Top Democrat: Bring back the draft

The Real McCoy · 11-20-06, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t125eagle

in what fashion The Real McCoy? support roles or fighting?

Actually I wasn't serious. Mostly just an easy shot at femenist hypocricy. It's a hobby of mine. Like skiing. 'Cept it's free.

NYStateofMind · 11-20-06, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

Yep, which is why we should get the military out as soon as possible and then hunker down. The Dems have won the war against the war on the homefront. Without the support of the country it is pointless to leave our military in harms way. Now we face the consequences of thier irresponsible rhetoric.

He didn't just start this business, he has contributed to the demoralization of the country and our losing our resolve to win.

First of all, the Dems don't deserve any credit for turning the public against the war. The public led the Democrats on this, by a looong time....the Dems followed the public's lead. It's not the public's fault or the Dems fault that this war has been run ineptly by the Bush administration. Bush gets all of the credit for turning the public against the war, by turning it into a disaster. We are facing the consequences of the ill advised war that the Bush administration chose to wage....incompetently, at that.

It isn't a matter of not having resolve, it's a matter of having no plan on how to succeed. Every day that passes without a plan makes it ever more unlikely that we will have any chance of salvaging something positive from this war. The responsibility for this rests squarely on President Bush's shoulders.....not a congressman from NY from the party that was out of power when this folly began.

Nice try at the

Trajan Octavian Titus · 11-20-06, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrow

A) I wonder what your source on this is.

The Pentagon:

Quote:

Pentagon Opposed To New Draft

WASHINGTON, Jan. 13, 2002

Pentagon Opposed To New Draft - CBS News

Quote:

Pentagon Says Any Draft Would Only "Shift The Burden Toward The Poor"

All Headline News - Pentagon Says Any Draft Would Only "Shift The Burden Toward The Poor" - November 20, 2006

Quote:

Military: Increased recruitment efforts, not draft, more efficient

Dalia Hatuqa, Washington Correspondent
Published November 18, 2006

Military: Increased recruitment efforts, not draft, more efficient | GoUpstate.com | Spartanburg, S.C.

Quote:

They all want it, they have been asking for years not.

General Abizaid the head of CENTCOM has rejected the idea of bringing in more troops, he said that policy would only be an incentive for the Iraqi's not to take up their own slack.

Quote:

B) because being in an unwinnable war is good for morale...

According to you it's unwinnable, General Abizaid disagrees, not to mention that reenlistment rates are high.

Quote:

C) That isn't true if the volunteer military can't perform its mission.

We have lots of troops not serving in Iraq, I think there are something like 150,000 soldiers and marines in Iraq the troops are there if we need them:

Quote:

Approximately 1.4 million personnel are currently on active duty in the military with an additional 1,259,000 personnel in the seven reserve components (456,000 of whom are in the Army and Air National Guard).[3]

Military of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

D) I'm not addressing the issue of patrotism.

Well then are you calling Thomas Jefferson a hypocrite and a coward?

Morrow · 11-20-06, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

The Pentagon:

General Abizaid the head of CENTCOM has rejected the idea of bringing in more troops, he said that policy would only be an incentive for the Iraqi's not to take up their own slack.

According to you it's unwinnable, General Abizaid disagrees, not to mention that reenlistment rates are high.

The Pentagon's field commanders disagree. I have heard many times that what the majors, colonels, captians, and generals in iraq want is more troops. not to mention the prewar estimates that 450000 troops were needed. Also, our military doctrine requires a force of 10 to one to defeat guerllias, so we would need about 450000.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

We have lots of troops not serving in Iraq, I think there are something like 150,000 soldiers and marines in Iraq the troops are there if we need them:

You're right, it isn't like anyone else who knows about the situation disagrees... o wait..

On top of that, to have 450,000 troop in Iraq, we would need apx 2 million to support the 3 month rotation our doctrine calls for. troops are only supposed to be in active combat for 3 months. After that it causes problems. Not to mention we would need the support to have more than 2 million troops rotating in and out of combat operations. And out support to troop ratio is like 7 to 1, so we would need a hell of a lot of guys to win the way we want to. And even if we did what we did now, one year instead of 3 month rotations, that is still hundreds of thousands of more men that people in the military want, independent sources say are needed, and active and retired generals say we need.

I do not know the reasons for Gen. Abizaid comments, but there is enormous amount of people saying the opposite of him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Well then are you calling Thomas Jefferson a hypocrite and a coward?

You logical capabilities are too much for me.

Binary_Digit · 11-20-06, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

General Abizaid the head of CENTCOM has rejected the idea of bringing in more troops, he said that policy would only be an incentive for the Iraqi's not to take up their own slack.

So doesn't that mean General Abizaid would agree that a phased withdrawal would be an incentive for the Iraqis to take up their own slack?

Trajan Octavian Titus · 11-20-06, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrow

The Pentagon's field commanders disagree. I have heard many times that what the majors, colonels, captians, and generals in iraq want is more troops. not to mention the prewar estimates that 450000 troops were needed. Also, our military doctrine requires a force of 10 to one to defeat guerllias, so we would need about 450000.

General Abizaid is the head of CENTCOM and the top field commander in Iraq. Further saying that they want more troops is not the same thing as saying they want to reinstate the draft, show me an example of a field commander or any commander for that matter saying that we should bring back the draft. Little hint you won't find one.

Quote:

You're right, it isn't like anyone else who knows about the situation disagrees... o wait..

On top of that, to have 450,000 troop in Iraq, we would need apx 2 million to support the 3 month rotation our doctrine calls for. troops are only supposed to be in active combat for 3 months.

2 million? Well then we're already way over the mark:

Quote:

Approximately 1.4 million personnel are currently on active duty in the military with an additional 1,259,000 personnel in the seven reserve components (456,000 of whom are in the Army and Air National Guard). [3]

Military of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

I do not know the reasons for Gen. Abizaid comments, but there is enormous amount of people saying the opposite of him.

Are they the top field commander in Iraq?

Quote:

You logical capabilities are too much for me.

I'm just saying that Thomas Jefferson supported the revolution but didn't take up arms to fight for the cause he believed in, does that make him a coward?

Trajan Octavian Titus · 11-20-06, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

So doesn't that mean General Abizaid would agree that a phased withdrawal would be an incentive for the Iraqis to take up their own slack?

No he doesn't and neither do former Generals Batiste and Zinni:

Quote:

General Abizaid rejects Levin's call to withdraw troops in 4-6 months

November 15, 2006

WASHINGTON Sen. Carl Levin got a negative response from the top U.S. commander in the Middle East Wednesday after the Michigan Democrat said during committee hearings that the United States must tell Iraq it'll begin withdrawing troops in 4 to 6 months.

Gen. John Abizaid warned the Senate Armed Services Committee against setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, saying it would impede commanders in managing U.S. and Iraqi forces.

That assertion seemed to put Abizaid at odds with Levin and some Democrats pressing the Bush administration to begin pulling out of Iraq.

In arguing against a timetable for troop withdrawals, Abizaid told the committee that he and other U.S. commanders need flexibility in managing U.S. forces and determining how and when to pass on responsibility to Iraqi forces.

Specific timetables limit that flexibility, the general said.

General rejects Levin's call to begin troop withdrawal in 4-6 months

General Abizaid was not alone in rejecting the Democrats plan for immediate withdrawal retired General's Batiste and Zinni, also, chimed in rejecting the Democrats disastorous plan:

Quote:

Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: November 15, 2006

Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.

“The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.”

Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.

John Batiste, a retired Army major general who also joined in the call for Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, described the Congressional proposals for troop withdrawals as “terribly naïve.”

“There are lots of things that have to happen to set them up for success,” General Batiste, who commanded a division in Iraq, said in an interview, describing the Iraqi government. “Until they happen, it does not matter what we tell Maliki.”

Before considering troop reductions, General Batiste said, the United States needs to take an array of steps, including fresh efforts to alleviate unemployment in Iraq, secure its long and porous borders, enlist more cooperation from tribal sheiks, step up the effort to train Iraq’s security forces, engage Iraq’s neighbors and weaken, or if necessary, crush the militias.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/wa...5military.html

Abizaid also, rejected McCain's proposition that we need to add more troops:

Quote:

MCCAIN: Did you note that General Zinny who opposed of the invasion now thinks that we should have more troops? Did you notice that General Batise, who was opposed to the conduct of this conflict also says that we may need tens and thousands of additional troops. I don’t understand General. When you have a part of Iraq that is not under our control and yet we still — as Al Anbar province is — I don’t know how many American lives have been sacrificed in Al Anbar province — but we still have enough and we will rely on the ability to train the Iraqi military when the Iraqi army hasn’t send the requested number of battalions into Baghdad.

ABIZAID: Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/15/...d-mccain-iraq/

Gee it sure sounds like General Abizaid the head of CENTCOM and the head of operations in Iraq says that stay the course is the best option, imagine that.

Morrow · 11-20-06, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

General Abizaid is the head of CENTCOM and the top field commander in Iraq. Further saying that they want more troops is not the same thing as saying they want to reinstate the draft, show me an example of a field commander or any commander for that matter saying that we should bring back the draft. Little hint you won't find one.

2 million? Well then we're already way over the mark:

Are they the top field commander in Iraq?

I'm just saying that Thomas Jefferson supported the revolution but didn't take up arms to fight for the cause he believed in, does that make him a coward?

I see little point in continuing this, as it is apparent you would rather be argumentative than apply your logical abilities objectively. I’m done feeding you. You may view this a victory if you like, I view it as time management.

TurtleDude · 11-20-06, 09:20 PM

facts-the boys who sign up for the gungho Military jobs-seals, rangers, SF, airborne, marines are generally conservative kids from middle to upper middle class backgrounds. They join because they want to-not because its their only or best option

the "pay for college" or learn a trade in the military crowd tend to be far more liberal and less educated.

bottom line-conservative kids join the combat units.

Binary_Digit · 11-20-06, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

No he doesn't and neither do former Generals Batiste and Zinni:

General Abizaid was not alone in rejecting the Democrats plan for immediate withdrawal retired General's Batiste and Zinni, also, chimed in rejecting the Democrats disastorous plan:

Abizaid also, rejected McCain's proposition that we need to add more troops:

Thanks for the links, that's good information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Gee it sure sounds like General Abizaid the head of CENTCOM and the head of operations in Iraq says that stay the course is the best option, imagine that.

Yep, he's pretty much saying the military should stay and I agree. We broke it, we bought it. The troops have done their part, so it's time for our politicians to do theirs and figure out some political and diplomatic ways to win the peace!

11-20-06, 09:20 PM	#69
TurtleDude Guru Join Date: Oct 2005 Last Seen: Yesterday 08:28 PM Location: Ohio Posts: 3,798 Thanks: 542 Thanked 408 Times in 272 Posts Lean: Conservative Gender:	Re: Top Democrat: Bring back the draft facts-the boys who sign up for the gungho Military jobs-seals, rangers, SF, airborne, marines are generally conservative kids from middle to upper middle class backgrounds. They join because they want to-not because its their only or best option the "pay for college" or learn a trade in the military crowd tend to be far more liberal and less educated. bottom line-conservative kids join the combat units.
	__________________ SUPPORT OUR SOLDIERS

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode