BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress

Subject: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Sep 04 - 09:49 PM

There is a bill making its way through the Senate and the House of Representatives, which essentially is a return of the DRAFT. No surprise there, I just hope they try it BEFORE the election. Unfortunately, I think they are just letting it sit there until they see who wins the election; if it's the shrub, watch this one go on the fast track; if not, we may have a reprieve. Either way, I hope young people and their parents will write to their congresspeople and let them know this will NOT be allowed.

There's a good article/analysis of it HERE.

Also, you can read a synsopsis of each bill and track its progress by going to this page, or, read the whole thing by going to http://thomas.loc.gov and enter in HR 163 or S89.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: freightdawg
Date: 27 Sep 04 - 11:44 PM

Hey Kat,

If this is the same bill(s) that were introduced last year, they were introduced by two Democrats: Charles Rangel in the House and Fritz Hollings in the Senate. They were introduced to draw attention to the inequality of the current military force (i.e., mostly children of minority and poor families). Key provisions remove the deferment for higher education, and it includes females in the draft. This administration has made it abundantly clear that it has no intention of reinstating the draft. For one thing, the all volunteer military is more than adequate to meet our needs. Second, the sheer numbers of draftees would swamp the current capability of the military. We have been closing bases and decommissioning airfields every other year since the late 1980's. Simply put, we do not have the ability to reinstate the draft, and it would take a mamoth effort to make such a draft possible.

Our all volunteer military is doing just fine in terms of recruiting. Recruiting standards are radically different from what they were in the '60's. It is very difficult, for instance to get into certain branches of the military, and competition for those positions is quite intense. I would suppose that the general infantry positions are not much different, but with the technology being introduced into modern weapons it takes a very bright and motivated young person to become a soldier/sailor/marine these days.

I do not think you should worry about this. While I agree in concept with the equality issue, the fact is that our military is volunteer only, and many young people use the military (active and reserve) to pay for college and to get valuable career training.

Regardless of the source, these draft initiatives will not go anywhere.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 12:24 AM

Thank you for your take on this, Freightdawg. Those are interesting reasons for introducing it. I hope you are correct in saying it'll not happen.

I don't trust the current administration, though, and am disturbed at the inordinate numbers of National Guard members and Reservists who are being called up and/or had their "stays" in Iraq extended. It seems to me, at some point, people are going to get fed up with that.

Thanks, again,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 03:36 PM

"...it takes a very bright and motivated young person to become a soldier/sailor/marine"

Like those lovely young people in Abu Ghraib...

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 03:40 PM

Remember, when/if America reinstates The Draft, there's always Canada again...

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Bardford
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 03:49 PM

And there might even be a statue for you to look at in the lovely mountain town of Nelson, B.C.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Bardford
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 03:51 PM

Here's the text contained in the above link.

B.C. draft-dodger monument in limbo
Last Updated Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:46:02 EDT

NELSON, B.C. - The mayor of a B.C. city says plans to erect a monument honouring American draft dodgers have been scrapped, but the leader of the group funding the monument says it will find another place to put it.
Isaac Romano and his group, called Our Way Home, had been planning to erect the monument in Nelson, B.C., during a July 2006 two-day festival in honour of U.S. conscientious objectors.

Roughly 125,000 Americans crossed the border into Canada during the 1960s and 1970s because of their opposition to the Vietnam War. Many settled in the Nelson area.

The planned statue depicts two Canadians reaching out to help a U.S. draft dodger.

The plan got the attention of FOX-TV News in the U.S. and has come under fire from Americans, veterans groups and some Canadian politicians.

On Monday night, Blair Suffredine, Liberal member for the provincial riding of Nelson, and Jim Gouk, Tory MP for federal B.C. riding of Southern Interior, both said they opposed the monument, calling it inappropriate and offensive to many Americans.

Jerry Newberry, with the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the oldest veterans' advocacy group in the U.S., said his organization was shocked by the idea.

"We're astounded and saddened and appalled...to think that someone would build a memorial and pay tribute to a group of people who saw fit to cut and run," said Newberry.

As a result of the criticism, the city of Nelson, afraid of alienating U.S. tourists, has distanced itself from the proposal.

On Tuesday, Nelson Mayor Dave Elliot said Romano had agreed to axe the monument, but go ahead with the festival.

"He has agreed that he will withdraw the memorial," Elliott said.

However, Romano said he only agreed to find another place to erect the monument.

"The Our Way Home National Reunion organizing group will be looking broadly for the appropriate setting for the peace monument. It may or may not be located in Nelson," said Romano in a statement.

Written by CBC News Online staff

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Once Famous
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 04:02 PM

Reinstating the draft is political poison and everyone knows that.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 04:43 PM

Kat, freightdawg is absolutely right on this one; there is ZERO chance that the draft will be reinstated. Several Dems have attempted to introduce the bill to put a fright into the voters and give Kerry something to talk about, but the current state of the military will never require a draft again for several reasons not stated above.


Each of the current members ot the armed services have a lethality that previous service members did not have. For example, the radios we used in the Nam were called PRC 25s and weighed about 25 pounds, and were issued at the platoon level, now each member of the platoon has a radio link, some as small as cell phones. We used lensatic compasses to shoot artillery, now they have GPS and laser target designators. All this to say we will never need the size of the military we had in the past, and the Army will continue to decrease though my Marine Corps will hold at it's current level.

There is a higher requirement to get in the service, with at least a High School diploma or a GED. I know because many of the students I have at the Job Corps have to wait long periods of time just to try out for the entrance exam (ACT).

In addition there was the stupid comment by Rangel that there were only several graduates from Cornell entering the service, and he wanted more of Americas elite in the military. His ignorance of the level of education now required to enter and stay in the military is breath taking. In the enlisted ranks you have little chance to make Staff Sergeant if you don't have either an AA or BS degree. And to rise above major you need a Masters. In fact, several years ago INC magazine had a front cover of a Marine Officer with the cutline, the "Best Business School in America". (The Marines use the cover as a recruiting poster now, for OCS/NROTC). Many of the General grade officers, have PHDs. I have never heard that the Marines suffered from a lack of Cornell graduates, and who knows, they may have failed the physical.

I will close by reminding some people that I was drafted in 67, and when the Marines came into the room to select their 10%, I stepped across the line. Later, though I had only a college level education of a Sophmore, I was selected to OCS and went to the Nam as a Lt. It turns out that I was one of only three draftees in the Corps to become an officer out of the draft. Times have changed and that would never happen now.

And as for the poor becoming our soldiers, a buck private makes $11.13 an hour, or $18,000 a year with full medical for he and his family, a housing and food allowance based on the local economy, and 30 days vacation the day he starts, and a full retirement in 20 years. How you doin'?

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 04:48 PM

" Jerry Newberry, with the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the oldest veterans' advocacy group in the U.S., said his organization was shocked by the idea.
"We're astounded and saddened and appalled...to think that someone would build a memorial and pay tribute to a group of people who saw fit to cut and run," said Newberry."

F#ck 'em... I'm looking forward to that statue going up and the festival that's gonna happen as well

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 05:48 PM

As often as I disagree with Claymore, he's right and so is freightdawg -- and Martin Gibson.

Being a former Guardsman whose unit (and me) was activated back in '68, I'm appalled that the Guard and Reserve are being used as they are. I've heard -- and not from the news, but from returnees -- that the old "NGs suck and so does the Reserves" attitude is still pervasive. Reservists (I've heard this from them) have had pay problems and have gone into combat with outdated flak jackets. But these issues are seperate from those of a potential draft.

A draft? Won't happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 06:11 PM

The Army Reserve once had several "Training Divisions," whose mission in the event of a full mobilization was to train the thousands of individuals expected to be called up in a revitalized draft. I was in one of them, the 104th Division (T), for a few years in the late 70s. These units, or at least some of them, still exist but their mission today is to provide training for current Reserve and Guard soldiers.   Some of the bases where this training was to take place are now closed, such as Ft. Sheridan IL, and others, like Ft. Polk LA, have entirely new missions.

No, a return to the draft is highly unlikely. What is more likely to occur is a further increase in the deployment tempo, with less time between unit assignments to the combat zones, activation of the reserve components for one year out of every three or four, and an even greater use of "stop-loss," when a soldier scheduled for discharge/retirement is not allowed to do so because he/she whould leave a critical hole in a unit's organization.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 06:37 PM

Thanks, again, for your take on this, all of you.

