NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, so I'm a college student and for the past several months, the college Dems have been telling me that if Bush is reelected, they'll draft me. A lot of people are wearing those "Draft Beer, Not Us" T-shirts which, while amusing, are not compelling in changing a vote. Now I'm still being told I'll be drafted, but I've yet to see any actual evidence that Bush is planning a draft.

So then, I ask you, aside from rumor, hearsay, and vicious slander, does anyone have any real evidence that the Republicans are planning a draft? As I recall, a few weeks ago, the Republicans in the House of Reps decided to finally kill a bill that would reinstate the draft that had been sitting there for a while. Everyone but two Democrats voted against the bill. So where are people getting this idea that Bush is going to make a draft? Just because we're at war doesn't mean he's going to draft people. And even if he did want a draft, it'd have to pass through the Senate, and they've shown they won't support it. And Kerry's the one who had the plan to add 40,000 more troops were he elected. Where did he plan to get those troops?

Forgive me if I sound skeptical, but no one's actually giving me any remotely solid evidence that there will be a draft.

The whole Draft thing was just a scare tactic by The Dems.
The will not be a Draft in america.

That bill was drafted (no pun intended) by Democrats and those who did it didn't even vote for it.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.163:

no US draft will occur. If either party were to institute a draft it would destroy the party for the rest of histroy.

You are right there will not be a draft unless something crazy and unforeseeable comes up. Even if the Iraq had some sort of compelling urgent rationale for staying there forever the Republicans wouldn't think of a full out draft. They care about power more than anything.

... the Republicans wouldn't think of a full out draft. They care about power more than anything.
Well, that, money, suppressing voters, keeping the poor poor, and killing anybody not like them. ;)

its simple who are the Dems to tell you who anyone thinks.
PROPOGANDA

And even if he did want a draft, it'd have to pass through the Senate, and they've shown they won't support it.
But the senate is owned by he Reps now.

And Kerry's the one who had the plan to add 40,000 more troops were he elected. Where did he plan to get those troops?
Probably from the European bases closing down.
Immigrants for citizenship its already happening(but then again its happened since the ACW).

Forgive me if I sound skeptical, but no one's actually giving me any remotely solid evidence that there will be a draft.
Dont look at it as if youve been drafted but if they misuse you then its wrong.Using you as a front line troop is wrong.Thats what the Profesionals are for.

If it happened id feel sorry for you maybe going to Iraq as Cannon-fodder.

Well I hope you're all right about the draft, because that means that there'll be no more American wars for a while.

its simple who are the Dems to tell you who anyone thinks.
PROPOGANDA

But the senate is owned by he Reps now.


It wasn't before?

Gentopia Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlesburg
its simple who are the Dems to tell you who anyone thinks.
PROPOGANDA

But the senate is owned by he Reps now.




It wasn't before?
Ahh true i was thinking of Congress

Ahh true i was thinking of Congress
Didn't they own that before also...

Didn't they own that before also...
yeah, that they did, that they did...

yeah, that they did, that they did...
Glad to know our fine overseas friends make disparaging comments about our country and yet make so many errors in their "facts" :rolleyes:

Well, a year and a half ago, the Defense Department under Donald Rumsfeld started reactivating draft boards and asking for volunteers to serve on them should they become necessary. I requested and received an application to serve on one. Hearst Newspapers (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/03/13/MNG905K1BC1.DTL) reported on a special skills draft back in March, as well.

So contrary to what the Republicans would have you believe, some sort of draft has been discussed by the administration, and it seems to me in more than just theoretical terms. All the more reason for you to get started with that conscientious objector work, so you'll have a case when you go before the board.

So contrary to what the Republicans would have you believe, some sort of draft has been discussed by the administration, and it seems to me in more than just theoretical terms. All the more reason for you to get started with that conscientious objector work, so you'll have a case when you go before the board.

Or just get really fat. Either way.

Still to put a positive spin on the terror, for a lot of Americans it will be a good chance to go abroad and see the World, get fit, and learn about other cultures. For a lot of people, especially all the people without jobs after the last 4 years, the Military is a good option for getting their college education grant and maybe some skills (of course despite the advice given to you by your Sergeant that machine gun course should never be put on your civvie resume). That and get to relate to the next series of War movies to be released in a few years.

The US ground forces are extremely stretched out, coming out from the post-Cold War cut backs of the Clinton years to the hefty demands of the Bush regime. The US has a ton of nuclear submarines and attack jets, but what is really needed for operations like Iraq is peacekeepers, engineers, medical personnel, logistics, and proper armoured escort. Some of those Reserve units in Iraq right now are poorly equipped for the mission.

It’s to the point that their parents back in the US have had to shell out for radios and other kit at home to equip their loved ones with, because otherwise they’ll have no radios or night vision kit. Their Humvees are slowly getting armour refits to meet the demands of hostiles trying to blow them up all the time, but these armour refits don’t armour the bottom of the vehicle against the radio controlled explosive mines being used against them. I tell you right now it has never sucked more to be in the Service Battalion/Logistics as it is now in Iraq, where they constitute the juiciest targets for insurgents. It’s no wonder they have had at least one convoy disobey orders and refuse to go out.

I’m used to the Canadian army having to fill the bottom of their jeeps on patrol with sandbags and hoping for the best, but didn’t think the richest army in the World would be put in that position. They need their IFV (Bradleys) and they need them now. Humvees aren’t meant to take the role of armoured recce and convoy defence. I'm hoping that they'll at least address the problems of the guy on the ground, while they're obsessing about protecting the Oil Company's newly won holdings.

The Bruce

Glad to know our fine overseas friends make disparaging comments about our country and yet make so many errors in their "facts" :rolleyes:

I some countries people are not so nationalistic as ... well I don't like nationalism anyway, It seems as though certains like George w. Bush, use it to manipulate people and gain more power.

for a lot of Americans it will be a good chance to go abroad and see the World, get fit, and learn about other cultures.


It will also be a good chance to get oneself killed. There is a war at the moment ;)


but what is really needed for operations like Iraq is peacekeepers, engineers, medical personnel, logistics, and proper armoured escort. Some of those Reserve units in Iraq right now are poorly equipped for the mission.


Also actual international support, which would mean a United nations initiated campaign, or a deemed necessary one (ie. legitimate; eg: America is attacked/invaded directly with no warning)(note that war should be the last resort not the first)

Glad to know our fine overseas friends make disparaging comments about our country and yet make so many errors in their "facts" :rolleyes:

HAh what the dickens im sure i heard the Demos owned one of the two but oh well.

Yep just friends

[QUOTE]The US ground forces are extremely stretched out, coming out from the post-Cold War cut backs of the Clinton years to the hefty demands of the Bush regime. The US has a ton of nuclear submarines and attack jets, but what is really needed for operations like Iraq is peacekeepers, engineers, medical personnel, logistics, and proper armoured escort. Some of those Reserve units in Iraq right now are poorly equipped for the mission.
Yep you can bomb the shitte out of the sand but if you dont have anyone to take the ground what use is it?
It’s to the point that their parents back in the US have had to shell out for radios and other kit at home to equip their loved ones with, because otherwise they’ll have no radios or night vision kit. Their Humvees are slowly getting armour refits to meet the demands of hostiles trying to blow them up all the time, but these armour refits don’t armour the bottom of the vehicle against the radio controlled explosive mines being used against them. I tell you right now it has never sucked more to be in the Service Battalion/Logistics as it is now in Iraq, where they constitute the juiciest targets for insurgents. It’s no wonder they have had at least one convoy disobey orders and refuse to go out.
Those Hummers are getting any scrap of metal welded on quite sad really.
I’m used to the Canadian army having to fill the bottom of their jeeps on patrol with sandbags and hoping for the best, but didn’t think the richest army in the World would be put in that position. They need their IFV (Bradleys) and they need them now. Humvees aren’t meant to take the role of armoured recce and convoy defence. I'm hoping that they'll at least address the problems of the guy on the ground, while they're obsessing about protecting the Oil Company's newly won holdings.

