Bob Lamb Posted October 6, 2004 Posted October 6, 2004 The vote was 402-2 and Rangle voted "no" after introducing the legislation http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a..._co/the_draft_6
Captain America Posted October 6, 2004 Posted October 6, 2004 The vote was 402-2 and Rangle voted "no" after introducing the legislation http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a..._co/the_draft_6 58386[/snapback] Well , well Rangle typical Kerry guy he supported it before he didnt support it Besides who would want to suppport this so close to elections? Now let me guess those two votes were democraps
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 6, 2004 Posted October 6, 2004 Well , well Rangle typical Kerry guy he supported it before he didnt support it Besides who would want to suppport this so close to elections? Now let me guess those two votes were democraps 58397[/snapback] I am against it. Here is what the two said: "We are in a war, and not only a small segment of the population should fight in that war," said Murtha. Yes they were dems. I guess they had balls to stick to their conviction. You don't think out of all those people, none of them thought otherwise. And Rangle. Don't know what is up with him, WTF?. Maybe trying to get the 'pubes in a "political trick bag?" What a stupid ploy.
Alaska Darin Posted October 6, 2004 Posted October 6, 2004 I am against it. Here is what the two said: "We are in a war, and not only a small segment of the population should fight in that war," said Murtha. Yes they were dems. I guess they had balls to stick to their conviction. You don't think out of all those people, none of them thought otherwise. And Rangle. Don't know what is up with him, WTF?. Maybe trying to get the 'pubes in a "political trick bag?" What a stupid ploy. 58430[/snapback] Rangel is a scumbag POS who showed himself yet again. Have no fear, liberal lemmings. He'll have an excuse you can repeat ad nauseum.
DC Tom Posted October 6, 2004 Posted October 6, 2004 "We are in a war, and not only a small segment of the population should fight in that war," said Murtha. 58430[/snapback] Don't worry. We're ultimately all fighting it. Draft or no draft.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 6, 2004 Posted October 6, 2004 Don't worry. We're ultimately all fighting it. Draft or no draft. 58480[/snapback] Oh, I might end up there. Might be my last few years to get 20 years in. Hopefully any RIF will give me the option of staying with my young family.
DC Tom Posted October 6, 2004 Posted October 6, 2004 Oh, I might end up there. Might be my last few years to get 20 years in. Hopefully any RIF will give me the option of staying with my young family. 58502[/snapback] That's not entirely what I meant, either. Wait until someone "Insh'allah!"-chanting mother!@#$er pops off a nuke in front of the Sears Tower, and count all the noncombattants among the survivors in downtown Chicago. You'll be able to count them on the fingers of one foot. Ultimately...insurgency and terrorism require the entire societal commitment of a country. It's total war even beyond the simple commitment of warm bodies to armaments production, or the bombing of said warm bodies to interrupt it. This type of war requires the total commitment of everyone to the concept of winning it. And given the difficulties of defining the "concept" of victory...you can see why it'll take a few generations. We haven't even started that as a society; again, as I've said before, we have to figure out and make some difficult and conscious choices about how we want American society to evolve as a society through the course of this conflict, if we ultimately intend to win it.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 6, 2004 Posted October 6, 2004 That's not entirely what I meant, either. Wait until someone "Insh'allah!"-chanting mother!@#$er pops off a nuke in front of the Sears Tower, and count all the noncombattants among the survivors in downtown Chicago. You'll be able to count them on the fingers of one foot. Ultimately...insurgency and terrorism require the entire societal commitment of a country. It's total war even beyond the simple commitment of warm bodies to armaments production, or the bombing of said warm bodies to interrupt it. This type of war requires the total commitment of everyone to the concept of winning it. And given the difficulties of defining the "concept" of victory...you can see why it'll take a few generations. We haven't even started that as a society; again, as I've said before, we have to figure out and make some difficult and conscious choices about how we want American society to evolve as a society through the course of this conflict, if we ultimately intend to win it. 58533[/snapback] How in the eff are you gonna get everybody on the same page in a VERY individualistic society? Just look at my response, case in point...