CH, good to know the offer stands.:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Peg
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 07:21 PM

Snopes thinks this is a hoax....

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 07:35 PM

Well, first of all, rick kids don't carry much load when it come to fightin' wars... And the current batch ain't even paying for them...

But with that said, it's difficult to weigh the chances of a draft being reinstated since it is difficult to forsee just what demands will be amde3 of the US military. The current war in Iraq has weakened the US's military presence in Korea, not that Korea is a real hot spot right now, but it could become so. One thing for sure is that if it were not for the Iraq war, the US would have most likely intervened in Sudan where upwards of a million people will have died by the end of this year to starvation and disease...

Looking down the road that Mr Bush has paved with premptive wars, there will come a time that his "backdoor draft" of not allowing folks to leave the military unless to be buried, will run out of folks. Yeah, Claymore probably has some Job Corps folks who are anxious to serve but that doesn't represent the overall recruitment scenerio as lots of kids are sayin' "What, ate you nuts?" when their elders suggest military service....

But the current bill in Congress has no chance...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 07:37 PM

The million deaths is not between now and the end of the year but for the year of 2004...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 07:45 PM

Each of the current members of the armed services have a lethality that previous service members did not have.

So what? Maybe it means you don't need so many soldiers to carry out an invasion. But that's just the start of it; when it comes to running an occupation all that high-power lethality becomes rather irrelevant. No substitute for poor bloody infantry.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 09:30 PM

Snopes didn't quite say hoax; they said
_____

There is as yet no definitive answer to the question of whether or not the U.S. will reinstitute a draft. Obviously some thought has been given to the issue, but the possibility that such thoughts will be turned into reality appears rather small at this point. Still, conditions and attitudes can change very quickly — another event of the magnitude of the September 11 attacks could prompt some rapid shifts in government policy and public opinion.
______

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 09:37 PM

The PBI will always be needed. No matter if s/he carries a club, a sword, a rifle or a blaster, there's gonna be a poor bloke out there who slogs in to do the fighting. And some of those blokes will die and others will be maimed in various ways no matter if they're armed with a stick or a thermonuclear bomb.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 09:46 PM

I don't think the U.S. will re-instate the draft. Why should they when the govt. can hire from the private sector with little or no accountability and pay them with your tax dollars.

But just in case they do, Canada is already setting-up an underground railroad for those who do not wish to participate. Good thing for Canada; brain drain for the U.S. Hey maybe thats whats wrong in the U.S. The baby boomers with brains escaped to Canada during the Viet Nam era, leaving behind a population with little or no critical consciousness - except Mudcatters of course. :>)

d

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 09:49 PM

In WWI it was discovered that Artillery could not capture or hold ground - Some people still think that Modern Artillery (Air Power) can - but that was disproved in WWII.

The Armour & Air may assist in capturing ground, but the only thing to hold ground is the PBI - nowadays assisted by Armour & Air. Once the PBI walk away, the other side's PBI walk in - despite the Armour & Air.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 10:57 PM

You don't find hoaxes listed on the government website which lists all bills before Congress and where they are at.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 03:07 AM

"In WWI it was discovered that Artillery could not capture or hold ground - Some people still think that Modern Artillery (Air Power) can - but that was disproved in WWII."

And in a more recent war. In a couple of more recent wars.

Reinstating the draft may be a dumb move, but that won't stop them; invading Iraq was a dumb move, too.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 09:51 AM

Yeah, zero chance, right. I hate to depend on There is no chance. But where ARE the media on this one?

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: kendall
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 09:44 AM

Prediction: There will be no draft. (Until after the election) Or, the SElection.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 03:10 PM

An accounting which I received via email, today:


Re: Military experience of the movers and shakers

    Democrats:

    * Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
    * David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
    * Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
    * Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army
    journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
    * Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
    * Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
    * John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V,
    Purple Hearts.
    * Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
    * Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star,
    Vietnam.
    * Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
    * Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
    * Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
    * Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign
    ribbons.
    * Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars,
    and Soldier's Medal.
    * Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and
    Legion of Merit.
    * Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
    * Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze
    Star with Combat V.
    * Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
    * Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
    * Chuck Robb: Vietnam
    * Howell Heflin: Silver Star
    * George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
    * Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but
    received #311.
    * Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
    * Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
    * John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
    * Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul
    Wallenberg.


