Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I'll admit I'm sadly uniformed on this issue, I need some honest answers..

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
gee double you bee Donating Member (160 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 02:25 AM
Original message
I'll admit I'm sadly uniformed on this issue, I need some honest answers..
Edited on Thu Sep-30-04 02:26 AM by gee double you bee
about the draft. How exactly likely is it that if Bush is reelected we'll see a reinstatement of the draft? I've been hearing a lot of talk about this lately, and haven't really been able to discern whether it's legitimate, or simply rhetoric being used against shrub.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Melodybe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 02:29 AM
Response to Original message
1. You should look up what Orin Hatch has been saying
I have a feeling that if Bushco has their way, that will happen.

Also you should google military draft 2005, lots of stuff comes up.

Atleast we have Kerry and Edwards' word that they will not re-instate the draft, no such promises from Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 02:52 AM
Response to Original message
2. Here it is:
1. The military is overstretched as things are.

2. We have too few troops in Iraq.

3. Enlistment is falling.

4. Bush wants to invade places like Iran and Syria.

5. Which will require even more troops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 03:04 AM
Response to Original message
3. They Are Staffing Up the DRAFT BOARDS Already
Edited on Thu Sep-30-04 03:05 AM by AndyTiedye
The long-dormant Selective Serivice System has been ordered to be
ready to start conscription early NEXT YEAR.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WLKjr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #3
38. I like that banner
very catchy. Bet it would make a great protest sign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #38
41. It's a Bumper Sticker - I had a bunch made up
Edited on Thu Sep-30-04 10:30 AM by AndyTiedye

PM me if you want one.
If you want a bunch, goto http://www.makestickers.com like I did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SotarrTheWizard Donating Member (129 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
53. Some Selective Service Details: A minor little quibble. . .
. . . I asked a buddy who WORKS for Selective Service System downtown in DC: he's one of their IT geeks.

Turns out the last appointments to Draft boards were made in 1984 (appropriate, eh ???). And they ALL expire after 20 years. Nobody has bothered to fill any vacant positions since, but nobody has resigned either (my guess: most forgot they're ON a Draft Board).

Problem is, the law REQUIRES every Draft Board to be staffed. . . so SSS is working overtime just to comply with the law.

Besides, he says things over there are SO screwed up, they'd have problems drafting ANYONE: they barely have funds to staff it up AND manage the mandate that if you're male and of draft age, you HAVE to register to be eligible for Federal College Aid. . . something the Repugs put in place a few years back. . .

It's great propaganda for our side. . . but we're BETTER than they are, we can beat 'em with TRUTH, and not need propaganda. . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #53
57. The truth is....
Cheney and others keep warning that the U.S. will get attacked again eventually, and it could be bigger than 9/11. Don't you think that is why they may be gearing up for the draft?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SotarrTheWizard Donating Member (129 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #57
62. From the Just Outside the Beltway View. . . .
They'd have to write enabling legislation, and it would have to come from the Repug side. Plus they'd need to plus up Selective Service's budget several times over: they just took a couple of million cut from the request.

All the inside-the-beltway evidence points away from a plan to restore the draft. . . .as useful as it would be for our side, it just doesn't seem to have any basis in actuality. . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 03:07 AM
Response to Original message
4. and added to the post above is #6 . . .
GWBush and other ChickenHawks are ALREADY using a back-door "draft"

(a) calling up the National Guard,
(b) "extending" the existing military longer than contracted,
(c) calling up the Reserves,
(d) calling up others who are ill-prepared and too damn old to serve,
(e) "extending" the Reserve and National Guard longer than contracted . . .

This is NOT a draft??? to be drafted is to be pulled into the active military AGAINST your will, without consent, not voluntary, compulsory service.

And to answer your query about AFTER the election: yes, of course, GWBush will re-instate the draft (conscription) thereby pulling more into the military who don't want to serve. Why? Because there simply are not enough military to meet the present requirements of the GWBush Administration. He's already proven it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. The backdoor draft, excellent point. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Envisioned Donating Member (59 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. About your points...
"GWBush and other ChickenHawks are ALREADY using a back-door "draft"

(a) calling up the National Guard,
(b) "extending" the existing military longer than contracted,
(c) calling up the Reserves,
(d) calling up others who are ill-prepared and too damn old to serve,
(e) "extending" the Reserve and National Guard longer than contracted . . .

This is NOT a draft??? to be drafted is to be pulled into the active military AGAINST your will, without consent, not voluntary, compulsory service. "

As to A and C, that's part of the contract of the Guard and Reserves. Everyone who joins is aware that such things may happen. Entering the military is voluntary, so those who signed up chose to do it, and thus chose to make themselves available in the case that they were called on.

B and E- yeah, that's a pain. I know a lot of people that's happened to. Sadly, it's happened under more than just the Bush administration. It's an issue that needs to be fixed all around.

D- Could you provide some examples? I'm curious about that one...

"And to answer your query about AFTER the election: yes, of course, GWBush will re-instate the draft (conscription) thereby pulling more into the military who don't want to serve. Why? Because there simply are not enough military to meet the present requirements of the GWBush Administration. He's already proven it."

