lmfao, you've got to be kidding me. People are smarter today, and don't believe propaganda?

Dream on dude.

if another huge terrorist attack happens on u.s. soil, and Bush is able to even indirectly connect it to Iran, we would see WW2-style nationalism, and many people itching to go fight.

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I'm 41 years old, and I've served in the US Army in combat. It's precisely BECAUSE of Vietnam that the US is NOT going back to the draft.

....and of course the military is not infinite. The RIF that occurred in the 90s lowered the military by almost 50% under Clinton. I'm talking about conflicts that we are forced into, as apposed to those that we elect to fight.

THE DRAFT
Coming soon...

http://www.dumbjaw.com/ufos.jpg

If I'm drafted I'm taking Rich with me.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

What does that mean? What conflicts have you been forced into? And how does any of what you said change the fact that America can't handle another 2 wars without a draft? I asked how many wars you think they can fight simultaneously, you didn't really answer.

Thank god i live in Scotland

Take me along as the embedded GFY reporter.

Seriously, a lot of you boys will be changing your tune when you're looking for nice places to stay when you have to run up here to Canada. :winkwink:

go right ahead... I love watching patriots die! :1orglaugh

I won't be changing my tune about anything. I'm more useless to the military than a freshly shaven pussy is to Elton John.

What I mean is that it is dependent upon whether another sovereign nation (as opposed to a secret far-flung group), forces us into conflict by an act of war against us. As for how many we can fight at the same time, that is obviously a factor of the size of the theater and the forces arrayed against us. Our stratgeic SOP up until Clinton was to have enough forces on hand to fight two full scale WWII type theaters at once. This is now no longer possible, therefore we wouldn't commit to conflicts that size unless forced to. And if we were FORCED to, you would find plenty of people ready to serve their country, even if you aren't.

You are a complete fucking idiot.

How is invading Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, or any of the other places the neo cons want to take over "dying for America"?? You're a fool if you honestly believe that rhetoric.

You don't think the Bush administration is going to start another war unless they're "forced"? And you seriously think Americans are going to sign up by the tens of thousands to fight Iran or ANYONE because Bush and Cheney say they're a threat? If that's what you're saying, either you're joking or you seriously watch way to much TV.

canada :thumbsup

You might want to check the Canadian laws before you make that a plan. :thumbsup

Just curious, how exactly do you know otherwise? From what GFYers are saying? Do you have some great link into the thought process of Americans? Just a week ago you didn't know about a very typical black stereotype, now you know all about how thousands/millions of people do/don't think?

You must have some kick ass sources.

I understand who runs America right now, and I've paid attention to what they've said and read almost everything they've written for the past decade. Neo conservatives are in complete control of the executive branch. It's not about fucking watching TV or reading the latest news or "sources", it's not hard to understand what America's foreign policy is going to be when you understand the people running it.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Start there, read everything they publish on that site, and then start reading books, speeches, and essays written by the principles. They've already laid out their policy for Bush's 4th term, and besides "regime change" in Iran and North Korea, it involves, and this is a quote, "fighting unfriendly regimes in Central and South America". It's not a big fucking secret, you just have to pay attention.

Now they've moved the only non-radical out of the cabinet, replaced him with a neo con, and now they're talking about filling Rice's position with Paul Wolfowitz. lol, just because you guys don't understand how badly in trouble you are if that happens, doesn't mean no one does.

I would fight and die to defend my country, but not to invade another's.

BTW, I'm no pussy, my nerves have been tempered in battle. How about yours?

Yikes, look at the map on that site, they've removed the part about Central America. God damn, that's fucking scary, that might be about to blow up sooner than anyone thinks. :helpme

He beat "Call of Duty" in a week.

1. The Nazis had no desire to go beyond Europe and Russia.

2. You're advocating blind faith in our leaders to do what's right. Nazis advocated the same thing. I believe true patriotism are those who will question their leaders to ensure that the best thing that can be done for our country is truly being done.

Kerry wanted to expand the military by 40,000 billets. That's not news to me, but now that the election is over, I can see the GOP really going for this draft thing. It's almost exclusively conservatives who say things like "military service should be compulsory". This would bring that dream into being.

They would have to repeal the 13th amendment.

