why did the Democrats introduce the bills HR 163 and S 89 (draft)

[Sperk]

I know they were introduced before the Iraq invasion. C. Rangel stated that it should not just be a few who sacrifice for the war on terror, should be shared by rich and poor etc. But guess what? It didn't work, it didnt wake people up, they still let the war happen.
My question...
Shouldn't they pull the bill now? Why are they letting the Democratic party be tied to this bill. The people are going to be bullshit when they find out about the draft and they're going to blame the Dems. It's their bill, right? Do you see what I'm saying? Let the Repugs bring the bill and the dems can try to pass amendments to make it so there are no deferments etc. I just don't get it. Any thougts?

[kalian]

1. Because they're morons!

they're playing the "bad cop" routine. IMHO, the repukes will simply
blame it on the dems when the draft is re-instated. Never mind that
the repukes will use it to their hearts' content...

[7th_Sephiroth]

2. its to make them think

it was to try to deterr the war

[kalian]

4. Oh bullshit!

[lcordero]

3. Both sides are trying to find creative ways to

fuck the average person in the ass...with no KY.

Thanks for reminding me that I have to register unaffiliated as a voter.

[Goldom]

5. saw a guy on news years ago explaining

they thought if the draft was reinstuted, more people would be against going to war.

[kalian]

6. And that is just plain ludicrous....

:eyes:

[LiberalFighter]

7. Why?

Volunteer military = men and women that are willing to serve.

Military Draft = men and women conscripted into the service.

That would probably be the view of the general public and a volunteer military would provide less resistance to war than a draft.

[kalian]

12. Its either the draft....

or having our kids sent off to the gulag for resisting the draft.
I'm sorry, this tactic makes no friggin sense to me and once
dissent is made illegal in this country it won't matter who is
against this imperialist "war".

I'm sick and tired of hearing this arguement and it doesn't let
the dems that introduced this bill off the hook. Kids are going to
get KILLED! :mad:

[Sperk]

8. yeah. but like I said, it didn't stop the war....shouldn't they pull it?

n/t

[Sperk]

9. Why is no one responding to the question part of my post?!?!

:shrug:

[kalian]

13. I answered it....

now, if you don't like my answer...too bad.

[Ksec]

10. If were going to make war an everyday thing we need soldiers

Seriously. Why make the poor fight all their battles? At least with a draft the idiots will think twice before advocating war for fear of their kids actually fighting in it.

[dsc]

11. I don't think it was so much the idea that there would be no war

but that the sacrifice for the war would be more fairly shared. Incidently that isn't a ridiculous notion. All of the following groups are over represented in the military, poor, people of color, and the poorly educated. Rangle has more than a few of those types of people in his district.

[DennisReveni]

14. Because there is no REAL difference.

http://antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=2089
"While the rise to power of the Bush gang, the neoconservatives, belatedly preoccupied the American media, the message of their equivalents in the Democratic Party has been of little interest. Yet the similarities are compelling. Shortly before Bush's "election" in 2000, the Project for the New American Century, the neoconservative pressure group, published an ideological blueprint for "maintaining global US preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests." Every one of its recommendations for aggression and conquest was adopted by the administration.

One year later, the Progressive Policy Institute, an arm of the Democratic Leadership Council, published a 19-page manifesto for the "New Democrats," who include all the principal Democratic Party candidates, and especially John Kerry. This called for "the bold exercise of American power" at the heart of "a new Democratic strategy, grounded in the party's tradition of muscular internationalism." Such a strategy would "keep Americans safer than the Republicans' go-it-alone policy, which has alienated our natural allies and overstretched our resources. We aim to rebuild the moral foundation of US global leadership . . ."

What is the difference from the vainglorious claptrap of Bush? Apart from euphemisms, there is none. All the leading Democratic presidential candidates supported the invasion of Iraq, bar one: Howard Dean. Kerry not only voted for the invasion, but expressed his disappointment that it had not gone according to plan. He told Rolling Stone magazine: "Did I expect George Bush to f*** it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did." Neither Kerry nor any of the other candidates has called for an end to the bloody and illegal occupation; on the contrary, all of them have demanded more troops for Iraq. Kerry has called for another "40,000 active service troops." He has supported Bush's continuing bloody assault on Afghanistan, and the administration's plans to "return Latin America to American leadership" by subverting democracy in Venezuela. "

[kalian]

15. People on these forums don't understand this....

I've been posting these articles today and most still believe that
Kerry will change everything....night from day... :eyes: