U.S. Draft Call - War with Iran

puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
edited July 2008 in A Moving Train
Lets discuss, since our leaders don't listen to the people. It will be us and the brits putting on uniforms. You can't hide in college, the national guard or your job. Remember the age limit for military service was raised to 40 something. So,

1. Will the next President have to institute a draft call if Bush takes the country into war with Iran before he leaves office?

We are stretched to the limit, shifting military personnel back and forth from Iraq and Afghanistan. If we go to war with Iran, the next President will not be able to withdraw troops from Iraq or Afghanistan because the entire region will be highly volatible.

2. Do you think the EU and other coalition nations will send large amounts of troops to assist the U.S. in a war with Iran?

3. Without EU and coalition support is a limited nuke strike on Iran a reality?

4. How do you think Russia and China will support Iran if attacked?

Is the world ready for this?
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    I can't foresee anyway we'd ever have a draft again. There's simply no need.

    And if there was...I wouldn't serve.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • LikeAnOceanLikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    There won't be a draft.. this country will not stand for it.
  • puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
    There won't be a draft.. this country will not stand for it.

    Just like we wouldn't stand for FISA or the Patriot Act or the continuous funding of the Iraq War. The people may not stand for it, but our politicians no longer seem to care about what the people think.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • jbalicki10jbalicki10 Posts: 517
    puremagic wrote:
    1. Will the next President have to institute a draft call if Bush takes the country into war with Iran before he leaves office?

    We are stretched to the limit, shifting military personnel back and forth from Iraq and Afghanistan. If we go to war with Iran, the next President will not be able to withdraw troops from Iraq or Afghanistan because the entire region will be highly volatible.

    2. Do you think the EU and other coalition nations will send large amounts of troops to assist the U.S. in a war with Iran?

    3. Without EU and coalition support is a limited nuke strike on Iran a reality?

    4. How do you think Russia and China will support Iran if attacked?

    Answers:
    1. No, There are more than enough volunteers. The US Army was 92 percent volunteers. I think it was 8 or less percent draftees in Vietnam. No one over the age of 24 was ever drafted. We are not stretched too thin to defend ourselves. However, for future volunteers will drop off if we go to war again. Especially if we give up on Iraq or Iran.

    2. No, Europe is gun shy right now. There are more muslims there and they have some political power and say.

    3. No, unless they use nukes.

    4. Hell no. They will back Iran politically.
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    puremagic wrote:
    Just like we wouldn't stand for FISA or the Patriot Act or the continuous funding of the Iraq War. The people may not stand for it, but our politicians no longer seem to care about what the people think.

    You say people wouldn't stand for FISA or the Patriot Act, but most people really don't care about FISA or the Patriot Act because it doesn't affect us in our daily lives.... A draft is an entirely different story.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
    jbalicki10 wrote:
    Answers:
    1. No, There are more than enough volunteers. The US Army was 92 percent volunteers. I think it was 8 or less percent draftees in Vietnam. No one over the age of 24 was ever drafted. We are not stretched too thin to defend ourselves. However, for future volunteers will drop off if we go to war again. Especially if we give up on Iraq or Iran. .

    Can we sustain a war on 3 fronts, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran with our current military manpower? To me, if we engage Iran there is no way we can withdraw from Iraq or Afghanistan and the fighting in both those countries could increase if we attack Iran.
    jbalicki10 wrote:
    Answers:

    4. Hell no. They will back Iran politically.

    So you believe Russia and China will not support Iran militarily in any fashion, even equipment?
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • LikeAnOceanLikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    puremagic wrote:
    Just like we wouldn't stand for FISA or the Patriot Act or the continuous funding of the Iraq War. The people may not stand for it, but our politicians no longer seem to care about what the people think.
    There's a big difference between what the government spends your tax dollars and being forced into the military..
  • puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
    FISA and the Patriot Act are "intelligence" gathering tools which have been and will continue to be used as justification for going after terrorists and in doing so that will include invasion of other countries. It does impact us in the laws and actions that come forth from these Acts.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • gabersgabers Posts: 2,787
    jbalicki10 wrote:
    Answers:
    1. No, There are more than enough volunteers. The US Army was 92 percent volunteers. I think it was 8 or less percent draftees in Vietnam. No one over the age of 24 was ever drafted. We are not stretched too thin to defend ourselves. However, for future volunteers will drop off if we go to war again. Especially if we give up on Iraq or Iran.

