NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's have another look at the issue of the military draft. For all the talk from the Dems about GW Bush bringing back the draft, it's Dems in Congress who are pushing bills to re-instate the draft, and it's been Republicans who have, both historically and recently, defeated efforts to have a military draft.

So, here's another column addressing the issue. John T. Plecnik makes very powerful points about the draft and the Dems' lack of honesty regarding the draft (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2004/plecnik102004.htm). Enjoy.

That article has is half right. Both sides are using the draft as a scaremongering tool, not just Kerry.

That article has is half right. Both sides are using the draft as a scaremongering tool, not just Kerry.
Only Kerry has a "plan" for "increasing the number of troops by 40,000." He won't release details of that "plan" (as with every other "plan" he has,) but exactly how does he think he'll get those 40,000 additional troops?

Only Kerry has a "plan" for "increasing the number of troops by 40,000." He won't release details of that "plan" (as with every other "plan" he has,) but exactly how does he think he'll get those 40,000 additional troops?
Gee--maybe he'll try recruiting them with the incentive that they won't get sent off to some unnecessary, bullshit war?

Only Kerry has a "plan" for "increasing the number of troops by 40,000." He won't release details of that "plan" (as with every other "plan" he has,) but exactly how does he think he'll get those 40,000 additional troops?bush also likes to start wars

Wow. This is just another example of how both sides will use mud, rather than issues, to win a vote. I say kill 'em both, neither are worthy presidents.

Gee--maybe he'll try recruiting them with the incentive that they won't get sent off to some unnecessary, bullshit war?
Yeah, that's it. Suddenly, under a Kerry administration, 40,000 people will be compelled to join the Army, so that they can be sent to Clintonesque non-missions with no ending, under the auspices of the United Nations. Of course! </sarcasm>

Yeah, that's it. Suddenly, under a Kerry administration, 40,000 people will be compelled to join the Army, so that they can be sent to Clintonesque non-missions with no ending, under the auspices of the United Nations. Of course! </sarcasm>
Not compelled, dumbass--recruited. Compelled is where we'll end up if Bush gets re-elected and decides to take on Iran and Syria.

Only Kerry has a "plan" for "increasing the number of troops by 40,000." He won't release details of that "plan" (as with every other "plan" he has,) but exactly how does he think he'll get those 40,000 additional troops?

Easy - introduce legislation raising the caps on troop levels. The military is at or above the levels allowed and has had to tighten enlistment standards and in some cases is discouraging re-enlistment, in order to bring numbers down to what's authorized by congress.

Instead of a draft...and instead of abortion...

When a mother doesn't want her child, that child becomes property of the US Government and is trained to be a killer from day one.


Two birds.
One stone.

Not compelled, dumbass--recruited. Compelled is where we'll end up if Bush gets re-elected and decides to take on Iran and Syria.
As usual, when you find yourself outfoxed, you run for the insults. Good to know I can still get to you. What, oh what, makes you think that 40,000 people in excess of the current average yearly recruitment will be more willing to join the armed forces under a "leader" who's already on the record saying he would only deploy forces at the command of the UN? How exactly would he convince 40,000 people above what currently joins the armed forces that he's not in the business of cutting off funds for the military?

In fact, I predict, under a Kerry administration, we'll be back to the "hollow force" days of the Carter and Clinton administrations in very short order. And, the only way a Kerry administration will be able to deliver on the promise of 40,000 more troops will be a draft...unfortunately for Kerry, Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and "Fritz" Hollings (D-SC) showed his cards a little too early.

Personally, I think it's highly probable that Bush is only speaking out against the draft until after the election, at which point (if elected) he will turn around and reveal the lie, as on so many other occasions. A lot of people I've talked to seem to think that Kerry will at least be able to slow the process down, but it may be too late to avoid it completely. Hopefully this will prove to be false as well and we won't have to worry about it at all.
Besides, just because that one guy in Congress who votes for the draft doesn't say anything about Kerry. As far as I know, the whole flip-flop thing came from Bush twisting Kerry's words (but I guess that's what politicians do). And, last I checked, it was not a good thing to stick stubbornly to something you said, even after you learn something new that proves your original statement incorrect.
But now that I think about it, posting on a thread like this is virtually pointless, since most of the people who will read it are already so stuck in whatever mindset they've got that they won't consider any other point of view. My hope for this is that some open-minded people will come across it, get interested in the issue, look it up for themselves and maybe even learn something. And (this is getting very broad, I know) hopefully I'm doing my small part in helping people to open their eyes and think for themselves, instead of believing what politicians tell them. Because we should all know better than to trust any politician.

Instead of a draft...and instead of abortion...

When a mother doesn't want her child, that child becomes property of the US Government and is trained to be a killer from day one.


Two birds.
One stone.

