20 November 2006

Do You Feel a Draft?

Fun, fun, fun.
It's gonna be interesting to watch.
The U.S. Army has
met or exceeded most of its recruiting goals for October. Of course, that was before the mid-term election...... before Kerrys, Murthas, and Durbins were elected to take the reins of government.

Will future recruiting efforts be successful?
Would you be attracted to serve if you knew your leaders thought joining indicated you were stupid?
Well, don't worry about that at all, Bunky!
Our new leaders have an answer to recruiting difficulties:
Revive Selective Service.......
"The Draft".

Charlie Rangel, democrat Representative from New York, and Fritz Hollings, democrat Senator from South Carolina have authored a bill
to revive the Draft. It was submitted and defeated in the previous congress, but it would surely be met with a different attitude now, with new, progressive leadership in place.

And we may need it.
Do you think recruiting numbers will increase, since the favored party of fundamental Islamists now has control of the legislative branch of our government?
Islamic extremism will grow unfettered.
Would you want your son or daughter to join under present conditions?

Big Bubba has no interest in following in his old man's footsteps, and I'm VERY glad for that now.
Let's watch and see what happens to the recruiting numbers, which will indicate if Selective Service is needed. If the democrat's bill passes, and Big Bubba is drafted, we'll be following the "Bubba Bill Clinton" route to military service!

More here.

This article came out just as I was about to publish this post.


Flyin Dutchman said...

Grey beard sir, with all due respect.

Either the country would make me fight (Kerry), or I join the war on oil prices I mean terror and die under George Bush.

I appreciate vets and serviceman for what they have done and do. Not for who they do it for regardless of the means.


Greybeard said...

Thanks for taking the time to comment, although I'm not certain what point you are trying to make.

My post is political, but serves a personal need.
I was "enslaved" years ago by a conscription system that was blatantly unfair for a number of reasons.
My intent with the post is to show which of our political parties would like to reinstate that horribly unfair system. (And believe me, the only people that will not be able to avoid it are the underclass.)

Having said that, I am interested to know your meaning.
Care to try again so this dense, flatulent, just beyond middle aged man understands?

Neil said...

Let me understand...

The Democrats are a party of fundamental Islamists? And because they won the mid terms, they will institute a military draft?

Neil said...

Sorry, not "Of"....."Favored by"

Greybeard said...

Yes, Neil.
Remember I said "Keep your hand on our wallet and your head on a swivel?"
Ya gotta stay on top of these folks!
Read this article

CG said...

So I guess there is this group of people who feel dutybound to transform a piece of earth into a glass desert, and there is another group of people who would rather not.

Then, there are the people who actually live on that piece of earth and they say they'd rather see the group who doesn't want to kill them win - hmmm, and why would that be unusual?

And from this you conclude that the Democratic Party is the party of fundamentalist islam - wow - whatever.

Greybeard said...

Address my post, please.
What part of what I linked or said do you find factually incorrect?

Neil said...

"Keep your hand on our wallet and your head on a swivel?"

I'd do as much when a politician of any stripe was in the room!

As per your article...

"The Republican Party's losses in the U.S. midterm elections were a victory for Iran and an international defeat for President George W. Bush's policies, Iran's supreme leader said Friday."

Respectfully, we simply disagree when it comes to policy and politics in this country. I think defeating Bush's policies for the most part is not a bad thing for Americans, and clearly, alot of Americans agree. Suggesting the American people just did terrorists, or Iran, or whoever, a favor by electing who they saw fit, and sending the message to the current administration that they do not approve of them or the current policy, Well, that just seems like the kind of spin and propoganda the current administration has used so irresponsibly in the last 5 years. Of all my differences with Bush in terms of policy and politics, the thing I have come to resent the most is the fear mongering and attempted re-defining of patriotism in this country. The idea that electing a major party to power in the house and senate as a "victory for terrorists", and that disagreeing with war policy as "un-American". The idea that somehow we are less safe with the democrats than the republicans is simply an illusion. And the current administration has a track record in this war that screams for change, and that is what happened this year. I agree, we have to keep an eye on ALL of them, but to me, suggesting one party is good or better for terrorists or hostile nations is nothing short of nonsense.

There. Ive abandoned my rule of never talking politics on a blog. Damn! : )

Hope all is well, GB....

Greybeard said...

So Neil....
the fact that Iran, who sponsored the attacks on Spain, our barracks in Lebanon, the Hezbollah attacks on Israel, etc., feels that democrats winning the mid-terms is a wonderful thing....
that's okay with you because Bush is a fear monger?

Oh my.

Yes Neil. All is well.
(Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)

Flyin Dutchman said...

Hey Greybeard,

Sorry for the delay to clarify my statement made at 2:20 am in the morning ;)

I think I was eluding to the fact of the devil you know opposed to the one you don't know.

With politics and even the news media I think its hard to understand really what the issues are in the first place and who has put their spin on the information.

In World War 1 and 2 the threat was clear and what needed to be done was obvious. It seems with terrorism the "battlefield" is not a physical place in the sense we are blocking threats to us opposed to a country attacking another.

Also my feeling is that if public approval is necessary for military action on anything it can disguised as a terrorist threat and therefore we must do anything to eliminate it.

But as per your last comment on my blog, we can't sit back and do nothing and wait till its too late like you said (Britain in the 30's).

Again I am coming back to the same question....of when to fight :)

I wish we could just know the truth and base our actions on that, not what the politicians dictate to be real.

Safe flying,

Greybeard said...

FD and others-
Thanks to all of you for coming and commenting.
I may mutter "idiot" under my breath when I read your comments, but I truly appreciate the discussion, and find those of you that will stand up and speak your minds SO much more interesting than those that don't have the passion to dig in and express their beliefs. Given the choice, my cocktail parties would be populated with passionate folks, not the "Casper Milquetoasts"!

Now....clarity about WWI and WWII.
Are you reading the same history books I read?
I'm not an expert on WWI, so I can't address that conflict with confidence. I can only say that the U.S. waited until 1917, when the shouting was nearly over, before going "over there".
I suspect that was because there may have been some argument over whether or not that fight was "our fight".
I absolutely know that was the case in WWII. If you believe Americans were united in getting involved in WWII, you need to go do a little more studying. The Japanese attacked us, so we knew we had a fight there, but I'm not sure we would so easily have gone to war with the Germans had Hitler not first declared war on the U.S..
There's no way to know how things would have gone politically, but there were many Americans that wanted to stay out of that fray, and there was a pretty solid number that admired the Germans and wanted no fight with them.

A "clear threat"?
Japan, certainly.
Germany, I'm not so sure.

Like you, I wish it was easy to be sure.
It's not.
Never has been.