It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"We will not have an all volunteer army"

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 09:11 AM
link   
During a stump speech yesterday President Bush let it slip. He said "We will not have an all volunteer army", he didn't catch himself until the crowd clued him in.
Then he stammered and said the reverse. I believe he said what he meant when he when he said "not have". All people between 18 and 24 better get out and vote for their lives, and so should their parents.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Froidian slip? Sounds like he had the truth on his mind and let it slip while thinking about the lie. Im not going to start bashing Bush. I just wonder how many truths and lies Bush AND Kerry have to keep straight?!



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 09:48 AM
link   
I'm voting Republican because I don't want a draft!

Democrats introduced the draft bill and where the only ones to vote for it. Not one Republican voted for it.

[edit on 17-10-2004 by Carseller4]



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Maybe thats the idea,as both parties are indistinguishable... fool you into voting Rep. as the Dem. put the bill in. After the election, its fair game boys and girls!



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I'm afraid stumason may be correct. :shk:



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 10:42 AM
link   
The Republicans continue to privatize the Armed Forces. Look how much money is going to Halliburton for KP duty. (The president should draft Halliburton and save the taxpayers 30 billions. Why is an army sergeant who is riding shotgun on a supply truck, get a few dollars per day while the civilian truck driver get $1000 and his company who is operating on cost plus gets 15% profit on everything they spend. Can a President draft a corporation?)

The next step is to outsource the Armed Forces. Let�s create an American Foreign Legion. We could actively recruit in Africa and South America.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
Democrats introduced the draft bill and where the only ones to vote for it. Not one Republican voted for it.


You're gullible.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON

Originally posted by Carseller4
Democrats introduced the draft bill and where the only ones to vote for it. Not one Republican voted for it.


You're gullible.


Knowing the facts does not make you gullible. The whole draft idea was planned by democrats to make Bush look bad. Why bring up a bill, if you are not for it?



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 12:01 PM
link   
bush doesnt need democrats for that, he does just fine on his own



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 06:43 PM
link   
No, the draft bill proposed in Congress was to provoke thought on the subject, and have people question whether they would be so gung-ho about fighting elective wars if their own children had to go over there and do the fighting. It was never going to pass, but it served it's purpose, which is to get people thinking about whether that's a sacrifice they want to make.

Like it or not, if we continue to make enemies and fight optional wars while our real enemies lie in wait, we will most likely need a draft. If Iran or N.Korea or -- God forbid -- both start acting up, we do not have the resources to finish securing Afghanistan/Iraq, while fighting major wars with Iran / N.Korea. It's just that simple.

[edit on 17-10-2004 by W_HAMILTON]



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
No, the draft bill proposed in Congress was to provoke thought on the subject, and have people question whether they would be so gung-ho about fighting elective wars if their own children had to go over there and do the fighting. It was never going to pass, but it served it's purpose, which is to get people thinking about whether that's a sacrifice they want to make.

Like it or not, if we continue to make enemies and fight optional wars while our real enemies lie in wait, we will most likely need a draft. If Iran or N.Korea or -- God forbid -- both start acting up, we do not have the resources to finish securing Afghanistan/Iraq, while fighting major wars with Iran / N.Korea. It's just that simple.

[edit on 17-10-2004 by W_HAMILTON]


So basically the democrats where just wasting taxpayer money? If they don't take this seriously, how can we take them seriously?



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Nod, the same way Republicans wasted tax money pushing the gay amendment vote that had no chance of passing. It's called politics, it happens all the time.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
Nod, the same way Republicans wasted tax money pushing the gay amendment vote that had no chance of passing. It's called politics, it happens all the time.


But I bet the person that introduced that bill voted for it. Unlike democrats, who proposed the draft bill then refused to vote for it.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Oh you're one of those types that will find any justification rather than just admitting something wrong on one person's behalf is just as wrong when someone else does it, I see



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
Oh you're one of those types that will find any justification rather than just admitting something wrong on one person's behalf is just as wrong when someone else does it, I see


There is no correlation between the 2 bills. 1 was introduced because someone was for it. The other was introduced because someone was against it? Pure deceit by the democrats.

The democrats only chance to win anything is to lie. They are a desperate party, and will stoop to any level to win. SAD


[edit on 17-10-2004 by Carseller4]



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 07:34 PM
link   
It was a pretty sad attempt at a scare tactic. Anyone that looked into the facts could see through it. But whats even more sad is some people wont do that and just hear draft and think Bush must be behind it. So I guess thats what the people that introduced the draft bill were planning on.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 07:52 PM
link   
All right! Enough bickering! Let's roll out the facts on this story.