Do you have a source to support this? I'd like to be able to look into it a bit more. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ET Awful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 05:17 AM
Response to Reply #10
18. As to D
If you haven't heard of the cases of people in the inactive reserve being recalled then you have been willfully ignoring the facts.

I guess you missed the stories of people in their 50's being reactivated eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Envisioned Donating Member (59 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 05:39 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. As for D
So....the examples?

I didn't dispute it, so you can stop being defensive and stop trying to insult me.

Now then, can you provide some examples?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 05:51 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Here's one:
Check older DU threads for more. There are NUMEROUS stories. I think there was one only yesterday, that shouldn't be too far back. Fact is most NG members ARE older as they've usually already had a stint in the military.

Ala. Doctor Reactivated for Iraq War at 68

July 20, 2004

By: Staff
Associated Press

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=8232&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported

DECATUR, Ala. - At 68, many people are slowing down. Not John Wicks: He's going to Iraq (news - web sites). Wicks, a psychiatrist, has been called out of military retirement by the Army to fill a shortage of mental health experts needed to help soldiers cope with combat. He could be gone as long as a year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Envisioned Donating Member (59 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 06:00 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. Thank you...
that's all I wanted, something tangible I could read through and see where you were coming from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dubyagottogo Donating Member (13 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #20
44. Quote from John Wicks
Wicks' latest assignment started with a postcard the Army sent last fall that explained the need for specialists and asked if he felt he was fit to serve.

"I stuck the thing in my pocket and carried it around for several weeks agonizing on how I should respond," he told the Decatur Daily in a story Sunday. "The truth is I consider myself fit to serve, so that's how I marked it and sent it back."

Doesn't sound like a draft.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #44
51. Nobody's saying John Wicks was drafted.
Edited on Thu Sep-30-04 03:44 PM by crispini
Just making a point about the military being stretched SO THIN that they don't have any young psychiatrists so they're sending 68-y.o. psychiatrists to Iraq. Sure sounds like a real need for special skills to me.

BTW I just got back from hearing an Army NG reservist captain speak at a luncheon. He had been in Iraq. Some choice quotes:

"We don't hear enough about how bleak it is."

"We can't handle any other attacks -- we are stretched so thin."

The reserves are "falling apart."

Edited to add: I think I'll start a fresh post with their story. Check "Texas" forum if you wanna read it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ET Awful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #19
30. If I was trying to insult you, I would have said something like
"open your eyes you illiterate git"

But, since I was simply stating the obvious, that being that you have obviously willfully ignored the truth, there was no attempt to insult.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 03:10 AM
Response to Original message
5. Very few lies have been told about Bush, its just not neccessary.
Bush lies because he has to. Im sure he'd love to tell the truth if it fit his purposes, the truth is always the best option all other things equal, but Bush doesnt have many positions supported by truth.

His opponants, however, have more than enough facts to run several elections against Bush. There is no need to fabricate things.

If he is reelected, I dont see any possibility that there is not a draft. The plan for Iraq was never a short term one, and they didnt give an axis of evil speech because they wanted to send Iran flowers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 03:13 AM
Response to Original message
7. btw, ever figure that . . . as GWBush "activates" (drafts) our state
militia (National Guard) that it leaves our States and overall nation without protection? in times of "homeland security" crises? in times of other emergencies, e.g., hurricanes, etc.?

So, it's two-pronged. GWBush is presently "drafting" Natl Guard, Reservists, and others. And by doing so is leaving America without protection here at home because of the void left by "drafting" Natl Guard.

How can GWBush NOT reinstate conscription?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elginoid Donating Member (387 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 03:46 AM
Response to Original message
8. simply rhetoric.
as the economy continues to tank, even as a whole new crop of graduates enters the workforce every year, it won't be difficult at all to meet the armed services needs. besides, volunteers are a lot more desirable than draftees.
people who insist that a draft is around the corner are just engaging in fear-mongering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Envisioned Donating Member (59 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 03:47 AM
Response to Original message
9. liklihood of the draft
Actually, it's incredibly unlikely that the draft will be reinstated. There's no need for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 03:58 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. It's really inspiring!
As the election draws nearer, we keep getting brand new DU'ers who have apparently joined to warn us OFF certain topics.

I'm sure your opinions will be given due consideration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 04:10 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Envisioned Donating Member (59 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 04:17 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. assumptions...
"As the election draws nearer, we keep getting brand new DU'ers who have apparently joined to warn us OFF certain topics. "

Wasn't warning you off the topic. I never said not to talk about it. I just said it wasn't likely, as the draft isn't really needed. If I were telling you not to talk about it, that'd be different, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 04:22 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Envisioned Donating Member (59 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. yeah...
real nice reply. Accuse me of something I'm not doing, and when I point that out you have to get juvenile. What does THAT contriubte? How is THAT a benefit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alittlelark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
58. interesting, isn't it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 04:09 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Wrong! Don't delude yourself.
If you are of draft age, you should be shitting your pants about now. My cousin is on his second tour - it's HELL over there! - they lack equipment and troops in a big way.

The draft is coming...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #9
25. Your evidence please?
Edited on Thu Sep-30-04 06:14 AM by crispini
Actually, it's incredibly unlikely that the draft will be reinstated. There's no need for it.

Please cite news stories of new volunteers signing up in droves, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Envisioned Donating Member (59 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 06:20 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. here's a little
"Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new. Further, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq. Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25. "

http://www.sss.gov/

"The problem with the draft is that it normally has short-term stints of military service," says Kurt Campbell, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense. "But in a sophisticated military organization … it takes a couple of years just to understand your job."

"What we need are truly well-trained professionals capable of operating very high-technology equipment," agrees Cordesman. "And the fact is that draftees can't provide those capabilities."

"Draftees are what you need for a mass army when you are fighting a mass enemy in conventional warfare," says Cordesman.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_draft010918.html

I'll continue pulling up more, but I wanted to toss out at least a little bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. Have you read any of the other links we've posted yet?
Edited on Thu Sep-30-04 06:43 AM by crispini
Because this point, for one, is very easily refutable:

"What we need are truly well-trained professionals capable of operating very high-technology equipment," agrees Cordesman. "And the fact is that draftees can't provide those capabilities."

That, is quite simply, BS. The draft they are planning for is a skills-based draft that would require every person (male AND female) under the age of 35 to register with the SSS and tell them what their skills are. Then they would draft these already-trained people. Medical personel, linguists, etc.

Does *your* job have anything to do with technology, let's see, computer programming, installation, computer support perhaps? Sounds like a good skill to have in the military to me..........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Envisioned Donating Member (59 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 06:44 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. at the moment...
I'm reading through links, yes.

What about the other things I offered?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. Let's see
Noithstanding recen stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct.

Right, and the question is, after the election, are they going to 'so direct'? My answer, if GWB is re-elected, YES.

Further, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq.

They've also stated that there were WMDs in Iraq (false), that Iraq bought yellowcake uranium from Niger (false), on and on and on. This administration has zero credibility with me. Just 'cause they state something don't make it true.

Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25.

The scary part here is "continues to refine its plans." The SSS was totally dormant for a long time, most local draft boards had LOTS of vacancies or were non-existent. There's an old Salon article that goes into it:

"Not since the early days of the Reagan administration in 1981 has the Defense Department made a push to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots. "

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/03/draft/

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Another one
Edited on Thu Sep-30-04 07:16 AM by crispini
A good quote from that Salon article:

"Stars and Stripes, the Army's official paper, reports that a poll it conducted found that half the soldiers in Iraq say they are "not likely" or are "very unlikely" to reenlist -- a very high figure."

HALF

And then there was that incident in Colorado... let's see...

DENVER - A Colorado congresswoman called Monday for an investigation into allegations that Iraqi war veterans near the end of their duty were given a choice between re-enlisting or being sent back to Iraq.

snip

DeGette, at a news conference in Denver, cited reports in two Denver newspapers and calls she has received from several soldiers at Fort Carson, near Colorado Springs.

“They can’t meet re-enlistment goals, so they’re putting this hammer over their head, which is just wrong,” DeGette said. “In the long term, the integrity of our military is going to suffer.”

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6118277/

Yeah, THAT'S really good for morale. NOT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #28
39. Envisioned? Still there?
oh, wait... tombstoned.

already? phoooo. I was having fun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. Nobody here
Edited on Thu Sep-30-04 06:55 AM by crispini
is saying that the SSS is going to come draft your hiney TOMORROW.

BUT, let's see,

IF GWB gets elected,
and IF the Republicans take control of the Congress,
and IF the administration decides to go after Iran, Syria etc. as they have been making noises about,
and IF the administration wishes to retain ANY kind of presence in Iraq, and Afganistan,

CONSIDERING that the military is ALREADY overextended, (can cite zillions of links)
and CONSIDERING that young people are NOT signing up in droves (see post below, about how hard it is to recruit).

THEN, there will probably be some kind of draft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrWeird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #26
46. "it takes a couple years just to understand your job"
That's interesting. Just a month or two ago about how the Army was cutting basic training short and shipping fresh recruits over to Iraq early, to get "hands on experience."

But, hey, the Administration says there won't be a draft. And when was the last time they ever lied to us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dubyagottogo Donating Member (13 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #25
45. Recently, the only bills presented to Congress
Edited on Thu Sep-30-04 12:39 PM by dubyagottogo
regarding the draft are

"Senate Bill S.89 was introduced in January 2003 by Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC) and had no Republican co-sponsors. A companion bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in January 2003. It was sponsored by Democrats Charlie Rangel (D-NY), Jim McDermott (D-WA), John Lewis (D-GA), Pete Stark (D-CA), and Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)."

If we don't want to reinstate the draft we have to watch all politicians. Anyone of them can cause problems.........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #45
52. I'll agree that we have to watch all politicians, 4 sure.
The Rangel bill doesn't really worry me as much as the SSS oiling up it's machinery though. Here's a worthwhile post on it.