    Republicans -- and these are the guys sending our young men and women to
    war:

    * Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
    * Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
    * Tom Delay: did not serve.
    * Roy Blunt: did not serve.
    * Bill Frist: did not serve.
    * Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
    * Rick Santorum: did not serve.
    * Trent Lott: did not serve.
    * John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
    * Jeb Bush: did not serve.
    * Karl Rove: did not serve.
    * Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." (The man who attacked Max
    Cleland's patriotism.)
    * Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
    * Vin Weber: did not serve.
    * Richard Perle: did not serve.
    * Douglas Feith: did not serve.
    * Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
    * Richard Shelby: did not serve.
    * Jon! Kyl: did not serve.
    * Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
    * Christopher Cox: did not serve.
    * Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
    * Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
    * George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got
    assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running
    for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam,
    disappeared
    from duty.
    * Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role
    making
    movies.
    * B-1 Bob Dornan: Conscientiously enlisted after fighting was over in
    Korea.
    * Phil Gramm: did not serve.
    * John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple
    Heart and
    Distinguished Flying Cross.
    * Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
    * John M. McHugh: did not serve.
    * JC Watts: did not serve.
    * Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in
    NFL for
    8 years.
    * Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
    * Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
    * George Pataki: did not serve.
    * Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
    * John Engler: did not serve.
    * Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
    * Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.

    Pundits & Preachers
    * Sean Hannity: did not serve.
    * Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
    * Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
    * Michael Savage: did not serve.
    * George Will: did not serve.
    * Chris Matthews: did not serve.
    * Paul Gigot: did not serve.
    * Bill Bennett: did not serve.
    * Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
    * John Wayne: did not serve.
    * Bill Kristol: did not serve.
    * Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
    * Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
    * Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
    * Ralph Reed: did not serve.
    * Michael Medved: did not serve.
    * Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
    * Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at things that don't shoot
    back.)

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Kim C
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 05:04 PM

I'd be interested to see the military service of ALL the people in the House and Senate. I believe whoever put that list together was able to pick and choose whom they wanted to be on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Kim C
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 05:38 PM

A little unscientific research shows that the above list came from an anti-Bush website: www.awolbush.com. Definitely a bias there.

Just for fun, here's a list of WWII veterans who served in the Senate:
www.senate.gov

Of 115, 56 were Republicans. Of 6 WWII vets still in the Senate, 4 are Democrats, 2 are Republicans. How "prominent" they are, I don't really know.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 08:00 PM

I don't know what service your serving in Freightdawg but I could surely use a few more folks. I think maybe we're not having problems with recruiting because they've held down the number of billets to be filled and kept alot of people from leaving. I'm not exactly sure what those numbers might be but I'm a little peeved at the thought of people who have served their time getting involuntarily extended. Especially those in Iraq and Afghanistan who are facing imminent threat of death. They should be home enjoying the moderate pension they've earned. I don't think you'll hear them complaining though. Their country needs them and they'll continue on.

As for the draft, none of us active duty want to deal with all of the kids that don't want to serve voluntarily. I've had it up to here with the "Serve time or Service" types already. I can't imagine riding heard on a bunch of spoiled brats.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: GUEST,Pootie Tang
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 08:55 PM

Did Serve:
Bush Sr.
Bob Dole
Colin Powell
Richard Armitage
Donald Rumsfeld
Tom Ridge
John McCain
Chuck Hagel
Lindsey Graham
Sam R. Johnson
Ted Stevens
John Warner
Heather Wilson
43 percent of the military are Republicans

did not:
John Edwards
Bill Clinton
Nancy Pelosi
Barbara Boxer
Cynthia McKinney
Patty Murray
Barbara Mikulski
Hillary Clinton
19 percent of the military are Democrats

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 09:45 AM

They are at it, again: CLICK

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: GUEST,MarkS
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 10:15 AM

Rangel is just trying to make a statement - don't expect the bill to ever go anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 10:48 AM

I'm in favor of a mandatory public service stint with military service as just one option of many. It would greatly increase the number of prospective military enlistees while not forcing anyone to serve militarily. Wanna fight? Join the army! Wanna pick up trash in a national park? Join Americorps!

