Bush's America asks: Why us?
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 5, 2004 12:49
VIEWED: 18384
PAGE 5 of 10
Didn't the Democrats propose the draft bill?
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) Jan. 8, 2003
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I was suprised when I read that the democrats had proposed the bill, but when I found out why, it made sense, even if it's a little extreme for my tastes.
"The decorated Korean War veteran [Rep. Charles Rangel] said he introduced the bill "in hopes that those people who make the decisions to go to war, to attack Iraq, would be better influenced against it if they had kids that would be placed in harm's way, or if they felt closer to the shared sacrifice that we oftentimes talk about."
People "from the lower economic levels of our society" should not be the only ones placed in harm's way, he said.
Rangel has accused President Bush and some fellow lawmakers of being too eager to go to war." http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/27/rangel.draft/index.html
and
"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."
"I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that's involved, the sacrifice that's involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility," Rangel said."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/index.html
So the point wasn't to install a draft. The point was to make Bush pay more attention to the ramifications of his actions by subjecting even his children to the dangers faced by the willing soldiers.
Don't get me wrong...I would hate it if they tried to install a draft (especially cuz I would be one of the first ones up), but the move makes sense.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kerry's accusation that Bush might install a draft was based on statistics saying that if we continue the way we've been going, Bush is going to need a lot more troops to bring the war in Iraq to any sort of acceptable conclusion.
For anyone interested, and I would say anyone who's going to vote this November, tonight at 8 P.M. CST, Bush and Kerry are going to go at it. They're calling this debate a "defining moment" for voters. I can't watch it at 8, but I'm definitely taping it. I know CNN is showing live coverage and I'm sure other channels will pick it up too. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/23/bush.kerry.ap/index.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
(tongue firmly in cheek)
It looks like I missed the debate. Either that or I'm reading too much into the use of past tense in this article.
Quote:
excerpted from http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040930_1184.html
...
Thursday night's meeting at the University of Miami was the first of three Bush-Kerry debates over a two-week period. Neither side was underestimating its importance with a TV audience of 30 million to 40 million expected. Almost a third of people surveyed say the debates will be a deciding factor in how they vote.
The first debate drew the nation's attention to hurricane-battered Florida and its political importance. Florida swung the presidency to Bush in the disputed 2000 election and could determine whether he wins re-election.
The debates were staged under a rigid set of rules negotiated by the candidates' representatives to limit spontaneity and opportunities for back-and-forth exchanges.
What I'm guessing happened here is that ABC has already started writing the after debate article and will add to this as the night goes on. But it sure sounds strange when the thing hasn't happened yet.
* thanks to a friend who pointed me at Eschaton who pointed me at this article
There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Shewolf -
Democrats did indeed propose the draft bill... with the idea in mind that the Bush regime wouldn't be quite so gung-ho about sending more troops when their own children were at stake. As to how that's panned out in the two years since, I have no idea... if you or anyone else finds anything more concrete and recent, I'm interested in reading it.
However, the Bush administration has since taken steps to facilitate the draft as an eventuality. The point in contention I brought this up for was that Bush wasn't "going to let it happen," I believe was along the lines of the phrasing.
I would like to point out I didn't think it mattered who was elected president, the draft bill is not a hot button issue and as such, both candidates agree.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I've been considering about the Canada thing. Is it easy to get in? If I had to endure 4 more years of Bush, I think I'd go bonkers.
My wife (German) will be applying for her permanent residency soon. So, if you are serious I could relay our experience to you.
Now, to join this thread.
Some have posted recommended reading. I thought, why not have some recommended watching as well.
Outfoxed
The Corporation
Outfoxed is a wounderful peice of work. The Corporation's main target isn't the media, but it does touch on it. Well worth the time at any rate.
This is for people like JimNightShade so that they can see how they are being manipulated, and for those not like Jim, so that they can see how people like him are created.
Both are availible throught the torrents.
And Jim, Ghoulman (and the rest of us) "win" because every "reason" that was given to go to war was shattered by a little investigation. There is now nothing to hide behind. There is no "But there could be..." sentence that any rational person would believe. There is no clouded vague arguments that once rattled these threads.
You might notice that most of those who spouted these lies are now gone and only those who have the mentality of the fanatically religious still cling to them. Give up, nothing supports you anymore, not even conjecture.
In all seriousness, these threads are almost getting boring as defeating the pro-Bushies has almost become like shooting fish in a barrel.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"My wife (German) will be applying for her permanent residency soon. So, if you are serious I could relay our experience to you."
If it was a really long, drawn out ordeal, I'm OK if you skip the details. But, yes, I am interested.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jim,
The only thing we seem to have in common is a desire to see Saddam tried for his many crimes.
But I would also like to see the Americans responsible for supporting him, while he was commiting these crimes, on trial beside him.
The US, Britian, and France all provided weapons, training, intel support, aircraft... before, during and after these crimes were committed ???
So why not offer the ones who supported this to trial as accessorys to mass murder?
Comments?
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
In all seriousness, these threads are almost getting boring as defeating the pro-Bushies has almost become like shooting fish in a barrel.
You only think you "win" arguments because you agree with yourself. Of course you would think that. We have a difference in opinion, that's obvious. Even John Kerry knew Saddam was a threat and thats why in 2003 he voted to go to war. The US is safer without Saddam and with a free Afghanistan.
The only reason I had posted on this thread is because someone on this board seems to only want to start posts on his political beliefs. I am all for expressing what you believe in, but do so in the right venue. Is a website dedicated to a (one of the best, if not the best) TV show the right venue? I would answer no. This thread wont change anyone's mind. The fact is everyone has their own ideals and beliefs.
But I will say that I am glad I live in a country where we have the freedom to all discuss our concerns about our goverment openly with one another, even if we disagree.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I know this is kinda off topic but:
Does anyone else hate the phrase "War On Terror" 
Am I the only one who thinks it should be "terrorism" not "terror"?
Itt kinda makes the phrase vague and unpleasant
Guess thats what its purpose is though anyway.
Gives the republicans a little more wiggle room!
Wooo Hooo!
Go the Propaganda Machine!
Just 2 cents from the southern hemisphere (NZ)
Vote Kerry 2004
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME