Check out these sites
http://ivaw.netMy Webpage
http://mfso.org[url=http://]My Webpage[/url

While the sites you provided links to are interesting I gotta tell you that IMHO they're a bit misleading. Methinks it's just a matter of differing opinions though, and you've as much right to express yours as I do mine.

Methinks in the case of the 343rd Quartermaster Company troops who refused orders it really gets a bit more complicated than those sites would lead one to believe. IMHO it's based on what have all the earmarks one sided news stories that leave out facts the reporters could and should have known when they were filed. Here's a couple to consider:

The mission was completed safely and without incident by another group from the same unit. Doesn't that show it really wasn't a "suicide mission"?

Poor maintenance alone should result in Office Hours (Article 15 hearing). If it results in failure to carry out a mission I'd think Courts Martial proceedings are in order. Methinks the Army is like the Marines, & the vehicle operators and their crews are directly responsible for the maintenance of their vehicles. If so the vehicles being in poor shape should be the responsibility of those who claimed it as an excuse for refusing to go on the mission assigned.

Methinks any contamination issue referred to in the story is bogus. Jet fuel is really just more highly refined diesel fuel, both are really just grades of kerosene. You can safely burn JP-4 or JP-5 (jet fuel grade kerosene) in most any diesel engine, so mixing it with regular diesel for use in diesel engines is not a problem. I've even seen JP-5 contaminated DFM burned in Navy ships' boilers without incident.

Sounds like leadership, especially by those directly over these troops, was lacking in this case. Don't get me wrong, those farther up the chain of command should also share in the blame. Just the same methinks the NCO's and SNCO's directly supervising these troops should take the biggest hit.

Methinks any frantic call home as reported in some of the stories about this incidend sound more like a case of "Oops, I really screwed up and need my mommy to help get me out of this" and I doubt it's going to work.

The websites linked from the first note cover none of these issues. IMHO they are the essence of completely understanding what happened and keeping it from happening again.

IMHO the bottom line is that something really smells rotten about this whole incident. Going only on what's been reported it was a mutiny.

Just how does this story, or those web sites in any way have anything to do with a draft, which to me was and is a bogus issue on it's owm merits.

The draft proposal in Congress put forward by Democrats in Congress was very sound politics. If the Republicans in Congress (solidly in control of executive and legislative branches) are to vote to reinstate the draft, it will paint them as enormous hypocrites. But before you even worry about that, let me just say that introducing a draft at the current time would be suicide for the Republicans. It's going to take a much greater escalation of conflicts across the world for a draft to be instated. I don't think the Republicans are stupid enough to get us into another Iraq-size conflict.

I'm worried as a young American who would be eligible for a draft, but I think its pretty unlikely that it will happen in the current climate. Things will have to get much worse before a draft is even considered.

No draft huh? http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=395 If for some reason the link doesn't work go to http://www.bluelemure.com

The Draft? Heck we have selective service now and if the President so desires, all he has to do is write one Presidential Order and bam the draft begins. People think all this has to go through congress, nope. Read the rules on Selective Service. It does tell you, the draft can be activated by Presidential Order...

Besides, Rove polled the congress to ask if they'd support the draft if the president felt it was warranted. They overwhelmingly said yes.

QUOTE

Just how does this story, or those web sites in any way have anything to do with a draft, which to me was and is a bogus issue on it's owm merits

blueinmo,

GOT TO GO ALONG WITH FLYDANGLER ON THIS ONE

As a member of my local draft board, BTW Retired Military can get a waiver to serve on local Selective Service Boards "IF" they are Disabled Veterans not subject to recall.

And WE do not refer to them as Draft Boards anymore.

https://www4.sss.gov/localboardmembers/bminquiry.asp

Members of Veterans for John Kerry began filling out the above applications all over the nation over two years ago just in case the NEOCONS continued Bush's War in Iraq.

They have no way of knowing how many of US are on Selective Service Boards throughout the nation.

SO NO SON, I AGREE WITH FLYDANGLER THERE WILL NOT BE A DRAFT. THE SONS OF REPUBLICANS HAVE TOO MUCH TO LOSE.

If there were a draft our motto is, "NO YOUNG REPUBLICAN CHICKEN HAWKS LEFT BEHIND."

You see the only basic difference about the controversial Draft evceryone's been talking about AND THE ONE IN EXISTENCE THAT YOU ARE PROBABLY ALREADY SIGNED UP FOR IS "WOMEN."

