Hidden Agenda: A National Draft in the Future?

[DLR'sCock]

http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_13568.shtml



Hidden Agenda: A National Draft in the Future?
By Howard Dean
YubaNet.com

Monday 20 September 2004

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.


In a further sign of a lack of adequate staffing, the armed forces are now in the process of calling up members of the Individual Ready Reserves. These are often older reservists usually waiting retirement. They are typically in their mid-to-late forties, and have not been on active duty and have not trained for some time. Traditionally, they are only supposed to be called up during a time of national emergency. In 2001, President Bush authorized their call up but never rescinded this order even after he declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq in May of 2003.


The Armed Forces are already chronically understaffed. In 2003, General Eric Shinseki testified before Congress that an additional 50,000 troops would be needed beyond what the Bush administration said would be necessary to stabilize Iraq after the invasion. The President ignored him. We do not have enough troops in Afghanistan to be able to stabilize the country, as shown by the continual putting off of elections well past their announced date. In an effort to free up yet more troops in the coming years, we are moving troops away from the Demilitarized Zone in Korea and reducing the number of troops on the Korean Peninsula at a time when North Korea poses more of a danger to the U.S. - not less. Because of the President's military adventurism, our Armed Forces are under enormous pressure. The only place to go for more troops is a draft.


Selective service boards have already been notified that 20-year-olds and medical personnel will be called up first.
President Bush will be forced to decide whether we can continue the current course in Iraq, which will clearly require the reinstatement of the draft. The Pentagon has objected to a draft but, the President has ignored other Pentagon recommendations in the past.

American families and young people are owed an explanation about the President's plans. Will the President withdraw from some of our military commitments or will he reinstate the draft? We need to know that before we vote, not afterwards.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Big Train]

Umm, the Democrats are the ones crafting the legislation FYI...but thanks for scaring us Howie...

[Sgt Schultz]

Yup, the Dems are the ones who want the draft so they can exploit the whiners within and trumpet any draftee who may be killed in action in a "Bush War".

Sorry libs, ain't gonna happen.

[knuckleboner]

no...the democrats who are pimping the draft concept want it to discourage any leader from actually using the troops in battle.

after all, you look bad if you send in troops that never wanted to be in the army in the first place.

personally, i see their point, but i think it's stupid.



that said, you won't ever see another draft in the U.S.

[ODShowtime]

considering how important this is you guys are pretty light-hearted about it. There's talk of extending the age to 34 (yikes!!!!)

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
considering how important this is you guys are pretty light-hearted about it. There's talk of extending the age to 34 (yikes!!!!)

I could only envision a draft if there was some huge military necessity, like a war with Chiner. And I suppose they'd draft people with certain needed skills no matter how old they were.

[wraytw]

Cock never fails to showcase his lack of critical thought. He's simply blinded by ideology.

Don't want a draft, Cock? Well, you better start writing letters to Charlie Rangel, then.

[Cathedral]

If my country needs my service for any reason, I am there, period.

If you cannot "Man-The-Fuck-Up", and take your place in history then Canada is waiting for you.

I am well fortified here at home to take the battle to the streets if need be to protect my homeland, baby.

So as i said, If i am needed i would be "PROUD" to serve because fate is the pilot of our lives, not fear.

[DLR'sCock]

...and the blind died in the darkness...

[freak]

This is just the latest line of bullshit the left is peddling.

Because of Vietnam, you will likely never see another draft in this country.

The socio-political risks are just too high.

[wraytw]

Simply put, we don't need people in our military that don't want to be there.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by DLR'sCock
...and the blind died in the darkness...

But i'm not blind, and i'm a marksmanship award winner to boot, lol.

I love my country and the politics be damned if i have to take up arms to defend it.
Death shall come swiftly to those who i see from my porch.

I fear no man on this earth and i have no fear of dying either...I've been to the edge and i stood and looked down.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by DLR'sCock
...and the blind died in the darkness...



Take your medicine bitch!

[Sgt Schultz]

Note - Charlie Rangel votes against his own bill..........

House Republicans click delete on draft rumor e-mails
San Diego Union Tribune
By Devlin Barrett
ASSOCIATED PRESS
10:39 p.m. October 5, 2004

WASHINGTON – The specter of a new military draft is being dismissed as "the hoax of the year," but Republicans are still doing everything they can to kill the rumor that has spread like wildfire among young voters and worried parents.