The Bruce
Thats exactly what i thought they(Hummers) are ideal scouts but theyre not sit and wait vehicles theyll get chewed out like stuffing in a turkey.

and if hard evidence were found that proved Iran was not only preparing a nuclear bonb, but also supporting a terrorist organization with irrefutable proven concrete plans to smuggle one in to New Yerk, Boston, LA, SF and Chicago then detonate them simultaniously on 1/1/2006.

Would you then be ready to join? WOuld you support a draft? Or would you protest and move to Canada?

and if hard evidence were found that proved Iran was not only preparing a nuclear bonb, but also supporting a terrorist organization with irrefutable proven concrete plans

Would you then be ready to join? WOuld you support a draft?

and if hard evidence were found that proved Saddam was not only preparing WMD, but also supporting Al-Quaeda with irrefutable proven concrete plans to use WMD on 1/1/2006....and what if they tell you that Iran is ready to deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes.

Would you then be ready to join? WOuld you support a draft?

I have heard Kerry supporters say that if Bush wins he will bring back the draft, and I also heard Bush supporters say that if Kerry wins, then he is going to bring back the draft. I dont think that either will bring back the draft.

Which brings me to the subject of draft dodgers. I hate them. I have heard several people say that if the draft comes back that they are going to go to Canada. Well good I hope you go there and NEVER come back to the US. Because if you arent willing to get drafted and fight for your country and its freedoms, then you dont need to live here and get the freedoms of the US.

... if you arent willing to.... fight for your country and its freedoms. I am VERY willing...are you?

I am VERY willing...are you?

Yes I am. I plan on going to college and then going in the Air Force for probably about 20 years or so.

Yes I am. I plan on going to college and then going in the Air Force .....Texas Air National Guard? :D

Texas Air National Guard? :D
Oooooh, burn. :D

... if you arent willing to.... fight for your country and its freedoms.BTW...Al-Sadr and his men are not going to wait 4 years of college(or a safe Air force opening)...they are on the Ground...giving thier lives as we speak...

I have heard Kerry supporters say that if Bush wins he will bring back the draft, and I also heard Bush supporters say that if Kerry wins, then he is going to bring back the draft. I dont think that either will bring back the draft.

Which brings me to the subject of draft dodgers. I hate them. I have heard several people say that if the draft comes back that they are going to go to Canada. Well good I hope you go there and NEVER come back to the US. Because if you arent willing to get drafted and fight for your country and its freedoms, then you dont need to live here and get the freedoms of the US.

The freedoms of the US? I thought a draft was one of the most freedom-violating things a government could do. I hate war, am physicially weak (although not especially unfit) and, for some strange reason, do not wish to be shot and killed. My desire to fight in a war equates to about zero. I'd rather serve time. Any country claiming to be 'free' would not institute a draft.

Mikorlias of Imardeavia

The freedoms of the US? I thought a draft was one of the most freedom-violating things a government could do. I hate war, am physicially weak (although not especially unfit) and, for some strange reason, do not wish to be shot and killed. My desire to fight in a war equates to about zero. I'd rather serve time. Any country claiming to be 'free' would not institute a draft.

Mikorlias of Imardeavia


America is very free and anyone who doesnt think so should live in another country besides canada, a country in europe and australia for a year and come back. they will realize fast exactly how good the american life is. Freedom does have a price, every hear of the phrase that nothing is free. Freedom isnt free either, not in this crazy world we live in. if you want to live in freedom for the majority of your life and want other to also live in freedom i dont think it hurts to spend 4 years to protect that freedom.
its not mandatory but to me it is highly respected, i respect any man that has served his country.

On a personal level I might not mind a draft, since I did try to volunteer to get into the military after all. If the nation needs manpower badly enough to institute a draft I assume they can also live with a volunteer who has a bad leg.

Of course, the odds of there being a draft without a direct threat to America are pretty low. Maybe if Canada, Mexico, the EU, China, and Russia all declared war on the US we would get a draft, assuming the governments of those states did not all immediately get overthrown by saner elements.

The military actually turns down a fair number of volunteers simply because the military has high standards. Presumably they would lower their standards for what volunteers they would accept before going to the extreme of a draft.

Besides, the military does not want a draft in any case. As one of my friends once explained it, how would you like it if one day you had half the city showed with absolutely no training to "help" you do your job?

Yes I am. I plan on going to college and then going in the Air Force for probably about 20 years or so.

Cant you get to Uni thru the Military?

The weekly re-incarnation of this....

So then, I ask you, aside from rumor, hearsay, and vicious slander, does anyone have any real evidence that the Republicans are planning a draft?

Nope. None at all. And (as you might have guessed from my comment above) it's been discussed here about once a week for quite sometime. No-one has ever been able to come up with any evidence either party intends to institute a draft. Ever again.

And Kerry's the one who had the plan to add 40,000 more troops were he elected. Where did he plan to get those troops?

Easy. There is a congressional cap on military personnel levels (the USAF has had to drop 15,000 members and the Army had to get a special bill passed to allow for a temporary incresae by 20,000 for administrative purposes), plus pay is way too low and re-enlistments are being cut back (due to the cap). Increase the cap, increase base pay, and increase re-enlistment bonuses (especially for needed skills). The only hard part is getting all this through congress.


Still to put a positive spin on the terror, for a lot of Americans it will be a good chance to go abroad and see the World, get fit, and learn about other cultures. For a lot of people, especially all the people without jobs after the last 4 years, the Military is a good option for getting their college education grant and maybe some skills

Plus the retention of trained personnel who see the current WOT as a chance to finally do their job for real.

(of course despite the advice given to you by your Sergeant that machine gun course should never be put on your civvie resume). That and get to relate to the next series of War movies to be released in a few years.

:) All other things being equal, I'm hiring the guy who has the balls to put that on his resume. Too bad I'm not in the personnel department.

The US ground forces are extremely stretched out, coming out from the post-Cold War cut backs of the Clinton years to the hefty demands of the Bush regime. The US has a ton of nuclear submarines and attack jets, but what is really needed for operations like Iraq is peacekeepers, engineers, medical personnel, logistics, and proper armoured escort. Some of those Reserve units in Iraq right now are poorly equipped for the mission.

It’s to the point that their parents back in the US have had to shell out for radios and other kit at home to equip their loved ones with, because otherwise they’ll have no radios or night vision kit. Their Humvees are slowly getting armour refits to meet the demands of hostiles trying to blow them up all the time, but these armour refits don’t armour the bottom of the vehicle against the radio controlled explosive mines being used against them. I tell you right now it has never sucked more to be in the Service Battalion/Logistics as it is now in Iraq, where they constitute the juiciest targets for insurgents. It’s no wonder they have had at least one convoy disobey orders and refuse to go out.

I’m used to the Canadian army having to fill the bottom of their jeeps on patrol with sandbags and hoping for the best, but didn’t think the richest army in the World would be put in that position. They need their IFV (Bradleys) and they need them now. Humvees aren’t meant to take the role of armoured recce and convoy defence. I'm hoping that they'll at least address the problems of the guy on the ground, while they're obsessing about protecting the Oil Company's newly won holdings.

Yes! I've said it before when this topic comes up, but a number of bad ideas need to be cut and the funds plowed into training and equipment, for ground units. The support by this (and previous administrations, but especially this one) for the faster, lighter, more high tech crowd (the so-called "jedi knights") at the expense of the "heavy metal" crowd has directly contributed to the mess in Iraq. If only the ground forces had started out with sufficient numbers of troops and Gavins and Bradleys instead of Strykers and Hummers... :mad:

(And better yet if we'd stuck on target, but that's a whole other mess of catfish.)

America is very free and anyone who doesnt think so should live in another country besides canada, a country in europe and australia for a year and come back. they will realize fast exactly how good the american life is. Freedom does have a price, every hear of the phrase that nothing is free. Freedom isnt free either, not in this crazy world we live in. if you want to live in freedom for the majority of your life and want other to also live in freedom i dont think it hurts to spend 4 years to protect that freedom.
its not mandatory but to me it is highly respected, i respect any man that has served his country.

Freedom isn't free? What is that meant to mean? Is it just 'dom' then?
Seriously, America isn't so free. In England we don't get arrested for making video tapes of Disneyland holidays. In New Zealand women are just as free to become politicians and party leaders as men are, people not having any sort of social bias either way. In Holland, homosexuals can get married, without threat of a constitutional admendment (or equivalent) banning them from doing so. So don't give me any lectures on the amazing freedoms of the American life, they are simply a popular myth.

Mikorlias of Imardeavia.

That bill was drafted (no pun intended) by Democrats and those who did it didn't even vote for it.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.163:
But it was just a publicity gimmick to:
1. Highlight the fact that the draft was being discussed, albeit theoretically, by Rumsfield et al;
2. Give the Dems a chance at accussing GOP of flip-flopping if they ever did propose a draft.

If there is a draft, it'll be brought by dems who want to punish the "stupid" people who elected Bush.

No, there will not be a draft. Period. Congress, as noted before, has shown that they won't pass it. Besides, a draft would be political suicide for the entire Republican party.

Okay, so I'm a college student and for the past several months, the college Dems have been telling me that if Bush is reelected, they'll draft me. A lot of people are wearing those "Draft Beer, Not Us" T-shirts which, while amusing, are not compelling in changing a vote. Now I'm still being told I'll be drafted, but I've yet to see any actual evidence that Bush is planning a draft.

So then, I ask you, aside from rumor, hearsay, and vicious slander, does anyone have any real evidence that the Republicans are planning a draft? As I recall, a few weeks ago, the Republicans in the House of Reps decided to finally kill a bill that would reinstate the draft that had been sitting there for a while. Everyone but two Democrats voted against the bill. So where are people getting this idea that Bush is going to make a draft? Just because we're at war doesn't mean he's going to draft people. And even if he did want a draft, it'd have to pass through the Senate, and they've shown they won't support it. And Kerry's the one who had the plan to add 40,000 more troops were he elected. Where did he plan to get those troops?

Forgive me if I sound skeptical, but no one's actually giving me any remotely solid evidence that there will be a draft.

I seriously doubt there will be a draft, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. Especially with our shortage of troops.

If there is a draft, it'll be brought by dems who want to punish the "stupid" people who elected Bush.

Bullshit. And that's a flame.

[QUOTE=Demented Hamsters]2. Give the Dems a chance at accussing GOP of flip-flopping if they [QUOTE]

Dude, Bush flip-flopped too mant times to count. Kerry is just caught at it. Look at going from "Am3ri(a pwnz 4ll" to a leader of a coalition after 9/11, only later to flip-flop back to "Am3ri(a pwnz 4ll" again

Just one example for you.

[QUOTE=Demented Hamsters]2. Give the Dems a chance at accussing GOP of flip-flopping if they [QUOTE]

Dude, Bush flip-flopped too mant times to count. Kerry is just caught at it. Look at going from "Am3ri(a pwnz 4ll" to a leader of a coalition after 9/11, only later to flip-flop back to "Am3ri(a pwnz 4ll" again

Just one example for you.

Yeah. Bush has had his share of flip flops also. The Bush campaign was just successfully able to paint kerry as a flip flopper and kerry wasnt able to do it in return. Gotta admit it to Bush, he's a master of campaigning.

First of all, I agree that the first draft bill was to illuminate the true problem in Iraq: there are not enough troops to do the job, and the plan was not fully thought out. (I reference a recent article in which it was revealed the presentation slide concerning the post-war Iraq plan simply stated "To be Determined.") This was intended to make people realize that the military is in over their heads. They cannot hope to fight the battles that are currently occuring on an everyday basis, especially not when the Afghanistan conflict is still going on. They need more troops, but they do not have the sheer numbers to properly do the job. Placing a bill in Congress about a draft would force people to take a closer look at the number of troops needed vs what are available, and question where the numbers to make up the difference would come from.

Second: To commit to a draft would be politically suicidal. Not only would people of the generation eligible for the draft protest, so would a good number of their parents' generation. Can you recreate in your minds the protests of the 1960s doubled in size?

Third: Untrained persons entering a combat zone is not the smartest thing to do. The leaders in charge want to avoid a heavy body count (see point 2) in order to hold onto the power they have won.

Does this mean that there is no chance of a draft? No, and it is foolish to think that something is impossible. Steps have begun however to keep the troops they have from leaving (Back-end drafts, higher re-enlistment bonuses, to sheer intimidation in some cases in rural areas in the south). And for those thinking about going to Canada or University to avoid the draft, measures have been put in place there too. The US and Canada have agreed to track down draft dodgers, and you are allowed one semsester deferment now, not until graduation. These stop-gate measures are, unfortunately temporary at best, as they will not stop the current crisis.

For at the heart of the matter is the simple fact no matter how many US troops pour into Iraq, they will always face opposition. These forces come from either native Iraquis who do not wish to see their way of life forced into an image of USAcceptability, or reinforcements from neighboring countries who do not want to see yet another large area in the region become a staging area for US influence. This reason is one of the many reasons the region is hostile to the nation of Isael; a second nation that is very simpathetic to the US is something that many groups in the area would rather not have. So the only option is to keep fighting odds that will never go away, get intense international support (more than just the Brits et.al.) or go home. I'm betting on option 2, followed by option 3 should they get nothing from the international community. But hey, that's just me.

So, as my mother is oft to say, 'Take things one step at a time, one day at atime.' Yes, the big bad draft boards may start up again soon. And at any time the military may look at the population and say "You! You've studied _______, you have at least the basic skills to serve in this department, now go!" And it could very well be tomorrow, or a year from now. Will that change the fact it will happen? Nope. So either you worry about it happening, or just say "meh" and keep on living. Me, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

There will be no draft.

Anyone who believes that there will be a draft as of this point is a moron.

Bush has emphasized that there will not be one. There are so many reasons why not to do it.

Anyone who believes that there will be a draft as of this point is a moron.

Bush has emphasized that there will not be one. There are so many reasons why not to do it.
:D

Okay, so I'm a college student and for the past several months, the college Dems have been telling me that if Bush is reelected, they'll draft me. A lot of people are wearing those "Draft Beer, Not Us" T-shirts which, while amusing, are not compelling in changing a vote. Now I'm still being told I'll be drafted, but I've yet to see any actual evidence that Bush is planning a draft.

