No war tax or draft?? WTF?

[funjumper101 15]

The rescums and the conservadems whine, bitch, and moan about the supposed ruinous cost of health care reform. Based upon these so called "financial principles", the scumbags have fought tooth and nail, quite successfully, against meaningful health care reform.

Now the USA is going to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, and the silence from the rescums and conservadems is deafening. No new taxes have been implemented to pay for the escalation. There is no plan to implment a draft to augment the seriously depleted military forces.

How come the "financial principles" count when it comes to health care, and are totally meaningless when it comes to sending troops overseas? It would seem that money is no object when it comes to war, in the values of those folks. Are those the real values of the USA? I don't think so.

We need to implement a draft so that everyone in the USA is directly affected by the ongoing war/police actions that we are engaged in. The volunteer force is broken, or close to breaking. We don't have the reserves needed if something important comes up somewhere ellse in the world. We need a draft NOW to get the staffing level up to where we can maintain the presence in the two current wars, and have enough to deal with something else that could come up.

The draft would be very unpopular. It might cause the leadership of the country to re-think their plans, goals, and objectives. We could go back to defending the USA and quit picking fights with other countries.
Since almost none of the general US population is directly affected by the wars, they really don't give a shit. If their kids started being drafted and sent off to fight in other countries, for other countries, maybe they would start to care a bit.

Why hasn't a fiscally responsible Republican introduces a bill to raise taxes to pay for the war? That would be in keeping with the values that the Republican party actually used to stand for, a very long time ago.

Why hasn't a fiscally responsible conservadem introduced a bill to re-start the draft? "Sharing the burden" would be a good marketing slogan.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

There is no plan to implment a draft to augment the seriously depleted military forces.

The forces are not depleted. All branches are meeting their recruitment goals. Therefore, a draft is unnecessary.

News:
A Historic Success In Military Recruiting
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/13/AR2009101303539.html

Quote

We need to implement a draft so that everyone in the USA is directly affected by the ongoing war/police actions that we are engaged in

Implementing a draft to punish Americans, or for political purposes to coerce them to oppose the war, are the wrong reasons.

[Gawain 0]

In some areas of your statement I agree with you. I think that Congress should have declared war on Afghanistan at the on-set. A tax would have been justified then.

However, every tax, fee, ad infinitum that Congress assesses, never goes away. There are still fees in your phone bill that were designed decades ago for purposes long since gone.

So, in lieu of a tax, certain things could have been rationed (as such in a state of war), like fuel, etc. Also, the government should have sold war bonds. This nation, its people, would be in a war-time footing, and the situation in Afghanistan would have been resolved long ago. That's my take on it.

You don't need a draft to make everyone "feel" the state of war. There were lots of things that could have been done differently.

I understand the choices and how/why they were made. To stave off the economic impact, everyone was encouraged, rightly, to keep doing their "business" of shopping, working, going to school, etc. However, there wasn't enough longer term planning to keep people focused. This was a financial, and political miscalculation.

By the end of 2005, everyone was acting like this whole thing was an "inconvenience". Alas, it is much more than that, but those discussions aren't very useful right now.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,476]

>Implementing a draft to punish Americans, or for political purposes
>to coerce them to oppose the war, are the wrong reasons.

OTOH, if a draft resulted in americans making more informed decisions in the voting booth (because there was a real, personal cost to them as a result of their vote) that might be a good thing overall.

[airdvr 200]

I remember being concerned after the Gulf War. That it was too easy and would embolden politicians to think it would always be that way.

Quote

OTOH, if a draft resulted in americans making more informed decisions in the voting booth (because there was a real, personal cost to them as a result of their vote) that might be a good thing overall.

Unfortunately many don't get that aspect of voting regardless of whether there is a draft.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

OTOH, if a draft resulted in americans making more informed decisions in the voting booth (because there was a real, personal cost to them as a result of their vote) that might be a good thing overall.

I believe most Americans will let the military decide which battles to fight as long as it is an all volunteer military and it is not too costly in tax dollars or American lives.

The grumblings we are hearing from Joe America is the cost of this 'war'.

I don't believe a draft will be implemented unless or until a foreign country initiates a large invasion in the US mainland or some 3rd world country wages war against puppies and American Football.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[billvon 2,476]

>Unfortunately many don't get that aspect of voting regardless
>of whether there is a draft.

Agreed. I saw an interview of a senatorial candidate this morning in the bagel shop, and she said something to the effect of "yeah, I often don't vote in elections. I don't see my vote as having any real effect on my life or the lives of others."

And this was a candidate for the US _senate._

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Unfortunately many don't get that aspect of voting regardless
>of whether there is a draft.