    I'm not sure if your statement here is correct, but even if it is, the following is from an article I found on About.com. It stated "In the early days of the Vietnam war, draftees were a minority of the total US armed forces. However, their higher percentage in the Army meant that they formed the majority of infantry riflemen (88 percent by 1969) and accounted for more than half of Army battle deaths. Deferments, including college students, caused the draft and the casualties to be judged unfair. For example, African-Americans (11 percent of the U.S. population) "accounted for 16 percent of Army casualties in Vietnam in 1967 (15 percent for the entire war)." Also, how do you judge there are more than enough volunteers? I can't imagine how we could fight essentially three wars at once with an all volunteer force. I think you'd start having soldier revolts. A lot of these guys have done two and three tours already in Iraq and Afghanistan. You'd have to be crazy to subject yourself to these unending tours of duty.
  • jbalicki10jbalicki10 Posts: 517
    gabers wrote:
    I'm not sure if your statement here is correct, but even if it is, the following is from an article I found on About.com. It stated "In the early days of the Vietnam war, draftees were a minority of the total US armed forces. However, their higher percentage in the Army meant that they formed the majority of infantry riflemen (88 percent by 1969) and accounted for more than half of Army battle deaths. Deferments, including college students, caused the draft and the casualties to be judged unfair. For example, African-Americans (11 percent of the U.S. population) "accounted for 16 percent of Army casualties in Vietnam in 1967 (15 percent for the entire war)." Also, how do you judge there are more than enough volunteers? I can't imagine how we could fight essentially three wars at once with an all volunteer force. I think you'd start having soldier revolts. A lot of these guys have done two and three tours already in Iraq and Afghanistan. You'd have to be crazy to subject yourself to these unending tours of duty.

    I watched the history channel found that it was surprising that there was over 90 percent volunteers. I don't know how many were on the front lines. When you were drafted they asked if you had any special skills. If you didn't have any that the army wanted, you were sent to the front.

    Tip: If you get drafted, tell them your a mechanic or have electricial engineering skillz. You won't get sent to the front.
  • gabersgabers Posts: 2,787
    jbalicki10 wrote:
    I watched the history channel found that it was surprising that there was over 90 percent volunteers. I don't know how many were on the front lines. When you were drafted they asked if you had any special skills. If you didn't have any that the army wanted, you were sent to the front.

    Tip: If you get drafted, tell them your a mechanic or have electricial engineering skillz. You won't get sent to the front.

    Well, I already served my time, so I would just tell them to sit and spin. :D

    I would feel terrible for the young guys who have no choice in the matter though.
  • Why not just make an agreement to just swap societies?

    The entire US moves to the middle east, and vice versa...

    all the oil you can bathe in...no SUV could ever be big enough...

    a little bit of heat....for a 20,000 pound living room on wheels?

    I can hear people salivating already from here...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • There won't be a draft.. this country will not stand for it.

    ding ding ding!! and that's why there's been no draft!

    That's why that fucking coward sent the national guard.

    great idea, weakening America. God forbid we might have a disaster here... like, say.....oh, I don't know....

    A MOTHERF**KING HURRICANE THAT WIPES OUT THE ENTIRE GULF COAST!!!

    thanks a lot dickhead.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    I wonder what ever became of the rule of international law? :confused:
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    I would never go and willingly fight in a bullshit war. My government and the arms dealers could go fuck themselves.
  • jbalicki10 wrote:

    2. No, Europe is gun shy right now.

    You make this sound like a bad thing.
  • slightofjeffslightofjeff Posts: 7,762
    puremagic wrote:
    Lets discuss, since our leaders don't listen to the people. It will be us and the brits putting on uniforms. You can't hide in college, the national guard or your job. Remember the age limit for military service was raised to 40 something. So,

    1. Will the next President have to institute a draft call if Bush takes the country into war with Iran before he leaves office?

