NationStates Jolt Archive

I wanna know how people feel about the draft I personally am against it and feel it is a horrible idea... I just want to know if anyone is for it

I wanna know how people feel about the draft I personally am against it and feel it is a horrible idea... I just want to know if anyone is for it


No draft will be imposed anytime soon. It was absolutely destroyed in congress. Old topic, but Kerry keeps mentioning it. Fearmongering at it's best.

Not gonna happen. The draft is instituted to provide what are called Grunts, Ground Reinforcements, UNTrained. Basic infantry to just go in and kill people. Thats not needed in Iraq; for the missions taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers and Marines with specific skills are needed.

Not gonna happen. The draft is instituted to provide what are called Grunts, Ground Reinforcements, UNTrained. Basic infantry to just go in and kill people. Thats not needed in Iraq; for the missions taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers and Marines with specific skills are needed.
i just wanna know if anyone promotes it i'm not saying it's gonna happen lol.

i just wanna know if anyone promotes it i'm not saying it's gonna happen lol.


Kerry keeps talking about it. He also has his half assed proposal for two more divisions (of what though?) that are un-needed and, without a draft, would only syphon forces away from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Considering it's not happening, I don't care about the draft.

"My opponent seems to be willing to say almost anything he thinks will benefit him politically," he said. "After standing on the stage, after the debates, I made it very plain we will not have an all-volunteer army."
- George W. Bush.

"My opponent seems to be willing to say almost anything he thinks will benefit him politically," he said. "After standing on the stage, after the debates, I made it very plain we will not have an all-volunteer army."
- George W. Bush.


The hell'd you find that? Tried to google it and came up with nothing.

The hell'd you find that? Tried to google it and came up with nothing.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041016/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_bush_draft&cid=1506&ncid=1963&sid=96378801

What CSW fails to mention is this...

"Let me restate that: We will not have a draft. No matter what my opponent tries to tell people and scare them, we will have an all-volunteer army," promised the president, who is known for frequent verbal stumbles."

That's on the source he quoted.

What he posted was another Bush stumble on words.

Hey Bush is just crazy enough to do something like that, and the draft isn't there to just create grunts, thats what they mainly get used for though. My dad went to Vietnam, and has been following this whole Iraq thing very closely. He seems to think that the only way we can get out of this whole ordeal is by reenstating the draft, so don't be so confident it won't happen.

With all due respect to your dad and the utmost gratitude for what he did, the two missions are completely different. There isn't the need like Vietnam to pump new troops in to defend the country from an agressor and hold it together. The mission in Iraq is reconstruction, not defence, though perhaps it should be... stupid Iranians...

What CSW fails to mention is this...

"Let me restate that: We will not have a draft. No matter what my opponent tries to tell people and scare them, we will have an all-volunteer army," promised the president, who is known for frequent verbal stumbles."

That's on the source he quoted.

What he posted was another Bush stumble on words.
It's rather obvious from the quote around it that it is a major misstatement.

It's rather obvious from the quote around it that it is a major misstatement.


... the quote that you failed to provide....

... the quote that you failed to provide....
"My opponent seems to be willing to say almost anything he thinks will benefit him politically," he said. "After standing on the stage, after the debates, I made it very plain we will not have an all-volunteer army."

What I want to know is why the 13th Amendment can't be exercised as draft prevention. After all, what is a draft but involuntary servitude?

As the father of three teenaged sons, I can tell you that I will not allow them to be sacrificed to the neocons' imperialistic fantasies.

What I want to know is why the 13th Amendment can't be exercised as draft prevention. After all, what is a draft but involuntary servitude?
No right is absolute. If the courts say that the right of the nation to safety and order outweighs the rights of one person to freedom, so it is.

As the father of three teenaged sons, I can tell you that I will not allow them to be sacrificed to the neocons' imperialistic fantasies.

So say they were drafted, you'd help them avoid the draft? That way 3 more youngsters would be drafted in their place, really nice of you. Let someone else do the work. Ask your kids if they might want to go if they were drafted.
Coward.

So say they were drafted, you'd help them avoid the draft? That way 3 more youngsters would be drafted in their place, really nice of you. Let someone else do the work. Ask your kids if they might want to go if they were drafted.
Coward.

Call me a coward if you wish. I don't give a fuck. Let three children of idiots die in their place, while marching upon Tehran or Damascus.
Hell, let your children die in their place. Or, better yet, you.

From what I understand, there's a hard cap on the limit of enlisted men, and they have to turn away a great deal. We could probably form those two divisions from the rejects. :p

Well, it doesn't look like the situation in Iraq is gonna be calming down any time soon. If the Bush administration wants to invade somewhere else (Syria? Iran?)... Well, I'd be amused to see a plan for invading Iran without instituting a draft or withdrawing from Iraq or Afghanistan.

What CSW fails to mention is this...

"Let me restate that: We will not have a draft. No matter what my opponent tries to tell people and scare them, we will have an all-volunteer army," promised the president, who is known for frequent verbal stumbles."

That's on the source he quoted.

What he posted was another Bush stumble on words.
Maybe it was a Freudian slip. Lord knows Bush makes enough of them.

Fact is that if we find ourselves in another major military situation, we'll have to go to a draft. There won't be any other option. I'm just being realistic here.

And I don't want one. It's likely that any form of draft or national service program will likely include females, and I have a 14 year old daughter. I'll take her out of the country before I let her get shipped off to her potential death because some politician has to prove how small his dick is by showing off the size of his army. Fuck that.

So ask yourselves--especially if you're of draftable age or will be soon--which person currently running for President (with a chance to win) is the least likely to ship your ass off to your doom for batshit reasons. Hint--the answer ain't Bush, no matter what he says in his public statements. It's not like he's got a track record of keeping promises, after all.

As the father of three teenaged sons, I can tell you that I will not allow them to be sacrificed to the neocons' imperialistic fantasies.
You damn right.

I have 4 sons and a daughter, If there is a draft I would encourage them to enlist before they are drafted. Well 3 of my sons anyway, 1 was born blind in one eye and i doubt they would take him. Just as i have bad knees and they wouldn't take me when i was younger, (I don't understand that, I could have shuffled papers and freed up a healthy person)

but we don't need & won't have a draft because enlistments cover the military need

A draft, says you?

To Canada! Says I!

A draft says you?
To arms says I!

Drafts are a last ditch effort to bring home an outcome that the nation can live with.

A draft, says you?

To Canada! Says I!


Um, thank you Yoda?

I'm thinking more along the lines of Holland or Greece though...



Oh and people? I'd get out before they even start talking about doing this. They'll make it impossible for you to leave if they are even thinking of it.

From what I understand, there's a hard cap on the limit of enlisted men, and they have to turn away a great deal. We could probably form those two divisions from the rejects. :p


Ummm... no.

A draft, says you?

To Canada! Says I!

Um, thank you Yoda?

I'm thinking more along the lines of Holland or Greece though...



Oh and people? I'd get out before they even start talking about doing this. They'll make it impossible for you to leave if they are even thinking of it.

Actually, unfortunatly for you guys, our government signed this agreement with the US that they would work to catch draft-dodgers. Damn them!

Actually, unfortunatly for you guys, our government signed this agreement with the US that they would work to catch draft-dodgers. Damn them!

Yeah, it sucks. That's why I'm hoping for overseas. The draft is becoming more and more likely.

Has anyone noticed that Kerry has not plainly stated that he will not institute a draft? He just says he doesn't support it. That's not a no.

Not gonna happen. The draft is instituted to provide what are called Grunts, Ground Reinforcements, UNTrained. Basic infantry to just go in and kill people. Thats not needed in Iraq; for the missions taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers and Marines with specific skills are needed.

You should learn a bit about things you discuss before you make off-the-wall statements like this.

Funny thing...the only people mentioning a draft are liberals; the only people putting up resolutions in Congress for a draft are liberals; the only people voting for a draft resolution are liberals.

Bush and Rumsfeld have emphatically said there is no plan or need for a draft.

Meanwhile, Kerry has a "plan" (yet another plan) to add 40,000 troops to the armed forces. How does he plan to get 40,000 more troops, you ask?

Now you know who would be more likely to reinstate the draft.

You should learn a bit about things you discuss before you make off-the-wall statements like this.

What? I'm sorry, who the fuck are you and what the fuck do you know?

Maybe it was a Freudian slip. Lord knows Bush makes enough of them.

Fact is that if we find ourselves in another major military situation, we'll have to go to a draft. There won't be any other option. I'm just being realistic here.

And I don't want one. It's likely that any form of draft or national service program will likely include females, and I have a 14 year old daughter. I'll take her out of the country before I let her get shipped off to her potential death because some politician has to prove how small his dick is by showing off the size of his army. Fuck that.

So ask yourselves--especially if you're of draftable age or will be soon--which person currently running for President (with a chance to win) is the least likely to ship your ass off to your doom for batshit reasons. Hint--the answer ain't Bush, no matter what he says in his public statements. It's not like he's got a track record of keeping promises, after all.

What I can't understand is people who want the freedom America provides, but who are not willing to work in any way to help defend it.

Let me try this again: THERE WILL BE NO DRAFT! Period. End of statement.

Funny thing...the only people mentioning a draft are liberals; the only people putting up resolutions in Congress for a draft are liberals; the only people voting for a draft resolution are liberals.

Um, I'm a conservative dude. I'm just liberal when it comes to civil rights. I hate the draft. If I wanted to get killed, I'd take some pills. Not get eviserated by a bomb just so I can be added to a list and, sadly, forgotten.

What? I'm sorry, who the fuck are you and what the fuck do you know?

A hell of a lot more than you, obviously.

Um, I'm a conservative dude. I'm just liberal when it comes to civil rights. I hate the draft. If I wanted to get killed, I'd take some pills. Not get eviserated by a bomb just so I can be added to a list and, sadly, forgotten.
Obviously, you only read one part of my post. Do yourself a favor and read ALL of it.

A hell of a lot more than you, obviously.


Very mature fucknut, especially considering the fact that I'm agreeing with you just with more information behind it.

The draft was brought up and proposed by a few senators led by Charles Wrangel [D] (sp?) of NY recently. It was a non-starter.

Other than that, it is a late campaign scare tactic and has never been mentioned in any official circles of credible repute. Kerry has said that he will add two divisions in Iraq if he wins and I am not sure where he will get them, but I don't think he will necessarily have that option since in January Iraq is slated to become a soveriegn nation and additional troops can only be 'added' there by an invitation of their formed government (this is assuming that elections happen there in january as planned).

Of course, the US will have some troops there regardless of who the president is, they just can't keep their nose completely out. The numbers may be a function of world stability and the US commander in chief. We may know more in two and a half weeks. Regardless, I think that the prospect of a draft is rather remote unless some sort of a major shooting war between two larger protrogonists (where one is not labelled 'terror') happens.

What a tangled web.

The barking spider

Very mature fucknut, especially considering the fact that I'm agreeing with you just with more information behind it.

If you are "agreeing" with me, then why the foul language? It certainly doesn't help your, or my, case.

Obviously, you only read one part of my post. Do yourself a favor and read ALL of it.

I DID read all of it and I'm sorry I didn't respond to the rest of it , but you shouldn't be such a flippin' prick so much. Jeez, why are republicans always so grumpy and hostile. No wonder people seem to think of them as grumpy old men. Glad I'm libertarian.

If you are "agreeing" with me, then why the foul language? It certainly doesn't help your, or my, case.


No but it makes me feel better, PTS and bad temper and all that, and since I can't hit you its the next best thing. :)

No but it makes me feel better, PTS and bad temper and all that, and since I can't hit you its the next best thing. :)

ROFLMAO! What ... EVER!

I DID read all of it and I'm sorry I didn't respond to the rest of it , but you shouldn't be such a flippin' prick so much. Jeez, why are republicans always so grumpy and hostile. No wonder people seem to think of them as grumpy old men. Glad I'm libertarian.
Calm down...take some deep breaths. Now, why such aggression? You are doing conservatism a disservice by using the same kind of language as the liberals.

Having said that, I want you to think back to what I posted. I understand, you're on the conservative side of the aisle. Now, how many conservatives are out there pushing the idea of a draft? None. If you notice, all the sponsors of military draft bills are liberal democrats. Kerry says he has a plan (of course) to add 40,000 troops...where is he going to get them? Bingo.

You are doing conservatism a disservice by using the same kind of language as the liberals.

You mean, like Dick Cheney?

Go fuck yourself!

If you notice, all the sponsors of military draft bills are liberal democrats. Kerry says he has a plan (of course) to add 40,000 troops...where is he going to get them? Bingo.

Well, I said that he had never actually said no to a question about the draft yet. He either dodges the question or says he doesn't support one. Not exactly a straight answer. Lots of people do stuff they don't support. Vote Badnarick!