Both parties accused the other of shameless political gamesmanship in a House vote Tuesday that saw Democrats and Republicans line up against a bill that would have paved the way for another draft.

The 402-2 vote, on a bill sponsored by a Democrat, was called by House Republicans hoping the vote will quash the persistent rumors which have seeped into the presidential campaign.

The concerns were fueled in part by an e-mail driven rumor mill and a public awareness campaign by Rock the Vote, a nonpartisan group that seeks to boost voting among young people.

Republicans blamed Democrats for the rumors and charged they want to scare young voters and their parents into voting against President Bush.

"This campaign is a baseless, malevolent concoction of the Democratic Party and everyone in this chamber knows it," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

Democrats denied it, arguing the current situation in Iraq is reason enough to worry about the possibility of a draft.

"We're not trying to scare kids, this president's foreign policy is what's scaring the kids of this country," said Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio.

Even the lawmaker who originally offered the bill, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., urged Democrats to vote against it, claiming Republicans were cynically trying to use the measure to escape election-season questions about the war.

Just two lawmakers, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., and Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., struck off on their own and voted for the measure.

"We are in a war, and not only a small segment of the population should fight in that war," said Murtha.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said the lopsided vote was necessary "to expose this hoax of the year which has been needlessly scaring millions of young people."

Much of the Internet gossip circling the World Wide Web has suggested that Republicans, including the president, have a plan to surreptitiously bring back the draft if Bush wins a second term.

Democrats say draft worries are spurring voter registration on college campuses and among people in their 20s in urban areas.

"Everywhere they go on the Internet, all they see is the draft, the draft, the draft," said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. "The Rock the Vote effort among kids in this country is afire and they (Republicans) know it."

The Bush administration has strongly denied any plan to reinstate the draft, but the denials have not killed the rumor.

"There are some who have tried to bring this up as a scare tactic and that is highly unfortunate," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday.

Speaking to Iowa voters Monday, Bush said, "We will not have a draft so long as I am president of the United States."

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has suggested the draft could be reinstated if voters re-elect Bush.

Kerry said his plan for Iraq, which calls for a summit and for allies to share a greater part of the burden, would not need a military draft.

Campaigning in Iowa on Tuesday, Kerry told reporters, "I've never said they're going to have a draft. I've said I don't know what they're going to do. I know what I'm going to do. I'm going to pursue a policy that guarantees we don't have to have a draft."

Rock the Vote said it is raising the draft issue because the presidential candidates haven't addressed it.

"This is not an Internet rumor," said Rock the Vote spokesman Jay Strell. "Young people in America deserve an honest and open debate about the possibility of a draft. Neither side has offered up what they're going to do to meet the current and future military needs."

The defeated measure would have required two years of military or civilian service of men and women aged 18-26. Senate Republicans said they will not consider such a measure.

[Wayne L.]

Howard Dean belongs in a mental institution because he makes no sense politically most of the time while it's Charlie Rangel & the Democrats who who have called for the draft to be reinstated but was voted down in congress by the man himself & his party along with Republicans because he's a hypocrite.

[Warham]

I think this can be put under the 'Libs unsuccessful attempts to confuse voters' file.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
considering how important this is you guys are pretty light-hearted about it. There's talk of extending the age to 34 (yikes!!!!)

Start jogging. Your ass better be in shape. :gun:

[diamondD]

Thanks for further proof that Dean is a deranged idiot Dave's dick.

[scorpioboy33]

Originally posted by freak
This is just the latest line of bullshit the left is peddling.

Because of Vietnam, you will likely never see another draft in this country.

The socio-political risks are just too high.
can you say freudian slip :
Bush said, "We will not have an all-volunteer army" before correcting himself. "Let me restate that," he continued. "We will not have a draft ... . The best way to avoid a draft is to vote for me

[McCarrens]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Yup, the Dems are the ones who want the draft so they can exploit the whiners within and trumpet any draftee who may be killed in action in a "Bush War".


Amen, amen. Preach Schultz, preach...

[FORD]

Howard Dean, as usual, is right on.

You really think Junior and the neocons would admit to a draft right before an election that he already has no legitimate chance of winning??

[Satan]

Dr Dean says...

Hey Junior - exit stage right, and don't let the door hit you in the ass!!

[Warham]

Can somebody post that clip where Dean goes insane?

YEEAAARRRGHHHHH!!!!