I "strongly" recommend that YOU research this site and become familiar with myth vs. reality JUST IN CASE:

http://www.sss.gov/FSbackgr.htm

NOW I'M SURE FLYDANGLER WOULD TELL YOU TO FORGET THE GARBAGE YOU HEARD ABOUT THE BILL THE DEMOCRATS WERE FLOATING AROUND CONGRESS "THAT" WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

IF PRESIDENT BUSH EVER DECIDED WE NEED A DRAFT THIS IS WHAT HE COULD AND WOULD LEGALLY DO "NOW:"

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SELECTIVE SERVICE TODAY AND DURING VIETNAM

The Agency has changed dramatically since the 1970s. A series of reforms during the latter part of the Vietnam conflict changed the way the draft operated. If a draft were held today it would be the most equitable draft in history:

If a draft were held today there would be fewer reasons to excuse a man from service. (OH GRACIOUS ME - YOU MEAN THOSE OF US ON THE BOARDS COULD ACTUALLY ENFORCE THIS TO MAKE PATRIOTIC YOUNG REPUBLICANS GO :o )

Before Congress reformed the draft in 1971, a man could qualify for a "student deferment" if he could show he was a full-time student making satisfactory progress in virtually any field of study. He could continue to go to school and be deferred from service until he was too old to be drafted. Under the new draft law, a college student could have his induction postponed only until the end of the current semester. A senior could be postponed until the end of the full academic year. (THAT MEANS VETERANS FOR KERRY ON THE BOARDS WOULD ENSURE THAT DICK CHENEY JRS WOULD NOT GET FIVE DEFERMENTS FROM FIGHTING IN IRAQ OR WE WOULD RAISE HOLY HELL).

If a draft were held today, local boards would better represent the communities they serve. (ESPECIALLY WITH VETERANS FOR KERRY ON THEM )

The changes in the new draft law made in 1971 included the provision that membership on the boards was required to be as representative as possible of the racial and ethnic background of the area served by the board. (IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE WE WILL RAISE HOLY HELL)

Before 1971, state and local boards used a "quota system" under which they assigned a certain number of men to the draft. Because the boards determined who would be drafted, there were instances when personal relationships and favoritism played a part in deciding who would be drafted. Today, the Uniform National Call ensures that men will be treated the same, no matter which board they are assigned to. (AGAIN WITH VETERANS FOR KERRY ON THE BOARDS AND THE SYSTEM NOT KNOWING EXACTING WHERE WE ARE = WE WILL ENSURE THE FAIRNESS OF THE SYSTEM INCLUDES YOUNG REPUBLICANS )

A draft held today would use a lottery to determine the order of call.

Before the lottery was implemented in the latter part of the Vietnam conflict, there was no system in place to determine order of call besides the fact that men between the ages of 18 and 26 were vulnerable to being drafted. This lack of a system resulted in uncertainty for the potential draftees during the entire time they were within the draft-eligible age group. All throughout a young man’s early 20’s he did not know if he would be drafted. A draft held today would use a lottery system under which a man would spend only one year in first priority for the draft—either the calendar year he turned 20 or the year his deferment ended, whichever came first. If he was not drafted in his first priority year, he dropped into second priority. In this way he would be spared the uncertainty of waiting until his 26th birthday to be certain he would not be drafted.

If a draft were held today, a registrant would be guaranteed a personal appearance before his board if he wanted to appeal his classification. (MILITARY FAMILIES SPEAK OUT WILL BE PREPARING YOUNGSTERS FOR APPEARING BEFORE THESE BOARDS SHOULD BUSH'S WAR IN IRAQ BE CONTINUING).

Before 1971, a draftee was not guaranteed this right, and so some decisions about whether a man would be drafted were made based on paperwork. Today, if a man wanted to appeal to his Local Board for an exemption or deferment, he could speak to them directly.

http://www.sss.gov/FSdiffer.htm

HOWEVER, AGAIN I STRONGLY AGREE WITH FLYDANGLER THAT THERE WILL NOT BE A DRAFT. THE MILITARY STILL HAS MANY ALTERNATIVES TO TURN TO "BEFORE" RESORTING TO A DRAFT WHICH WOULD CREAT MORE SOCIAL UPHEAVAL THAN THE NEOCONS WOULD BE ABLE TO HANDLE.

blueinmo, the Army still has thousands of Individual Ready Reserves (IIR) it can tap into. The Air Force and Navy don't like it but they have already been tapped to start doing convoy and town patrols in Iraq. Thus, there are quite a few innovations the NEOCONS will turn to BEFORE touching the draft especially given the ability for the draft to be sabotaged.

Not that I would do that of course given I have a son already PROUDLY serving his nation in a military career. THAT IS A LIFE WE CHOSE.

I gotta tell ya... things are pretty tough from where I sit in the active reserves

I don't want to share numbers, so I wont but they got a serious problem on there hands... for as long as we got troops in Iraq.

I will say there are other ways of dealing with the shortage without the upfront draft.... incentives, and the ever popular back door draft will most definetly continue.

Are all the branches hitting their quotas?

HOW WOULD SELECTIVE SERVICE CONDUCT A RETURN TO CONSCRIPTION?

NOW THIS IS "VERY IMPORTANT" TO REMEMBER BECAUSE "AFTER" THE MILITARY HAS EXHAUSTED ALL INNOVATIVE STEPS TO AVOID "THE DRAFT" THIS IS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.

When the all-volunteer force was established, it was not intended to stand alone in time of national emergency. If, by law, it is determined that a return to the draft is required, the Selective Service System would be responsible for supplying manpower through the induction process to fill vacancies that could not be filled through voluntary enlistments.

THEREIN LIES THE KEY. SHOULD THE GOD FORBIDDEN HAPPEN AND CHENEY BUSH NOT BE ABLE TO KEEP US SAFE AT HOME BY FIGHTING THEM IN IRAQ THAT WILL BE THE EXCUSE BUSH NEEDS TO "LIBERATE" IRAN OR BLAME IRAN FOR HARBORING THE TERRORIST WHO ATTACKED US ON AMERICAN SOIL REGARDLESS IF THEY DID OR NOT.

IT WILL BE A REPEAT OF 9/11 AND RELATING IRAQ TO THAT ATTACK ALL OVER AGAIN. GIVING BUSH THE EXCUSE TO DECLARE A NATIONAL EMERGENCY, BECAUSE WE LACK THE FORCES TO BOTH CONTINUE OCCUPYING IRAQ AND "LIBERATE" IRAN. THEN HE HAS THE GROUNDS FOR A DRAFT AND ALL HE NEEDS IS THE COOPERATION OF CONGRESS TO GIVE IT TO HIM.

THIS TIME LET'S HOPE AND PRAY THERE IS MORE RESISTENCE IN CONGRESS THAN THE LAST TIME.

In the event of a return to conscription, the Selective Service System would expand significantly. Its Reserve Forces Officers would be called to active duty to establish State Headquarters and Area Offices at predetermined locations, and at the same time approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal Boards would be activated throughout the nation, staffed by 11,000 volunteers. Computer links between all Agency locations would be activated. Current planning is based on the Department of Defense requirement which requires the first inductees about six months after notification. Selective Service is also capable of providing inductees with special skills, such as health care personnel, after authorizing legislation is passed by Congress and a draft is ordered by the President.

An early step in the resumption of the inductions process would be to hold a lottery, sequencing dates of birth by random drawing, to determine the order in which registrants of prime draft age would be called for processing for induction. For a conventional draft of "untrained" manpower, a man is in the first priority group for a possible draft during the calendar year of his 20th birthday. Beginning January 1 of the year he turns 21 he would drop into the second priority category, and men born the year after he was born would move into the first priority group. Each succeeding year, a draft eligible man drops into the next lower priority group until he has reached his 26th birthday, at which time he is over the age of liability for the draft.

Registrants facing possible induction would first be ordered to report for examination to establish their acceptability for military service. Those found acceptable will have the opportunity to file a claim for postponement, deferment, or exemption from military service prior to receiving an induction order. The Agency would also administer an Alternative Service Program for men classified as conscientious objectors who are required to perform such service in lieu of serving in the military.

Current plans are frequently tested, evaluated, and revised as necessary. If implemented, they will guide the Selective Service System in making a smooth transition from current reduced readiness levels to full conscription within six months.

QUOTE

Are all the branches hitting their quotas?

dirtynymph,

All branches of Service do not have to meet their quotas.

Regarding the War in Iraq and War on Terrorism in general and SFC White has more right to tune in here HE'S FIGHTING IT.

It's the Boots on the Ground (Army and Marine Corp) that have to meet their quota per se.

The Air Force in fact has been having a draw down. They have been letting people go. Forcing people out. The Army and Air Force had (maybe still have) the Blue to Green program trying to convince Airmen getting out of the Air Force to join the Army, but very few took them up on the offer despite the incentives SFC White refers too, reenlistment bonus $$$, promotions. BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO GO TO IRAQ. You see the Air Force does not have to fight the Iraqi Air Force or the Insurgent Air Force or Terrorist Air Force per se, so the Air Force is a relatively SAFE place to be. The Navy is pretty much in the same Boat NO PUN INTENDED. These services will not have any problem reaching their recruiting goals until it becomes common knowledge that Airmen and Seamen are being called upon to do Boots on the Ground duty in Iraq.

BTW - the practice of using Air Force and Navy units in a ground support role in Iraq is not widespread yet and only limited to Security Police/Shore Patrol Forces and Civil Engineer Units thus far. But Airmen and Seamen are starting to cry they never joined the Army or Marine Corp.

