|
Most importantly, <br>The draft will be there when we "need" it. If we keep up the pressure to install our government there and protect our contractors, then we are implying a continuation of the use of force. We got a heap of tired, shot at, homesick soldiers who have been there too long already, and as we can see, the anti-American violence is escalating. They are going to get tireder, and shot at more. They've been in harms way too long, and need to come home. If corporate want's to keep the hold on their interests there, the troops are going to have to be replaced. <br>IMHO, it's secondary where any legislation is regarding the draft, because when we need more bodies, and we don't have them, then we will draft them. Therefor, the real question is....Will US action bring peace to Iraq. If the answer is yes, then we may get out of this without the draft...if the answer is No, then we will have to draft people to keep the war going. The real question to me is will the use of force, to promote American corporate interests, bring peace to Iraq. Therein lies the answer to the draft question. <br> <br>madcow, to answer your question, yes, they can do that, bur involving 18-26 yo's doesnt mean ALL 18-26 yo's are going to Iraq. What will happen is there will (likely), be a lottery where everyone's birthday is assigned a number. Starting with #1, a birthday is picked at random, and assigned to #1...then #2 and so on. Now that everyone has a number, they can start taking people as they need them, starting with #1, and if they run out of 1's, moving on to 2..and so on. <br> <br>MTF, thanks for posting Pete Starks statement. IMHO Pete Stark is one of the true hero's of the American people because he constantly votes AGAINST corporate intersts when they will hurt American people, (which they usually do). Stark puts put's people over corporate contributors, something 2/3's of congress does not do these days. Like Byrd, Stark is not afraid to fly against the corporate wind. To show what I mean, he voted against giving Bush the use of force In Iraq., he voted NO on the $400 Billion dollar pentagon pie, No on the infamous $87 billion, No on US support of Israel in the suppresion of palestineans, No on the P.A.T.R.I.O.T act, and the icing on the cake when virtually all the R's had sold out, and 60% of the D's had sold out, Stark voted NO on the *SPAM* windfall as well as Yes to alow imports from Canada in order to combat the price gouging from no legal competition. That's the short list for Stark, he's to be commended for flying in th eface of money, IMHO. <br>With those wto things said, I think Stark is a smart guy...he know's the score. He knows a statement is due to show the reality of escalating the violence in Iraq. Both Bush and Kerry want to send 40,000 more troops to Iraq. It's going to cost American lives. I think the existance of the statement is more important than the topic of who's Senator's son is going to get drafted. Neither Bush or Kerry wants "the draft" to be connected to their wish of sending more people to Iraq, it would cost them votes. Rather, they both know the draft will be there when we need more bodies. IMHO, kudo's to Mr Stark for showing the American people what we are escalating. <br>I think the answer to the draft question lies in one's opinion of if we can force our corporate interests on the Iraqi people. If they will succumb to our force, the draft may not be needed..if they fight against corporate interests, then we will have to beat them into submission...all 1.2 billion of them(Muslem brotherhood, they won't abandon their brothers)...and for a war of that magnitude, we will need the draft.
_________________ "Winning the war on jihadist extremism is the Democratic Party's first priority this year and every year until the danger recedes" Open letter from the (Clintonite) Democratic Leadershp Council
|