[McCarrens]

Originally posted by FORD
Howard Dean, as usual, is right on.

You really think Junior and the neocons would admit to a draft right before an election that he already has no legitimate chance of winning??
How does Bush not have a legitimate chance of winning the election?

Again, I'm confused by your logic (or, lack there of).

[tobinentinc]

Our military is no longer a draft military. Unless it came to an absolute must, we will never see a draft again. We have too much technology and resources for a draft. A few highly trained motivated soldiers who want to be there will be more successful than a couple thousand who don't. If ever a draft is signed and I would have to go, I will fight for my country. The democrats are trying thier hardest to turn Iraq into Vietnam.

[jcook11]

First of all CONGRESS are the only ones who can impose the draft not the president.Second during WW two there was a clear and present enemy. The war on terrorism has an enemy who is much more vague

[FORD]

Originally posted by McCarrens
How does Bush not have a legitimate chance of winning the election?

Again, I'm confused by your logic (or, lack there of).

Bush lost the last election by about 539,000 votes,approximately. Since then, he has pissed off voters in just about every traditional "Republican" demographic.

The fiscal conservatives, the "small government" types, the Libertarian leaners who usually go with the GOP because a major party has better chances. Junior lost votes with these guys through his reckless spending (most of which went to Halliburton and tax cuts for the rich) and expansion of government.

Military votes, he's going to lose for obvious reasons. I can think of 1,100 families he's definitely lost.

And paradoxically, even some of the religious reich types might turn against him, blaming him for the Supreme Court "legalizing sodomy".

Now keep in mind that ALL of these groups don't have to defect. For a guy who is already starting with a deficit of a half million votes, every single voter who defects from a core GOP demographic is a nail in Junior's coffin.

With the possible exceptions of Zell Miller and Ed Koch, nobody who voted for Gore in 2000 is going to defect to team BCE. And those two buffoons probably voted for Junior then.

Add in Nader voters - a "conservative" estimate says that half of Ralphie's votes in 2000 will be going to Kerry this time. I'd actually guess closer to 8 out of 10. Safe to say none of them will be voting for Junior.

"New" voter registrations- Either these are 18-22 year olds who are first time voters, or previous voters who sat out the last election (maybe more).

The first group obviously is concerned with the possibility of a draft, and Junior saying their won't be one isn't enough assurance. After all, this is the guy who said Iraq posessed enough weapons of mass destruction to be an imminent threat to the United States. And we all know how that turned out.

The second group wasn't motivated enough to get off their asses and vote last time, but this time they see things differently. If they thought Junior was doing a good job, then why bother?

Obviously that's NOT where these folks are coming from. It's far more likely that they registered becaused they see exactly what their inaction brought them the last time, when approximately 19% of eligible voters made it possible for that Idiot to be appointed to the White House.

Finally there's the "undecided" voters. Now, how anyone could STILL be undecided at this point is a complete mystery to me, but by the very definition of the word, "undecided" means that you have doubts about the abilities of the incumbent to do his or her job. And anyone who had those feelings about Bush before the debates certainly isn't going to feel better about him after watching those three consecutive BCE trainwrecks.

Statistically, in the end, undecided votes favor the challenger.

There you have it.... no possibilities of a legitimate win for Team BCE at all.

[bueno bob]

Without taking any political side, I'm going to agree with the point that the draft will never be reinstituted. I don't see any administration or congress doing that, not after the whole Vietnam fallout. I could be wrong, but if it ever came around again, I'd be damned surprised.

That being said, I never served in any of the branches of military, and being 30 am too old to seriously consider doing so (what with three kids, being head of the household and all).

However, if by some chance it did happen and I got drafted, I'd go and do whatever they told me to do. As a human being, I don't think I have any call to go anywhere or do anything that I don't want to do, but as an American citizen, I also feel that I should do my duty to my country if it calls on me to do it, regardless of the situation or my personal feelings on the subject. If it means dying in some foreign land where I can't speak the native dialect, so be it.

Moreover, I'd be right out in the streets shoulder to shoulder with Cathedral should the need arise, and would be proud to stand next to (and potentially die with) somebody of his character in defense of this country.

Although I'd be EXTREMELY surprised if some other country ever attempted a direct landbound invasion! China might concern me, since they outnumber us 200 to 1 anyway :D but defeating that, I don't think there's any other country in the world that would have the resources, let alone the balls.