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Amos
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 10:54 AM

It would be a foolish move unless we wanted to announce we were committed, as a nation, to war, which would itself be really stupid unless we were sure that the wars we had in mind were necessary, and justified, and worthwhile. The present operation is none of these.

The draft was a divisive social issue the last time the country was involved in an unpopular and unjustified war.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: SINSULL
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 08:20 PM

Pootie Tang,
Where did you get those statistics? Do all new recruits have to sign off on their party affiliations?
baby bush is missing from your "Did Not Serve" list.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: kendall
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 08:35 PM

If we are going to continue to invade other countries on the pretext that they are a danger to us, we must have a draft. We are spread way too thin now.

By the way, why are we still in Japan, Germany, South Korea, the Phillipines, Guam etc?

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 09:47 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900376_pf.html

WASHINGTON -- Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.

(Finally, some common sense comes to congress. Our military is dangerously low. If we're attacked, who will defend us? Thank goodness the Democrats took over congress. Our fine young men and women will now have a chance to serve.)

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 11:30 PM

>>Our all volunteer military is doing just fine in terms of recruiting. Recruiting standards are radically different from what they were in the '60's. It is very difficult, for instance to get into certain branches of the military, and competition for those positions is quite intense. I would suppose that the general infantry positions are not much different, but with the technology being introduced into modern weapons it takes a very bright and motivated young person to become a soldier/sailor/marine these days.<<

Not true. The military is LOWERING the IQ standards in order to find enough volunteers. They have also REDUCED their monthly quotas in order to show them making their goals. The reduced quota means to get enough for immediate needs but admitting that long-term projections are not possible.

Personally, I favor the draft. You live in this country, you should be required to serve this country. It was by having no draft that allowed Bush to start this war. You think all the republicans who voted for it would have if their constituents were scared and angry that they might get drafted?

It would serve Americans right for reelecting Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 11:40 PM

No question--the draft should be re-instated. I've said this before. And mainly for the same reasons Rangel cites. It should be dramatically tightened this time--very few exemptions. And if the children of the elites are also caught up in it, as Rangel says---and as they should be---that would be the major change--- it will put an end to wars of choice, at the whim of the Executive. If their own children stand to be put in harm's way, there will be no more blank checks for rogue hypocrites like Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Cruiser
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 11:47 PM

I simply agree with 282RA.

If you are physically or mentally unable to meet the military standards you can work in a hospital, do clerical duties, and etc. in a support function.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 12:14 AM

A draft, over my dead body! I'll not stand for the enforcement of any kid to be inducted into our military. This government has no moral fiber at all & is willing & ready to lie & falsify facts to put our children in harm's way for no good reason at all & until they can be trusted to, they're getting complete resistance from me. Not my kids & not your kids. You think that because a politcian's kid has been drafted that they'll see the front line because your kid does, no way. They'll be standing watch over some Lake in Kansas.
You want to make sure you can win a war, put the draft back before starting one, then go have your war weither one was needed or not. The price of a college education is skyrocketing & those attending won't get drafted & that'll consist of the children of the elite, powerful & the rich the rest as always will be cannon fodder.
So reinstall the draft & the poor & under educated will be using their backs & behinds & will pay all the costs while the torch of those able to circumvent the system & manipulate it will rise as the cream of the crop to carry on their legacy of rulers.
NO THANKS.
Why start a war when you can't win it?
Why start a war when it's not needed?
Why start a war when the folks at home won't support it?
Why start a war when the volunteer force won't re-up to fight one?

Because we can when there's a drafted force in place to fight one!

If there's a just cause for a war then they'll be people to fight it!
Folks are always willing to fight for their homes, families & for their self defence. Is there any other reason to wage war?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 12:18 AM

Also, what better way to test the waters for the future than to put a proposal like this to the public now. Let's see where he idiots stand just in case we feel like sending more troops into the mid east. There's still Iran to invade or at least think about. Get a go ahead for the draft is like a green light to Iran.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 05:48 AM

Barry-

Look at the uproar caused by the Vietnam war--at a time when an extremely unfair draft--riddled with exemptions--was in place.   If it is dramatically tightened this time, that will close the door to wars of choice by smiling bastards like Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 05:58 AM

I agree with you, Barry. Well put!

Ron, it will never be that "tightened." No matter what they actually may vote in, the rich and the people in power will cover their asses and their children's asses and they will not be the ones on the front lines.

At the moment, I don't think this country deserves the lives of our children, not for the unjust, immoral wars we've seen over the past few decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Grab
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 06:08 AM

Besides a draft being absolutely wrong, it's also the last thing the military are going to want.

Do modern armies work on the principle of throwing a zillion undertrained cannon-fodder young men at the machine-gun posts? Hell no - they'd get cut to ribbons. Modern armies work on providing serious training and high-quality gear to outperform the other side. Even if they're thick as pigshit, you can get most people to perform given enough training. Even where the draft was used in Vietnam, it wasn't a full draft, and there was some real training. The Vietnamese took anyone and threw them in with little training. The result? Check the relative casualty rates for the US and Vietnamese.

But if you're drafting tens of thousands of kids a year, there isn't the money to spend on serious training or serious gear. So if you want to use draftees to fight your wars, better get the bodybags ready, because your kids can only be used for cannon-fodder wave attacks, and you're going to get Vietnamese (or WWI) levels of casualties.

The same thing happened in WWI and in Iran-Iraq. Initially, both wars were fought by professional armies, and were largely wars of manoevre. But all the professional soldiers got killed, and they replaced them with draftees, who simply didn't have the training to fight the same way. Both wars then degenerated into trench warfare, because that was all the draftees could do well - die in their hundreds in frontal assaults while other draftees pointed machine guns in a straight line.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 06:28 AM

I hear what you draft opponents say--but it's still the best way to keep smiling bastards like Bush from their criminal foreign policy adventures. We sure can't rely on a Congress which is so damn vulnerable to expert propaganda like that perpetrated by Cheney and his fellow neocon Goebbels disciples.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 06:34 AM

Go ahead to invade Iran--not likely. Under a tightened draft--and no draft should be instated which isn't dramatically tightened-- people with clout, unlike the parents of the people who now comprise our cannon-fodder army, would see that never happened. As I said, look at the history of the Vietnam war--when the draft was pathetically weak.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 02:33 AM

Hi Ron
I think you're putting the cart before the horse. If there's a real need for a war then the people will judge it by signing up first. This way it's in the hands of those that matter most, those that'll fight, bleed & die for a belief that what ever the cause or reason is it's worth the price. No, they won't willing fight for oil. That's when the government needs a draft.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 03:05 AM

With what is going on in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan, I think they're going to need alot of U.S. soldiers.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Amos
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 03:11 AM

Pelosi slapped the draft proposal down in public today. Ain't gonna happen.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 03:51 AM

Quite right too Amos. Reintroduction of the Draft and National Service on the basis of two years service would be a complete and utter waste of time for all involved. It would seriously weaken, not enhance, the capabilities of the armed forces of the United States of America.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 10:01 PM

Barry-

Actually I think you have it backwards. "They won't fight for oil". Exactly. But some say that's what the US is doing in Iraq now--with a volunteer army. If the draft were in effect do you think prospective draftees would think it's fine to fight for oil? Not likely. You'd see a similar situation to the Vietnam era. Very few protests in the streets this time--and you know why---no draft.   Blank check given to Bush--on specious grounds--for a war virtually nobody had thought through. Do you think that would happen with a draft--even one as pathetically weak as the Vietnam draft? And the new draft would be dramatically tightened up--very few loopholes. Let's catch the children of the elites this time--and see how enthusiastic said elites are for stupid foreign aggression.

World War II is held up as "the good war". And the country was willing to sacrifice--including on the home front--for it. What was the country at large asked to sacrifice for the Iraq war? Citizens were asked to---------shop.

Anybody who thinks the US would be more likely to engage in wars of choice with a draft obviously can't remember the Vietnam era--and is vastly underestimating the determination of the US public--when their own interests are at stake--to make damn sure a war desired by the Executive is justified.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 11:30 PM

Ron Davies - "And the new draft would be dramatically tightened up--very few loopholes."

How so?

I'm sure the children of politicians would find stints in hospitals, seaports and airports easy enough, while the middle and lower classes would be sent to fight the next war in...

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 08:49 PM

Rich kids and well-heeled, genteel bluebloods pounding the ground through the mud and the rain, taking point as they beat the bushes looking for the enemy?