    No. Whichever president/party institutes the draft again will have doomed himself/his party to lose all elections for the foreseeable future. This is one issue the American people will fight.

    Of course, it's a moot point anyway. We're not going to war with Iran in the next six months.
    2. Do you think the EU and other coalition nations will send large amounts of troops to assist the U.S. in a war with Iran?

    There's not going to be a war with Iran, unless Iran does something super silly, like attack someone else first. In that case, yes, the EU and other coalition nations will step in.
    3. Without EU and coalition support is a limited nuke strike on Iran a reality?

    If Israel is the one attacked, then Israel would probably do it. Assuming they haven't been nuked off the face of the earth themselves. Of course, given my answer to Nos. 1 and 2, I don't think it's likely Iran nukes Israel anytime soon.
    4. How do you think Russia and China will support Iran if attacked?

    I think they'll probably stay out of it.
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • slightofjeffslightofjeff Posts: 7,762
    puremagic wrote:
    Just like we wouldn't stand for FISA or the Patriot Act or the continuous funding of the Iraq War. The people may not stand for it, but our politicians no longer seem to care about what the people think.

    People aren't as against those things as you might think. There certainly isn't the level of groundswell opposition to them that would lead to revolt.

    Force them to actually do the fighting at gunpoint, against their will, and you'd be surprised how quickly they'll stand up and vote every fucking body out of office. If you ever wanted to see what America would be like if 99 percent of the population voted -- that would be it.
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • slightofjeffslightofjeff Posts: 7,762
    puremagic wrote:
    FISA and the Patriot Act are "intelligence" gathering tools which have been and will continue to be used as justification for going after terrorists and in doing so that will include invasion of other countries. It does impact us in the laws and actions that come forth from these Acts.

    But see, the Patriot Act really doesn't affect most law-abiding citizens in any real tangible way that we can see and feel.

    In the seven years since it was enacted, I can remember it affecting me once. In order to get a housing loan, I had to show a picture ID. Oh, the horror.

    Now, they may be recording all my phone conversations, which wouldn't exactly be right. But it doesn't affect me because I have nothing to hide. If it DOES affect me, I don't even know HOW it's affecting me. So there isn't really the same kind of impetus to want to change it that there would be if, you know, I was forced to fight in a war in Iran under penalty of prison.

    People react when things affect them. Not when they affect other people. A lot of people (gasp!) are actually FOR the Patriot Act.
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    puremagic wrote:
    1. Will the next President have to institute a draft call if Bush takes the country into war with Iran before he leaves office?
    A draft? Why? This isn't going to be an invasion. Bush is planning on bombing Iran, not invading it.

    A draft is not going to happen.
    2. Do you think the EU and other coalition nations will send large amounts of troops to assist the U.S. in a war with Iran?
    Doubt it, but I wouldn't put it past them.

    Still, I think this is the US and Israel's war more than anyone else's.
    3. Without EU and coalition support is a limited nuke strike on Iran a reality?
    I don't think so. If the US/Israel does that, they'll receive worldwide condemnation for that.
    4. How do you think Russia and China will support Iran if attacked?
    Russia: Maybe weapons/arms deals under the table, but other than that, they can't do anything else... they wouldn't risk anything.

    China: Nothing, they can't risk anything at all.
    Is the world ready for this?
    I don't know.
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    We're not going to war with Iran in the next six months.
    Why do you say that?
    There's not going to be a war with Iran, unless Iran does something super silly, like attack someone else first.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7500342.stm

    "Israel's defence minister has warned of his country's readiness to act against Iran if it feels threatened."

