FredF said:
Oh great, here you go again with the lie about the draft. First, Bush has no plans to institute a draft, and second, even if he did, it would still take an act of congress to instate it.
[post="191294"][/post]
I assume this isn't directed at me as I haven't mentioned anything about the draft but since you mentioned it I'd like to add my two cents.
For what it's worth, I don't believe that either party would or could reinstitute a draft, and, given the current world situation I don't see that it is necessary. On the other hand, if the North Korean Army was to roll across the DMZ that could change quickly. As someone who served in both the era of the draft and the era of the volunteer force, I can say from personal experience that an army of draftees is in no way equivalent to and army of volunteers in the areas of motivation and effectiveness. I still remember clearly the older Marine NCOs lamenting the fact that the Marines had to rely on the draft during Vietnam and the changes that made in the Corps. I was glad to see it end.
However, the implementation of multiple 'stop loss' programs shows the need for our forces to be expanded and the best way to do that is by making military service a better choice to young people, not by forcing them to serve against their will. Dealing with the fact that many of the lower enlisted ranks qualify for food stamps would be a good first step, even if it meant someone else didn't get a tax cut.
And then the UN must not have taken offense that the US removed the material without their permission.
Actually, according to the American Thinker article you referenced, they did:
"
The UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was very upset last week that the US had shipped about 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium and other radioactive material out of Iraq for disposition in the US."
And one would have to wonder at the last paragraph in the Washington Post article you referenced:
"
A month later, the Pentagon rejected suggestions that U.N. inspectors be allowed to reenter Iraq but agreed the IAEA experts could return to secure the uranium that had been under its seal for years."
As the occupying force the US is responsible for securing and guarding such sites, yet according to the Washington Post article it was several days after the fall of Baghdad that the site was secured, and since the site was South of Baghdad the area had been under US control for several days before that, yet it was left open for looters while we secured the Oil Ministry even though we knew that the facility and the materials were there.
"
Before the U.S.-led coalition's invasion of Iraq, as the Bush administration alleged that Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear program, Tuwaitha was a target for U.S. intelligence.
"
Yet the CIA reports that nothing of the sort had occurred or was occurring.
Must be a fantasy of mine right??
Just the threat you think it posed. Meanwhile, Iran and North Korea continue to process theirs...