UConn James Posted October 6, 2004 Posted October 6, 2004 How in the eff are you gonna get everybody on the same page in a VERY individualistic society? Just look at my response, case in point... 58585[/snapback] How about in changing that very ethos of materialism and the ME-generation. Believe it or not, this is a relatively new phenomenon at the macro scale. It's only in about the past 50-60 years when everyone has had to keep up with the Joneses. Remember Victory Gardens (I had one this year. Bumper crop of tomatoes...)? Sacrificing and rationing for the war effort? The average American is being told by the Administration to BUY, BUY, BUY, MORE, MORE, MORE from the very countries that we will someday probably be fighting against. It should be required reading, or rather, someone really needs to make a movie of Theodore Dreiser's "Sister Carrie," written at the turn of the century and even more relevant now than then. The day is short The night so long Why will you work so hard To get things you don't even want? And yeah, I agree with DC Tom, but we probably slightly disagree on who'll get us there. The best defense is a good offense, BUT, you've still gotta play some kind of defense to win! The admin's preparedness for w/in this country is a color-coded chart. This is shameful.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 6, 2004 Posted October 6, 2004 How about in changing that very ethos of materialism and the ME-generation. Believe it or not, this is a relatively new phenomenon at the macro scale. It's only in about the past 50-60 years when everyone has had to keep up with the Joneses. Remember Victory Gardens (I had one this year. Bumper crop of tomatoes...)? Sacrificing and rationing for the war effort? The average American is being told by the Administration to BUY, BUY, BUY, MORE, MORE, MORE from the very countries that we will someday probably be fighting against. It should be required reading, or rather, someone really needs to make a movie of Theodore Dreiser's "Sister Carrie," written at the turn of the century and even more relevant now than then. The day is short The night so long Why will you work so hard To get things you don't even want? And yeah, I agree with DC Tom, but we probably slightly disagree on who'll get us there. The best defense is a good offense, BUT, you've still gotta play some kind of defense to win! The admin's preparedness for w/in this country is a color-coded chart. This is shameful. 58615[/snapback] I totally agree. I have been saying this all along. They offer up a war and then say don't worry... Go out and shop. Hey, Ford is giving 0% interest. What the eff gives with the mixed messages?? Sh*ist, my number one concern is getting my 20 with the Corps and a very nice TSP account... What the eff am I thinking?
Tux of Borg Posted October 6, 2004 Posted October 6, 2004 It's going to be just like Desert Storm where they used the stop-loss program to keep soldiers from getting out. As soon as the conflict is over and they don't need the troops, they kick a lot of them out on the fat boy program, etc...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 6, 2004 Posted October 6, 2004 It's going to be just like Desert Storm where they used the stop-loss program to keep soldiers from getting out. As soon as the conflict is over and they don't need the troops, they kick a lot of them out on the fat boy program, etc... 58637[/snapback] Works for corporate America... Use 'em then lose 'em. Maybe save some bennys along the way... You think there is loyalty any more?
UConn James Posted October 6, 2004 Posted October 6, 2004 It's going to be just like Desert Storm where they used the stop-loss program to keep soldiers from getting out. As soon as the conflict is over and they don't need the troops, they kick a lot of them out on the fat boy program, etc... 58637[/snapback] My brother was under stop-loss in the Air Force Ravens. This factored into him saying :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: the first chance he got. First lesson for executives should be, When you f^&k over your people, they f%^k you right back. We can't afford to be doing this with our military, b/c one day very soon they won't be there when we really need them.
Wacka Posted October 6, 2004 Posted October 6, 2004 It's in the papers when you enlst. if you don't read them-too F'n bad. Nothing new. my father was a few months from getting out of the Navy during the Korean War. Truman made him stay another year.
_BiB_ Posted October 6, 2004 Posted October 6, 2004 The admin's preparedness for w/in this country is a color-coded chart. This is shameful. If you really, actually, truly believe this, then the country is in much worse shape than I thought when it comes to people having informed opinions.
DC Tom Posted October 6, 2004 Posted October 6, 2004 How in the eff are you gonna get everybody on the same page in a VERY individualistic society? 58585[/snapback] THAT'S why I said it's going to take a generation or two. Ultimately, neither Kerry nor Bush is going to win this war (and my guess is they'd have to !@#$ up orders of magnitude worse than either is likely to do to lose it in one term.) But ultimately, one or the other is going to be responsible for laying the groundwork for our grandchildren's victory...or defeat. That is ultimately what this vote means. The decision is: who among the choices provides the best chance of someone who's probably still in diapers standing up after we're all dust and declaring victory, with this country probably having dealt with a man-made plague, a couple nuclear blasts, an a presidential assassination or two in that time? And that, in a country where your average resident can't even think past the next commercial. You can see why I'm a pessimist...
DC Tom Posted October 6, 2004 Posted October 6, 2004 The admin's preparedness for w/in this country is a color-coded chart. This is shameful. 58615[/snapback] It really is a little more than that. I hold the color chart in contempt, too...but only because it's about as grounded in reality as your average episode of "Sabrina the Teenage Witch". It's a marketing tool...and as I've said, this administration couldn't market space heaters to Siberians. At best, it's a CYA tool...since no one pays any attention to it anymore, if something DOES happen the government can point to it and say "See! We're at orange! We told you the risk was high! We're doing our jobs!"
PastaJoe Posted October 6, 2004 Posted October 6, 2004 Ultimately...insurgency and terrorism require the entire societal commitment of a country. Except we can't touch the tax cuts! Everything BUT that! We must not take away the tax cuts from the top 10%, because history has shown that they and America will not thrive and survive without them. Patriotism has it's limits, and that limit is rolling back the tax cuts!
DC Tom Posted October 6, 2004 Posted October 6, 2004 Except we can't touch the tax cuts! Everything BUT that! We must not take away the tax cuts from the top 10%, because history has shown that they and America will not thrive and survive without them. Patriotism has it's limits, and that limit is rolling back the tax cuts! 59394[/snapback] Well, that was an interesting digression to an unrelated topic. Thank you...
Recommended Posts