    Not the same as being attacked first.
    If Israel is the one attacked, then Israel would probably do it. Assuming they haven't been nuked off the face of the earth themselves. Of course, given my answer to Nos. 1 and 2, I don't think it's likely Iran nukes Israel anytime soon.
    You act as if it's a well-known fact that Iran has nukes... you do realize it's NOT a fact, right?
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    Byrnzie wrote:
    I wonder what ever became of the rule of international law? :confused:
    Those documents are probably locked up in a drawer somewhere.
  • look, the draft has been in Committee for years now

    Conyers really wants it to pass

    he keeps introducing the bill under dif names

    so from my point of view its just a matter of time

    ages are 18-42, and it's called Civil Service, hahahahahaha

    what a fukin joke.........
    PEARL JAM~Lubbock, TX. 10~18~00
    PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
    INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
    INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
    Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
    INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
    Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
  • slightofjeffslightofjeff Posts: 7,762
    _outlaw wrote:
    Why do you say that?

    Because it took them longer than that to come up with a bogus reason to attack Iraq. These things don't just happen overnight. They'll go the U.N., they'll fuck around in committee, yada yada. Barring an outright attack by Iran on someone else, there's no way to get this done in six months.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7500342.stm

    "Israel's defence minister has warned of his country's readiness to act against Iran if it feels threatened."

    Not the same as being attacked first.

    Sounds like typical bluster to try and scare Iran out of a potential first strike to me. A lot more effective then, "We will only attack Iran if they bomb us off the face of the map first."
    You act as if it's a well-known fact that Iran has nukes... you do realize it's NOT a fact, right?

    Yes, I realize this. Although they probably should learn from Saddam that it's best not to pretend you have weapons that you don't.
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Yes, I realize this. Although they probably should learn from Saddam that it's best not to pretend you have weapons that you don't.

    Ding ding ding ... we've got a winner.
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    Because it took them longer than that to come up with a bogus reason to attack Iraq. These things don't just happen overnight. They'll go the U.N., they'll fuck around in committee, yada yada. Barring an outright attack by Iran on someone else, there's no way to get this done in six months.
    they've been going to the UN about Iran for years. Plus, this is nowhere near as complicated as Iraq was. They wanted to invade Iraq back then. Right now, all they wanna do is bomb Iran... it's a big difference, and it can certainly happen in way less than 6 months.
    Sounds like typical bluster to try and scare Iran out of a potential first strike to me. A lot more effective then, "We will only attack Iran if they bomb us off the face of the map first."
    ...I highly doubt that. If anything, Iran is trying to scare Israel out of a potential first strike... Israel is the aggressive one in this scenario, NOT Iran.
    Yes, I realize this. Although they probably should learn from Saddam that it's best not to pretend you have weapons that you don't.
    when did they ever pretend to have nukes?
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    _outlaw wrote:
    they've been going to the UN about Iran for years. Plus, this is nowhere near as complicated as Iraq was. They wanted to invade Iraq back then. Right now, all they wanna do is bomb Iran... it's a big difference, and it can certainly happen in way less than 6 months.


    ...I highly doubt that. If anything, Iran is trying to scare Israel out of a potential first strike... Israel is the aggressive one in this scenario, NOT Iran.


    when did they ever pretend to have nukes?

    I cry bullshit on that "Iran is not the aggressor" remark. That is just plain wrong. If Iran's president kept his yap shut, Israel wouldn't posture and ponder a strike.
  • slightofjeffslightofjeff Posts: 7,762
    _outlaw wrote:

    when did they ever pretend to have nukes?

    You're right. The nuclear program they keep going on about is only for "energy purposes." ;)

    In another news, I keep a gun in the house, just because I like to look at shiny things.
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • slightofjeffslightofjeff Posts: 7,762
    I cry bullshit on that "Iran is not the aggressor" remark. That is just plain wrong. If Iran's president kept his yap shut, Israel wouldn't posture and ponder a strike.

    Yeah, seriously. If every country that surrounded you kept going on and on about how you should be wiped off the map ... it might make you a little edgy, too.
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    And ... Iran could also consider ceasing all efforts to fund, train, and equip Israel's Islamic fundamentalist enemies ... You know, if they're serious about Israel backing off and all.
Sign In or Register to comment.