• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does Anyone Feel a Draft?

kimiko said:
How many recruits are people we would have found unfit prior to the lowered standards?

I've posted on here before a secret or two about military fitness standards and waivers for prior behavior. In order to tell how bad off the military is all you have to do is read the latest version of the fitness instructions. By the end of the 90s, we were pretty much letting sailors get as fat as they wanted. And one of my collateral duties was a drug and alcohol program advisor. As such, I saw the records of sailors who had gotten in a legal scrape while on active duty and was shocked to see waivers for armed robberies committed prior to their enlistments.

This was in the 90s, mind you.

In the 80s, under Reagan, the standards were much, much higher. "Zero tolerance." And it made a huge difference. It really ticked me off to see it all undone in the 90s.
 
merphie said:
It seems the Bush haters are always throwing the draft in. Looking for new reasons that it might be done.

What's the point? Bush can't be reelected again.

Who the ◊◊◊◊ cares about Bush? I just don't want my 13 year old son to face a draft. As much as I abhor the a$$hole and his administration, and his policies and his lies, there are greater things to worry about.

It seem the Bush lovers always think it's about them!
 
CBL4 said:
Are you saying that there is something about the draft that prevents supply and demand from being true? If there is one truth in economics it is the law of supply and demand. More pay means more supply. Sometimes it takes a lot more pay but enough pay will fill the ranks.

The shortfall has also come during a controversial and open ended war. This reduces the supply apparently as much as $20,000 bonuses increase it.

CBL

in that case they should start paying the troops more then. it makes more sense then paying mercanaries 100 thousand a year to make up the shortfall of troops.
 
One aspect of this issue that has not been mentioned so far is "paid mercenaries", broadly defined.

Right now, the number of commercial, private "security personnel" in Iraq exceeds the number of British troops (sorry, don't have a link but after I post this, I'll go look). So one way to deal with the shortfall in volunteers is to turn to the private sector, as is the wont of the current administration in so many other areas.

More after I do some googling.....
 
Mephisto said:
Who the ◊◊◊◊ cares about Bush? I just don't want my 13 year old son to face a draft. As much as I abhor the a$$hole and his administration, and his policies and his lies, there are greater things to worry about.

It seem the Bush lovers always think it's about them!

I am a "Bush lover", apologist, whatever.

I am also a 20 year veteran of the military.

I have a 16 year old son.

There is not going to be a draft. Period.

If there was a draft, my son would be in Canada while you and your son were still looking for your car keys.
 
ooh_child said:
If the US reinstitutes the draft, who will be drafted? Young men & women, or only men?

When I was but a teenager and the draft registration was first begun, a female friend & I protested the fact that they were only registering young men. Why couldn't they also register us, we wondered?

Well, we went down to the local post office & requested the forms for registration. We had alerted the local media and, surprisingly, some of them showed up. We wrote letters to our senators & reps, and got quite a few interesting responses to our point of view.

So now I wonder if they'll still use the same arguements we got back then about why women shouldn't be drafted, since the role of women in the military has changed since the late '70's.

How would the American public respond to women being drafted?

MHB

That was very commendable of you and your friend to volunteer, especially in a time when many people were trying to get OUT of being drafted. Too bad you weren't taken seriously at the time.

In spite of the fact that the military is currently trying to reduce women soldiers in combat, I think that if the draft is reinstated women will also be taken. Not to demean women's abilities in soldiering, but the current dismal ratio of recruitment will certainly hurt the military's support services. While that's good news for families who don't want their daughter's/wives/sisters/mothers involved in combat, it's bad news for women who seriously want to make the military their career. As male soldiers have known all along, commendations resulting from combat often aid in promotions. No doubt the military will shuffle women draftees into ancillary services where they will engage in "traditional woman's roles (cooking, health care, finance [secretarial], etc.).
 
Luke T. said:
But those who are in it (the war) are still highly motivated. Their disillusionment will occur in another year or so.

I agree. The disillusionment will occur when current service members realize that there are no FNGs to replace them, there is no end in sight to the conflict, and the flow of insurgents seems unstopable. The credibility gap in THIS war will come from returning veterans who serve multiple tours in Iraq.
 
Luke T. said:
If your grandpa served in WWII, you could ask him yourself and have your answer.

I honestly don't think you can compare Iraq to WWII. In WWII the threat was obvious (and no one had to lie about it) and the majority of the country was behind the effort.

No so in Iraq where mounting evidence shows that the American people (and the British people) were duped into invading.
 
Grammatron said:
Quite a bit, but I won't pretend there isn't a price.

No one can claim there isn't a price for which they would put their lives in danger, but could the military lure you into enlisting with the amounts they're currently offering?

If not, there's no reason to expect others to do it for that price.
 
manny said:
Well, given that the Republicans are on record as opposing a draft and the military is on record as opposing a draft, I'd say that the very best way to avoid one is to ensure that the Democrats never come to control the presidency or the legislature. It's the Democrats, after all, who are simultaneously arranging demonstrations against recruiting stations and barring recruiters from schools while sponsoring draft reinstatement bills.

Record, schmecord! Daddy Bush went on record that he wouldn't raise taxes during his term ("Read my lips, no new taxes") then promptly raised them after he was in office.

Daddy Bush also said he wouldn't trim the rights of gun owners - then promptly banned "assault weapons."

Baby Bush went on record to say that "Iraq was an immediate threat," yet we've found that the only people Iraq could have threatened during the later years of Saddam's reign were the Iraqi people.

How many lies does can someone tell you before you quit believing them?
 
CBL4 said:
The point that apoger made was that increasing the pay and benefits increases the supply. This is from the first week of Economics 101..

Great, if you're talking about selling hamburgers or underwear. I don't think this is necessarily so when talking about people's lives and the certainty of combat in a foreign country.

Besides, if that particular financial tactic is from Economics 101, WHY then aren't U.S. corporations increasing the benefits and pay of what few American workers they still have? It couldn't have anything to do with the refusal to cut down their profit margin just a bit, could it?
 
Mephisto said:
Daddy Bush also said he wouldn't trim the rights of gun owners - then promptly banned "assault weapons."

Correction. That was Clinton.
 
manny said:
The draft thing is absolutely nothing but a sickening and cynical scare tactic from Democrats.

Oh, you mean like these:
________

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
___________

Gee, I wonder why everyone is so cynical?
 
manny said:
Take it up with Rep. Rangel. He believes that the Republicans oppose a draft out of moral principle. He opposes what he believes that principle is, but he believes it's there. Feel free to get back when everyone's got their story straight. Until then, then answer the the question in the original post, "Does Anyone Feel a Draft?" is "Only Democrats."

That's a joke, the idea that Republicans oppose a draft out of moral principles, but support a war based on lies. Can you find a more hypocrical group?

You may be right about the Democrats being the only ones to feel the draft should it be reinstated; the lower and middle classes are usually the ones who end up in combat as a result of the draft. Many of the well-to-do people who are eligible (such as Dubya) use their money and influence to get out of the fighting.
 
Luke T. said:

Okay. If you get a notice from the draft board, we have this thing now that they didn't have in the Vietnam conflict that they call a "piss test" which you have to pass during the induction phase. You see where I'm going with this?


I'll say no more.

A great way to get out of involuntary service, and probably a little less stigmatizing than admitting to be gay. I'd be worried that, by the time the draft rolled around, they'd be happy to take crack addicts off the street. ;)

:g1:
And it's one, two, three what are we fighting for? Don't ask me I don't give a damn, next stop is friggin Iran. And it's five, six, seven open up those pearly gates, ain't no time to wonder why, whoopie we're all gonna die!
 
Mephisto said:
I honestly don't think you can compare Iraq to WWII. In WWII the threat was obvious (and no one had to lie about it) and the majority of the country was behind the effort.

No so in Iraq where mounting evidence shows that the American people (and the British people) were duped into invading.

Not to mention in WWII everyone was involved. Celebrities, athletes, children of the wealthy. They didn't just join the military, most of them fought. Ted Williams flew a fighter, I believe.

Compare that to todays conflict, in which less then half the country really supports the war now, and even the supporters have Luke T's attitude. He's not going to serve, and he'd rather see his son in Canada then Iraq. Is it any suprise they have recruiting problems. I'm not sure better pay would help either, unless it was a big raise.
 
Mephisto said:
. . . and Terrorist Alerts are so election-time! What's your point?

what happened to those anyway? it seemed like every other day there was a new one during the election. what an astounding coincidence!
 
Renfield said:


Compare that to todays conflict, in which less then half the country really supports the war now, and even the supporters have Luke T's attitude. He's not going to serve, and he'd rather see his son in Canada then Iraq. Is it any suprise they have recruiting problems.

I think that's the real problem. There are basically two groups of people who you can get to do any given task -- those who want to do it (because they feel, for whatever reason, that it's the right thing to do and are willing to do it on that basis) and those who will do it, but only if bribed.

"Volunteer" recruitment tends to draw preferentially from the first group, people who, among other beliefs, support the war. This demographic is shrinking for various reasons -- I believe one of them is the political mismanagement from the White House, but I'm sure there's some neocon on this board who will want to tell me that, "no, it's caused by pixies." Whatever.

As the demographic of the idealists (ideologues) shrinks, the government will have to either bribe more people (raise recuitment bonuses) or coerce them (draft them) if it wants to maintain the same manpower levels. The only other choice is to try to re-persuade the recruit pool that fighting this war is a good idea that they want to do, a task I fear will be difficult.
 

Back
Top Bottom