Even the vietnam draft was not really involuntary servitude... You're simply required to show up. They CAN NOT force you to take the oath of service legally. During vietnam you had to step across a line of somthing similar to represent your agreement then take an oath. It was basiclaly a big trick to get around the amendment.

Michael, I love you. Shut up.

As I understood the thread, we were speaking in the hypothetical, unless by some chance a horrific miracle occurred to force us into reality. Perhaps I should have said "WERE there a new draft, would such and such blah blah blah."

Besides, you and I both know there's no draft now, and unless Dubya goes completely against the Constitution, (not really that much of a stretch, I'm afraid), there can BE no draft.

You coming to Vegas? (Quickie subject change)

lol, yeah the constitution is going to hold the neo cons back from starting a draft. Just like it's protecting your right to a fair trail and journalist's rights to protect their sources. I hope that helps you folks sleep better at night.

You shouldn't wear your animosity and rage on your sleeve it simply makes you look like a misinformed fool.

The moment the supreme court stops upholding the constitution I'll buy the bag of dung your selling.

The gun beside the bed helps me sleep better at night, thanks.

But you bring up a real point. It seems to me that the Constitution is rather abruptly becoming a moot document. Case in point: defining marriage for everyone, no matter who you are, and trying to get an amendment to make it so. Scary shit. :(

The McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. The PATRIOT Act. Have I made my point?

Neither have been brought as a case before the suprme court.

I didnt say when unconstitutional laws are passed. I said when the suprme court stops upholding the constitution.

Way to prove MY point about you being misinformed when it comes to government.

"The Supreme Court ruled in June that detainees held as "enemy combatants" may challenge their confinement through the U.S. courts"

me too but first i would clear up thier mistake since im almost 42:1orglaugh

Sorry, but you're wrong. The minute both acts were signed, lawyers from almost every civil rights group in the country were submitting writs of certiori. The ACLU and the NRA, just to mention one that I know for a fact did.

They upheld unconstutional laws. Both of the ones I mentioned.

Quite the contrary, you've just proven that you don't know what the supreme court has and has not ruled on.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/30/pa...act/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/29/sc...ure/index.html

The supreme court upheld both as being constitutional, when they are clearly not.

In the future, I suggest you get your facts straight before making assertions and trying to point someone else out as being ignorant when you are the one who is ignorant. :2 cents:

Um. Where in those articles is the information on the supreme court "upholding" anything?

Your simply tryign to confuse poeple into believing you. Its kinda lame.

Its writs of certiorari AND COURTS ISSUE THEM NOT LAWYERS.

OOps I stand corrected I guess when you reqest certiorari a its called Certiori.

I'd still like the information on a case the court actually HEARD, Requesting a writ of certiorari doesnt mean the court ruled on anything.

"While a decision to deny cert. lets the lower court's ruling stand, it does not constitute a decision by the Supreme Court on any of the legal issues raised by the case."


http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/certiorari.htm

That shit was big news when it happened. Where were you, under a rock?

Also, these stories contradict your assertion that these cases never went to the supreme court.

You're just trying to change your argument and get out of it now that I've proven you wrong. You're not fessing up to being mistaken and it's kind lame. Just admit you were wrong and get on with life.

"While a decision to deny cert. lets the lower court's ruling stand, it does not constitute a decision by the Supreme Court on any of the legal issues raised by the case."


http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/certiorari.htm

"While a decision to deny cert. lets the lower court's ruling stand, it does not constitute a decision by the Supreme Court on any of the legal issues raised by the case."


http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/certiorari.htm

"While a decision to deny cert. lets the lower court's ruling stand, it does not constitute a decision by the Supreme Court on any of the legal issues raised by the case."


http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/certiorari.htm



Care to keep pretending you know what the fuck your talking about?

Here's the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform decision.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...nal02-1702.pdf

I'm still working on trying to find the decision regarding the PATRIOT Act. The supreme court website is a bitch to navigate.

If I were asked to go, I wouldnt run from it, even though I really wouldnt wanna go, I'd most likely go.

You said, "Neither have been brought as a case before the suprme court." I provided 2 links that showed that they were brought up. I also gave a link showing where they made a decision on the Campaign Finance Reform Act. Care to keep pretending you know what the fuck your talking about?