Anyone with any knowledge of current events know that ONLY Democrats bring this subject up, and everyone knows it is fear mongering to gain the "coward" vote and the "unpatriotic" vote.
2007-01-14 13:58:55 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Look at Q-burt's answer. It is right on. Now look at the thumbs down he received and tell me that there are not people out there who are completely unwilling to listen to facts. What has he said that isn't right? This is pathetic. This is our country and our security we are talking about. This is not a time to play games, but too many are. Too many just hate the president so much that they will twist and distort anything to suit what they WANT to believe. Thank you for your answer Q-burt, I couldn't agree more. Don't let someone like Wondermom(?) and her toughtless, glib answers get to you. Most of us still think for ourselves.
2007-01-14 22:53:18 · answer #1 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well wondermom I guess i am one of those blind followers eh? Hell the 80k+ troops that enlist to serve their country are the "blind followers" too.
You know your coward butt sits at home enjoying the protection my brothers and sisters provide yet you call us all "Blind Followers" simply because we joined the srevice to give back something to a Country we love.
You should be ashamed, but i know people like you won't be. Sad really.
On to the question. The reason people think this is because it was brought up while the House and Senate were under Republican control. Who else would lobby for it right?
Well, fact is on January 8th of 2003, Congressman Charles Rangel [D—NY] and Congressman John Murtha [D—PA] began an extensive campaign to bring back the military draft. He repeatedly submitted legislative bills to begin a military draft and compel all American men and women up to the age of forty—two to serve two years of military service. Under the Republican—controlled Congress, such bills went down to defeat.
Hell, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. still proposes a draft affecting Men and women between the ages of 18 and 42. God help us if the Dem's get their way.
Here's the truth of the matter; Between 1992 and 2000, the Clinton Administration cut national defense by more than half a million personnel and $50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. The Army alone has lost four active divisions and two Reserve divisions. The number of total active personnel in the Air Force has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total number of ships has decreased from around 393 ships in the fleet in 1992 to 316 today. Even the Marines have dropped 22,000 personnel.
In spite of these drastic force reductions, military missions and operations tempo increased. Because every mission affects far greater numbers of servicemen than those directly involved, most operations other than warfare, such as peacekeeping, have a significant negative impact on readiness.
Now Bush is actually upping our numbers (Army) by 65k. This in itself is great. With in increase in our total troops, worls missions will become a little better to handle.
2007-01-14 22:33:11 · answer #2 · answered by Q-burt 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
If by democrats you mean one representative, then yes, one democrat did support it. One Republican also authorized $250 million to be spent on a bridge that only 50 people will ever use. With only $100 million, they could buy each person a $2 million ferry, but no, let's waste $250 million instead, becuase it's not like we have a national deficit.
2007-01-14 22:43:05 · answer #3 · answered by John S 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yep, blame everything on the Democrats when it's a Republican that has run this country into the dirt. When do you people ever take responsibility for your own political party's actions? After 5,000 more troops die from Bush's "new" strategy you'll still come up with a way to blame Democrats. Wake up. Bush has ruined our economy and our social standing with other nations. When it comes down to it, it has nothing to do with Republicans and Democrats. It has to do with having a sadistic dumbass for a president. Let the f-ing thumbs downs flow.
2007-01-14 22:06:32 · answer #4 · answered by Tiacola Version 9.0 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I don't see anything wrong with some kind of national service. It would not have to be military. I am fully aware of Bush's insistance on all volunteer forces, however.
2007-01-14 23:20:27 · answer #5 · answered by planksheer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If current events proceed along precipitous lines, a draft will be mandated regardless of which party is at the helm.
2007-01-14 22:27:40 · answer #6 · answered by oatie 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Your right he might not have too. Maybe he will go on tv and ask his blind followers to join the war and fight and Iraq.
2007-01-14 22:09:24 · answer #7 · answered by wondermom 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
need more US paid soldiers to protect the oil pipelines and employees of Halliburton
2007-01-14 22:13:54 · answer #8 · answered by mr america 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Bush wants 20000 more troops in Iraq. Where are those troops going to come from?
2007-01-14 22:02:02 · answer #9 · answered by Duffman 5 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Those who believe this are not thinking but reacting to something that they hear.
2007-01-14 22:06:35 · answer #10 · answered by fatboysdaddy 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