You mean, like Dick Cheney?

Go fuck yourself!
Now that was lovely. I think I am about to start using the ignore option.

Well, I said that he had never actually said no to a question about the draft yet. He either dodges the question or says he doesn't support one. Not exactly a straight answer. Lots of people do stuff they don't support. Vote Badnarick!
Very true. I would gladly vote for Badnarik, but besides leaning libertarian, I am also realistic, and I rather vote for someone who can make a difference from within, than for someone who could make a difference, but will never get a chance.

Badnarik... sounds like a bad guy from an old James Bond film.

Badnarik... sounds like a bad guy from an old James Bond film.


Lol!!! Well, he DID get arrested at the debates!

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041005-102808-1701r.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20041005-2239-thedraft.html

Summary of all of the articles is that Democrats introduced a bill to Congress, with Congressman Rangel D-NY and Senator Hollings D-SC both wanting to reinstitute the draft on the basis that "only poor kids are dying" while the rich kids are safe. I find it hilarious that the rumors are that Bush is going to reinstate the draft when it's DEMOCRATS who are trying to get it passed in Congress. Also, Congress is the only authority that can reinstitute the draft and it must then be passed to the President for signing, which Bush has promised not to sign. One more thing, the last time there was a draft (Vietnam), it was started by a Democrat and cancelled by a Republican (Richard Nixon!) and guess who his defense secretary was who authorized it? Donald Rumsfeld. And it's Donald Rumsfeld and everybody else on the Republicans side saying we've got no plans for a draft. In fact, we have more people in the Armed Services today than we had pre-9/11. There are more people serving in the armed forces today than pre-9/11!!!

There, stop spreading rumors to scare parents and the youth of America into voting for Kerry because Bush will bring back the draft. Fearmongerers...

The current bill for the draft in the House was introduced by Charles Rangle (D-NY) in Jan 2003. It was sponsored by 4 other Democrats, one of who happens to be Jim McDermitt (D-WA). The House bill failed last month by (A whole lot NAY to 2 YEA)

The Senate version of the bill was introduced by Ernest Hollings (D-SC) at the same time as Rangle's bill. The senate version has never reached the senate floor for a vote.

The military does not want a draft.

It is only Democrats, Liberals, ABBers, Moore worshippers...That are talking about a draft. That should tell you something. As a Vet I have one thing to say to those of you who believe that there will be a draft; Remember who introduced the bills for the draft and what party they belong to, then look at who is talking about the draft, that should tell you who wants to bring the draft back.


Or could this be Kerry's plan (one of thousands that he has, but hasn't told a one them to any living soul) to create 10 milllion jobs as he stated.

The President of Forseral

Summary of all of the articles is that Democrats introduced a bill to Congress, with Congressman Rangel D-NY and Senator Hollings D-SC both wanting to reinstitute the draft on the basis that "only poor kids are dying" while the rich kids are safe. I find it hilarious that the rumors are that Bush is going to reinstate the draft when it's DEMOCRATS who are trying to get it passed in Congress.
Not quite. Calling it a 'scare tactic' is oversimplifying the situation. The Democrats don't want the bill passed, they simply want to bring to issue to the forefront, knowing that it'd never pass- akin to the Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendment.

Also, Congress is the only authority that can reinstitute the draft....
Not anymore. Remember the authorization Congress gave?

It is only Democrats, Liberals, ABBers, Moore worshippers...That are talking about a draft. That should tell you something. As a Vet I have one thing to say to those of you who believe that there will be a draft; Remember who introduced the bills for the draft and what party they belong to, then look at who is talking about the draft, that should tell you who wants to bring the draft back.
No. It's also parents concerned about whether their children are going to be forced to go off and die in a senseless war. Of COURSE neither candidate is making anything resembling a real issue of it; that would be political suicide. Let's see how it turns out when someone winds up in office. Those concerned are talking about it because 1. if things on the world scene heat up further, some real maneuvering is going to be required to avoid conscription, and 2. Neither candidate has made more than cursory refusals on the issue. Since general Democratic party policy is to avoid that sort of thing at all costs, why wouldn't their supporters be talking about it?

As a believer that basic knowledge of how warfare works doesn't require spending time in the military, I'll happily take a look at the draft bills. The current bill went down in the House 402-2. That ought to tell you something. But we're talking about parties here. So, Democrats, trying to garner up attention to the possibility of conscription, start up a bill, knowing it will fail, but hoping to promote public awareness of it. A fairly common technique for minority parties, which the Democrats currently happen to be. Plus, given the current administration's technique of sneaking in laws that run completely contrary to the Constitution (Patriot Act, anyone?), launching a bill designed to atrract attention was the only viable aletrnative. This, however, is a violation of traditional current Democratic policy, spooks the Democrats, which results in much discussion of it among them. The Democrats, frigtened of the mere possibility, fulfil the intention of the bill. The Republicans, many of whom have consciences despite their party affiliations (Lincoln, who INTRODUCED the draft, wasn't exactly a Democrat), stand against it, but feel no further need to stand against it. So, who wants a draft?

The Republicans? No.
The Democrats? No.
The Military? No.

The bill wasn't about a draft. It was about the POSSIBILITY of one. And that, the Democrats don't want.

The bill wasn't about a draft. It was about the POSSIBILITY of one. And that, the Democrats don't want.


They've got a funny way of showing it.

Not anymore. Remember the authorization Congress gave?


i belive it was the patriot act, wasn't it?

And other than that nicely put

If there was a draft, I would be honored to serve for my country. I'd join up now, but my dad would kill me before I ever got to basic. If there was a draft, he would be ok with it. He was in the guard (while he was in, the beat the hell out of the normal army in some war games), but really doesn't want me to go unless I have to... If there was a draft, I might even join up voluntarily if I felt like it. Now I might not nessecarily support the war or something (and definitally not Kerry if he wins).... But I'd still support the military.

Are you sure it's not going to happen? I'm surprised that noone brought this up so far, but there is already a stop-loss-rule, meaning that people can't leave the military (read: Iraq) when their contracts are up, and look at how many National Guard units are essentially active-duty now and see combat. That seems to indicate that the administration needs more troops and might to a certain extent contradict the statements that a draft is not needed.

Well, I said that he had never actually said no to a question about the draft yet. He either dodges the question or says he doesn't support one. Not exactly a straight answer. Lots of people do stuff they don't support. Vote Badnarick!

It might help if you spelled your candidate's name correctly (there's no 'c') ;)

Are you sure it's not going to happen? I'm surprised that noone brought this up so far, but there is already a stop-loss-rule, meaning that people can't leave the military (read: Iraq) when their contracts are up, and look at how many National Guard units are essentially active-duty now and see combat. That seems to indicate that the administration needs more troops and might to a certain extent contradict the statements that a draft is not needed.

Except there are still divisions that are not deployed to Iraq, and the Marine Corps still has Third Division and most of Second undeployed.

It might help if you spelled your candidate's name correctly (there's no 'c') ;)


Oops. I know that. Was a mistype. I'm using a damned laptop with ultrasensative keys.

From what I understand, there's a hard cap on the limit of enlisted men, and they have to turn away a great deal. We could probably form those two divisions from the rejects. :p

Exactly. This bears repeating until the "There's gonna be another draft real soon!" Chicken-littles wake up and realise it.

No draft will be imposed anytime soon. It was absolutely destroyed in congress. Old topic, but Kerry keeps mentioning it. Fearmongering at it's best.Ahmen.
Leave it to the liberals to keep fear in the public sector. The only way the draft will happen is IF you all elect Mr Kerry, then he will have to re-instate it when all of these countries he keeps speaking about DO NOT deliver the product to the theater to help with the deliverance of justice!

I wanna know how people feel about the draft I personally am against it and feel it is a horrible idea... I just want to know if anyone is for it
I am absolutely oppossed. Drafts water down the quality of professional armies.

Exactly. This bears repeating until the "There's gonna be another draft real soon!" Chicken-littles wake up and realise it.


Except what he said isn't true.

Except there are still divisions that are not deployed to Iraq, and the Marine Corps still has Third Division and most of Second undeployed.

Yes, but the US can't afford to deploy every single soldier it has to Iraq, it would for example make its presence in South Korea less credible and basically give the whole world the license to do whatever they please, without the US being able to do a thing about it. They want to keep at least one division of Marines in reserve. Plus someone has to do the training, look after the bases, the likes. The fact that there are still US troops that are not physically standing on Iraqi soil does not automatically mean that there are enough troops. And if it did, what did they call up those reserves for? And why do they have stoploss? Why not send the Third Marines? I'm not convinced.