Agreed. I saw an interview of a senatorial candidate this morning in the bagel shop, and she said something to the effect of "yeah, I often don't vote in elections. I don't see my vote as having any real effect on my life or the lives of others."

And this was a candidate for the US _senate._

Who the hell was that? Fiorina?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,476]

>Who the hell was that? Fiorina?

I don't know; TV was playing in the background with closed captioning on.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

if a draft resulted in americans making more informed decisions in the voting booth (because there was a real, personal cost to them as a result of their vote) that might be a good thing overall.

The word "Americans" should be capitalized.

If people vote for their personal interests, then higher callings like helping others in need, will be lost. And if America becomes isolationist and turns a blind eye to serious problems elsewhere around the globe, then the world will be worse off for it.

Imagine what Europe would be like now if the U.S. had not stepped in to help defeat Germany in WWII. Imagine what Iran, China and North Korea might do now, if they understood that America would do nothing to help it's Allies.

Is that the kind of America you want? One that is selfish and does nothing to help others outside our own borders?

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Imagine what Europe would be like now if the U.S. had not stepped in to help defeat Germany in WWII.

Well, Hitler HAD declared war on the USA (Dec 11, 1941) and Germany had previously attacked several US ships, so it's not like there were a whole lot of options.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,476]

>If people vote for their personal interests, then higher callings
>like helping others in need, will be lost.

Well, "voting/acting for your personal interests" is basically the definition of capitalism. Higher callings (like helping others in need) are often described as socialism when implemented through the government (i.e. via your vote.)

>Imagine what Europe would be like now if the U.S. had not
>stepped in to help defeat Germany in WWII.

Imagine what Europe would be like now if the US had not stepped in to militarily defeat the USSR. That one's easy. It would look like - today. We won without a war.

Imagine what would have happened if we had never gotten involved in Vietnam or Iraq. Probably very little.

War is not a really good solution to anything besides an excess of soldiers, money and lives.

>Is that the kind of America you want? One that is selfish and does
>nothing to help others outside our own borders?

Yes. Specifically, I would prefer that one to one that is selfish and kills a lot of people outside our own borders. Better to be selfish and insular than to be selfish and imperial.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I think that Congress should have declared war on Afghanistan at the on-set. A tax would have been justified then.

It's the spending that justifies the tax, not what we call the military action.

Quote

However, every tax, fee, ad infinitum that Congress assesses, never goes away.

So, you're asserting that no tax that Congress has ever passed has ever been repealed? That is incorrect.

Quote

This nation, its people, would be in a war-time footing, and the situation in Afghanistan would have been resolved long ago.

How do you think a declaration of war would have changed the outcome in Afghanistan? Do you mean we would have lost more quickly and withdrawn the troops already? I don't believe that using different nomenclature would change the effect of our military leaders (uniformed and civilian) allowing us to be lured into fighting in the graveyard of empires.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Imagine what Europe would be like now if the U.S. had not stepped in to help defeat Germany in WWII.

Well, Hitler HAD declared war on the USA (Dec 11, 1941) and Germany had previously attacked several US ships, so it's not like there were a whole lot of options.

not according to the left. Many, even after pearl harbor, still wanted to continue talks instead of war. I agree with Bilvon that talking out a problem is preferred, but sometimes talking does no good.

even after the declaration of war by hiltler we could have stayed out of the war but it would not have been in our best interests. kind of like Iran now, talking is good but when does it end being the correct avenue? once they have atomic weapons? once they have used them?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Imagine what Europe would be like now if the U.S. had not stepped in to help defeat Germany in WWII.

Well, Hitler HAD declared war on the USA (Dec 11, 1941) and Germany had previously attacked several US ships, so it's not like there were a whole lot of options.

We could have opted to keep it as a naval engagement only. Germany had enough to do with England and the Russian front. Given the history of war against Russia, may have had the same end result, with the big question of how England would have fared.

Would have meant more output for the war on Japan.

[billvon 2,476]

> kind of like Iran now, talking is good but when does it end being
>the correct avenue?

When they attack us.

>once they have atomic weapons?

History has shown that getting atomic weapons tends to _prevent_ war (fortunately.)

>once they have used them?

Only one country has used them in war, ever - and fortunately there was no worldwide retaliation against them.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Well, Hitler HAD declared war on the USA (Dec 11, 1941) and Germany had previously attacked several US ships, so it's not like there were a whole lot of options.

Quote

not according to the left. Many, even after pearl harbor, still wanted to continue talks instead of war.

Your silly, compulsive "left bashing" is getting tiring. You're also factually wrong.
Before and during US involvement in WW2, most of the staunchest isolationists in the US were conservatives. Charles Lindbergh, for example, was hardly a pinko.

• Quote

[TheBachelor 5]

Quote

Why hasn't a fiscally responsible Republican introduced a bill to raise taxes to pay for the war?

