PDA

View Full Version : Huffington post keeps pushing for a draft




cindy25
11-12-2009, 06:50 PM
2nd post this week. coincidence ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-agin/fighting-a-war-with-someo_b_353844.html

We Americans are no strangers to hypocrisy, but we're currently in a fix that's beginning to smell bad. It's true that the open society of the Western world is in jeopardy from people who want a closed society and are willing to have their children commit suicide to get it. It's also true that we pretend we can deal with this threat by casual self-serving attitudes about who should fight our wars.

Fighting any war without the public sacrifice of a universal draft is an unjust misery for military personnel and their families. Really, if war is necessary, if you want war, risk yourself or your children and grandchildren in combat. Otherwise your war is an exercise in hypocrisy.

The war-hawks on the Right never want their own children to fight the wars they drum up -- they want their wars fought by the children in other parts of town.

But the Right is at the moment not in the White House, and I'm uneasy about what's in the minds of the White House people. Will we really continue to fight what they tell us is a needed war without public sacrifice? It's not only hypocrisy, it's a serious political mistake that may ultimately cause Obama to be a one-term president. Without the Left, Obama's base is weak, and with a weak base he may be finished in 2012.

What this country needs is a test of will about the war in Afghanistan, and the proper test of will is a push by the White House and Congress to institute a universal draft by lottery. The draft can be small. Let's find out if the American people are willing to put at risk 50,000 of their children a year to go to war in Afghanistan. Universal, across the board, rich and poor alike, no deferments. If the answer is yes, then fine, we're in a popular war and we will do our best to win it. If the answer is no, then as a democracy we should forget about Afghanistan and suffer the consequences, if any at all.

Our politicians, of course, do not want a replay of Viet Nam, the war with a draft that had millions of our children in protest that they could see no reason to risk their lives in a far-away jungle fighting against people who were really no direct threat to America. It turned out those kids were right -- Viet Nam was a useless bust and everyone knows it.

The sad fact is that politicians tend to be short-sighted imbeciles, and at the moment many of us are unfortunately getting the idea that the current crowd of politicians in the White House is not much different from what we've had before -- a gang who think there's no difference between governing the country and running an election campaign. Many of us supported Obama with all our hearts -- but now our hearts are being broken into pieces by the reality of what politicians are all about.

We need a draft, public sacrifice in all quarters. All else is hypocrisy.

erowe1
11-12-2009, 06:54 PM
Here's one thing the draft would accomplish that would benefit Obama politically--it would exert a downward pull on the unemployment rate, since the people removed from the domestic labor force to be conscripted for the not-so-dream-job of being cannon fodder are not counted as unemployed. But all most people would notice is that the unemployment figure reported in the news goes down, without realizing that's the reason or that it would not be in any way a reflection of an improving economy.

Grimnir Wotansvolk
11-12-2009, 06:58 PM
This person is making a good point about how the warmongers' have to sacrifice so little. But they're also making the completely retarded point of adding ordinary people (many of them anti-war) to the slaughter-pool.

How fucking dumb can you be to believe that politicians couldn't rig the draft lottery, as they do with everything else?

constituent
11-12-2009, 07:09 PM
2It's also true that we pretend we can deal with this threat by casual self-serving attitudes about who should fight our wars.

Fighting any war without the public sacrifice of a universal draft is an unjust misery for military personnel and their families. Really, if war is necessary, if you want war, risk yourself or your children and grandchildren in combat. Otherwise your war is an exercise in hypocrisy...

What this country needs is a test of will about the war in Afghanistan...

The sad fact is that politicians tend to be short-sighted imbeciles...

We need a draft, public sacrifice in all quarters. All else is hypocrisy.

lol at the bold, "pot, meet kettle."

penguin
11-12-2009, 07:37 PM
http://larrytemple.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/suicide-of-the-west.jpg

cindy25
11-12-2009, 08:11 PM
I smell a trial balloon

TCE
11-12-2009, 08:41 PM
Isn't Arianna against the war, though? Since when did that change?

jmdrake
11-12-2009, 08:53 PM
Isn't Arianna against the war, though? Since when did that change?

It changed here:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01243/obama_swearing_in_1243081c.jpg

Cindy Sheehan is the only real antiwar type on the left. The rest were just posing to get Obama in office.

Icymudpuppy
11-12-2009, 09:02 PM
This article is not a pro-war article. It is decisively anti-war. The writer is calling Obama out. Either you get the f out of Afghanistan now because without a draft you obviously don't need to be there that bad, or call a draft and watch the people rise up in protest worse than Vietnam.

Either way, it results in an end to the occupation.

Leave it the way it is, and the warmongers continue to warmonger without too much political fallout, as most of the volunteer soldiers and their families swallow the war on terrorism propaganda hook line and sinker.

paulpwns
11-12-2009, 09:05 PM
this article is not a pro-war article. It is decisively anti-war. The writer is calling obama out. Either you get the f out of afghanistan now because without a draft you obviously don't need to be there that bad, or call a draft and watch the people rise up in protest worse than vietnam.

Either way, it results in an end to the occupation.

Leave it the way it is, and the warmongers continue to warmonger without too much political fallout, as most of the volunteer soldiers and their families swallow the war on terrorism propaganda hook line and sinker.

win

cindy25
11-12-2009, 09:33 PM
here's another one-Dem candidate for Teddy's seat openly pro-slavery:

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/21595436/detail.html

BOSTON --
Democratic Senate candidate Stephen Pagliuca said he misunderstood a question about reinstating a military draft during a radio debate on Thursday.

The Boston Celtics co-owner said during a debate on WTKK-FM on Thursday that he would support a mandatory draft in the event we needed additional troops, which he later said was not the case.

"I now realize that was not the question posed to me, and I want to be clear that I do not support reinstating the military draft at this time. If there was a need to increase our troop levels beyond what could be supported by our voluntary recruitment, I would support a mandatory draft that would be fair, transparent and equal," he said in a statement.

Rep. Michael Capuano said he favors a mandatory one-year term of national service, but people could choose either military or civilian work.

Attorney General Martha Coakley said she wants the all-volunteer Army funded better.

City Year co-founder Alan Khazei said he favors more funding for volunteer services like Americorps.

Republicans Scott Brown and Jack E. Robinson are also seeking the seat.