I actually think that this idea is very interesting....of course it violates basic human rights...but who really cares about those anyway lol :sniper:

I actually think that this idea is very interesting....of course it violates basic human rights...but who really cares about those anyway lol :sniper:

Certainly not Bush- can we say Patriot Act?

Bloody hell. There is NOT going to be a draft. The population doesn't want it, the government doesn't want it, the military doesn't want it. We don't need it either. We've got 100,000 troops sitting in western Europe right. Holdover from the Cold War. With the Soviet Union gone, they can now be brought home or stationed in the Middle East. Bush has already suggested this plan, but Kerry doesn't like it. I don't know why.

Bloody hell. There is NOT going to be a draft. The population doesn't want it, the government doesn't want it, the military doesn't want it. We don't need it either. We've got 100,000 troops sitting in western Europe right. Holdover from the Cold War. With the Soviet Union gone, they can now be brought home or stationed in the Middle East. Bush has already suggested this plan, but Kerry doesn't like it. I don't know why.
Quite simple: it's Bush's idea. In true Dem fashion, any Bush idea has to be considered "bad" by Kerry.

Of course, it doesn't quite help that Bush isn't asking the Germans and French for permission to remove the troops from Germany...

Quite simple: it's Bush's idea. In true Dem fashion, any Bush idea has to be considered "bad" by Kerry.

Of course, it doesn't quite help that Bush isn't asking the Germans and French for permission to remove the troops from Germany...
Ask for permission? You'd prefer that the president of the United States ask a foreign government's permission to redeploy troops?

who hear actually agrees with the draft? Because reading all your posts all i can see is mudslinging between people of different political affiliations.

A draft at this time would be unnecessary and wrong, HempChain

That article has is half right. Both sides are using the draft as a scaremongering tool, not just Kerry.

Hmm. Both sides, eh? Kerry's side keeps saying the draft is coming back, Bush has repeatedly said it is not. So how do you figure Bush's statements to be a scare tactic? It was a Dem who intro'd the bill, not a Rep. I'd like to see who the two yes votes were, though. The fact is, it's the Kerry camp that keeps dredging this up as something that's going to happen. And think about this, when the issue was brought up in the third debate, Kerry never really stated his feelings on it, but did say he intended to add 40,000 more troops to our military. Now how do you suppose he's going to that?

I'll always be an Independent :)

Not compelled, dumbass--recruited. Compelled is where we'll end up if Bush gets re-elected and decides to take on Iran and Syria.

Oh, yeah, and if we do that, we'll just end up throwing ourselves into two more 30ft holes.

(Based on my analogy that Going into Iraq was like throwing ourselves into a 30ft hole with no way of climbing back out- if we pulled out now, Iraq would just get worse. Besides, the US killed more iraqis in 2003 then Saddam killed in 2002.)

We're not going into Syria or Iran without a draft. Just ain't gonna happen. I dunno.

Only Kerry has a "plan" for "increasing the number of troops by 40,000." He won't release details of that "plan" (as with every other "plan" he has,) but exactly how does he think he'll get those 40,000 additional troops?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that Kerry was going to institute a program whereby a person would get a free university/college education for enlisting in the military for two years?

It might be more than two years and it might not be totally free tuition, but I did hear him say something in this regard.

A draft at this time would be unnecessary and wrong, HempChain


i totally agree that a draft is uneccesary, but with todays new battles that our fearless leader (uhhh cough, cough with lots of sarcasm) has put us in we do need more troops to fix this mistake we call the war in iraq.

As far as I know, the whole flip-flop thing came from Bush twisting Kerry's words (but I guess that's what politicians do).

Personally, this election has taught me that unless I see the candidate say something, on camera, I take what I hear with a grain of salt. That's why I believe the flip-flop thing to be the truth. Kerry has done this ON CAMERA.

And, last I checked, it was not a good thing to stick stubbornly to something you said, even after you learn something new that proves your original statement incorrect.


Panhandlia hasn't been proven incorrect, just presented with other points of view. And if Bush is the one intending to bring back the draft, why is it two Dems intro'd the bill? :rolleyes:

i totally agree that a draft is uneccesary, but with todays new battles that our fearless leader (uhhh cough, cough with lots of sarcasm) has put us in we do need more troops to fix this mistake we call the war in iraq.
We have the troops. We've got 100,000 troops stationed in bases in France in Germany. They were there to halt any Soviet aggression, but with the Soviets gone, troops aren't needed there anymore. You want more troops in Iraq? Send those 100,000 there. And all this is without a draft.

We're not going into Syria or Iran without a draft. Just ain't gonna happen. I dunno.

Why not? Saddam Hussein had the 4th largest military before the US murdered thousands upon thousands...

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that Kerry was going to institute a program whereby a person would get a free university/college education for enlisting in the military for two years?