Ludicrous.

That's what'll never happen. If the 'Pubs get the White House again in '08, there will be a push to reinstate the draft (because the war will drag on), and as the Democrats evidently support this idea (at least Rangle does), it'll probably go through.

But don't expect any kind of 'class equality' in the U.S. Army.

It'll still be the same bunch of pretty good (but poor) kids who weren't well connected or rich enough to buy their way out of a typical Army tour of duty. The same ones in peacetime with enough gumption to choose the Army over a dead-end job flipping burgers at McDonald's.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 09:09 PM

Crybabies. Hurry up and draft those daughters.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 11:00 PM

my children all have British and American passports. When the news of the possible draft broke, once of them called at midnight to be sure her British passport is still active (sadly it is not but soon will be) - when asked why, she indicated she was out of here if the draft becomes a reality. God forbid to both of these things - a draft and my daughter leaving her home country for fear of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 12:05 AM

Dianavan-

The point is, in any new draft, it should be ensured that the children of the elites should be subject to it---if this is not absolutely established, obviously no thinking person should support it.

But consider the uproar the US was in as a result of the last draft--and consider the lack of anything remotely close to that for Bush's Iraq war. There's an obvious reason for the difference in reaction in the country at large.

Rangel is right.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 02:49 AM

The US was in an uproar about VietNam. Whether or not this was the result of the draft I can't honestly say. They may be correlated but there were many other factors that created the political climate of the late sixties. Protests about VietNam came after protests about segregation. In other words, we had a seasoned group of protestors.

Sad to say, I don't think a draft will effect the apathy of today's young people. I also believe that there is no way you can absolutely establish that the children of the elite will ever serve as soldiers.

A draft is not a solution but will only prolong U.S. aggression and domestic upheaval.

I came to Canada to make sure my son and daughter would never be drafted. You'll never convince me that a draft is the answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 11:28 PM

Dianavan--

Do you honestly think the US would have had the unrest it did in the 60's--and the scope of the protests against the war-- without the draft?

If so, you are deluding yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 11:34 PM

the more i think about it the more i suspect that rangel's proposal to reinstate the draft ostensibly has nothing to do with equal representation of classes in the army and everything to do with closing all the loopholes so that only those who can afford to buy a deferment will not have to serve.

it must've offended the sensibilities of the elite during the last draft that some kids with limited opportunities in their immediate futures were able to take advantage of 'options' - like college, marriage, and Canada - rather than fight and die for vaguely defined reasons in Vietnam.

the politicos just want to make damn sure that doesn't happen again.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 09:41 PM

Guest--

Get a name--or a handle.   Maybe then you'll start making some sense. At this point you have a long way to go to approach intelligibility. And read something about Rangel before you honor us with another gem of wisdom.

Thanks so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: SINSULL
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 10:13 PM

Consider my home a stop on the Underground railroad going to Canada, assuming Canada is willing to play that game again.

Ron,
I am curious. Did you enlist or were you drafted? Where did you serve?
Mary

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 09:50 PM

Mary--

Enlisted. Would have been drafted. Served 3 years--mostly out of country.

And in my opinion every young person can and should take 3 years out of his or her life to serve the country.

Sorry, Mr. Bush--working for political candidates does not qualify.

And I ask all draft opponents--yet again: Bearing in mind the pathetic performance of Congress in opposing Bush's war of choice in Iraq--and the masterful job of propaganda by the "Bush team"--propaganda so slick that giant intellects like Teribus can't even recognize it as propaganda---what, rather than the draft, would you recommend to prevent such idiocy as that war in the future? (Sure glad I don't have to diagram that).

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Barry Finn
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 01:53 AM

Hi Mary & thanks for offering at the "Draft Dodger's Roadside Café" but Canada won't harbor draft dodger's anymore, so the RR may be traveling in a different direction next time around.