What I can't understand is people who want the freedom America provides, but who are not willing to work in any way to help defend it.

Let me try this again: THERE WILL BE NO DRAFT! Period. End of statement.So you're the guy in charge now? Let me see how simply I can put this--if Bush pulls off the greatest con in history and get re-elected, he'll want another war, and if he wants another war, he'll need a draft. It's that fucking simple. We don't have the military resources necessary to fight the wars we're in right now, much less take on anything else.

The draft might be illegal. The legality depends on whether war was declared or not. If war has not been officially declared, then conscription is illegal. It happened in the Vietnam war, and there were lawsuits concerning it. They were quietly paid off, and the men suing the government that had drafted them were honorably discharged just as quietly. If the veterans decided to form a class-action lawsuit today, I have a feeling it wouldn't be possible to keep it as quiet, and the government would have a lot of esplainin' to do.

In fact, if that happened, it would be the best thing in the world to stop conscription from happening this time. The government couldn't get away with reinstating the draft if they were the focus of a high-profile lawsuit for drafting people illegally last time.

Except what he said isn't true.

:confused:
What? Do you think the DOD can just go out and enlist everyone who wants to? No.

Military Size and Needs. By law, each year Congress sets the maximum size of the active duty and reserve forces. They do this by passing the Military Authorization Act and Military Appropriations Act. Each year, Congress has the option to increase the authorized size of the military -- and they have chosen not to do so (exception -- last year -- in 2003 -- Congress authorized the Army to TEMPORARILY increase in size by 20,000 -- a drop in the bucket. This temporary increase in size is to help the Army through a planned reorganization, not because Congress wants to have a larger Army).
(http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm)

Or did you think the military hasn't tried to restrict enlistment? Wrong again.

Overall, the army has achieved 99 percent of its re-enlistment goals (which are based on past experience), and attracted 100 percent of the new recruits it needs. Standards for new recruits have been raised, meaning that more people were trying to get in than the army could handle (Congress puts a cap on the number of troops each service can have on the payroll.) (http://www.strategypage.com/search.asp?target=d:\inetpub\strategypageroot\dls\docs\200448.htm&search=draft%20enlistment)

In fact, the Air Force is so over-staffed above their authorized levels to the point where they are discouraging re-enlistment.

Air Force retention is so high, in fact, that the service now has 16,600 more people on the payroll than authorized by Congress, which limits the service's end strength to 359,000 airmen. (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_bonus_040204,00.html)

So you're the guy in charge now? Let me see how simply I can put this--if Bush pulls off the greatest con in history and get re-elected, he'll want another war, and if he wants another war, he'll need a draft. It's that fucking simple. We don't have the military resources necessary to fight the wars we're in right now, much less take on anything else.


Do you ever stop and actually think through your rants or is there just a little magic Donkey back there that tells you exactly what to think and say regardless of whatever facts are present?

Yes, but the US can't afford to deploy every single soldier it has to Iraq, it would for example make its presence in South Korea less credible and basically give the whole world the license to do whatever they please, without the US being able to do a thing about it. They want to keep at least one division of Marines in reserve. Plus someone has to do the training, look after the bases, the likes. The fact that there are still US troops that are not physically standing on Iraqi soil does not automatically mean that there are enough troops. And if it did, what did they call up those reserves for? And why do they have stoploss? Why not send the Third Marines? I'm not convinced.


Excellent point and I guess I need to clarify.

Certain units and specifically certain MOS's are deployable, and certain others are cycled and placed on what, in the Marine Corps, is called "Mainside". Mainside duty is essentially what you described: maintenance and such of bases, training, and so on.

That being said, once again, NONE of 3rd division, pieces of Fourth and a small section of 2nd is deployed. 1st Division is the only Marine Division with a sizeable force in Iraq, and even much of that was shrunk back and is mainside or on float since September. We still have the react forces and such available to fight another conflict if the need arises. If that does arise though, then we will indeed be stretched thin.

The Guard and Reserves have been called up because of this. This way, the active duty troops are available for other deployments and responsibilities should they arise, and rotations in Iraq are shortened. As far as stop loss and the like, it is not across the board. Stop loss applies to specific MOS's that are needed and that manpower for is in short supply with a great need. For example, 3500 MOS's, Motor T, are in high demand and basic drivers as well as advanced drivers have been deployed and redeployed a couple times, while other MOS's not needed have no stop loss applied to them.

