bush has his own while in the White House and enacting them. Bush has held fewer press conferences than any president... since there was a press to confer with. His administration has been the most secretive of any president. And this in the midst of the "information age"

[Inquartata]

It's a reference to a statement he made, to the effect that he had a plan for Iraq but he wasn't going to say what it was unless he was elected---not to his general wonkish peroration about grandiose ( yet still, somehow, vague ) "plans"...

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Artisan

What secret plans? Have you looked at his website or listened to him speak? He's written more about his ideas for policies than W ever did while he campaigned in 2000.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/policy.html

Talk about secret? Kerry has spoken more about his ideas and plans than Bush has his own while in the White House and enacting them. Bush has held fewer press conferences than any president... since there was a press to confer with. His administration has been the most secretive of any president. And this in the midst of the "information age"

Yes, I've looked around. He says all the things he plans to do - raise more Army troops, double the number of Special Forces personnel, get us out of Iraq, etc. But he never says how he's going to do this. That's what bothers me. It's not like he's saying, "As soon as they have an election, a commission will study Iraq and decide if they are stable and able to handle themselves. If they are, then we will immediately begin bringing troops out, X at a time." He just says, "We're going to get out of there."

[Army Fencer]

Yes, I've noticed that as well. He seems to be paying for a lot of his plans by rolling back the tax cut for the wealthiest 2%. I really don't think he can cover everything he wants to and still be "fiscally responsible."

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Artisan

One way I can think of is to simply pay them more.

This is a bit oversimplistic, I think. The idea that more money=better is appealing, but think it over a bit: has paying CEOs more gotten us better CEOs, or worse? Has paying Senators and Congressmen more, year after year, gotten us better leadership, or worse?

Yes, paying more attracts better candidates. It also attracts worse candidates, and mediocre ones---they like money, too. You still have to figure out how to tell one rom the other consistently...and that's always been the rub.

One final point: government is seldom the most efficient agent for any given activity. It is not cracked up for it; it has too many dysfunctions and counterproductive systemic tendencies. Giving yet more functions over to government---and the military is part of the government---strikes me as something rather to be avoided than courted.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Scary NPR show a couple weeks ago that said that basically Bush is planning on having a draft right after elections, and that they've doubled the number of draft boards in the last two weeks, etc., etc. Anyone else know about this?

This is a scare tactic floated by the Democrats. Frighten parents and young people with the prospect of forcing people into the military, and you may persuade them to vote for the candidate to whom the policy is not attributed.

Specifically, there was an intimation out of the Kerry campaign that there was a "secret plan" by the Administration to institute a draft after the election. ( Big on secret plans, those guys. ) Bush has since stated flatly that there would be no draft, and the Kerry campaign has fallen back to the position that the military stop-loss policies constitute a "back door draft": how people who voluntarily signed up for service can be considered to have been "drafted" is puzzling, but logic doesn't often stop politicians...

And of course, some people can be counted on to hear "draft" and not listen or care about anything said later on. In which case the rumor has done its work.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I really disagree with everything Bush says.

Heh, so now if we can just get Bush to praise foil and denigrate sabre....