Military Draft Coming back?

[jgruber]

He's a minority president.  We've had them before and we'll have 'em again.  If that discredits him, then so be it.  Don't think that comparing him to Clinton gives him any credit.  I don't have any more respect for Clinton than I do Bush.

Nope, don't want to discuss the electoral college.

The poll asked if it was worth it.  That can mean many things to many people, one of which would be to support the war.  It's a matter of opinion.

But let's agree to disagree.  I don't like Bush's policies, I didn't like Clinton's and I don't like what I hear from Kerry.  He will not get my vote.

So we probably agree on Clinton and Kerry and not on Bush.  Two out of three is not bad.

First, he is a minority president in that he received a minority of the popular vote.

Bill Clinton received a minority (less than 50%) of the popular vote in both elections, and we don't refer to him as a "minority" president.  But regardless, we've never elected presidents by totality of the popular vote.  In fact, it would be accurate to say that President Bush won a majority of the popular vote in a majority of the states. 

I'm not trying to get "huffy," but when you call him a "minority" president, you're attempting to discredit him on unfair grounds.  It's perfectly fine to disagree with his policies, but let's not get side-tracked.  If you're interested in discussing the Electoral College system, I'd be happy to do that (and I'm not being sarcastic - I wrote a paper on it in college, and I find our system of government fascinating). 

As for public opinion polls, you can judge their legitimacy for yourself.  This is from Gallup, arguably the most reputable polling organization in America.  They simply ask if going to war was "worth it," and despite all the difficulties we've had, a majority still supports the war.

http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=11446

[Phillip79]

But let's agree to disagree.

Okay, that's fine.  Getting back to the original topic of this thread, which I never addressed:  I think it's highly unlikely that the draft will be instituted.  We have somewhere around 135,000 troops in Iraq right now, and one of the major criticisms of Donald Rumsfeld is that he hasn't put enough of the troops that we ALREADY have in Iraq.  Just for perspective, we used 500,000 troops in the first Gulf War, and no draft was needed then either. 

The numbers simply do not support any possibility of a draft, and I suspect that some people are just trying to force comparisons to Vietnam.  There's really no comparison. 

[jgruber]

I read that the number of troops is significantly lower than in '91, so that this 135,000 represents a large percentage of our forces.

One source said that we are at the lowest level since 1939

But let's agree to disagree.

Okay, that's fine.  Getting back to the original topic of this thread, which I never addressed:  I think it's highly unlikely that the draft will be instituted.  We have somewhere around 135,000 troops in Iraq right now, and one of the major criticisms of Donald Rumsfeld is that he hasn't put enough of the troops that we ALREADY have in Iraq.  Just for perspective, we used 500,000 troops in the first Gulf War, and no draft was needed then either. 

The numbers simply do not support any possibility of a draft, and I suspect that some people are just trying to force comparisons to Vietnam.  There's really no comparison.