Here Is Why Rangel Introduced His Bill -
posted 09/25, by bocamp22 (viewed : 2493)
Popularity 14 (7 encourage, 0 discourage)

The decorated Korean War veteran said he introduced the bill "in hopes that those people who make the decisions to go to war, to attack Iraq, would be better influenced against it if they had kids that would be placed in harm's way, or if they felt closer to the shared sacrifice that we oftentimes talk about."

People "from the lower economic levels of our society" should not be the only ones placed in harm's way, he said.

Rangel has accused President Bush and some fellow lawmakers of being too eager to go to war.

He also criticized Bush's proposed tax cuts.

"We're paying for this war by enlarging the deficit, cutting back on health care, cutting back on education, jeopardizing the Social Security trust fund, jeopardizing Medicare and actually giving a tax break to the wealthy," he told reporters.

http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/35365/view?viewtype=best

(Scroll down some)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 05:12 AM
Response to Original message
17. It's in the planning stages. A few links worth reading...
http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_13568.shtml (Howard Dean on the likelihood of a draft)

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/13/MNG905K1BC1.DTL (planning for a Special Skills Draft)

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/171522_draft01.html (Registering women for the draft, more about a Special Skills Draft)

http://www.iht.com/articles/527445.html (disagreement about the nature of the Selective Service System plans and budgeting)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 05:55 AM
Response to Original message
21. Good stuff here:
US 'must raise troop numbers' to fulfil commitments

September 26, 2004

By: Peter Spiegel
Financial Times, The

A Pentagon-appointed panel has found that the US military will not be able to maintain its current peacekeeping commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan without a significant increase in the size of the armed forces or scaling back the objectives of the stabilisation missions.

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=9136&fcategory_desc=Iraq

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 05:58 AM
Response to Original message
22. Here ya go:
Repost: Selective Service eyes draft

May 01, 2004

By: Eric Rosenberg
Seattle Post-Intelligencer

WASHINGTON -- The chief of the Selective Service System has proposed registering women for the military draft and requiring that young Americans regularly inform the government about whether they have training in niche specialties needed in the armed services.
The proposal, which the agency's acting Director Lewis Brodsky presented to senior Pentagon officials just before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, also seeks to extend the age of draft registration to 34 years old, up from 25.

The Selective Service System plan, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, highlights the extent to which agency officials have planned for an expanded military draft in case the administration and Congress would authorize one in the future.

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=9066&fcategory_desc=Iraq
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 06:06 AM
Response to Original message
24. Even better:
Hidden Agenda: A National Draft in the Future?

September 21, 2004

By: Howard Dean
Common Dreams

A key issue for young Americans and their families to consider as they prepare to cast their votes in the upcoming presidential election is the real likelihood of a military draft being reinstated if President Bush is re-elected. President Bush should tell us now whether he supports a military draft.
Here is the evidence that makes a draft likely:

- The U.S. Army has acknowledged that they are stretched thin and that finding new recruits is challenging. They recently placed 300 new recruiters in the field. Bonuses for new recruits to the Army have risen by 67 percent to a maximum of $10,000 and $15,000 for hard-to-fill specialties.

- The extended tours of duty have made service less attractive for both the regular armed forces, and particularly for the National Guard and Reserves. To meet this year's quota for enlistees, the Army has sped up the induction of "delayed entry" recruits, meaning they are already borrowing from next year's quotas in order to meet this year's numbers.

- Reservists are now being called away for longer periods. In 2003, President Bush dramatically extended the length of time for the Guard and Reserves deployment in Iraq. Extended tours of up to a year have become common.


... more at link...


http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=9073&fcategory_desc=Iraq
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OctOct1 Donating Member (357 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 06:57 AM
Response to Original message
31. Yes it is possible
Kerry says absolutely not. NO Draft
Kerry seeks allies help and ONLY HE can provoke them and pressure them for help.

Bush has lost ALL credibility with outsiders


Bush say, no draft, and Bush will use trained Iraqi army to replace US army

This will not happen. Very few Iraqi soldiers are being trained. Many are joining the insurgents and fighting against us.

It will not be long before we run out of soldiers.

It does not take a large brain to connect the dots here. Bush, If elected, will have no choice but to have a Draft.
Can't any of the brainiacs see this.
All these media political experts getting paid top dollar can not put this one together. UUUGGGHHHH !!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alittlelark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #31
59. So true.
by the way,:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 07:33 AM
Response to Original message
34. as Molly says "never watch bush*s lips watch where his feet go" it is ....
ALWAYS in the complete OPPOSITE direction of what he says ALWAYS!

bush* is a LIAR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BulletproofLandshark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
35. If Bush says there won't be a draft...
just refer back to him stating shortly before the war that there were no plans to invade on his desk. * has shown himself to be patently untrustworthy and certainly doesn't let trifling things like "facts", "numbers", and "public opinion" corrupt his decision-making process. Don't believe a damn word he says.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowFLAKE Donating Member (247 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
36. I don't really get the Gist of Your Title
Does the fact that you're "sadly uniformed" allude to the fact that you're already in the military, but not happy about wearing the uniform?

In any event, here's a generally progressive/left winger-type who agrees with those on this thread who don't believe the draft is likely anytime soon:

Geov Parrish
WorkingForChange.com
09.27.04

The myth of an imminent draft
Don't be distracted by draft talk -- keep your eye on the ball, in Iraq

I sit on the board of a Seattle-based organization that, each year, grants money to activist groups around the country and beyond, with an emphasis on anti-war and anti-military activism. This year, more than a quarter of the grant applications we received had an anti-draft or counter-recruitment component: local groups offering information and counseling to high-school age youth about conscientious objection, a returning draft, and exposing the lies spun by the slick recruiters that pretty on vulnerable youth.

Now, regardless, there's a certain value to exposing inquiring young people to information and a way of thinking that militarism and violence isn't the glorious thing portrayed by recruiters and by parts of pop culture. Counter-recruitment programs are valuable work. But these applications shared one extremely serious flaw.

The draft is not coming back.

more:

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=17754
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. I don't see ...
that that article really makes any new points.

His main point really appears to be something like: draft would be wildly politically unpopular, therefore would be last result. Um, yeah... but hey, this WAR was pretty politically unpopular... didn't stop GWB!

The article brushes aside "neocon fantasies of invading Iran or Syria" ... but hey, if you really start looking into the PNAC stuff, they've got some pretty scary ideas there.

IMO, this administration has an underlying agenda to use our military to control the Middle East's oil, which they are not telling us about. And, if re-elected (or selected), will lead us on to Syria, Iran, and a draft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibertyorDeath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #36
60. "The draft is not coming back"LOL Tell it to Rove
"Family Circle reported in its July 13 issue that Karl Rove had polled GOP members of Congress in September 2002 to see if they would support the President if he requests reinstatement. The Republicans said they would vote for the draft. "



http://www.blatanttruth.org/alert.htm


This is a SPECIAL MILITARY DRAFT ALERT. In May, the Seattle Post Intelligencer published an article about a document they received through the Freedom of Information Act. It was revealed that the SSS is currently “designing procedures” for the implementation of a “Skills Draft” and had held a top-level meeting on it with Deputy Undersecretaries at the Defense Department. This draft would change the essential mission of the Selective Service and require “virtually every young American,” male and female ages 18–34, to register for the Skills Draft and list all the occupations they are proficient in to fill labor shortages throughout nearly the entire government. If enacted, the Skills Draft proposed in this FOI- recovered document would change America as we know it.

The Pentagon is suffering from immediate labor shortages. Recently, the inactive Ready Reserve had to be called up for the first time since the Gulf War to fill 5,600 job shortages in the Armed Forces. DoD said in the recent IRR callup “20% of the call-ups are truck drivers, 12% are supply specialists who can use a computer to track supplies, 10% are Humvee mechanics, 7% are administrative specialists and 6% are combat engineers” (USA Today, August 8, 2004).

Although Congress would have to approve new legislation to create a Skills Draft or reinstate the combat draft, Family Circle reported in its July 13 issue that Karl Rove had polled GOP members of Congress in September 2002 to see if they would support the President if he requests reinstatement. The Republicans said they would vote for the draft. They would likely support the new legislation needed to create the Skills Draft. While Bush and the Republicans are of course keeping the return of the draft and the new skills draft as quiet as possible, many anti-draft organizations have recently begun warning of a “Coming New Draft. ”

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibertyorDeath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #36
61. U.S. Military Is Stretched Too Thin, Defense Board Warns




http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-tr...
THE NATION
U.S. Military Is Stretched Too Thin, Defense Board Warns
Advisory panel calls Army efforts to create more combat brigades 'important, but partial.'
By Mark Mazzetti
Times Staff Writer

September 30, 2004

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military lacks sufficient personnel to meet the nation's current war and peacekeeping demands throughout the world in coming years, despite steps being taken by the Army to stretch its ranks and increase the number of soldiers available for combat, according to a Pentagon advisory board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
40. That warmongering bastard won't stop at Iraq
and he doesn't have the military manpower to continue his illegal invasions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IkeWarnedUs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
42. I got this on DU
I think it was posted by Dems Will Win.

BUSH ’04 = DRAFT ’05 SPECIAL ALERT

NOTE:THIS IS NOT THE RANGEL BILL. THIS IS NEW! THIS IS THE BUSH GOP PLAN TO REINSTATE THE COMBAT DRAFT AND START A NEW SKILLS DRAFT. CHARLIE RANGEL HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

Please distribute this post and the official SSS draft document, the Feb. 11, 2003 “Issue Paper”, to all college newspaper editors, in LTTEs and mass e-mails.

PRINT THE PDF: http://somnamblst.tripod.com/draftalert.pdf
HANG THIS FLYER EVERYWHERE

This is a SPECIAL MILITARY DRAFT ALERT. In May, the Seattle Post Intelligencer published an article about a document they received through the Freedom of Information Act. It was revealed that the SSS is currently “designing procedures” for the implementation of a “Skills Draft” and had held a top-level meeting on it with Deputy Undersecretaries at the Defense Department. This draft would change the essential mission of the Selective Service and require “virtually every young American”, male and female ages 18-34, to register for the Skills Draft and list all the occupations they are proficient in to fill labor shortages throughout nearly the entire government. If enacted, the Skills Draft proposed in this FOI-recovered document would change America as we know it.