BUSH'S WAR IN IRAQ WILL EVENTUALLY DRIVE A WEDGE IN THE SERVICES AS COMBAT BURDEN BECOMES A SHARED BURDEN AND DEATHS BECOME SHARED.

YOU CAN SUSPECT THAT BUSH RECEIVED MORE SUPPORT FROM AIR FORCE AND NAVY MEMBERS WITH LITTLE SHARED SACRIFICE IN IRAQ THAN HE DID FROM ARMY AND MARINES DESPITE THE SPIN FROM THE MEDIA AND RIGHT-WING VETERANS OR THE TROOPS SUPPORTED NEITHER CANDIDATE JUST MY OPIN!

There won't be any draft.

A guy I knew from high school went the officer route, the guy lived and breathed Marine Corp, even married a BAM officer. He got asked to retire because he got passed over for O-5 three times.

I retired out of the Marines after 30 years in 2000. I sweated the last few years because my old carcuss was starting to have trouble keeping up with the kids.

I know, at least for the Marine Corps point of view, the military is getting enough well qualified warm bodys not to want a draft.

The point was if some one wanted to be a Marine they had to cut the mustard because if they didn't there were plenty of people wanting in who would.

Thanks for the additional info ARMYDAD, methinks it helps to have people knowledgeable on the subject join in the discussion.

Marine is absolutely correct about the Corps. I'm old enough to remember when the Marines were understandably upset when they had to take a few, and I mean very few draftees back in the 60's. They didn't want them then and they don't now want anyone that doesn't want to be a Marine.

From what I've heard and seen none of the services, not even the Army, wants to go back to a time when people were drafted just to become poorly motivated cannon fodder that sometimes got others killed by their actions.

Did anyone else actually look at the links in the first post in this thread? Comments? (I think that's why he posted them)

What about the proposal Rummy had to have the draft include up to age 34? Also what if you just told them if you got drafted that you were gay?

Never heard about up to age 34, could you please provide a source for this?

Gee, if "don't ask don't tell" is the law of the land what do YOU think would happen?

It was in my paper go to postgazette.com last Sunday about a Rummy proposal of Feb of 2003 to expand it to 34. I would just tell them I'm not comfortable with "don't ask don't tell." We may become a very gay nation!

Never saw the article, or any mention of intent to raise it unless you're referring to special categories like physicians.

The 'Back Door' draft is alive and well. Here's a link to an AP news article where a Gulf War Veteran has been involuntarily recalled after being out of the military for 13 years. He claims that he never signed up for the IRR and is suing the government.

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...866n73g0&src=ap

Methinks this one is just another case of FUBAR paperwork, just like the case last week of the former Army NG captain that was in the papers. IMHO, just like the case last week, it'll get resolved amicably real quick I bet, but we won't hear about THAT.

You folks keep bringing these cases up though, you might find a valid case yet.

It's been 34 years since I was in boot camp. Way back then we had a guy who decided he had screwed up enlisting in the Marines and figured the quickest way out was to claim to be gay. The D.I. halfmasted his pants and told him to give him a blow job to prove he was gay.

According to all the media reporting the troops are happy with the current situation. Most seem glad to be in Iraq serving their country. At least that's what the Republicans are putting out. That's all I heard before the election how proud the troops and their families were to have Bush as president and to be able to do their patriotic duty. In fact, the troops and their families practically worship Bush. If all this media hype is true there won't be any reason to have a draft. Too many willing to jump in and serve and have Bush as their Commander and Chief. Then again, most of the troops come from the South.

Actually, most of the time those of us who served didn't pay that much attention to who was President.

The only time in my career when I worried about who was President was when Jimmy Carter was President and I couldn't get equipment I need to do my job right.

Jeez, in 1978 & 1979, I had a .45 made by Remington Rand during WW2 which had it's bore shot smooth and I couldn't get a better one. All my comm equipment had at least two or three property stickers on it , started out property of the U.S. Air Force, then hand down to the Army or Navy, then the Marines finally got it. Nothing was new or up to date.

I don't know where you got your information on what part of the county the troops come from but I retired as a E-9 Master Gunnery Sgt. from the Marines and my boys and girls came from all over the country, including Puerto Rico, not just the south.

Well I intend to hold Bush to his word. He said there would be no draft. If he even breaths one word of reinstating it.....it's off to protest it.

Also I don't think the UK is going to hold Blair as their Prime Minster much longer. Once he is taken down they will elect a Prime Minster who will bring their troops home from Iraq and Poland is pulling out starting 2005 as it is. Once this happens we should call all our Seantors and ask them that we should not be fighting this war alone and that we need to bring our soliders home.