Hope that clarifies.

Do you ever stop and actually think through your rants or is there just a little magic Donkey back there that tells you exactly what to think and say regardless of whatever facts are present?
He thinks that opening his mouth and letting the garbage spew out, and tossing in the occasional F-word for emphasis makes him knowledgable about things he is ignorant of, like the military. He is wart, and you need to just freeze him out and ignore him. 20 years of college have sucedded in only making less intelligent and he grossly overestimates his own worth. Ignore him.

a vote for kerry is a vote for terrorism :mp5:

A vote for Bush is a vote in the name of idiocy :confused:

Do you ever stop and actually think through your rants or is there just a little magic Donkey back there that tells you exactly what to think and say regardless of whatever facts are present?
What about my rant was not factual? Multiple politicians of both major parties have said that the military is overextended, and that we don't even have enough available forces to do the job in Iraq the way we need to. The neocons in power have made no secret of their desire to go after both Syria and Iran, and let's not forget that festering sore that is North Korea--that one may blow up in our face whether we want it to or not, and if it does, we're really in a world of shit.

So where have I ventured away from the world of fact? Please, enlighten me o great one.

Are you sure it's not going to happen? I'm surprised that noone brought this up so far, but there is already a stop-loss-rule, meaning that people can't leave the military (read: Iraq) when their contracts are up, and look at how many National Guard units are essentially active-duty now and see combat. That seems to indicate that the administration needs more troops and might to a certain extent contradict the statements that a draft is not needed.

Sorry to burst your bubble Lao, but the stop-loss rule has been in effect for at least the past 22 years. I was a victim of it in 1991. I know of about 50-60 others that were denied the permission to leave the military because of critical job skills.

As some one has already stated there are at least 70,000 tropps in Germany who have yet to be deplyed, at least 40,000 in Korea, around 25,000 in Japan and about 20,000 in Briton. So no, there is no need for the draft. The Moore lovers, Kerry Kool-Aid drinkers, MoveOn.org kooks are the one's that are promoting the draft. Pres. Bush said unequivically that there will BE NO DRAFT while he is in office during the first, second debate. Didn't see the third so I don't know about it. But Kerry has said that he want to increase the military by at least 40,000. Thats not troops sent to Iraq but the amount of people in the military. How is he going to do that? He has already suggested and supports a plan for people who get Gov't aid to go to college enlist for 2 years in a govt program like the Peace Corps, or even the military.

So those of you who are supporting Kerry better do you research on his "plans" that is if you can find out the specifics of the plan, hell I'd be happy with the generalities. But he hasn't even put that out. All he keeps saying is "I have a plan for that."

President of Forseral

when the draft ended in the early 1970s, the US Army had 16 divisions until 1992... now it has 10.... it could easily increase by a division or more without requiring a draft.... enlistments into the regular armed forces are not down, just enlistments into the reserves, and not by much.

the only thing the draft would be useful in doing is rebuilding, enlarging and restructuring the reserve and national guard forces. If draftees were restricted to service in the US only, and for homeland defense duties only (which is the way most of the Europeans that have the draft deal with conscripts) it wouldn't have serious negative impact. It would allow the US to maintain the strategic reserve it needs to guard the homeland, deploy more regular troops oversees at once (which might be the force neccessary to end the war more quickly in Iraq) and if the draft has NO exemptions except for religious or physical deferments, it would be fair and fairly noncontroversal.

It wouldn't require relatively ill trained and less motiviated troops to be committed to combat, unlike in Vietnam. Although the troops in Vietnam, draftees included, fought very well until about 1970, when serious demoralization set in, and even then, the combat units still performed well, while the support units had the serious morale issues including mutinies and riots (mostly isolated incidents even then)

Check out the book, "Dirty Little Secrets of the Vietnam War" about the last draft (James Dunnigan, 1998), the Time Life series on Vietnam, and numerous other sources concerning about what really happened with the last draft.

I am older and well above the age were I would have to worry about it, I admit. But I have a son on active duty now in the Marine Corps, and another approaching draft age quickly and only physical reasons (eyesight) kept me out of the service. I am not happy about it, but I can see how a draft might become necessary at some point.