Oh thank goodness the Democrats have power

[Flint]

Yes, but you were just "pretending to be smart" . . .

[Undertoad]

Ah well, good point.

[Flint]

...good point...

[xoxoxoBruce]

At least we're hearing some ideas being thrown around beside's stay the course. We already know that isn't working.
Don't forget the noobs have been elected, but they haven't taken office yet.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Uh, yes, why yes it is. Math in avoidance of any actual discussion or advancing the topic one iota, while pretending to be smart, it is in fact math.

Uh, OK? Whatever that means.

People are acting as if Rangel just came up with this. He's been proposing this bill for three years, and it has no better chance of passing now than it did then, but he's been saying all along what only recently seems to have gotten the snazzy catch phrase "go big, go long, or go home."

Originally Posted by Jebediah

I think Rangel should be first to be drafted.

He's a Korean War veteran.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

and it has no better chance of passing now than it did then

Which is my original point; it's non-leadership politics of fear.

No better chance now: then why the math? Last time, the Rs, in charge of the rules and committees, said immediately ok Charlie, if you're just making a point, let's put it to a vote. And it lost, 402-2. Thus the point was dismissed.

This time the Ds are in charge of the house rules and committees, which means Rangel can play his game longer than a couple days.

[Ibby]

I think his point is simply, 'draft or get outta there, and YOU WONT DRAFT, so lets get out'... pretty damn stupid way to do it though

[Undertoad]

Including the Army, National Guard, Reserve, and Marines, there are about 1,200,000 troops in total. A lower number can be made available at any given time and the country has other responsibilities to face, as well as the overall strategy of being capable of fighting two wars at the same time.

There are currently about 130,000 troops in Iraq.

If you want to do a little math, there's your starting points.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

No better chance now: then why the math?

Because the then and still current plan doesn't add up, and there needs to be a discussion on the Hill about what needs to be done.

He made the initial proposal at the onset of the war, to protest the cavalier attitude with which our troops were tossed into Iraq. And now there are a lot of people saying we can win this thing if we just ramp it up more, so Rangel proposed it again.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Brianna

The threat of a draft is a shock tactic. You all should know that.

Threat of a draft should never be considered directly part of the "Mission Accomplished" war. Draft should be thought of as consequences of two other reasons (or mistakes). Majority of Americans approved of those reasons without first thinking (of those consequences – as RichLevy did and posted so often previously).

Threat of a draft goes right to our purpose in this world. Under pre-emption (which intelligent presidents would not practice), a draft is necessary because we need more troops to fix the world. We need troops to impose democracy on the world. Iraq is one example of what Americans advocated when they approved of pre-emption after 11 September. Draft made necessary by 'knee jerk' decisions. We decided pre-emption is our doctrine - to impose democracy on the world. Therefore a draft is required.


A completely different topic: what is necessary to solve "Mission Accomplished"? We have three choices - 'go big', 'go long', or 'go home'. It does not matter what domestic consequences may be. Decisions are made by breaking problems down into parts. First decide militarily. Which will work? 'Go big' might have worked. 'Go long' which means 'stay the course' or changing troop levels by 10,000s is widely acknowledged as defeat placed upon another president. 'Go long' was how Richard Nixon made sure the Nam defeat was not on his watch. 'Go home' is also a workable solution once we bury lying political rhetoric such as 'war on terror'.

OK. Two possible military solutions exist. Since problem was broken down into military and domestic, now we are ready to ask about how 'go big' can be implemented domestically. Well that means an immediate draft because those 500,000 troops must be deployed now (‘go big will not work next year) AND we need troops immediately to fill gaps. Problems are broken down into long, painful (and therefore wordy) explanations. 'Go big' means we need a draft and we need '90 day wonders' immediately.

'Go long' is a failed solution in military terms. 'Go long is how the "Mission Accomplished" defeat gets blamed on some other president. We do not even consider it.

'Go home' is the only other military solution. Is that acceptable in our domestic environment? Yes, once Americans acknowledge that the only good options existed four years ago - and were not exercised. Think like an engineer. What we do today creates bottom line results four and more years later. What we did four years ago – well long time Cellar dweller read those warnings in 2003.

'Go big' and the doctrine of 'pre-emption' both mean we need a draft. We have already endorsed a mental midget's international doctrine called 'pre-emption'. Therefore a draft is necessary - or maybe 'pre-emption' was only approved by those so anti-American as to not first think?

What did you think Rangel is talking about? Provided are two reasons America needs a draft. You don't want a draft? Then start by attacking reasons (and president) that create the need.

You don't want a draft? Then 'mental midget' is a standard expression in your posts. Draft is necessary for two separate reasons. Want to eliminate the draft? Eliminate reasons why the draft is necessary. One solution is called impeachment (impeach who?).

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Because the then and still current plan doesn't add up, and there needs to be a discussion on the Hill about what needs to be done.

He made the initial proposal at the onset of the war, to protest the cavalier attitude with which our troops were tossed into Iraq. And now there are a lot of people saying we can win this thing if we just ramp it up more, so Rangel proposed it again.

God, that sounds logical... Makes sense in every way possible... But, nah.

Democrats are c-razy! Tax and spend! Tax and spend! :::does boogedy-boogedy dance:::

Originally Posted by tw

...One solution is called impeachment (impeach who?).

Every-single one of them that lied.
Then prosecute all that helped them do it.

[9th Engineer]

You would have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that people lied vs made mistakes or short sighted decisions. Methinks that would be almost impossible in any realistic sense.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

...1,200,000 troops in total.
There are currently about 130,000 troops in Iraq.

If you want to do a little math, there's your starting points.

What is our current tail to tooth ratio? At 10 : 1 we'd already be over-committed.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

You would have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt

No, beyond a reasonable doubt. Much easier.