PDA

View Full Version : It's getting drafty in here



Lionmane
06-05-2006, 12:24 AM
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060530&articleId=2535

SlyMaelstrom
06-05-2006, 12:51 AM
Not exactly a draft, if you consider that everyone must serve. Can't say I agree with it, though. Other countries do this. Egypt for one and I'm pretty sure France, because the last time I checked, if I want to get my French citizenship, I'd have to serve in their military.

Cheeze-It
06-05-2006, 03:37 PM
That's ridiculous.

Thantos
06-05-2006, 04:38 PM
While I wouldn't have a problem with some type of national service that remained in country doing civic works/duties I do have a problem with basically having it be an extention of the military. Now if such a national service as I described above existed, I wouldn't have a problem with voluntary enlistment fulfilling that duty.

Here are some of the reasons I am against this in it's current form:
1) Two year duty: IMO this is too little time to adaquatly train and for the person to gain the experience needed to preform their missions. I entered USMC Boot on October 10th and wasn't done with my training (boot camp, MCT, and tech school) until around July 20th. If you factor in that the military get 30 days of leave each year that is 22 months of work we can expect out of this act. I would have spent about half that time in training alone. Even a Marine grunt will spend close to 5 or 6 months in training before being sent out to a unit.

2) A voluntary force is better then an involuntary one. We've known this for a long ass time.

3) Numbers matter, but not as much as 50 years ago. With the advancement of technology we don't need a huge force bogging the military down. Smaller, lighter, faster units are replacing the larger, heavier units for a reason.

4) Where are we going to get the funding for this?

Jaqui
06-05-2006, 04:44 PM
The most interesting thing about this, the article cited is on a Canadian based website.
This suggests that the US government is censoring any news on the proposed draft.

whiteflags
06-05-2006, 05:02 PM
The most interesting thing about this, the article cited is on a Canadian based website.
This suggests that the US government is censoring any news on the proposed draft.
And the bloody, sad Canadian-American War continues.

Canadian spies seem to be the most dangerous ones; before this post I wouldn't have thought that Canada would actually try to leak their neighbor's confidential information. Meep.

SlyMaelstrom
06-05-2006, 05:05 PM
Actually, I saw this on CSPAN prior to this post.

The reason it doesn't make US news is because quite simply it's a load of hooey. Just some random bill that some jack-off decided to bring up and probably had no more than 20 minutes of discussion in the House. If you read the article, it says the bill is taking flack from both sides of the House, which means no one likes it in its current form which means it's not likely to be passed, which means it's not real news.

The rest of the world has this crazy idea of Big Brother taking over the US and the ignorant Americans don't know what's going on. Believe me, the filters on the news happen on its way out of the US borders. If anyone is getting the half-truth it's everyone else.

Govtcheez
06-05-2006, 05:06 PM
> The reason it doesn't make US news is because quite simply it's a load of hooey. Just some random bill that some jack-off decided to bring up and probably had no more than 20 minutes of discussion.

DING DING DING

It's just a lame publicity stunt.

SlyMaelstrom
06-05-2006, 05:09 PM
I don't know if they show the US senate hearing up in Canada (which isn't as crazy as you would think. We in the US do get the British Parliament on TV, after all), but if you do and have ever watched it, the big story in Congress right now is the oil drilling in that Alaskan reserve.

Jaqui
06-05-2006, 08:50 PM
Actually, I saw this on CSPAN prior to this post.

The reason it doesn't make US news is because quite simply it's a load of hooey. Just some random bill that some jack-off decided to bring up and probably had no more than 20 minutes of discussion in the House. If you read the article, it says the bill is taking flack from both sides of the House, which means no one likes it in its current form which means it's not likely to be passed, which means it's not real news.


actually, it means the jack-off is likely to get re-elected because those that elected him aren't getting told what a screwup he is. that is not serving the us people by not making sure the screwups don't get back into office.

SlyMaelstrom
06-05-2006, 10:22 PM
actually, it means the jack-off is likely to get re-elected because those that elected him aren't getting told what a screwup he is. that is not serving the us people by not making sure the screwups don't get back into office.

You must be new to the electoral process. You see, around election time, the moving picture box in the living room gets filled with pictures and sounds that tell you all the bad things about the candidates running. Believe me, when the election comes, the republican candidate will jump all over this one.

All the information the people need is available to them. If they have no interest in reading the newspaper or watching the news on TV then they shouldn't be voting in the first place. I knew about this and I'm sure many others did as well. When is the time going to come where people don't need everything spoon fed to them all day long.