Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/10/07 11:53 PM, LightandDark wrote:

At 8/10/07 11:45 PM, zambota wrote:

At 8/10/07 11:42 PM, SicklesIsInsane wrote: It seems like a good idea to him because he's not the one on the battlefield. If he had to go out and fight, he'd probably be opposing the war instead of claiming a draft is a good idea.

It say he's a General. I would assume that means he's been there.

do you even know how long it takes to be a general, he could have gotten that from a totally different war.

The gulf war and vietnam were the 2 more recent wars... And no; you don't have to actually fight to be a general. [atleast i don't think] Asuming your country stays at peace for several years, and you maintain status with the military, you can sitll be in it and not fight a war.

But 'all things considered' as he says, it's a toss up whether or not he has actually faught in any, i supose one could search it to find out.

At 8/13/07 01:28 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 8/10/07 11:53 PM, LightandDark wrote:

At 8/10/07 11:45 PM, zambota wrote:

At 8/10/07 11:42 PM, SicklesIsInsane wrote: It seems like a good idea to him because he's not the one on the battlefield. If he had to go out and fight, he'd probably be opposing the war instead of claiming a draft is a good idea.

It say he's a General. I would assume that means he's been there.

do you even know how long it takes to be a general, he could have gotten that from a totally different war.

Ide say about 25-35 years, most never mapke it past O-6, Colonel.

The gulf war and vietnam were the 2 more recent wars... And no; you don't have to actually fight to be a general. [atleast i don't think] Asuming your country stays at peace for several years, and you maintain status with the military, you can sitll be in it and not fight a war.

No, you dont have to actually fight to be a general, however you do need some kind of field experiance to make general, In the Army that is how they advance, by what you have done and accomplished, ramember, most officers never go above O-6, or Colonel, the guy has obviously done or invented something to be a general.

But 'all things considered' as he says, it's a toss up whether or not he has actually faught in any, i supose one could search it to find out.

You man find something you may not, you are under the assumption that every mission or armed conflict the US engages in is recorded for public viewing, maybe im wrong, maybe there is no such thing as classified information.

I need to make sure the tiniest bit of intelligence gets injected into this thread:

He did NOT recommend a draft. He merely said that a draft should not be reasonably ruled out, for the simple (and intelligent) reason that we can never predict what may happen in the future. According to the full news article, Bush is distinctly against any Draft, and does not wish to even consider one, but the possibility of a draft must still remain open.

Looking over the thread so far I primarily see blubbering from people who obviously didn't even take the time to read the actual news articles on the issue, and who seem to merely want an excuse to be mad. Not a good showing for the Politics forum.

At 8/13/07 12:27 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Eh. I'm sure he's doing what he thinks is best for his nations,

So what? I don't see why someone wanting what's best for his country should make a difference. If you're a cunt, you're a cunt, no matter what your motivations are. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Anyway, I can't see this happening. Here in Britain some general or former general recently said that national service should be reintroduced, in order to sort out society and that we could be used as peacekeeping troops in other people's conlicts. Well fuck that. Anyway, if the reaction for an idea like this would be the same in America as it would be in Britain (Which I think it is) then no government would do it as it would be political suicide.