Every 18 year old is required to register for the draft. That means that in 30 days or less we could begin to call up over a million warm bodies. Thirteen weeks after that we could begin to field a massive army that could blanket Iraq from border to border. A war tax could be levied to pay for this and industry could be cranked up to provide needed equipment....think WW2....we did it then, Bush could order it done now.
2007-07-10 12:36:20 · 10 answers · asked by Noah H 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I agree, all those still supporting this war go ahead and lets all make a sacrifice for it. I served in Gulf 1, my Father in Vitnam(MArines) my Step father in Veitnam (did 30+ years in the military ) and both of my grandfathers served in wars. So all those who say not supporting this war is unpatriotic, support that. Put your money where your mouth is.
2007-07-10 12:42:12 · answer #1 · answered by Myles D 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
First of all, we need more than 'warm bodies', we need trained soldiers. It takes a year to train a soldier properly. Even after Pearl Harbor, when every guy between the ages of 18 and 30 dropped what he was doing, quit his job and marched down to the recruiters, it took about a year to get them all into the fray. We didn't come on strong until the beginning of 1943.
Secondly, Bush was told by every military expert and also a study by the Rand Corp. that it would take half a million people to 'stabilize' Iraq. He didn't listen to them. I don't think a half a million people would help now. He had his chance and he blew it.
Bush had the option of reinstating the draft from the beginning. But everyone in the administration was saying the war would be over in a few weeks (in fact they've been saying that for four years now.) A Democratic senator proposed reinstating the draft and Republicans screamed that he was trying to sabotage Bush, because they knew how unpopular this would be.
I am old enough to remember the Vietnam War. We had the draft then, and we did send 500,000 men. And even in that war, I heard people saying that we weren't winning because the rules of engagement were too limiting. We should fight to win! We should use nukes! We should widen the war to Laos and Cambodia (which Nixon eventually did). But the reasons we couldn't win were more complicated than that. One of the real problems was that we couldn't tell the good guys from the bad guys, so we ended up just killing lots of people--kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. That's counterproductive! We ended up with no friends at all.
2007-07-10 12:58:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The sad truth is that a million more troops probably still wouldn't do the job. Iraq is a big country, and most of the people there want us gone. That's a pretty tough scenario for any war. And if we escalate further, you can expect Iran, Turkey, Syria and others to ramp up their opposition. It's a recipe for many more dead young Americans, but probably not a solution to the problems of Iraq.
And of course Congress will never support reinstatement of the draft. That's a sure recipe for being voted out of office in the next election.
A war tax is not a bad idea. We've borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for this war, to be paid off by our children and grandchildren. Paying as we go would be a great way to find out how much people really support this war.
2007-07-10 12:43:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Does anyone think we can resolve the problems of this ME infrastructure? How many of US watching this war from the beginning questioned it's root. The next day after 9/11, Rummie calling for invasion of Iraq NOT SA--why? No more American blood should be spilled there as these people are starting to resent US and our failure to provide the electricity and better living conditions as in the past. Troops have been short-changed since the beginning with gear as well as after-care, so were is the BILLIONS of dollars going? To build up these privatized armies, for what future event?
2007-07-10 12:52:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Dropping a million people (most who arguably don't want to be there) into a land of religious violence will only be detrimental. Think this scenario:
Me and buddies from my town got drafted. Drop everything; job, family, and life in general. Go train, and 13 weeks later get dropped into the desert. People are getting killed everyday, and you are the prime target. Your pissed off. A group of Iraqi's kill one of your best friends that you grew up with your whole live. You and your squad "do a whole f*cking village" in retaliation. You are back from a war that you were forced to go to, lost friends, and are being court marshaled and charged with murder.
2007-07-10 12:47:35 · answer #5 · answered by Nic T 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That would work-till we left. Or do you want us to stay for 20 years. They would disapear while we were there and return when we left.
2007-07-10 12:54:37 · answer #6 · answered by garstar 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
because the public doesn't support his war and no Republican would get elected for the next 20 years if he did that...
2007-07-10 12:39:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
they should have use Iron and fist b4 all these bombing get out of hand.
2007-07-10 13:48:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
right. let's do it the AMERICAN WAY! i'm all for it! i'd be more than happy to get an extra job, drop my standard of living, ANYTHING asked of me to get 'er done the American way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-07-10 12:50:03 · answer #9 · answered by daddio 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
they do not want to risk the oil wells!
2007-07-10 12:39:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