The Pentagon is suffering from immediate labor shortages. Recently, the inactive Ready Reserve had to be called up for the first time since the Gulf War to fill 5,600 job shortages in the Armed Forces. DoD said in the recent IRR callup “20% of the call-ups are truck drivers, 12% are supply specialists who can use a computer to track supplies, 10% are Humvee mechanics, 7% are administrative specialists and 6% are combat engineers” (USA Today, August 8, 2004).

Although Congress would have to approve new legislation to create a Skills Draft or reinstate the combat draft, Family Circle reported in its July 13 issue that Karl Rove has polled GOP members of Congress in September 2002 to see if they would support the President if he requests reinstatement. The Republicans said they would vote for the draft. They would likely support the new legislation needed to create the Skills Draft. While Bush and the Republicans are of course keeping the return of the draft and the new skills draft as quiet as possible, many anti-draft organizations have recently begun warning of a “Coming New Draft”.

The Issue Paper document was revealed through the Freedom of Information Act by Seattle Post Intelligencer reporter Eric Rosenberg, who wrote a partial explanation of it that was printed May 1, 2004.

(http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/171522_draft01.h... )

Rosenberg’s article was edited, however, and some key points about this document were omitted in the published article. What follows is a full explanation of the document and links to the document itself.

The Secret Issue Paper can be viewed at: http://blatanttruth.org/selective_service091304.pdf

This document is real, having been acknowledged by the DoD and the SSS when they said no action is being taken on it at the present time. However, given the current manpower shortages for certain skills and nurses, if Bush gets back in, expect all the options outlined in the Issue Paper to be implemented by the end of December of this year, and at the least a non-combat skills and medical draft to start next year, if not the male combat draft, ages18-25.

Despite Rumsfeld saying the draft is not needed, this is the same neo-con administration that has repeatedly lied to and misled the American people. Draft-age youth and their families are left looking at a “long, hard slog” in Iraq (Rumsfeld secret memo), the neo-con plans to invade still more nations, and then having to take Rumsfeld and Cheney’s word not to worry about the draft, that they “are not considering it at this time.”

Although official word is that this secret list of options is not being implemented—the Issue Paper options have NOT been rejected and the 6-page proposal is rather sitting in the Pentagon, waiting. In addition, the SSS itself has said that it is “designing procedures” (Seattle PI, May 1, 2004) to implement the skills draft, meaning designing the compliance cards and the data fields needed to keep track of “virtually every young American” and their skills. Acting Director of the SSS Brodsky has also said the Skills Draft is the “top priority” of the Selective Service for 2004.

From the FOI document, we now know that on February 11, 2003, Charles Abell, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and William Carr, Deputy Undersecretary for Military Personnel Policy, met with Lewis Brodsky, the Acting Director of the Selective Service and some other officials. This is the highest-level meeting you could have about the Selective Service, outside of Rumsfeld and his inner circle. They were there to discuss the urgent “issue paper” now revealed, which starts: “With known shortages of military personnel with certain critical skills, and with the need for the nation to be capable of responding to domestic emergencies as a part of Homeland Security Planning, changes should be made in the Selective Service System’s registration program and primary mission”.

Although it would require changes in current draft law, the far-reaching proposal shows how far the Republicans are going to plan and prepare for a huge expansion of the draft. The Issue Paper options include:

- Change the very mission of the SSS to become a massive conscription service in the War on Terror for the entire government.

- Conscript men and women in a critical skills non-combat draft up to age 34 with no deferments of any kind, except “essential community service” (like the Medical Draft).

- Allow a non-combat draft for shortages in critical skills, without calling a combat draft.

- Fill labor shortages of all kinds throughout not only DoD but the whole government, especially high-paying professionals like computer networking specialist or linguist.

- Create a massive database of “virtually every young American” ages 18 to 34. This database would be used to draft in war and to recruit in peacetime. State and even local governments would be given access to the names for recruitment and help in emergencies.

- Create a single-point, all-inclusive database, in which every young person would be forced to send in a “self-declaration” of all of their critical skills, chosen from a long list of occupations like the Armed Forces Specialty Code. The self-declaration is similar to IRS compliance and the filling out and signing of your tax forms. All young people would be required to keep the government updated if they acquired a new skill. SSS Compliance forms will be available at every Post Office. The usual penalties of imprisonment and/or a $250,000 fine would apply to all non-registrants.

- A draft or recruitment could be for any one of the skills you self-declare on the compliance form, not your current or primary skill. This greatly increases your chance of being drafted if you are 18-34

- Bring the Medical Draft (HCPDS) up to speed and fully test it through readiness exercises.

- Reduce induction time from being able to deliver all inductees in 193 days down to just 90 days for skills inductees.

This secret paper urges the mission be changed “promptly”, meaning they really need it, it would draft for the Pentagon as well as the enormous Homeland Security branches as well as other government agencies, even state and local!

For obvious political reasons, the decision was made by Bush, Cheney and Rove to sit on this 6-page proposal until after the election in November. Yet the SSS was told to go ahead and begin “designing procedures” for the Skills Draft in 2004 and make it their “top priority”. It can be expected that if Bush gets back in, and the DoD and SSS are still asking for the Skills Draft, the “Next Steps” part of the document will be put into action and the most expansive option to change the SSS mission will be rapidly legislated.

In the secret planning meeting document, the next steps strongly recommended by SSS Acting Director Brodsky were:

1. “Promptly” redefine the SSS Mission to draft men and women up to age 34 for skills, and deliver them within 90 days or sooner to the Department of Defense. Program a massive database to be ready to enter millions of names of those registering their critical skills.

2. Expand mission to deliver personnel in skills draft to the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies, including FEMA, NSC, Border Patrol, INS, Customs, Corporation for National Service, Public Health Service and other federal, state and local government agencies.

3. Form interagency task force to provide Administration with recommendation on this skills draft for the entire DHS and the rest of the government.

4. Obtain White House Statement of Administration Policy on the future of the SSS.

5. Be prepared to market the skills draft, raising the non-combat age to 34 and the drafting of women to the Armed Services and Appropriations Committee.

This proposed expansion of the draft, forcing all people under 35 to register with the SSS, man or woman, is primarily proposed, according to the document, because the cost of providing contract professionals, like computer network specialists, would be “prohibitive”. In this way, the proposed Skills Draft would help preserve Bush’s massive tax cuts for the wealthy by lowering the massive budget deficits.

That’s the new Skills Draft and the secret document behind it. But what about the Combat Draft?

Selective Service has been registering young men for over twenty years and at any moment the President can go to Congress and ask them to reauthorize conscription for the male combat draft for ages 18-25. It doesn’t take much to imagine a re-elected Bush going to Congress and saying “We cannot cut and run from Iraq or the War on Terror. I need you to reauthorize conscription.”

And they would not have to pass a whole new draft law to do it. All that is needed is a “trigger resolution”, which could be passed in the dead of night—and bingo! No debate, no regular bill, just a short resolution passed quickly and the draft for men 18 to 25 is back.

That is why the Democratic draft legislation being offered by Rangel and Hollings is totally irrelevant. These are known protest bills and actually propose drafting women for the combat draft, just to make sure they will never see the light of day. Rangel and Hollings offered them to raise the issue and confront Bush. Hollings even said he wouldn’t vote for his own bill!

They are not needed—and the press and the Republicans will bring them up as red herrings to distract everyone from what is really going on: the Republicans, and the SSS are quietly, behind the scenes, oiling up the draft machinery—getting ready to reinstate for the Spring of 2005. Taken singly, each of the clues indicating the return and expansion of the draft might seem insignificant but when you add them all up with what the selective Service is doing to gear up the combat draft, a clear pattern emerges, leading to the inescapable conclusion that a Bush re-election will see not only a Skills Draft, but a return of the Combat Draft as well.

What is the proof? The government’s own document, the SSS Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2004:

http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

The Selective Service System, or the SSS, has for decades operated at a low level of readiness. Readiness Exercises are conducted on a multi-year cycle but historically these have been little more than getting draft board volunteers together and going over the procedures of what would happen under reinstatement and training new members every summer. And the draft boards themselves have become 80% vacant over the decades.

In the current 5-year cycle of exercises, however, the SSS is clearly ramping up the draft machinery to an unprecedented level.

“Strategic Objective 1.2: Ensure a mobilization infrastructure of 56 State Headquarters,
442 Area Offices and 1,980 Local Boards are operational within 75 days of an authorized
return to conscription.”

Tie that to this objective:

“An annual report providing the results of the implementation of these performance
measures will be submitted by March 31, 2005.”

75 days from March 31, 2005 is about June 15, 2005. According to the 2004 plan, the draft boards will be “operational” then, meaning that they will be set up in 1,980 local offices around the country. If Bush asks for reinstatement on April 1, Congress could pass it that night and the first batch of over one million 20 year-olds would face the national lottery as soon as that date, June 15, 2005.

Here is how the $28 million is being spent according to the official document. Although the Senate rejected the funding request to bump up the SSS budget to $28 million, the SSS says in one paragraph of the Performance Plan that budgets will be “adjusted” to cover the additional cost for 2004:

“Strategic Goal 1: Increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the Manpower
Delivery Systems (Projected allocation for FY 2004 – $7,942,000)

Strategic Goal 2: Improve overall Registration Compliance and Service to the Public (Projected allocation FY 2004 – $8,769,000)

Strategic Goal 3: Enhance external and internal customer service
(Projected allocation for FY 2004 – $10,624,000)

Strategic Goal 4: Enhance the system which guarantees that each conscientious objector is properly classified, placed, and monitored. (Projected allocation for FY 2004 – $955,000)”

In analyzing each of the 2004 goals in detail it is obvious that there are hidden “activation bombshells” in this so-called “Performance Plan”. Goal number 1 in particular brings the combat induction process up to 95% operational readiness, going so far as to actually hold a mock lottery drawing this year and to issue sample orders to report for the famous medical exam. The document does not reveal the day in 2004 the mock lottery is to be held.
In addition, the Medical Draft, or Health Care Personnel Delivery System (HCPDS in the document), is for the first time brought up to full readiness by next year. This draft would take men and women up to age 44 if they are doctors, nurses or one of 60-some medical specialties. No medical deferments allowed. Previous readiness exercises merely went over what would happen with HCPDS and updated the guide. The 2004 plan actually develops a readiness exercise for the Medical Draft that would be conducted next year. Plus HCPDS must be ready to conscript by June, being part of the system.
Goal number four is particularly ominous.