First, because when this administration came to power, all the nice "working together" talk was thrown out the window (along with many other campaign promises.) So, if you're not a democrat, you're not going to get anything passed.

Secondly, why raise taxes? Debt means nothing to this administration. Just print more money, then bitch about the deficit and the people "not paying their fair share" when trying to stick it to the people.

There are battered women? I've been eating 'em plain all of these years...

[billvon 2,476]

>First, because when this administration came to power, all the nice
>"working together" talk was thrown out the window . . .

You're about a month off with your talking point. The current talking point is that Obama is being TOO bipartisan, and coming up with compromises in Afghanistan that try to pander to everyone but really don't meet either side's demands.

Do try to keep up.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Imagine what Europe would be like now if the U.S. had not stepped in to help defeat Germany in WWII. Imagine what Iran, China and North Korea might do now, if they understood that America would do nothing to help it's Allies.

The taliban were essentially your allies when in the soviet- afghan war.

Imagine what the place might be like if you had not propped up the Islamic Mujahideen only a few decades ago.

Go read some history and see how fucked up you r foreing policy is.


America is under the thimb of the Neo cunt warmonging murderers.

Start a draft and withdraw, because as soon as a draft is started, the opposition to the war will be politically cripplint to the adminstration in charge.

Even better yet, if you wholeheartedly support this war, get your gun ( you probably have 3 of them) and shoot yourself in the head, you will be doing the whole world a favour!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

America is under the thimb of the Neo cunt warmonging murderers.

Even better yet, if you wholeheartedly support this war, get your gun ( you probably have 3 of them) and shoot yourself in the head, you will be doing the whole world a favour!

I love the ever growing labels in this group. Right out of South Park (shit eating uncle fuckers!).

But you seem rather bitter for early morning on a summer day, no?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

I think that Congress should have declared war on Afghanistan at the on-set. A tax would have been justified then.

It's the spending that justifies the tax, not what we call the military action.

You clarified my meaning.

Quote

Quote

However, every tax, fee, ad infinitum that Congress assesses, never goes away.

So, you're asserting that no tax that Congress has ever passed has ever been repealed? That is incorrect.

I can't think of any. How long is the list, and how long ago was it? Tell me what you know, because from where I sit, I don't see Congress giving anything up.

Quote

Quote

This nation, its people, would be in a war-time footing, and the situation in Afghanistan would have been resolved long ago.

How do you think a declaration of war would have changed the outcome in Afghanistan? Do you mean we would have lost more quickly and withdrawn the troops already? I don't believe that using different nomenclature would change the effect of our military leaders (uniformed and civilian) allowing us to be lured into fighting in the graveyard of empires.

The declaration would have provided a far larger conduit and broader ability for the military commanders to execute a strategy without having to depend on so large a coalition. In a declared state of war, military assets can be consolidated under a 5-star. It would also allow the government to better pay for the war, as well as ensure allocation of resources outside of the normal bureaucracies.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Beachbum 0]

Quote

Secondly, why raise taxes? Debt means nothing to this administration. Just print more money, then bitch about the deficit and the people "not paying their fair share" when trying to stick it to the people.

From where I've been watching, it's not just this administration exhibiting that attitude. It has been every administration in recent years, and it seems that not enough people just are waking up and caring sufficiently to force Washington to stop doing it. We're so far in debt now that there is no viable way to get out of it in the foreseeable future. It just amazes me that so many people just follow what the politicians say and don't seem to care about something unless the politicians say it is a problem. Folks, need to wake up, because this IS a problem!!


Back to what I can remember as part of the initial post, I disagree that people aren't being directly effected. It is hitting their pocketbooks hard ... they just don't realize it yet because they haven't been told to notice because the politicians don't want to address the problem!!! Our federal government will have to pay for all of this sooner or later, and when they do it's going to be a BIG bill to pay off.

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[Andy9o8 0]

Draft women. Deploy same. Watch how fast the US pulls out.

[d16842 0]

Quote

Quote

Imagine what Europe would be like now if the U.S. had not stepped in to help defeat Germany in WWII.

Well, Hitler HAD declared war on the USA (Dec 11, 1941) and Germany had previously attacked several US ships, so it's not like there were a whole lot of options.

They attacked our ships? Note that was AFTER we had blantely violated both the spirit and internationl rules of war by first selling war material to the Brits, then Lend Lease, and then even by having our Navy escort the ships and material half of the way to Great Britain. Any of these were just cause for being included in another's war, any war. And before you say it, we had to get in that one regardless.

But the most sad result of our doing so and eventually being on the winning side the war, is that our economy surged, and the Brit's crashed, and we ended up with John Kallend here. Otherwise he might be in Munich.

Tom B