Hi Ron
I wouldn't serve when drafted during the Viet Nam conflict & I wouldn't serve now, not that they'd want me. The thought of the military as an equal opportunity employer is to me a joke & would not happen. The thought of the draft being used as a deterrent to war is as much a joke now as it was back during the last three last invasions. The draft, as I've said only supports the policy of war & in no way effects foreign policy decisions. Once there is an army in place the point of no return has already been reached. With only a volunteer army & the draft not in place there are at least a few more hard hurdles that need to be cleared first. After this present disaster in Iraq I can also see the scaling back of the military's enlistment & the Reserve's enlistment going down the tubes. Serves the Nation right too, if anyone's asking. Aside from your suggestion that all loopholes would be closed, you have far more trust in this country's law abiding abilities than I do, I wouldn't trust one person in Congress or elsewhere to do what you've seen fit to ask of them, my answer would be a safely NO WAY to a draft.   

The military or should I say the government's treatment of former war vets & casualties has been historically rotten, right up to the present. Vet's still suffer after 30 from agent orange & this country's seen fit to put a time limit on presenting the vet's complaint after it saw fit for so many years to deny it's existence or it's affect. Post Traumatic Stress was swept under the rug of denial, my singing partner only received an official diagnoses a couple of years ago, he should've received treatment 30 years ago when he had a kid & wife he couldn't hang on to. My brother still wishes he was swimming with the fishes along with all his classmates that were aboard the USS Scorpion & can't find a VA that'll do more than give him a kiss on the cheek. Those Viet Nam vet's that have been hanging about the VA & homeless shelters & soup kitchens for the past 30 yrs are going to be replaced by our present vet's who'll receive the exact same quality in care as those that went before them. That's no way to say good-bye to those who just won't fade away & paid the awful price in fighting for a government that lied to them then as they're lying now & see no crime or harm in lying to them in the future. They're still, today, holding the same course, the government hasn't learnt nor cared one penny's worth for those that fight & die & until they do I for one will never support the draft, their wars nor their armies.

The college deferment back then & in the future will still be a place of refuge for those seeking to dodge a draft & like before, actually the future will be a worst case, the difficulty now in getting into a college will make it a haven for the rich only & exclude those who can't afford the higher costs & with student loans being cut & grants & scholarships becoming scarcer to find it'll be a disaster for the "unrich".

Like I said I didn't serve & I made damn sure that I didn't but I did do time for much more than just saying "NO" the last time around.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 06:17 AM

Barry--

How can you say the draft "in no way affects foreign policy decisions?

Do you not think 1) all the protests during the Vietnam war period had at least some influence in getting people to think about the issue--including decision-makers, and 2) those protests were at least partly influenced by the draft? How about "Hell, no, we won't go!" Sound familiar?

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 06:28 AM

And I did say that no thinking person should support a draft UNLESS the loopholes are closed this time--to ensure that the children of the elite will be caught in it this time.

If anything, now that girls also stand to be caught up in the draft, the protests will be yet more powerful---and the incentive to ask the obvious questions that were not asked-- of the Bush regime-- by the elites before the Iraq war----though I and many other Mudcatters asked them---will be even greater.

I'm still waiting for a plausible answer to the question as to what, if not a draft, will prevent such a disaster as Bush's war of choice in Iraq.

And if you don't think an unprincipled combination such as Bush-Cheney-Rove can arise in the future, I think you're deluding yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 07:51 AM

closing the loopholes isn't going to ensure nothing but what's in the post of 29 Nov 06 - 11:34 PM. god forbid anyone else should have an opinion.
"get a handle"..how about you get a grip and pull your head out of your opinion? the idea that only posters with "names" can make sense is about as ridiculous as your argument.

you're so welcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 08:30 AM

Still waiting for a plausible answer. Seems to be a troll around here.

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 09:10 AM

look in the mirror

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: DougR
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 01:51 PM

Kat: I find it ironic that you are concerned about the Republicans in Congress introducing a new draft when the idea is being proposed by a Democrat and the Democrats hold the majority in both houses. Wrangle has made it quite clear that the reasons he feels there should be a draft is for the reasons already stated in this thread BUT also because he feels the Congress would be less likely to approve of wars if there was a Draft. Wrangle probably would find, however, that the U. S. wouls be justified if we sent troops into Darfur. At least that is my opinion.

There will be no Draft.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 12:35 PM

It's fairly obvious that a troll is somebody who refuses to give a handle or a name. With a name there is accountability. Without a name or a handle, there is none. And I stand behind every word I've written. It would be nice if others would do the same,

Subject: RE: BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 05:26 PM

your definition lacks consensus