ext_128128 ([identity profile] rayvyn2k.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] rayvyn2k 2004-11-06 11:44 am (UTC)

Re: The Military

Still with me?

As far as "How can I even THINK there would be a draft"--it has already been discussed in Congress, that's how. And that was before the election. Now that Congress has an even larger Republican majority; and since Bush thinks he now has a mandate to do what he sees fit to "fight terrorism"--and since he believes the American people support the war in Iraq--why shouldn't he think that a draft (whatever it may be termed) is an impossibility? What's happened, while it isn't a "true draft", is that service men and women who had finished their "official" obligations have been called back into service. And their terms/tours of duty have been extended. And while it's not "officially" conscription, it is an unfair recycling of our military personnel. These "modifications" to members of the National Guard and Reserve personnel's tours of duty is due to the obvious fact that the military STILL does not have a grasp on the situation in Iraq. When they entered Baghdad, they did not have enough forces to control the situation and to protect the Iraqis from insurgents from other countries who came in to fill the power vacuum. Since then, the military has had forces strung out and endangered to the point where there has been disobedience and "mutiny" that we know of and most probably that we do not know of. When we speak of betrayal, having forces under-manned and under-gunned and under-armored and without a clear plan of resolution---then WHO is betraying WHOM? The military is having trouble recruiting enough people to man their "volunteer" fighting force. If this situation in Iraq continues, there WILL be an excuse for a draft.

I have formed my conclusions and understanding of the situations by checking the facts and not letting any certain political party's ideology and official platform tell me that the media is right or wrong. In the case of the Fox News Network, we see the opposite of the so-called "liberal agenda" in the media. I do not depend on television for the majority of my information. Nor do I depend upon any political party to tell me what to think. The Bush administration expects everyone to just believe everything they say and not to question it. If everyone would just accept everything they say as the truth--everything would be fine. And that is NOT what a democracy is all about.

The real problem with the administration's insistence that Bush has the answer to the terrorist question is: What happens when there is another large-scale terrorist attack that they are incapable of preventing? Their position was that a vote for Kerry was a vote that questioned the security of the United States. The only real effect the Homeland Security measures have had is to keep Aunt Bertha from bringing her knitting needles on a plane. And the subsequent debilitation of the airline industry. And the impact that has had on the economy.

Bush only won by 20 electoral votes and that 55 MILLION voted against him. The American people have spoken and what they've said is: We are not sure.

Our nation is split down the middle about what the so-called "American Agenda" should be. And instead of stepping back and re-examining; the Bush administration and Congress seem to be taking the election results as a seal of approval on the status quo. And that is simply not the case.

I'm not angry about the election results, I'm very disappointed and very, very scared.

And this is all I'm going to say about this subject.





Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting