This thread


[Edited on November 3, 2004 at 7:48 AM. Reason : ]

11/3/2004 7:48:28 AM

gosh those bills are dead bills. ppl have been talking about those for so long but they never went anywhere in congress

11/3/2004 8:58:33 AM

related to the entire issue of shortage of combat troops...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20041022-120846-1796r

Quote :

"Female soldiers eyed for combat By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published October 22, 2004 The Army is negotiating with civilian leaders about eliminating a women-in-combat ban so it can place mixed-sex support companies within warfighting units, starting with a division going to Iraq in January. Despite the legal prohibition, Army plans already have included such collocation of women-men units in blueprints for a lighter force of 10 active divisions, according to Defense Department sources. An Army spokesman yesterday, in response to questions from The Washington Times, said the Army is now in discussions with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's staff to see whether the 10-year-old ban in this one area should be lifted. The ban prohibits the Army from putting women in units that "collocate" with ground combatants. "

11/6/2004 9:44:33 PM

11/6/2004 9:48:13 PM

Let's make Iraq the 51st state.

11/6/2004 9:52:23 PM

52nd we must annex puerto rico first

11/6/2004 10:04:00 PM

The spics don't want us.

11/6/2004 10:27:37 PM

why would they. Commonwealth status rules

11/6/2004 11:43:11 PM

would the school recognize being drafted as an excuse for absense?

11/8/2004 3:38:54 PM

http://www.nyjournalnews.com/newsroom/110504/b10w05wartalk.html

Quote :

"Draft coming, students told By SUSAN ELAN THE JOURNAL NEWS (Original publication: November 5, 2004) Reinstatement of the draft is imminent, war correspondent and author Christopher Hedges told a crowd of more than 120 students and residents yesterday at Manhattanville College. "We are losing the war in Iraq very badly, but the Bush administration will not walk away from the debacle without trying to reoccupy huge swaths of the territory they have lost," Hedges said. While working for The New York Times, he covered fighting in Central America, the Balkans and the Middle East, including Iraq during the first Gulf War. To regain territory lost in Iraq, it will take double or triple the current 140,000 troops, Hedges said during the last lecture in a series called "The Costs of War." The reservists and National Guard members who make up half of the U.S. forces are stretched to the breaking point and need relief, he said, and the draft is the only way to assemble the numbers needed. Reintroduction of the draft will be made in the name of the war on terrorism soon after an attack in the United States or abroad, he predicted. "

See, after a "terrorist attack" against U.S. interests or on U.S. soil, it will be very easy for Bush to change his tune on what he has been saying about the draft.

[Edited on November 9, 2004 at 10:19 AM. Reason : `]

11/9/2004 10:18:06 AM

George Bush (Sr.): "Read my lips...no new taxes!"

George W. Bush: "There will not be a draft."

11/12/2004 1:50:13 PM

What is everyone complaining about? It's not like you have a choice or not after you signed up for "selective" service (aka the draft) ... I don't want to fight in some hell-born war, but it's not like I have any choice. As a matter of fact, I'll probably go first, since I'm 23, asian, and I don't go to school anymore

Quoting Duke Nukem:

"It's time to chew bubble gum and kick ass... and I'm all out of bubble gum!"

11/12/2004 4:00:59 PM

[Edited on November 12, 2004 at 4:01 PM. Reason : stupid slow internet... making me double post]

[Edited on November 12, 2004 at 4:02 PM. Reason : triple post!]

11/12/2004 4:01:26 PM

Quote :

"Quoting Duke Nukem: "It's time to chew bubble gum and kick ass... and I'm all out of bubble gum!""

They stole it from the movie, "They Live"

http://imdb.com/title/tt0096256/quotes

11/13/2004 12:35:25 AM

and its actually "kick ass and chew bubble gum" not vice versa

11/13/2004 3:40:31 PM

If there is a draft, send the Bush voters first. Let them fight Bush's war.

11/13/2004 5:09:17 PM

Don't think they'll draft women, or else every single mother will write to their congressman and say its a bad thing, just take the guys away. But honestly, many other countries require every citizen to do some sort of military service, combat or not, for a year or more. Russia is atleast 2 years. If the draft does come, I'd rather join a branch that I'm interested in then being forced into an area that I'd hate.

But what of the people who are in college that are taking ROTC classes? Would they remain and continue to be in college to learn?

11/13/2004 5:44:07 PM

Quote :

"Bush Says Iran Must Verify It Won't Seek Nuclear Arms (Update1) Nov. 22 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said Iran must prove that it won't seek a nuclear weapon after the Tehran government said it suspended enrichment of uranium. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=awLcOfH7c2_g&refer=us

11/22/2004 5:06:10 PM

some of you must enjoy hitting your head against a wall.

there wont be a fucking draft

all you pussies can stop crying about it because it wont happen.

11/22/2004 5:11:17 PM

Who the fuck would fly a passenger airplane into a building, much less the twin towers!?

11/22/2004 5:39:48 PM

Quote :

"Friday, 8 November, 2002, 16:41 GMT Bush warns Saddam to disarm "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2424563.stm

11/22/2004 6:29:15 PM

what a stupid thread

11/23/2004 12:17:04 AM

Quote :

"what a stupid thread"

[Edited on November 23, 2004 at 12:41 AM. Reason : `]

11/23/2004 12:19:51 AM

When we invade Iran...there will be a draft.

11/23/2004 12:21:23 AM

Quote :

"When we invade Iran...there will be a draft."

It looks like action against Iran is a distinct possibilty due to the propaganda in the media recently. Or, the globalist elite will engineer another "terrorist" attack in the U.S., and Bush will have the excuse to go back on his pledge to not reinstate the draft.


[Edited on November 23, 2004 at 12:46 AM. Reason : -]

11/23/2004 12:43:37 AM

what a stupid thread

11/23/2004 12:59:14 AM

This information isn't only mistaken it is blatently wrong. Bush does not support the draft and never has. Anyone that thinks this will really happen is paranoid. The war on terror will not be used to start the draft. Furthermore the idea that this is a republican idea is media disinformation. I was suprised when I heard democrats accusing the republicans of sponsoring this bill. In fact it was put forth by DEMOCRATIC legislators. The bill has also been languishing in the congress for years and nothing will ever come of it, save a war with china. So those of you accusing republicans of this shut the fuck up!

11/23/2004 2:52:04 AM

I'm accusing Bush of drumming up a boogeyman, and sending us into an unneeded war in Iraq. Saudi Arabia is the country that supported and harbored terrorists for years.

11/23/2004 2:54:31 AM

Quote :

"Bush does not support the draft and never has."

And never will? Even if circumstances require it? Circumstances that were created by previously foreseen over-commitments?

11/23/2004 3:14:37 AM

Quote :

"So those of you accusing republicans of this shut the fuck up!"

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Senator_says_042004.htm

Quote :

"Senator says US may need compulsory service to boost Iraq force Tue Apr 20, 2004 WASHINGTON (AFP) - A senior Republican lawmaker said that deteriorating security in Iraq (news - web sites) may force the United States to reintroduce the military draft. "There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future," Senator Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on post-occupation Iraq. "Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face." The Nebraska Republican added that a draft, which was ended in the early 1970s, would spread the burden of military service in Iraq more equitably among various social strata."

Quote :

"Bush does not support the draft...."

Yeah, and George Bush Sr. said "read my lips, no new taxes." Politicians are liars. Forget what Bush says about the draft and look at the facts. Our military is stretched to the limit. The Pentagon has had to institute the stop-loss policy in order to meet the need for troops. Unless we get out of this war soon, a draft is likely. And it is unlikely that we get out of Iraq any time soon. Recent reports are saying that more troops are needed on the ground in Iraq. Throw in the possibility of conflict anywhere else (ie, Iran) and it is clear that a draft will be needed.

All it will take is a terrorist attack or a manufactured propaganda campaign of an "imminent threat" (from Iran or some other "enemy") to give Bush the excuse he needs to go back on his promise to not reinstate the draft.

[Edited on November 23, 2004 at 3:27 AM. Reason : `]

11/23/2004 3:16:46 AM

Listen, there isnt going to be a draft, so STFU. Why? Because the US military doesn't want a bunch of whiny, useless, snot-nosed kids like they got in Vietnam. So don't worry, most of your sorry asses won't be needed.

11/23/2004 8:11:55 AM

i'm gonna laugh at at you fuckers when the draft is reinstated

11/23/2004 8:36:03 AM

Quote :

"If there is a draft, send the Bush voters first. Let them fight Bush's war."

Yep, and any congressman or woman who votes for the draft, but never served in the military

11/23/2004 9:19:00 AM

Even in today's war, your average platoon is being replaced by a bomb or missile that can hit a target the size of a quarter from miles away. Artillery conquers, infantry occupies. I don't think there is going to be a draft, honestly. We do have enough troops. What you will start to see is alot of moving troops around, and putting them into places most effective around areas like Iran and Syria. With that kind of movement coupled with today's way of waging war, I see no need for a bunch of undertrained conscripts. If there is a draft, you'll just be occupying a city, or If you're like me, end up babysitting a server farm somwhere. Take a look at what skills you have, and that should determine where you'll end up. Unless you're an English major, and in that case, you fail. But I just don't see myself wandering around in the desert with an M4 this summer. I've talked with alot of people from Fort Bragg about it. Even the soldiers are strongly against it, because they'd rather not have some spiteful kid who doesn't care watching their back.

Plus, Bush is not the one who decides that the draft gets reinstated. You're talking about congress in this case. Which are not the most reasonable people on the planet, but they posess some decision making skills that Bush does not, and I'm sure they must realize it would be political suicide. Or I hope they would at least.

I am confident though, that there will be no draft this term. If there is, well. Too bad. I'll have no choice in the matter anyways, So I won't spend too much time bitching about it.

11/23/2004 9:29:34 AM

man, i hope you're right fubar

11/23/2004 9:33:06 AM

Quote :

"Officers See Need For Bigger Iraq Force U.S. Assessments Cite Tenacious Resistance By Bradley Graham Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, November 22, 2004; Page A01 BAGHDAD, Nov. 21 -- Senior U.S. military commanders in Iraq say it is increasingly likely they will need a further increase in combat forces to put down remaining areas of resistance in the country. "

Quote :

"To boost the current level, military commanders have considered extending the stay of more troops due to rotate out shortly, or accelerating the deployment of the 3rd Infantry Division, which is scheduled to start in January. But a third option -- drawing all or part of a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division on emergency standby in the United States -- has emerged as increasingly likely. Hinting at this possibility at a Pentagon news conference on Friday, Lt. Gen. Lance Smith, the deputy chief of U.S. Central Command, recalled that airborne forces were deployed to Afghanistan on a short-term basis to bolster military operations. Smith noted, however, that the Afghan case was "a little bit different" because "we had a very small number of forces to begin with" there. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2565-2004Nov21?language=printer

11/23/2004 9:49:43 AM

Quote :

"Plus, Bush is not the one who decides that the draft gets reinstated. You're talking about congress in this case. Which are not the most reasonable people on the planet, but they posess some decision making skills that Bush does not, and I'm sure they must realize it would be political suicide. Or I hope they would at least. "

Who would have thought that Congress would pass Patriot Acts I and II, which completely eviscerate large portions of the Bill of Rights? Rep. Ron Paul of Texas reported that Patriot Act I was passed without most members having read the bill. Little to no debate was allowed on the bill. The pretext for the bill was obviously the events of 9/11. It gave them the excuse to pass the bill in the name of "protecting Americans against terrorists" (which is a whole separate issue....how are we protecting Americans by taking away their rights while at the same time LEAVING THE BORDERS WIDE OPEN).

Another engineered "terrorist" attack or a new "imminent threat" would give legislators the excuse to reinstate the draft. Such a draft will probably start out as a limited draft of only certain persons and may be modified later to be more like a full-blown draft. Incrementalism is how these people operate in making changes. Making changes too quickly alarms people. They have already started down this road by implementing the stop-loss policy.

[Edited on November 23, 2004 at 9:57 AM. Reason : ~]

11/23/2004 9:54:16 AM

Quote :

"some of you must enjoy hitting your head against a wall. there wont be a fucking draft all you pussies can stop crying about it because it wont happen. "

11/23/2004 9:55:19 AM

i've already said this:

Quote :

"Ok, fair enough, I don't doubt that right now nobody is planning to reinstate the draft. Not the dems, not the repubs, not anybody, because it's essentially political suicide. However, the draft wasn't supposed to be reinstated during wwii, but when it became necessary for us to fight, it happened anyway. neither roosevelt nor truman wanted a draft, but roosevelt went ahead and reinstated it anyway because if he hadn't, wwii might have been lost to the axis powers (supposedly) Regardless of what anyone tells you, if we need more military forces to defend our country (or to do something we're calling "defense") and don't have them, no President would decide against reinstating the draft if it meant that the country would be destroyed without one. I don't doubt that we'll have a draft if it's necessary. What I hope is that we never get to the point that it is. "

but I want to add something. None of you who say there won't ever be a draft have yet come up with any sort of evidence for that. All you've given as evidence so far is that

1.) There isn't a draft yet.
2.) Politicians say there won't be a draft.

#1 is like saying "I'm not dead yet, so I won't die." Pure logical fallacy.
#2 is almost worse, because you're actually BELIEVING the words of politicians, which anyone with half a brain knows is a horrible idea.

Now, I want you to realize that if you went on HARD evidence, you'd see that the only HARD evidence involving a draft is the simple fact that we've had drafts before, the selective service still exists, and the draft boards still run. You still can't get financial aid without registering for the draft, and not registering for the draft is illegal.

Unless you can give me harder evidence than that, I will acknowlege that a draft is UNLIKELY, but nowhere near impossible. We've had drafts before and, as I stated above, if we "needed" more military personell to defend this country or "defend" this country, there is absolutely no reason why any politician worth his salt wouldn't "flip flop" on the draft issue.

[Edited on November 23, 2004 at 10:31 AM. Reason : .]

11/23/2004 10:28:54 AM

Quote :

"but I want to add something. None of you who say there won't ever be a draft have yet come up with any sort of evidence for that. All you've given as evidence so far is that 1.) there isn't a draft yet 2.) politicians say there won't be a draft Now, I want you to realize that if you went on HARD evidence, you'd see that the only HARD evidence involving a draft is the simple fact that we've had drafts before, the selective service still exists, and the draft boards still run. You still can't get financial aid without registering for the draft, and not registering for the draft is illegal. Unless you can give me harder evidence than that, I will acknowlege that a draft is UNLIKELY, but nowhere near impossible. We've had drafts before and, as I stated above, if we "needed" more military personell to defend this country or "defend" this country, there is absolutely no reason why any politician worth his salt wouldn't "flip flop" on the draft issue. 11/23 "

granted i understand your position that selective service still exists, etc...

here are the reasons there will not be a draft:

1. drafts were necessary for conflicts of large-standing armies. such conflicts no longer exist. armies of many thousands will never again face off across a plain from each other and 'charge'

2. because of the US's air superiority and capability to place munitions anywhere in the world, main assaults and invasions will be done mostly from the air. why risk the men and equipment on the ground. troops are only necessary to come back through after the main campaign is completed. while there are casualties when doing this, the numbers in the tens or hundreds of thousands of soldiers dead wont happen.

3. selective service remains as a relic of the Cold War. the purpose it serves now is to punk your ass to jury duty. now, i will submit that selective service remains as an "oh shit" button of sorts. if something ridiculous were to happen such as a surprise invasion from the UN, we may be drafted to defend ourselves. the possiblity of such a thing is about as great as an asteroid hitting LA.

4. we wont be drafted because there are plenty of troops already serving. (i may be mistaken about the exact number) but if my memory serves, we currently have around 250-300k boots capable of deployment. plenty to serve our country's current needs, even in the unlikely event of an invasion of Iran next week, because, like i said, you dont need large standing armies to do so.

5. an argument for selective service is that the current guys rotated there are tired. this is a weak argument. salisburyboy posts continually about 'back door' drafts and keeping people longer than they bargined for...thats crap. when you sign up for the military, deployment is something you face willingly. even if you sign up for the reserve, you certainly recognize the possiblity, however unlikely. the government does not spend the money to train you and pay your monthly check for no reason. all past conflicts saw deployments of troops for up to 4 years, in heavy fighting. (WWII for example - there were many who served from Dunkirk through Normandy). the American soldier is trained for such deployment, and such deployment during times of war, no matter how unpleasent, is to be expected.

6. the strongest argument has already been mentioned. it is political suicide for anyone to reinstate the draft. it would probably result in impeachment and a resignation. 'draft' is a buzzword that would unite the country against that lawmaker.

[Edited on November 23, 2004 at 10:47 AM. Reason : .]

11/23/2004 10:45:35 AM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&e=1&u=/afp/20041121/pl_afp/us_iraq_troops_041121220623

http://www.infowars.com/articles/iraq/mccain_50k_more_troops.htm

Quote :

"Up to 50,000 more US troops needed in Iraq: Senator McCain Sun Nov 21, 2004 WASHINGTON (AFP) - Tens of thousands more US troops will be needed in Iraq (news - web sites), if Washington is to subdue the stubborn rebel insurgency there, a top US lawmaker said. Arizona senator John McCain told NBC television that as many as 50,000 more US soldiers will have to be sent to Iraq. "We still need more troops. We still need more people there," US Senator John McCain told NBC television Sunday. When asked how many additional forces would have to be deployed, the maverick Republican senator answered "I would say at least 40,000 or 50,000 more," adding that it will likely also be necessary to increase the size of the army and the marine corps. "I believe those reports of those young Marines that said, 'Look unless we keep a significant presence here, (the insurgents) are going to filter back in'," McCain said, but acknowledging that finding additional manpower "is an enormous strain." "

[Edited on November 23, 2004 at 12:12 PM. Reason : ']

11/23/2004 12:10:16 PM

enormous strain but a simple matter of re-assignment of troops from bases around the world in japan, germany and austrailia. not a draft.

11/23/2004 12:18:00 PM

2,500 veterans resist call-up to active duty

http://www.indystar.com/articles/5/195334-7345-010.html

11/23/2004 12:20:49 PM

Quote :

"1. drafts were necessary for conflicts of large-standing armies. such conflicts no longer exist. armies of many thousands will never again face off across a plain from each other and 'charge'"

I think that several iraq "type" situations could require a draft if they were going on simultaneously. What are the odds of that occuring? I dunno, but I could concieve of several situations where we invade another country prior to iraq no longer needing strong military presence.

11/23/2004 1:32:56 PM

Quote :

"However, the draft wasn't supposed to be reinstated during wwii, but when it became necessary for us to fight, it happened anyway. neither roosevelt nor truman wanted a draft, but roosevelt went ahead and reinstated it anyway because if he hadn't, wwii might have been lost to the axis powers (supposedly)"

You're talking about a WORLD WAR. Not a group of skirmishes scattered in pissant middle-eastern nations. Our country has no direct threat of a land assault by Iraqi insurgents, Iran, or Syrian forces whatsoever. A draft is unnecessary given the scale of the fighting and the fighting to come.

11/23/2004 1:40:40 PM

Vietnam blows away both sgtfubar's and DirtyGreek's arguments.

[Edited on November 23, 2004 at 5:54 PM. Reason : s]

11/23/2004 5:53:25 PM

You're talking about a war where we were in unfamiliar terrain....by that I mean 3 levels of vegetation for the NV's to hide in and booby trap the fuck out of it. Tack on guerilla warfare tactics, and you'll see Vietnam was a proverbial hornet's nest, and our troops neither had the technology, nor the experience for thick jungle fighting up untill then. You can't compare that with today's middle eastern desert combat, urban warfare, and weapon systems.

And If you compare the amount of troops we lost in vietnam (it got up to approximately 130 per day), to the amount we've lost in Iraq should speak for itself. Every now and then on the news you'll hear about another soldier lost, but it's no where near the scale of vietnam. Bad part about that is alot of them were chalked up to either friendly fire, or equipment failure.

Plus, how long did it actually take us to knock over the statue in Baghdad? I'd say it was fairly impressive that our army can mobilize, that quickly.
[Edited on November 24, 2004 at 10:48 AM. Reason : -]

[Edited on November 24, 2004 at 10:56 AM. Reason : -]

11/24/2004 10:46:45 AM

i think you can compare the jungles of Vietnam with an urban jungle for many of the same reasons. booby traps, hiding places, etc...

however, Vietnam taught us plenty about guerilla combat, and you wont see the same mistakes made.

11/24/2004 10:53:55 AM

exactly.

But there's a big difference between man made structures, and thick vegetation. Two completely different environments that require a completely different set of strategy and tactics.

[Edited on November 24, 2004 at 10:58 AM. Reason : -]

11/24/2004 10:57:09 AM

very true, but it is easy to see the parallels.

11/24/2004 11:02:19 AM