Right now the administration is using a back-door draft, they're forcing tours of at least 18 months on combat vets who have any time left on a 1 year national guard program that allowed the vets access to educational and medical benefits as part of the "stop-loss" program; involuntarily activating vet in the Individual Ready Reserve (have some contractual obligation to the army) as well as involuntarily activating those who've been honorably discharged classifying them as IRR.

There's also talk the selective service may require compulsory service of some civilian healthcare professionals.

Unless we get out of Iraq soon or other countries decide they feel really bad for those of us who didn't vote for the shrub and send help, a draft will be necessary if things get worse in Iraq or if we have any additional military obligations develop - I'd say with how things are going in Iran, that's a strong possibility. Any new draft shouldn't be males only, think either of the Bush twins will go?

I bet you are right that it is probably just a paperwork glitch that will be solved amicably.

I disagree if you are implying that it is not worth reporting.

Assumptions are the mother of all mess-ups.

If you find that this turns out to be an exaggerated story by all means let us know.

sorry
Looks like my reply came in out of sequence. I'll send it again

This is a reply to flydangler regarding AP story of soldier reactivated.

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...866n73g0&src=ap


I bet you are right that it is probably just a paperwork glitch that will be solved amicably.

I disagree if you are implying that it is not worth reporting.

Assumptions are the mother of all mess-ups. If true it should be a big news story if not true it will be a minor news story

If you find that this turns out to be an exaggerated story by all means let us know.

I encourage everyone hear to check out this excert from a soldier who has already done a tour in Iraq (and will be doing another one next year).

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/6/1056/72292#3

Master Guns, methinks we might have to change the motto. How about "Always tactful"?

This started out to be a brief comment, but turned into a brain dump. To summarize, we won't require any form of draft as long as the world situation remains as stable as it is today. W would turn out to be an even bigger fool than I think he is if he goes looking for more trouble in Iran or North Korea, given that we are already stretched thin with our present actions. As long as he thinks he has the luxury to wage one or two wars simultaneously, we can manage with top-notch volunteers. But if anyone, such as North Korea, gets nastier and starts making noises like they want to sell nukes to Osama's followers, we would eventually be faced with a need to put more people in uniform. So here's my rant.

I'm looking for the big picture viewpoint, the view from the International Space Station.

I agree with dsmo (post #3) that this would not be a propitious moment for the President to push the Selective Service button (thanks, ARMYDAD Bobby, for your encyclopedic info, as always).

And Marine and flydangler (#12 and #13) are right about the professional soldiers not wanting draftees among the troops. The ideal unit for the pros is composed of motivated, educated, intelligent men and women -- the cream of the crop.

These assumptions hold true, as long as the current geo-political situation remains relatively stable. But we are stretched thin at the moment, militarily and financially. If given the luxury to fight or two wars at a time, we could manage it. But if something else erupts before we're finished in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're in trouble. Iran? Syria? North Korea? The world's most populous Muslim country, Indonesia? We could borrow money, but we would need to put more citizens in uniform.

How would this administration react to a new "hot spot"? If we call the shots, we'll avoid biting off more than we think we can chew. They may be dumb, but they're not stupid. We need to understand W's peoples' motives in Iraq. Iraq is a conundrum, a puzzle. It appears to me that somebody in the current administration has a definite agenda -- it's just difficult to discern what it is.

Because so much about Iraq doesn't make sense, we must conclude either that W and his people are fools and inept -- or that they are carefully concealing their real agenda.

The only people who are fooled by the "war on terrorism" explanation are the slack-jawed "conservative" true-believers, who enthusiastically lap up whatever foul-smelling porridge W spoons out to us. The war in Iraq must be an effective recruiting poster for those inclined to want to kill Americans. It must be easier to sign up anti-American fighters with a real live war going on, compared to the usual simmering hatred they try to use to motivate people to leave their lives behind and rise up to strike out against Americans. There are those who say that Iraq is like a honeypot, and we are attracting the flies to one place so that we can kill them efficiently. To them I say that for every one we kill, two more will be motivated to replace their fallen brethren.

The oil explanation has some compelling arguments. But we could have relaxed our relationship with Saddam and paid cash for all the oil they could deliver to us. The problems with that are that we ultimately wouldn't control it, so we couldn't rely on it; and we would be supplying Saddam with billions of dollars that he could turn around and use against us. So the Big Oil representatives in W's clique would prefer to buy Iraqi oil from a friendly government, instead of a hostile government. But the "blood for oil" argument is a tough sell, so it needs to be sugar-coated with palatable ideas like "winning the war on terrorism" and "delivering freedom to the Iraqi people".