It might be more than two years and it might not be totally free tuition, but I did hear him say something in this regard.

That's not a new thing. Most military branches have already been doing that for years. I believe what they get is a set amount for two year's service, but I don't recall the amount.

Easy - introduce legislation raising the caps on troop levels. The military is at or above the levels allowed and has had to tighten enlistment standards and in some cases is discouraging re-enlistment, in order to bring numbers down to what's authorized by congress.
10 Years ago when the clintion era downsized maybe. But in the last years, military recruiters have worked 100 hour weeks, as opposed to their normal 65-70 hr weeks, and they are still falling short. I do believe it was -5k when the numbers were crunched 1 OCT.

Bloody hell. There is NOT going to be a draft. The population doesn't want it, the government doesn't want it, the military doesn't want it. We don't need it either. We've got 100,000 troops sitting in western Europe right. Holdover from the Cold War. With the Soviet Union gone, they can now be brought home or stationed in the Middle East. Bush has already suggested this plan, but Kerry doesn't like it. I don't know why. Very interesting that you mention this. Let's see, beer math 100. Germany = 70K soldiers, -30K currently deployed to Iraq, with a return of 2005 mid-year. That's 70K-30K=40K Of which 20K *JUST* as in last month, returned from Iraq after a extended tour of 15 months. Oh by the way, there were no singular triple PH awardee's, and none returned after just 4 months with 3PHs. Now, that's 70K-30K-20K=20K, which for the most part are seperate, and Garrison type units. In other words the soldiers that protect the frontier of freedom, and run the office work of the theather, not many more killers.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that Kerry was going to institute a program whereby a person would get a free university/college education for enlisting in the military for two years?

It might be more than two years and it might not be totally free tuition, but I did hear him say something in this regard.

In Canada, if you can get into RMC (Royal Military College) it's free tuition in exchange for five year's service as an officer upon graduation.

This is so stupid. The only reason you would need a draft is if you quickly needed large amounts of soldiers. It is much easier to either raise incentives to join the army or reduce requirements. For example, the military either does not allow GEDs or only allow a cetain percentage of people with GEDs. They could remove that restriction and would immediately have a ton of people who qualify and WANT to join.

A GED is a high school equivilency exam. So if you dropped out of high school you can get a GED if you pass a test

Or we can rotate troops out of Europe/Asia.

Leave what I just said aside.

How would any president get a draft passed? Which politician is going to commit political suicide by voting for a draft? If some huge world war started, then maybe. But under these conditions, there is no way.

No draft if Bush wins

No draft if Kerry wins

No draft period.

The dems know this, so why are they bringing it up? There is only 1 reason why they would do this in an Election year, they are hoping some slighly slow draft age people will motivate to vote against Bush.

Well, in my country, in the military you do alot of traveling, but you have some input to be sent to a different legion, but it isn't good for morale. But if we need some men or women somewhere, we can fill those slots!

But in my country, EDUCATION IS FREE!

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that Kerry was going to institute a program whereby a person would get a free university/college education for enlisting in the military for two years?

It might be more than two years and it might not be totally free tuition, but I did hear him say something in this regard.
You are wrong. But if Mr Kerry did say this, please do us the work of finding it, and posting the link. If not, YOU can join the RMC and blog us all about it, well just join!

(Edited for subject-ASSSASSINS)
Or we can rotate troops out of Europe/Asia.
Not to be harsh, but even the news has informed the world that over 80% of the forces in Europe are either currently deployed, of have just returned from theather.
Consequentially the Army has a large number of it's Asian forces in the Iraq theather as well.
This thought is good, but was initiated over a year ago.

Very interesting that you mention this. Let's see, beer math 100. Germany = 70K soldiers, -30K currently deployed to Iraq, with a return of 2005 mid-year. That's 70K-30K=40K Of which 20K *JUST* as in last month, returned from Iraq after a extended tour of 15 months. Oh by the way, there were no singular triple PH awardee's, and none returned after just 4 months with 3PHs. Now, that's 70K-30K-20K=20K, which for the most part are seperate, and Garrison type units. In other words the soldiers that protect the frontier of freedom, and run the office work of the theather, not many more killers.
As of August 17, there were 117,000 American troops stationed in Europe. 117K-30K-20K=67K. Even subtracting the 20K you say are office workers, you have 7000 more then Kerry is promising to recruit.

You are wrong. But if Mr Kerry did say this, please do us the work of finding it, and posting the link. If not, YOU can join the RMC and blog us all about it, well just join!
Oh I dreamed about going to RMC many, many years ago but I decided to get married instead and ended up working in the electrical industry.

From John Kerry's web site:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_service/plan.html

The Kerry-Edwards Plan For A Record Expansion In National Service

500,000 in National Service Within a Decade—National Call to Help Children Learn—Pays for Every Penny

200,000 Americans serving full-time for two years and getting four years of college aid in return. These Americans will serve in some of America's toughest jobs, including:

75,000 young people helping educate children in troubled schools

25,000 young people improving our homeland security

Some 100,000 young people serving in other critical areas, from building affordable housing, to helping seniors live independently, to keeping our water and parks cleaner

300,000 Americans in college serving part-time and teaching our children while at the same time earning help to pay for school, including:

100,000 more young people preparing toddlers for school

100,000 more young people helping children learn to read

100,000 more young people helping older students find the path to college

As of August 17, there were 117,000 American troops stationed in Europe. 117K-30K-20K=67K. Even subtracting the 20K you say are office workers, you have 7000 more then Kerry is promising to recruit.If you were to re-check my post, I used soldiers. Your equation uses troops. Difference? Soldiers belong to the Army, troops as used in the media is anybody who wears some sort of BDUs.
Troops in Germany also refers to the Marines that guard embassies, a highly unlikely persepctive prospect to be pulled away.

10 Years ago when the clintion era downsized maybe. But in the last years, military recruiters have worked 100 hour weeks, as opposed to their normal 65-70 hr weeks, and they are still falling short. I do believe it was -5k when the numbers were crunched 1 OCT.



Funny.
If that's so, then why did the Air Force have to eliminate Selective Reenlistment Bonuses for three-fourths of currently eligible jobs this year. Maybe because they were 16,600 people over their personnel numbers authorized by Congress.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_bonus_040204,00.html


And why did congress have to pass a temporary authorization for the Army to have 2-30,000 personnel above their authorized limit last year.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A58293-2004Jan28&notFound=true

Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker told the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee that the Army is already about 11,000 soldiers above the 482,400 limit set by Congress.

He said he had been given the authority by the secretary of defense to grow the Army by 30,000 people, meaning nearly 20,000 more forces would be added under the emergency provision, which he said would last four years.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/01/mil-040130-pla-daily01.htm

Why has re-enlistment more than doubled in the guard?
The Guard's goal for first-term re-enlistments , for those with less than six years of service, had been 65 percent this fiscal year but has rocketed to 141 percent - which indicates that additional members re-enlisted early, usually to take advantage of bonuses.

The goal for second- and third-term enlistments, or those considered "career" soldiers, was set at 85 percent in the Guard but has come in at 136 percent, Howell said.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_numbers_041404,00.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl

More:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/05/mil-040526-usa02.htm
http://www.strategypage.com/search.asp?target=d:\inetpub\strategypageroot\dls\docs\200448.htm&search=draft%20enlistment

I could go on if you like....

Personally, this election has taught me that unless I see the candidate say something, on camera, I take what I hear with a grain of salt. That's why I believe the flip-flop thing to be the truth. Kerry has done this ON CAMERA.



Panhandlia hasn't been proven incorrect, just presented with other points of view. And if Bush is the one intending to bring back the draft, why is it two Dems intro'd the bill? :rolleyes:


I wasn't talking about Panhandalia...

Hmm. Both sides, eh? Kerry's side keeps saying the draft is coming back, Bush has repeatedly said it is not. So how do you figure Bush's statements to be a scare tactic? It was a Dem who intro'd the bill, not a Rep. I'd like to see who the two yes votes were, though. The fact is, it's the Kerry camp that keeps dredging this up as something that's going to happen. And think about this, when the issue was brought up in the third debate, Kerry never really stated his feelings on it, but did say he intended to add 40,000 more troops to our military. Now how do you suppose he's going to that?

Bush says Kerry wants it. Kerry says Bush wants it. Both sides are telling you "if you vote for my opponent he'll bring back the draft!"

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that Kerry was going to institute a program whereby a person would get a free university/college education for enlisting in the military for two years?

It might be more than two years and it might not be totally free tuition, but I did hear him say something in this regard.
Didn't the GI bill do that?

Ask for permission? You'd prefer that the president of the United States ask a foreign government's permission to redeploy troops?
I don't. But Kerry's statements about the "global test" and about his preference for US troops being deployed only under UN auspices certainly leads me to think HE would ask for permission from the French and Germans before doing anything.

I don't. But Kerry's statements about the "global test" and about his preference for US troops being deployed only under UN auspices certainly leads me to think HE would ask for permission from the French and Germans before doing anything.It only leads you to believe that because you're so bound and determined to make Kerry into something he isn't that you'll believe anything.

It only leads you to believe that because you're so bound and determined to make Kerry into something he isn't that you'll believe anything.
Hey, I judge the man by his words and actions. Are you telling me he truly didn't mean it in 1994 as he is quoted by the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46225-2004Oct19.html):
"Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, 'If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.' "

Again, those are HIS words, reported by a liberal-leaning newspaper. Care to refute HIS own words?