“Strategic Objective 4.1: Ensure a mobilization infrastructure of 48 Alternative Service Offices and 48 Civilian Review Boards are operational within 96 days after notification of a return to induction.”

“Strategic Objective 4.2: Develop a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Alternative Service Employer Network to specifically identify organizations and associations who can, by law, participate in the Alternative Service Program. This network will provide jobs for ASWs at the local level. Prior to activation, SSS will develop a draft MOU for use when obtaining agreements with qualified employers at the local and national level.”

For 31 years, the Conscientious Objector system, called the Alternative Service, has lain dormant. The 2004 plan also calls for this to be brought up to speed and to be ready to decide cases and place COs in the Alternative Service by July 6, 2005 (96 days after March 31, 2005). The SSS is even going so far as to draw up the SOPs, the Standard Operating Procedures which identify local employers eligible to receive cheap AS workers and to also draw up the actual MOU, the Memorandum of Understanding the employer must sign to get their CO workers and allow their mandatory attendance to be monitored. This is the last obstacle to be hurdled before the draft could actually be ready for quick activation under the law.

In sharp contrast to all this preparation for a Spring 2005 draft by Bush, Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry has proposed a military plan that rejects any draft. By adding 20,000 active duty combat soldiers and 20,000 active “reconstruction specialists”. At a Wisconsin high school, Kerry pledged in June, 2004, that the draft would be “absolutely unnecessary”. When asked in April by 130 college editors in a conference call as to whether he would support a draft, John Kerry said unequivocally: “No. No draft” and he has criticized the use of the Guard and Reserve and now the Individual Ready Reserve as a “back-door draft”.

Kerry plans to spend an additional $7 billion to strengthen the Volunteer Army in what is essentially a “No-Draft Plan”. Moreover, Kerry is strongly opposed to the neo-con plan revealed in Wes Clark’s book, in which Clark was told by a senior Pentagon official that invasions of Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Sudan and Somalia were still to come over the next three years.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
43. Original poster?
gee double you bee? Still there? Thoughts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cat Atomic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
47. We don't need a Draft! C'mon!
Rumsfeld says we can take Iraq with 10,000 soldiers.

So maybe another 15,000 for Iran... then... oh... maybe 12,000 for Syria. And we can just send the Astros to take Sudan. The Dodgers can take North Korea. If they say they need more men, we'll send the New Kids on the Block and the surviving BeeGees to back them up. Really- it's all gonna be fine!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #47
54. snork!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbyboucher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
48. Don't be ridiculous, you know exactly what is going on.
Bush's "War is the Only Answer" foreign policy is going to need more cannon fodder and if you don't know it you are a rube.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
49. You're "sadly uniformed"? Well then put on your happy jacket
and sign up for the draft!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
50. 1. Bush will want to attack Iran or Syria, 2. We don't have enough...
... troops to do so and still occupy Iraq, 3. Pro-war conservatives are too chicken shit to enlist, 4. Bush re-institutes the draft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
55. Gee! There are a lot of low-post count new visitors...
who appear to be enjoying this thread. That's wonderful. Here's another piece of info for you to chew on. And you can look it all up.

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, 1951-1953.
* 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, receiving the 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
* 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.
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* 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 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 aviator and flight instructor.
* G.W. Bush: six-year Nat'l Guard commitment (in four).
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously 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.
* Bob Dole: an honorable veteran.
* Chuck Hagel: two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, Vietnam.
* Duke Cunningham: nominated for Medal of Honor, Navy Cross, Silver Stars, Air Medals, Purple Hearts.
* Jeff Sessions: Army Reserves, 1973-1986
* Colin Powell: Long career in military manager.
* Wayne Gilchrest: USMC in Vietnam; wounded in action.
* Don Nickles: Biography does not list military service.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. Knee, 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.
* G.H.W. Bush: Pilot in WWII. Shot down by the Japanese.
* Tom Ridge: Bronze Star for Valor in Vietnam.
* Sam Johnson: Combat in Korea and Vietnam, POW in Hanoi.
* Ted Stevens: WWII pilot, DFCs, two Air Medals.
* John Warner: Served in the Navy during WWII as a RM3
* Heather Wilson: Air Force 1978-1989
* Gerald Ford: Navy, WWII

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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. And may I just add.
The four Bolanos Brothers of El Paso, the ONLY family IN THE UNITED STATES to send FOUR brothers to Vietnam, one in EACH of the branches of the armed forces:

ALL DEMOCRATS.

(Sorry, I appear to have hijacked this thread a bit. Will try to stay on topic.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC