I'm still having trouble believing he WILL take on Iran, but the administration certainly seems to be setting the public up for it. If Social Security "reform" or the energy policy get into serious political trouble, a new war would make a nice distraction while they slam some things through congress, in the same way they used 9/11 as a cover for unrelated legislation..
But invading Iran would require, what, another 150,000 troops at a time when we don't have 150,000 sitting around. Bush has been able to renege on many of his promises without being held accountable for them, and I assume he'd claim "the security and safety of the United States and our way of life" as justification for going back on his statement that there'd be no draft. If he starts snapping up kids and sending them to war, would that be enough to make people start wondering?
And Part II: In the 21st century, could a draft take only males, or would they have to shanghai women, too? Seems to me that a male-only draft would guarantee lawsuits from both sides, men who say they've been forced to face risks women don't and women who say they're being denied opportunities offered to men.

Mercenaries! Your tax dollars at work.

Honestly it would be almost impossible to go in to Iran with out instating a draft (with a actual ground war). But we do have troops in Japan and in S.K. although we have taken troops out of S.K. already to deal with Iraq. But all in all, with recruitment down, and soldiers being killed in Iraq, taking on a real army with real teeth, does present a huge issue for Mr. Bush's campaign promise, one that he will almost have to break if we go in to Iran for any length of time, now we can make a good showing of a war by taking troops out of Japan, but we wouldn't be able to sustain any kind of real force. That is what I would expect us to do honestly, not actually go to war, but throw up a good bluff, and then if Iran doesn’t back down, which they almost would have to, either show the bluff (unlikely with Bush in control if you ask me), or go to war, and then instate a draft. Now keep in mind campaign promises are broken all the time, so its completely possible that there will be a draft, IF we actually go in to Iran.

Now will we actually go in to Iran with a real ground force, no I don' think so at all, that I'm not to concerned about. What I think we will do is some serious air strikes, and some broad sweeping demands, then Iran will think about it for a while, come to the table, broker a deal, then they will in a few months to a year, start their weapons programs up again, starting the chain over again. That is what will most likely happen, if anything, I don't see it going past that.

The main stupid point in all of this, is letting it get to the point where we are even thinking of using weapons against these people, this should have been dealt with long ago, but we were distracted at the time, which really there is no excuse for, we should not be to the point where we are even threatening a war.

BOMBS!

Our soldiers are already over there in secret, not too secret though, plotting target coordinates. We'll have good and close airstips for the bombing in Iraq.

With a mandate like Bush's there are bound to be ample volunteers.

Well it could be a way for him to declare victory and get out of Iraq. Then he can just move the troops next door.

what you think he's gonna keep that promise? you think he's telling the truth?
what would lead you to think he's being honest in this case.
he's already justified a lie to the nation who then told him 'that's okay'
so now he has a 'mandate' the 51% said "it 's okay to invade a country without a REAL reason. He can't be re-elected so the 'no new taxes' of his father can't happen.
I'm glad I've invested my $ in Sex Lubricant Companies as theres gonna be alot of
self sodomization over the next 4 years.

what you think he's gonna keep that promise? you think he's telling the truth?
what would lead you to think he's being honest in this case.
he's already justified a lie to the nation who then told him 'that's okay'
so now he has a 'mandate' the 51% said "it 's okay to invade a country without a REAL reason. He can't be re-elected so the 'no new taxes' of his father can't happen.
I'm glad I've invested my $ in Sex Lubricant Companies as theres gonna be alot of
self sodomization over the next 4 years.

I'm sure were we to invade Iran, the draft would get firmly entrenched, and then we could start talking about the good old USA being an Imperialist power. As the neocons love to think that America has no sense of Imperialism in invading Iraq, and now possibly Iran. N. Korea should be on the list, and I'm sure Syria doesn't like its chances either.

Well it could be a way for him to declare victory and get out of Iraq. Then he can just move the troops next door. I kind of see this as a possibility, we could use the panama plan as a way out, and then move over to Iran, but I think we will stick with bombing them until there is nothing but dull glass in Iran. Although I agree with none of it, that is my thoughts on what is going to happen. The Bush administration is nothing if not slightly unpredictable at times, but also predictable at the same time, quite the little contradiction I have going there, but none the less.


Even if we did this, with real casualties, we could not keep it up for long with out a draft, or a large increase in volunteers which is unlikely.

we don't need to invade iran:

1. bush bombs previously targeted "nuclear weapons sites". hopefully our intelligence about those site locations is better than the WMD intel, but it really doesn't matter to bush and his crew whether it is or isn't.

2. iran gets pissed, and since they can't actually attack the US, they do the next best thing, which is send their forces pouring over the iraq border to attack our forces that are already there.

3. bush goes before congress, and on TV, saying, "look, they attacked our forces, you need to declare war to protect the security of our nation!"

4. the nukes fall. over and done.

And Part II: In the 21st century, could a draft take only males, or would they have to shanghai women, too? Seems to me that a male-only draft would guarantee lawsuits from both sides, men who say they've been forced to face risks women don't and women who say they're being denied opportunities offered to men.

What difference does it make. Reality is, drafting women would be window dressing. The military culture is too old fashioned to consider putting women in harm's way. Being killed is a boy's worry. It's the boys who will get sent to the front lines. Girls are to be protected. They'll be put somewhere in the rear to support the effort.

BTW, recently in CA there was a Iraqi war Marine vet who went on a suicide rampage, killing a policeman and seriously wounding another cop before he was taken out. The poor guy was apparently very disillusioned about his wartime experience, and wasn't able to find much sympathy and support to help him out of his funk. Funny I'm not surprised at this sad episode.

It can get lonely to be born a boy in the US of A.

when all these poor mislead and now mentally 'loose' fellas find their President has cut the VA funding where they could get help for their problems.

there's word out that RAND has been contracted to figure out how to avoid having a draft. the solution apparently is to contract out all the logistic and clerical support duties among the military, and ship the former desk-bound military personnel to the front lines. they ought to make great soldiers, right? and of course, women make up a huge portion of these behind the lines logistics positions.

there's word out that RAND has been contracted to figure out how to avoid having a draft. the solution apparently is to contract out all the logistic and clerical support duties among the military, and ship the former desk-bound military personnel to the front lines. they ought to make great soldiers, right? and of course, women make up a huge portion of these behind the lines logistics positions.


Ha ha, wouldn't that be a funny twist. Seriously, if politicians were forced by public opinion to equalize the casualty rates between sexes, they'd be more careful with their decisions regarding sending our troops into battle.

in their rifle barrels!!

Really, we don't have the balls to invade Iran. We're getting a real good spanking on a daily basis from a bunch of "dead-enders".