The Statesman - Bush dangles no-draft, Kerry looks homeward
US President George W Bush turned the tables on his Democratic rival, Senator John Kerry, declaring �the best way to avoid the draft is to vote for me,� and pledged to oppose mandatory military service. The Democrat stuck to domestic issues, blaming Mr Bush for a shortage of flu vaccines.
Mr Kerry also opposes a draft and has suggested that re-electing Mr Bush would greatly increase the prospects for one. The president, fearing that young voters will be swayed, fired back, �The person talking about a draft is my opponent.� Campaigning in an area heavily dependent on the military, Mr Bush said: �We will not have an all-volunteer army� before correcting himself. �Let me restate that,� he continued. �We will not have a draft ... . The best way to avoid a draft is to vote for me.�

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


So was his mind checked out or did something that we aren't supposed to know come out into the light? What actually happened with this draft bill that was shot down?


Draft Bill Dies in House
The Universal National Service Act of 2003 was laid to rest in the House of Representatives last Tuesday when Republicans brought the bill to the floor. It was defeated by an overwhelming 402 to two vote. This puts to rest�at least for the time being� rumors about the draft making a comeback.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


So it looks like this was a Republican sponsored bill. Interesting, although I don't believe the bill actually said that you had to serve in the military. It just said that you would have to do some government service. Still, it's a slippery slope right?



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Hmm, introducing a bill in Congress that is supposed to provoke a discussion on the subject of a draft, or leading our country into optional wars, with the pledge that we will enter into more wars like it in the future if we have to. Bet I know which one is "scarier," and which one is more likely to lead to a reinstated draft!

If Bush's preemptive strike doctrine (and what it has led to in Iraq) doesn't scare you in reference to a possible draft, a lil bill proposed in Congress shouldn't either.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
Hmm, introducing a bill in Congress that is supposed to provoke a discussion on the subject of a draft, or leading our country into optional wars, with the pledge that we will enter into more wars like it in the future if we have to. Bet I know which one is "scarier," and which one is more likely to lead to a reinstated draft!

If Bush's preemptive strike doctrine (and what it has led to in Iraq) doesn't scare you in reference to a possible draft, a lil bill proposed in Congress shouldn't either.


Do you democrats not understand the current situation in the world today? North Korea and Iran don't care who is in the white house. THEY DO NOT CARE. If Kerry wins the election do you think they're going to stop raising hell by making nuclear weapons?

President Bush is has his "preemptive strike doctrine" to stop rogue nations from getting these weapons (although it was too late to stop NK). Let me make a connection for you all: Do you want a murderer to have a gun? NO. Is it okay if a good man has a gun to protect himself? YES. These countries do not want to protect themselves, they want to use their nuclear programs to shake up international politics and eventually use them. And if you think that Al Queda and other terrorist organizations are not working with NK and Iran, you're insane and should use common sense. Here's another connection: If a child wants a toy, he makes his mom get it for him. These terrorists are going to these nuclear rogue nations and are getting info on how to build these weapons OR workign on deals to get these WMD's.

Actually, i've got a great idea! When kerry is elected, he can go to the UN and, becuase every nations loves him (or so he claims), he can get the United Nations army to care of everything!! Oh wait, the UN doesn't have an army...to hell with that plan!

Bottom line--If there's a draft it won't be for political purposes. It will be becuase Uncle Sam needs manpower to stay on top of the world. I'm almost 18, and to tell you the truth, if i was drafted i would go and wear my pride on my sleeve becuase i know that i'm fighting for the greatest country this world has ever seen.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates



Draft Bill Dies in House
The Universal National Service Act of 2003 was laid to rest in the House of Representatives last Tuesday when Republicans brought the bill to the floor. It was defeated by an overwhelming 402 to two vote. This puts to rest�at least for the time being� rumors about the draft making a comeback.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


So it looks like this was a Republican sponsored bill. Interesting, although I don't believe the bill actually said that you had to serve in the military. It just said that you would have to do some government service. Still, it's a slippery slope right?



I think your facts are wrong. The bill was introduced by Charles Rangel a Democrat from New York.

''The New York Democrat told reporters his goal is two-fold: to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a possible unilateral strike against Iraq, which he opposes, and "to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices."

Charles Rangel introduced the bill, This is from CNN.com

www.cnn.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join