So then, I ask you, aside from rumor, hearsay, and vicious slander, does anyone have any real evidence that the Republicans are planning a draft? As I recall, a few weeks ago, the Republicans in the House of Reps decided to finally kill a bill that would reinstate the draft that had been sitting there for a while. Everyone but two Democrats voted against the bill. So where are people getting this idea that Bush is going to make a draft? Just because we're at war doesn't mean he's going to draft people. And even if he did want a draft, it'd have to pass through the Senate, and they've shown they won't support it. And Kerry's the one who had the plan to add 40,000 more troops were he elected. Where did he plan to get those troops?

Forgive me if I sound skeptical, but no one's actually giving me any remotely solid evidence that there will be a draft.

Well, I heard from my parents that Bush would want to reinstate the draft, and it's already turned out that high schools must give information to military recruiters unless you sign a form saying otherwise. Of course, this could have already been the case and I wouldn't know, since I just started my freshman year. Anyway, you are right, it would have to go through the Senate, and I'm impressed that the Republicans are all opposing it - but my worry is that Congress will be stupid again and pass something really general again, like giving Bush the power to "defend our country by any means necessary." That's basically what they did with the Iraq war, by giving him advace permission "if necessary." Hopefully they learn from that mistake, but considering that any politician who changes their views in the slightest is now labeled a flip-flopper, I'm pessimistic.

I think they've always given information to the military. It doesn't have anything to do with the draft, though. The Army will call you a couple of times telling you about all the money for college you can get for joining the Army, then the Navy will call you a couple of times and tell you pretty much the same thing. You'll probably get a couple of letters in the mail too. That's pretty much it. I think the Army used to send you a shaver or something, but I think they've stopped that now (budget cuts probably).

They don't worry about the draft until you're 18 when you have to register (I think you have six months or so after you turn 18). That's nothing new either.

I think they've always given information to the military. It doesn't have anything to do with the draft, though. The Army will call you a couple of times telling you about all the money for college you can get for joining the Army, then the Navy will call you a couple of times and tell you pretty much the same thing. You'll probably get a couple of letters in the mail too. That's pretty much it. I think the Army used to send you a shaver or something, but I think they've stopped that now (budget cuts probably).

They don't worry about the draft until you're 18 when you have to register (I think you have six months or so after you turn 18). That's nothing new either.

register for what?

register for what?

Selective sevice. You get a number or something.

Highly dubious that a draft will be reinstated, but never say never folks. I say go for it, but the sons and daughters of our politicians and those families who benefitted most by Bush's tax cuts have to go first and serve on the front lines. Yeah, Right! Like that would ever happen. :headbang:

BTW, this is from someone who was denied active duty after three years in NJROTC in High School and scored in the top percent of his ASVAB's due to "a refractive error of greater than 8.00 in either or both eyes". Hell, I even tried to get an exception made so I could enlist. I'll never forget the guy at the MEP's station who told me, "yeah, you can't serve voluntarily but if there's ever a draft you can still get in that way." then laughed. F'ing prick!

The freedoms of the US? I thought a draft was one of the most freedom-violating things a government could do.

You thought right.

Sometimes it may be necessary for governments to raise armies and call forth the milita to protect. But if men don't come willingly they should not be forced taken at gunpoint. Whether they're right or wrong they'll get what they deserve. If the people are not willing to pay the price for freedom, they will lose it. OTOH, if they recognize that the necessity of war is an illusion (as it usually is), they will retain both their freedom and their lives.

No, there will not be a draft. Period. Congress, as noted before, has shown that they won't pass it. Besides, a draft would be political suicide for the entire Republican party.

There will be a draft. Period. It will be bi-partisan.

Anyone who believes that there will be a draft as of this point is a moron.

Bush has emphasized that there will not be one. There are so many reasons why not to do it.

You should never believe something because the President says it.
Whenever a politician, especially a head of state, emphatically states something, the safe bet is that the total opposite is true.

"I am not a crook"
"...read my lips, no new taxes"
"I did not have sex with that woman."

Well, since Bush has been elected for the 2nd time means he can't recontest the 2008 election. If he puts in the draft now, the next republican candidate has to wear the flak and not him.

Well, since Bush has been elected for the 2nd time means he can't recontest the 2008 election. If he puts in the draft now, the next republican candidate has to wear the flak and not him.
I think it's more likely that the Congress will take the heat for it than whoever the next candidate is, unless that candidate came from Congress instead of a statehouse.

I think it's more likely that the Congress will take the heat for it than whoever the next candidate is, unless that candidate came from Congress instead of a statehouse.

Either way, Bush retires to his ranch rich and someone else has bear the burden of implementing his draft in the future whether it be a Republican or Democrat. Of course, Bush is an expert consultant to anyone who wants dodge the draft.

DELETE * FROM DRAFT_REGISTRATIONS WHERE Republican_Parents = TRUE

…and it's already turned out that high schools must give information to military recruiters unless you sign a form saying otherwise. Of course, this could have already been the case and I wouldn't know, since I just started my freshman year…At least in New York state high schools always had to give out that information to recruiters. In fact, the ability to sign a form that prevents the school from giving out the information is what is new. (I was on a School Board for seven years)

...So where are people getting this idea that Bush is going to make a draft? Just because we're at war doesn't mean he's going to draft people...People are thinking this because there aren't enough soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen(women) to go around right now. While some highly respected military strategists (these guys who are retired "General This" or "Colonel That" and get bunches of bucks to spend ten seconds telling the world all about the military on one tv/radio station or another) believe that the US has enough service members in Iraq to "do the job", some other highly respected...believe the US does not have enough service members in Iraq to "do the job". At the same time, we have military commitments in Afghanistan, Korea, Bosnia, NATO, etc, etc...to the point where the US is now required to continually have well over 100,000 reservists (National Guard or Reserve) mobilized at all times. The general consensus of opinion is that the reserve forces can't keep that up forever. There are many different opinions on how long they can, but no one really thinks it can go on forever. Because, eventually, the reservists will "get out" of the service, and while recruiting for most of the military services met their goals this year, the National Guard and Reserve did not.

That generates talk about how are "they" going to get enough people into the service. And that's where the talk about a new draft started, and what lead to the bill to start the draft up again (which did get voted down), and where the discussion about Congress increasing the authorized size of the Army (Marines, Navy, Air Force) came from.

I think they've always given information to the military. It doesn't have anything to do with the draft, though. The Army will call you a couple of times telling you about all the money for college you can get for joining the Army, then the Navy will call you a couple of times and tell you pretty much the same thing. You'll probably get a couple of letters in the mail too. That's pretty much it. I think the Army used to send you a shaver or something, but I think they've stopped that now (budget cuts probably).

They don't worry about the draft until you're 18 when you have to register (I think you have six months or so after you turn 18). That's nothing new either.Correct. Except each service still has a variety of “give aways” for the recruiters to use. (I'm also the father of 3 sons (24, 19, 17) and I’ve been in the military for 28 years) Budget cuts don’t usually affect the funds used for recruiting (of those 28 years, 16 have been as a financial manager for the military)

register for what? Register for the Selective Service. All men who reach the age of 18 are still required to register for the Selective Service. That is the agency that would run a Conscription System (Draft) if one were authorized by Congress. When the Draft was stopped years ago, registration was NOT stopped. It isn’t new, it is still required. And IF there were a draft, they don’t do it by assigned numbers anymore – the draft stopped using numbers, and started using birthdays, back in the Vietnam era.

BTW, this is from someone who was denied active duty after three years in NJROTC in High School and scored in the top percent of his ASVAB's due to "a refractive error of greater than 8.00 in either or both eyes". Hell, I even tried to get an exception made so I could enlist. I'll never forget the guy at the MEP's station who told me, "yeah, you can't serve voluntarily but if there's ever a draft you can still get in that way." then laughed. First, the twit at MEPS has no idea if you would be eligible under a Draft. If a draft were authorized, then there would be a set of standards established to determine who was/wasn’t qualified for military service under it. There are no current standards – he could only have been using the standards that used to exist – and they might be the same, and they might not, for a new draft.

Second – take that as a lesson about military recruiters. Don’t trust ‘em as far as you can throw the state of Kansas. Oh – you can’t throw the state of Kansas?

FINALLY - There is no draft right now. That does not mean there won’t be one, but there is none now. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and bunch said there won’t be one. Personally, I trust them about as far as I can throw the state of Kansas…

It’s my impractical opinion that ALL the lunatics who decide we have to go to war (President, members of Congress who vote in favor, etc.) should immediately resign and be enlisted in the Army, given the exact same training they give to other soldiers (specifically the ones who receive the least training), equipped with the exact same equipment that other soldiers get (specifically the ones who receive the least equipment), and sent to participate in the war they decided to have.

Forgive me if I sound skeptical, but no one's actually giving me any remotely solid evidence that there will be a draft.

As far as I know. There is no 'Plan' to have a draft. It's something that both parties are actively trying to avoid, as it amounts to political suicide. There are no secret conspiracies by the Bushies or the Dem's to institute this the day after inauguration or any other ludicrous conspiracy theory.

However. The US military is stretched to its limits. Nearly every military expert is saying that if things get worse in Iraq, Afghanistan, or if another 'enemy' pops up or into the fray somehow (like Iran, Syria, or N Korea) we are currently in no way capable of handling it. Even if a surge of nationalism increased the volunteer rate by 100% (which won't happen) we still wouldn't have the manpower to accomplish any goals. Some are saying that even if things say the same our current goals/conditions are not sustainable.

This means that the administration (and if Kerry had won, his administration would have faced the same thing) is facing a tough choice. Unless things get much better in a damn hurry, they are going to have to do something drastic. Right now, there isn't a way we can afford to increase recruitment capital without raising taxes. There isn't anyway we are going to get international support unless Bush decides to do some serious diplomatic fellatio. And the other option is a draft.

I am not saying that one of those is definately going to happen. I only think it's about a 30-50% chance so far. However, if Iraq/Afghanistan erupts into Civil War (both possible) or if Iran or Syria decide to get involved, or a new terrorist attack inside the US gives us a new target, it will grow to be a 100% chance. Given there record, which option do you think this administration is most likely to take? I would hope for the best but plan for the worst if I were you.

Either way, Bush retires to his ranch rich and someone else has bear the burden of implementing his draft in the future whether it be a Republican or Democrat. Of course, Bush is an expert consultant to anyone who wants dodge the draft.

DELETE * FROM DRAFT_REGISTRATIONS WHERE Republican_Parents = TRUEIn all fairness, while I personally dislike Bush and voted against him, it was very common during the Vietnam era for young men to get into the National Guard to avoid being drafted into the regular Army. The Guard did not go to Vietnam. There were very, very, long waiting lists in those days for each and every National Guard unit.

It isn't that he (Bush) was in the National Guard and therefore avoided being drafted into "regular" service that angers people. It's the probability that he went further, and did not even attend all the required Inactive Duty Training Periods (drills) he was required to attend.

(note - i say 'probability' to avoid discussing whether he was, or was not, actually AWOL from a number of drills. please don't try to drag me into that discussion. i won't.)

...Right now, there isn't a way we can afford to increase recruitment capital without raising taxes...Pithica: First, I pretty much agree with everything you said that I left out of this quote.

Second - the military Recruiting and Retention capital (accounts) have been increased in each of the past couple of years by more than the rate of inflation.

Pithica: First, I pretty much agree with everything you said that I left out of this quote.

Thanks.

Second - the military Recruiting and Retention capital (accounts) have been increased in each of the past couple of years by more than the rate of inflation.

And deficits continue to climb. If you want to increase enlistment, I can't see any way other than to increase the benefits of doing so. Increasing those benefits (as increasing any level of spending) should require a matching increase in taxation. To do otherwise is just bad accounting.

Register for the Selective Service. All men who reach the age of 18 are still required to register for the Selective Service. That is the agency that would run a Conscription System (Draft) if one were authorized by Congress. When the Draft was stopped years ago, registration was NOT stopped. It isn’t new, it is still required. And IF there were a draft, they don’t do it by assigned numbers anymore – the draft stopped using numbers, and started using birthdays, back in the Vietnam era.

FINALLY - There is no draft right now. That does not mean there won’t be one, but there is none now. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and bunch said there won’t be one. Personally, I trust them about as far as I can throw the state of Kansas…

Thanks
its kind of sneaky/a just in case scenario
I knew about B'day's but not that you personally had to register thought the evil eye already had your details.

It’s my impractical opinion that ALL the lunatics who decide we have to go to war (President, members of Congress who vote in favor, etc.) should immediately resign and be enlisted in the Army, given the exact same training they give to other soldiers (specifically the ones who receive the least training), equipped with the exact same equipment that other soldiers get (specifically the ones who receive the least equipment), and sent to participate in the war they decided to have.
Thats the way i feel and if things go bad let them fall on their swords

Thanks
its kind of sneaky/a just in case scenario
I knew about B'day's but not that you personally had to register thought the evil eye already had your details.Yes - you can do it at the post office - see your high school guidance counselor before you turn 18 and ask 'em how/where. If you don't register, you aren't eligible for Federal Student Aid for college (which sucks, but it's how they have the system set up).

Thats the way i feel and if things go bad let them fall on their swordsRusty, dull, chipped swords.

Thanks.



And deficits continue to climb. If you want to increase enlistment, I can't see any way other than to increase the benefits of doing so. Increasing those benefits (as increasing any level of spending) should require a matching increase in taxation. To do otherwise is just bad accounting.Cost must always be less than or equal to the revenue stream (micro economics).

Governmental deficit spending provides for job growth, resulting in a broader tax base, thus increasing the revenue stream and "paying for" the deficit spending (macro economic theory)

As I recall, a few weeks ago, the Republicans in the House of Reps decided to finally kill a bill that would reinstate the draft that had been sitting there for a while. Everyone but two Democrats voted against the bill.Yes, Jack Murtha, one of those two, is my congressman. And he was reelected unanimously, by many of the same people who bitched to me about the supposed Bush draft.

I'm seriously considering running for Congress in '06. Campaign slogan: "He won't enslave your children."

Cost must always be less than or equal to the revenue stream (micro economics).

Governmental deficit spending provides for job growth, resulting in a broader tax base, thus increasing the revenue stream and "paying for" the deficit spending (macro economic theory)

Yes, kenseyan (sp?) economic theory, as yet unproven, and always with a caveat of, "up until a certain level in spending or a certain length of time."

Going a few percentage points over budget for a year or two to bounce out of a recession or level out a depression works. Heck, even small businesses and individuals often go in the red to increase profits down the road (I.E. a student loan). Do it for longer than your credit holds out, or to the point that you can no longer afford your debt payments and you file for chapter 11. Except that when governments do it, it isn't exactly a fun prospect for its citizens.

The trend so far with this administration has been one of long term and extreme deficit, and specifically pork-barrel spending. The recruitment thing is certainly what I would consider a legitimate expense, but about 70% of the budget right now isn't. Eventually a straw is going to break the camels back.

Yes, kenseyan (sp?) economic theory, as yet unproven, and always with a caveat of, "up until a certain level in spending or a certain length of time."

Going a few percentage points over budget for a year or two to bounce out of a recession or level out a depression works. Heck, even small businesses and individuals often go in the red to increase profits down the road (I.E. a student loan). Do it for longer than your credit holds out, or to the point that you can no longer afford your debt payments and you file for chapter 11. Except that when governments do it, it isn't exactly a fun prospect for its citizens.

The trend so far with this administration has been one of long term and extreme deficit, and specifically pork-barrel spending. The recruitment thing is certainly what I would consider a legitimate expense, but about 70% of the budget right now isn't. Eventually a straw is going to break the camels back.Couldn't agree more. A little deficit goes a long way. Too long a way, most often.

There will be a draft. Period. It will be bi-partisan.

Nope. In fact right now the military is downsizing due to congressional restraints. Also remember that the "peace dividend" round of downsizing more than halved the military's personnel. The US military employeed 3 million people - all volunteers. They now have 1.4 million.

The only thing keeping down troop levels right now is congresses unwillingness to pay.

In fact, congresses unwillingness to pay is the exact reason for the recalling of inactive reserves. There is a loophole that the army is exploiting - recalled inactive reservists aren't counted towards the active duty strength ceilings.

In addition, the modern military does not need or want conscripts, because they need and want motivated personnel who can be trained in today's high tech and sophisticated military standards. It takes about 2 years to train up modern US military personnel. A two year draft would be a silly waste. A longer draft would still mean that the military won't be able to take in and train the draftees for about 3 years (the additional year is to actually set up and administer the process, and to in-process draftees).

So, in short, as someone said above:
Anyone who believes that there will be a draft as of this point is a moron.

There will be no draft. This is the democrats yellign that the sky is falling, all the while conpiring to bring down the sky.

There will be no draft.

I am getting very sick and tired about hearing this. This draft rumer was created by the Democratic National Commitee to scare people away from voting for Bush. Obviously, it did not work. But, even so, there is no need for a draft. The numbers for recruitment for our VOULENTARY military is actually up. Don't believe me? Here is an official government press release on the subject.


AFIS
Armed Forces Information Service


Rumsfeld: No Need for Draft; 'Disadvantages Notable'
By Kathleen T. Rhem
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7, 2003 -- The United States is not going to implement a military draft, because there is no need for it, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said today.

Rep. Charles Rangel said last week he was planning to introduce such legislation in the New Year. Rep. John Conyers Jr. has since expressed support.

"I believe that if those calling for war knew their children were more likely to be required to serve -- and to be placed in harm's way -- there would be more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq," Rangel wrote in a recent commentary in the New York Times.

Rumsfeld dismissed the notion out of hand during a Pentagon press briefing. "I don't know of anyone in this building or in the administration who thinks that anyone ought to go to war lightly," he said. "I know the president doesn't, and I know I don't."

The country doesn't need a draft because the all-volunteer force works -- in fact, the United States has the most effective military in the world precisely because it is all-volunteer, Joint Chiefs Chairman Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers said.

"(The all-volunteer force is) efficient; it's effective; it's given the United States of America, the citizens of this great country, a military that is second to none," Myers said.

"The people that are in the armed services today … are there because they want to be there and are ready and willing and, without any question, capable of doing whatever the president may ask," Rumsfeld added.

The secretary described "notable disadvantages" to having a conscripted force. He said people are involuntarily forced to serve, some for less than they could earn on the outside. There are many exemptions, which change all the time, thus providing for unfair situations. Troops are "churned" through training, serve the minimum amount of time and leave -- thus causing more money to be spent to churn more draftees through the system.

He also dismissed the notion that the all-volunteer force leads to a disproportionate number of blacks and other minorities being killed in battle.

"I do not know that that's historically correct," Rumsfeld said. "And I do not know that, even if it were historically correct, that it's correct today."

He and Myers kept coming back to their bottom line: America is better off for the force it has today.

"We have people serving today -- God bless 'em -- because they volunteered," Rumsfeld said. "They want to be doing what it is they're doing. And we're just lucky as a country that there are so many wonderfully talented young men and young women who each year step up and say, 'I'm ready; let me do that.'"


(Source: http://www.dod.gov/news/Jan2003/n01072003_200301074.html)

Nobody wants it - not the people, not the politicians, not the military (they now command the best fighting force in the history of mankind, and why would they want to get a bunch of poorly motivated young folks who'd much rather be elsewhere?!). Regardless of all that, draft was actually a peculiarity of the industrial era. Before that, most societies were so poor they could not afford huge armies, and primitive weapons were only effective in well trained hands (just think of a gazillion steps needed to load and fire a musket, especially if you want to actually hit the target - and compare it with the ease of operating a bolt action rifle), so armies were mostly professional (why do you think the kings preferred to hire Swiss mercenaries rather than draft a bunch of peasants?). In the industrial age it became possible to mass produce weapons and the weapons themselves became easy to operate (it also helped that people's education level had geatly increased) while the economy was productive enough to allow mass mobilization of the most productive men without widespread starvation, so mass draft became possible. But now we are in a postindustrial era. Weapons are getting much more complex and require a lot more training, and they also become a lot more expensive, so, paradoxically, even though we are much richer than in WWII it might actually be harder for us to equip the same number of troops AT OUR CURRENT STANDARDS (i.e. body armor, night vision, communications, transportation etc.), while building the same number of strategic bombers as in WWII would be outright impossible (and utterly unnecessary, thanks to the revolution in precision bombing). And, of course, the biggest problem is logistics. Our troops now require a huge amoung of cargo (particularly fuel) to be moved around, so in areas with poor infrastructure, i.e. outside North America and Western Europe (where nobody plans to fight in any foreseeable future) I think it's simply unfeasible to field more than a million or so troops in one theater of operations. So why would we need 30 million draftees?

I am getting very sick and tired about hearing this.

You and alot of other people. This has been posted about once a week for the couple of months, and is always de-bunked. But, like clockwork it pops up again about a week later. :rolleyes:

(And BTW, both parties used the threat of a draft imposed by their opponent as a scare tactic.

You and alot of other people. This has been posted about once a week for the couple of months, and is always de-bunked. But, like clockwork it pops up again about a week later. :rolleyes:

(And BTW, both parties used the threat of a draft imposed by their opponent as a scare tactic.
Then why did the Defense Department start funding and reactivating draft boards last year? And why did they remove the request the moment it started getting any press mention? I can testify to this personally, since I requested and received an application to serve on a draft board in the case the draft is implemented.

I'm not saying that it's imminent, or that it's even a done deal, but to act like there's no chance of it simply because those paragons of truth and virtue in the Bush administration say it won't happen. After all, they said there wouldn't be a 9/11 commission either, and that we would go into Iraq as a last resort. Trust them at your peril.

The numbers for recruitment for our VOULENTARY military is actually up. Don't believe me? Here is an official government press release on the subject.

...

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7, 2003 -- The United States is not going to implement a military draft, because there is no need for it, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said today.

Um, a press release from January 2003 (before the war started) isn't proof of anything. Things haven't quite gone according to plan since then.

And I'll leave it to each of you to decide how much faith to put in promises made by Donald Rumsfeld.

By the way, here's a story (http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/03/draft/) that backs up the story about the reactivation of the draft boards, complete with the link to the place on the .mil website where the request used to be. It dates to November 2003.

Then why did the Defense Department start funding and reactivating draft boards last year? And why did they remove the request the moment it started getting any press mention? I can testify to this personally, since I requested and received an application to serve on a draft board in the case the draft is implemented.

I'm not saying that it's imminent, or that it's even a done deal, but to act like there's no chance of it simply because those paragons of truth and virtue in the Bush administration say it won't happen. After all, they said there wouldn't be a 9/11 commission either, and that we would go into Iraq as a last resort. Trust them at your peril.

By the way, here's a story (http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/03/draft/) that backs up the story about the reactivation of the draft boards, complete with the link to the place on the .mil website where the request used to be. It dates to November 2003.

The Draft boards have been around since 1979. They have a 20 year term. The terms of many members have expired since 1999, and they are simply being replaced (albeit slowly). And note that I've said nothing about the current administration's policies.

The facts of the matter are:
1) Congress has a cap on military forces. They are unwilling to pay for voluenteers. They will not be willing to pay for conscripts.
2) The military is meeting and exceeding both it's recruiting and re-enlisment goals.
3) The military is tightening standards for enlistment and lowering re-enlistment bonuses.
4) The military is entierly capable of doubling or trebbling it's size in two years time, if authorized by congress.
5) Conscription is demonstrably harmful to the military and undesirable.

The facts of the matter are:
1) Congress has a cap on military forces. They are unwilling to pay for voluenteers. They will not be willing to pay for conscripts.
2) The military is meeting and exceeding both it's recruiting and re-enlisment goals.
3) The military is tightening standards for enlistment and lowering re-enlistment bonuses.
4) The military is entierly capable of doubling or trebbling it's size in two years time, if authorized by congress.
5) Conscription is demonstrably harmful to the military and undesirable.
The matter of fact is: conscription is always cheaper than a proffesional army. And it is only possible with conscription to get mass personal - if needed.
Conscription was also used during the Vietnam war period for that matter.
Given the current instability especially in the Middle East and the prospect of a confrontation with Iran - and a following occupation of Iran - the issue of draft could become an issue in order to get enough forces to secure Iraq and Iran.

4) The military is entierly capable of doubling or trebbling it's size in two years time, if authorized by congress.
I strongly doubt that.
5) Conscription is demonstrably harmful to the military and undesirable.
Ask your colleagues in Israel or any other country with the draft about it. They are going to tell you otherwise.

The Draft boards have been around since 1979. They have a 20 year term. The terms of many members have expired since 1999, and they are simply being replaced (albeit slowly). And note that I've said nothing about the current administration's policies.

The facts of the matter are:
1) Congress has a cap on military forces. They are unwilling to pay for voluenteers. They will not be willing to pay for conscripts.
2) The military is meeting and exceeding both it's recruiting and re-enlisment goals.
3) The military is tightening standards for enlistment and lowering re-enlistment bonuses.
4) The military is entierly capable of doubling or trebbling it's size in two years time, if authorized by congress.
5) Conscription is demonstrably harmful to the military and undesirable.um...
1. True - Congress has refused a request by the Department of Defense to increase the size of the Active Army.
2. Almost true - all components met/exceeded their goal for federal fiscal year 2004 (Oct 1st, 2003 thru Sep 30th, 2004) EXCEPT the Reserve forces.
3. Almost true - the military IS raising the standards for enlisting. But it is also raising enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses.
4. True - could probably do it quicker.
5. There is some truth to this - but, it (like most generalizations) is not true on the "by each" level. Some "draftees" make better soldiers than some volunteers.

2. Almost true - all components met/exceeded their goal for federal fiscal year 2004 (Oct 1st, 2003 thru Sep 30th, 2004) EXCEPT the Reserve forces.

Reserve enlistments are ok, but re-enlistments are down. This is mostly due to over reliance on the reserves, resulting in extended deployments. Yet another reason active duty forces should be increased.

3. Almost true - the military IS raising the standards for enlisting. But it is also raising enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses.

With retention so high that the Air Force is now over-strength, service officials are eliminating Selective Reenlistment Bonuses for three-fourths of currently eligible jobs.

The 2004 SRB list released by the Air Force this week has 42 specialties eligible for extra cash. The 2003 list, by contrast, offered bonuses in 146 specialties. (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_bonus_040204,00.html)

I strongly doubt that.

It's quite possible. Expensive and unlikely, but possible.

Ask your colleagues in Israel or any other country with the draft about it. They are going to tell you otherwise.

Different systems. Note that every industrial country's military using conscription is either planning to end it or is considering it. The only major exceptions are the special cases of Israel and Germany. And note that as the second Intafada goes on, refuseniks and desertions have risen drastically, primarilly among the conscripts and conscripted reservists.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,842992,00.html

Quote:
With retention so high that the Air Force is now over-strength, service officials are eliminating Selective Reenlistment Bonuses for three-fourths of currently eligible jobs.

The 2004 SRB list released by the Air Force this week has 42 specialties eligible for extra cash. The 2003 list, by contrast, offered bonuses in 146 specialties.
(http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_bonus_040204,00.html)

Not to belittle men in uniform, but that is the Airforce. Where men are most desperately needed in this conflict is the Army. This is the crux of our conversation, and the most likely target beneficiary of any draft.

Our current military as a whole is very capable of bombing the hell out of our enemy. We require no further increase in this capacity. What they are not equipped to handle is long-timetable deployments that require occupation in large stretches of hostile territory. The only thing that can give them this capacity is large numbers of kids with M-16s willing to stand somewhere and shoot anyone who isn't supposed to be there.

Of course, if that above quote could also be applied to the Army/Marine corpse, I would have to seriously question the wisdom of the current heads of state. (More than I already am.)

Not to belittle men in uniform, but that is the Airforce. Where men are most desperately needed in this conflict is the Army. This is the crux of our conversation, and the most likely target beneficiary of any draft.

Our current military as a whole is very capable of bombing the hell out of our enemy. We require no further increase in this capacity. What they are not equipped to handle is long-timetable deployments that require occupation in large stretches of hostile territory. The only thing that can give them this capacity is large numbers of kids with M-16s willing to stand somewhere and shoot anyone who isn't supposed to be there.

Of course, if that above quote could also be applied to the Army/Marine corpse, I would have to seriously question the wisdom of the current heads of state. (More than I already am.)

I refer you back to the point I was addressing:

3. Almost true - the military IS raising the standards for enlisting. But it is also raising enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses.

Also note the reason for the adjustments. The Air Force is overstaffed according to congress. (The Army is as well, but due to the ongoing reearraingement of the forces. Congress dealt with this by temorarily allowing the Army to exceed their caps. In 2002, reenlistment bonuses were suspended (http://www.military.com/MilitaryReport/0,12914,MR_Army_082602,00.html) due to reenlistment goals being exceeded.)

Also, simply filling uniforms is not a solution to anything. That's a solution from 50 years ago. Please note that the military has advanced well beyond that.

(And note: the difference between corpse (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=corpse) and corps (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=corps). I doubt the USMC is trying to re-enlist the dead. ;) )

I refer you back to the point I was addressing:

Also note the reason for the adjustments. The Air Force is overstaffed according to congress. (The Army is as well, but due to the ongoing reearraingement of the forces. Congress dealt with this by temorarily allowing the Army to exceed their caps. In 2002, reenlistment bonuses were suspended (http://www.military.com/MilitaryReport/0,12914,MR_Army_082602,00.html) due to reenlistment goals being exceeded.)

Your talking about 2002. It's almost 2005. It's been two years of hard war, 1000+ deaths, 7000+ woundings, the loss of several allies, and increases in resistence. The discussion is about the current state of the needs of the military, specifically the army, not what they needed in 2002.

Also, simply filling uniforms is not a solution to anything. That's a solution from 50 years ago. Please note that the military has advanced well beyond that.

Give me one example, or even one theory, of an occupation being successful without having troops on the ground maintaining the occupation. Just one. Tactics designed to destroy your opponent (current US military design/philosophy) do not work in an occupation.

Your talking about 2002. It's almost 2005. It's been two years of hard war, 1000+ deaths, 7000+ woundings, the loss of several allies, and increases in resistence. The discussion is about the current state of the needs of the military, specifically the army, not what they needed in 2002.

The point here remains that there is a congressional cap and the military has had to adjust bonuses downwards to keep forces within this cap. Note that in 2004 the Army was some 30,000 over the limit (due to the current reorganization) and only met their personnel budget with a special temporary exemption from congress.

Give me one example, or even one theory, of an occupation being successful without having troops on the ground maintaining the occupation. Just one. Tactics designed to destroy your opponent (current US military design/philosophy) do not work in an occupation.


:confused:

Where did I say we don't need boots on the ground? We need lots more if we want to succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq. However what we most emphatically do not need is a bunch of conscripts with minimal training - your "large numbers of kids with M-16s willing to stand somewhere and shoot anyone who isn't supposed to be there".

The kinds of "Other than War" ("occupation" if you wish) operations that the military undertakes today require highly trained people - civil affairs, engineers, intelligence analysts, etc., etc., etc. This training is vastly different from the solution you suggested above.

Different systems. Note that every industrial country's military using conscription is either planning to end it or is considering it. The only major exceptions are the special cases of Israel and Germany. And note that as the second Intafada goes on, refuseniks and desertions have risen drastically, primarilly among the conscripts and conscripted reservists.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,842992,00.html
One short adding for Germany: The Federal Republic offers an replacement service (social service - 10 months) for people who are refusing to serve out of their conscience. De facto people (males) who are deemed fit to serve (17% are considered not useable; further numbers are not needed) can chose between this service and the military service. A majority choses the social service actually.
But that has of course to do with the history of the Germany. In the past a very martial and even militaristic society with the capacities, today a very un-martialic society without many military capacities. And without heros - at least without positive one.
In other countries the situation would certainly be different. But one things need to be said: the German military wouldn´t need all possible conscripts. The Federal Republic is not in the situation Israel is and is not leading such an offensive foreign policy strategy as the United States is currently leading. Therefore it is actually not even talking all of those who would be willing to serve.
Secondly: it is clear, that those who are serving their 9-month term can not be used for foreign mission. But they take military responsibilites domestically - securing facilities, e.g. and are in that sense assisting also foreign missions. A military does not only need special forces and complex structures and works. It also needs people for the easier stuff. And that are things the draftees can be used and are used. And that makes more forces available for foreign missions for example.
And - that is also the experience in many countries - the draft attracts people into the military who would not have gone there otherwise. People who chose to serve longer (up till 23 months or up to 12 years) and who can be used for foreign missions.
It is the experience of countries who got rid of the draft that they have problems to attract enough personal (Spain) or to keep their military capacities (Netherlands). A so-called volunteer army is MUCH MORE EXPANSIVE than an army that also includes the draft (e.g.: German military: 195 full or time soldiers (12 years), around 60,000 conscripts for nine months, 20,000 voluntary service for up to 23 months.), since in order to attract personal you have to offer them market price pay. Given the strained financial sitution of many countries (both Europe and the US) the draft is a realistic option for countries to deal with the situation. Every nation has limitted financial resources, also the US. Therefore the rumours about the draft are a logical consequence of the situation.
All my assumption are going out from the position that a military confrontation between the US and Iran is imminent. For an occupation of Iran much more forces would be needed than for the occupation of Iraq. Iran is more than double the size and the population. And it actually could be argued that the number of troops in Iraq was enough to remove the regime but is not enough to really secure the country. Given that fact the issue of the draft could become imminent, if no other solution with Iran is found.

Now to Israel: Thanks for the link and now to the article:

"The Israeli Defence Force has been hit by a sharp rise in the number of desertions among its troops, according to an army report.
Military police are dealing with at least 40% more deserters than last year, the result of increasing numbers of reservists refusing to perform military service. One report put the increase as high as 67%."
If we speak about increases we are talking about relative numbers. For example: Country A with 100 million inhabitants has 100 murders in one year and in the next 167 it has an increase by 67%. That however is not saying anything about the security of that country, since that number (100 murders around 100 million citizens or 167 murderers would still be extremly low).

"Since the beginning of the intifada in 2000, the army has been forced to call up tens of thousands of reservists every month to conduct operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
It consists of 186,500 regular troops supplemented by a reserve force of 445,000."

"A report in the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, quoted military sources saying that as of last week, military police were dealing with 2,616 deserters compared with 1,564 last year. It also stated that reservists are now forced to serve an average of 33 days per year."
So, we are talking about 2000 deserters in a number out of 186,500 + 445,000 = 631,500.
That is much less than one percent. In the United States almost t 1% of the population sits in prison (2 million), tendency rising. What does that say?

"The deserters also include conscientious objectors who refuse to serve in the Occupied Territories although they are willing to serve within Israel's international borders."
So: out of the very tiny number of so-called deserters a huge amount do not object to serve within Israel or at Israels borders but within the occupied territories, because they think that certain orders they were given were not right or/and that the Israeli policy within those territories is outright wrong.
That would open the topic about a political discussion about the occupation policy of Israel.
There were also reports about US soldiers in Iraq for example who refused to guide a convoy or such things. So, obviously discipline problems can exist in any army. But given the numbers of Israel I have to say that those numbers are extremly low for an army in combat and can not be used as an argument against the draft.

Where did I say we don't need boots on the ground? We need lots more if we want to succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq. However what we most emphatically do not need is a bunch of conscripts with minimal training - your "large numbers of kids with M-16s willing to stand somewhere and shoot anyone who isn't supposed to be there".

Where did I say we should just ship people over? If anything, the people already there need more training. Anyone that wants to just grab 18 year olds and throw them at a problem is dangerously stupid. Perhaps I gave the wrong impression with that last quote, it was flippant, I'll admit. The word "kids" should be considered to mean "young, strong, smart, and highly trained soldiers". Despite any impression you have to the contrary, it is quite possible to get those with selective service conscription.

The fact is that more people, and specifically, more people with both police style training, anti-terrorism training, civilian disposition training, and specifically people capable of better integrating with the Iraqi culture are needed. We cannot get those people without A) drastically changing recruitment policies, or B) Bringing in more allies, or C) Drafting and training the people needed to do the job.