As for delivering freedom to the Iraqi people, it would be so much more believeable if the Iraqi people had started a revolution, and we stepped in to help them. Our American Revolution provides a limited analogy. We started it, and then we persuaded the French to help us. Imagine what it would have been like if the French had come here to fight the British on our soil, to free us from the oppression of King George. The analogy breaks down because the French and the British were old enemies, and it would have been plausible for them to fight on our soil -- but their supply lines would have been drawn thin crossing the vast ocean, and it probably would not have been a battle ground they would have chosen, all else being equal. As it was, we struggled to raise and fund an army, and to persuade farmers and ordinary citizens, busy with their lives, to abandon their families and their fields and to risk their lives for the cause of freedom. The French agreed to assist our already considerable effort. We knew some highly motivated soldiers in South Vietnam -- but there weren't nearly enough. There are doubtless highly motivated people in Iraq -- but we don't hear about them. We're handing them the gift of freedom -- but they seem unsure about what to do with it. If freedom is our motivation (imagine Jon Lovitz as the pathological liar, saying "weapons of mass destruction, no, um, freedom, yeah, freedom, that's it, that's the ticket") then our approach is ill-considered or wrong-headed, or stupid. And are we waging a propaganda war on the ground in Iraq? We don't see much evidence of it on the news. How are we doing on winning the hearts and minds of the people? My impression is that we are making a mess of that on a regular basis, killing way too many friendlies, and generally messing up peoples' lives.

Then there is the question of nuclear weapons. Iran and North Korea have nukes. Excuse me, "weapons of mass destruction". If we were really concerned about nukes, we would start by buying, stealing, or otherwise neutralizing every last stray nuclear weapon in the former Soviet Union. Are we addressing that? Not according to what I've heard. The terrorists are not waging a military-style war against us -- that would be virtually impossible. The nature of terrorism is to strike unexpectedly, to get our attention and make us do things we will regret later. It would only take one big strike to throw us into turmoil -- perhaps something like the movie "The Sum of All Fears", where a lost Israeli nuke is smuggled into one of our ports on a container ship and detonated in Baltimore. (Why Baltimore? A few more miles down the Balto-Wash Parkway, and they could have devastated DC.)

Do we know what the terrorists have in mind for us? Almost certainly not. W would like us to think that we have been attack-free since 9/11 because we have effectively defended ourselves. But do we know what they have in mind for us? They waited 8 years between strikes on WTC. I doubt that W knows what those who hate us have in mind for us.

On an obligation to serve: I think the Boomers among us would agree that most of us grew up in the late 40s and 50s and 60s with the idea that each of us has an obligation to serve, to preserve liberty and defend the Constitution, to pay a debt to those who served before us and who ensured that we could enjoy the lives we are living today. It seems that the kids today don't have that same sense of obligation to serve that we had. For example, at dinner this past Friday evening, our daughter's 24-yo boyfriend loudly and repeatedly asserted that "There is no way they will bring back the draft". I tried to get him to address the question of whether or not he felt any obligation to serve, but he remained silent. I think he has not thought it through, or has never been challenged on that point before.

An involuntary call-up would be costly, both politically and financially. But it may become necessary, or at least the President could be persuaded that it is necessary (dumbass that he is).

One of the things that bothers me most about Iraq is that while we are losing people there, here at home we have no sense of being on a war footing, we have no sense of shared sacrifice. Most of us go about our daily lives here as if there is nothing going on there in Iraq. I do a "gut check" periodically, and the war in Iraq barely exists for me, the terrorist threat seems vague, the "war on terror" seems more like "the war against people who are mad at us in Iraq", which serves no discernible purpose, and which is bleeding real blood and borrowed money.

The return of the draft would get us all involved. That's why I think it would be a good thing. Citizen soldiers are a healthy component of our standing military. That point is not really addressed by sending the Guard and Reserves into combat -- they are all volunteers. As I said more than once on John Kerry's forum, it's far easier for W to stage an adventure like Iraq with professionals, compared to what it would be like to send draftees from many many homes across our land to a war that only makes sense to those ignorant of history, particularly in Vietnam. I believe Charles Rangel and -- Senator Hollings? -- share that vision, that the return of the draft would put the brakes on whimsical adventurism on the part of the stupid W administration. Is it any more tragic to send draftees to certain death in an optional war, than it is to send our best professionals to certain death in an optional war? I say no. It shouldn't happen to anybody. It's one thing to defend our home. It's quite another to fight on the other side of the world for dubious or unclear reasons. The CiC has an advantage over the troops -- they will do what they are told to do without question. If they stop and think about why they are fighting in Iraq, I'd bet they would come up with the same answer many of us came up with in Vietnam -- they are fighting for each other, and if W had not sent them there, it never would have occurred to any of them to go there and do that. I'm confident they spend very little time thinking about why they are there -- what I thought about was getting through this day.

I met many civilians, as well as soldiers, in Vietnam who made me see their plight, and who gave me a glimmer of why it made sense for us to be there. But I have struggled ever since then to reconcile being the "policeman of the world". Could W send draftees to be the policeman of the world? Tough sell. He wants volunteers, and he wants no other problems to pop up while we're stuck in Iraq.

I hope it is a "paperwork glitch." I'll be following it.

88M (Truck Driver) is one of the most understrength MOSs these days (according to HRC/PERSCOM) If they were going to start snatching people, it will be Truck Drivers (and Certain MI MOSs, Field Artilery Fire Support, and Mortuary Affairs.) The other way short MOS is Recruiting. I doubt they'll "draft" recruiters, not good for business.

I work with a number of people who are still in the Reserves. I'll be interested to ask around. They are mostly in nursing and medicine.

Sorry, forgot there might be mixed company present. My wife keeps telling me I'm not a top anymore and I got to stop saying anything I d*mn well please.

[quote=CitizenDave,Nov 7 2004, 03:27 PM]
[QUOTE]This started out to be a brief comment[/QUOTE]
Long winded and run on thoughts that seem to contradict

[QUOTE]I agree with dsmo (post #3) that this would not be a propitious moment for the President to push the Selective Service button (thanks, ARMYDAD Bobby, for your encyclopedic info, as always). [/QUOTE]
Only if all the rich bastards who are promoting this fake war send their kids,
ie. The Bush twins

[QUOTE] Iraq is a conundrum, a puzzle. It appears to me that somebody in the current administration has a definite agenda -- it's just difficult to discern what it is.[/QUOTE]
GREED, GREED, GREED!! Wake UP MAN!!!

[QUOTE]Because so much about Iraq doesn't make sense, we must conclude either that W and his people are fools and inept -- or that they are carefully concealing their real agenda.[/QUOTE]

Ya think???
I think 53 MILLION PEOPLE AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT!!


[QUOTE]An involuntary call-up would be costly, both politically and financially. But it may become necessary, or at least the President could be persuaded that it is necessary (dumbass that he is). [/QUOTE]

NOT MY YOUNGEST SON...NO F-ING WAY!!! I ALL READY GAVE TWO so F OFF!!

[QUOTE]One of the things that bothers me most about Iraq is that while we are losing people there, here at home we have no sense [/QUOTE]

Now THAT I agree with!! Blame the MEDIA and Georgie BANNED PICS OF CASKETS COMING HOME, didn't ya know??

[QUOTE]The return of the draft would get us all involved. That's why I think it would be a good thing. [/QUOTE]
YOU ARE A MORON!!!
Please shut up!

I JUST WANT TO HUG YOU WITH GRATEFUL TEARS IN MY EYES...[SIZE=7]....






I am one of you............

Cartimandua

Please say what you really think.

Now here's the other side of my story.

After I returned home from Vietnam I applied for and was granted discharge as a conscientious objector.

I became a vegetarian in 1975, and have not killed to eat ever since then.

When I say war should be a last resort, I mean last resort.

My wife has four children, the oldest is 25, youngest will be 14 on Tuesday. She vowed that if the draft is reinstated, she would help her kids leave the country. I support her on that.

If you knew me, you would know that I opposed the war in Iraq from the start, and I think it is a stupid waste of American as well as Iraqi lives, not to mention the money.

My point, which you failed to apprehend, is that if the President were to invoke the Selective Service system, our nation would rise up in protest. As it is, we tolerate him sending the professionals into battle. Get it?

Bush would lose all support if the idea of a draft came up in the current climate. Like I said earlier, something very, very major will have to occur before Americans begin to entertain the idea of a draft. Bush probably could've started the draft after 9/11, but didn't. I don't know why we are entertaining that he will all of a sudden just throw it upon us.

Let me reiterate: Not in the current climate. I'm praying that things don't get worse.

Talk of the draft is also ignoring the point that invading Iraq to fight terrorism is all wrong-headed. It assumes that terrorism is state-sponsored. In some instances, it may be, but those bent on terror don't need the support of a country. Did we attack a country after the trains were bombed in Spain? No. It's difficult to wage war on an idea. Islamic fundamentalist terrorism has ideas at its root. They can operate out of an apartment building in Memphis. We need intelligence and police work. We need to understand the minds of the terrorists. We need to wage a battle of ideas. There should be a vigorous debate in Islam aimed at discrediting the extremists. Using our military should be our last avenue of defense -- we can't stop the terrorists if we can't identify or find them.

The draft: I think that a draft should be reinstated for men AND women up to the age of 55, with no exemptions. That way we'd think twice before approving some war against a country that did not attack us.

If the war in Iraq is no noble, why aren't the Bush twins there?

I see this as the real difference between liberals and conservatives; liberals say "let's go together" or "follow MY lead!" Conservatives say "go get 'em" while they hold your coat.

I all ready got it. But you DID contradict yourself in at least two places....so do NOT put the onus on me!!
Get it?
By the way, my oldest son is on "alert" to go to Iraq...so maybe I'm a little IRRATIONAL at the moment! Ya think?

Cartimandua

You have my sympathy. I understand war, having survived one myself, and I can verify that it is the stupidest form of human endeavor. Not recommended for civilized beings.

Look up "apprehend" -- go to www.webster.com -- check the third definition: "...to grasp with the understanding : recognize the meaning of..." I choose my words carefully, and I know what they mean.

I'll reread my essay to look for contradictions. If you want to make a specific point, perhaps I could tie it together for you. Everyone needs an editor.

The point about vegetarianism was not clearly stated, for which I apologize. My motivation to become a veg was ethical -- I decided, while in Vietnam, that if I survived I would stop killing things. It took several years, but eventually I managed to stop eating meat. The concientious objector position is very difficult to defend -- the dilemma is to take a position that you will never resort to violence, no matter what circumstances. The bad guys have your child, threatening to do bodily harm, and you have a gun and know how to use it, and you have a clear shot -- if you are truly a CO, your position must be that you would not take that shot. I made a case for it, and was successful, but that was 34 years ago, and I have moderated my thinking since then. But I try to be a peaceful person. That's where the vegetarianism comes in -- I have tried to be thorough in ridding my life of all forms of violence. I recommend it for everyone. Having said all that, if our country were attacked, I would find a way to help. I could always hit what I was aiming at. But this whole Iraq thing just doesn't make sense, no matter how I look at it. I wouldn't go there.

I've hooked up with a local group that is interested in using me to council people on what it takes to be a conscientious objector. I have not started that yet, but it was raised as a possibility. For someone on active duty, it has always been extremely difficult to become a CO, especially for someone already in the theater of operations. The earlier you start, the better your chances.

I'm sure your motivations are good. Please do not condesend to others. If you don't like comments back, then be careful about what you rant on and on and on about!
Thanks for your service.
Stop promoting the draft!

Cartimandua

'Twas thee who corrected my wording -- you changed "apprehend" to "comprehend", so you kinda started the correction thing.

"...My point, which you failed to apprehend,''comprehend' ' is that if the President were to invoke the Selective Service system, our nation would rise up in protest. As it is, we tolerate him sending the professionals into battle. Get it?..."

I think it is not condescending to defend my original wording.

"...I survived Vietnam as my two older brothers and my friends were drafted and sent away. I think anyone from that era is a survivor not to diminish in anyway the actual soldiers and women who actually served in Vietnam..." I agree with you on this point -- everyone who drew breath during that time was affected by the war in Vietnam.

My comment about needing an editor was not intended to be sarcastic -- although I am certainly capable of sarcasm -- but not this time. Try a Google search on the phrase "Everyone needs an editor". You'll find this, for example. It was intended to be a friendly solicitation for advice from you.

As for "...You recommended the draft at least two times and also stated that the draft was a BAD idea....that IS a contradiction..." I say again that I am not in favor of the draft, and I am opposed to the war in Iraq. (I am not a flip flopper, like President Fence Post.)

If a new front opens up, and our dumbass President doesn't handle it well, it may become necessary to put more people in uniform. Maybe enough will volunteer. Or maybe we can move units out of the old Cold War configuration, from Germany and Japan and South Korea, for example, to meet a new threat.

If the President were smart, he wouldn't press the Draft button, because it would cause an upheaval in our society, the like of which we have not seen since Vietnam. But if the President is a stupidass, he could very well invoke the Draft with a Presidential order, and the resulting anti-war movement could put a stop to his adventurism.

On a different point, how does your son feel about going to war?

And how do you feel about the point I made about growing up with the idea that each citizen has some kind of moral or ethical obligation to serve our country, to do something to repay the debt to those who went before us in defending our liberty?

And maybe we can agree that the war in Iraq is a bad idea. But that leaves unanswered the question about being prepared to serve and to obey the lawful orders of the Commander in Chief. When you are in the military, you follow orders (as long as it is a "lawful" order). We need people in uniform to be prepared to defend the Constitution. It's just a damned shame in the present case, as it was in Vietnam, that it is so difficult to see how fighting Iraqi insurgents is helping to defend the Constitution.

(As for ranting on and on and on, it's my idea of a good time.)

No draft coming??

Think the draft is a Democrat idea because of Rangel and Hollings' bills?


Democrats pro draft? Republicans anti draft?

That´s what they´d like us to believe, but not so if you look a little closer.

Do you not REALLY see what has happened and is happening?

Many people are astoundingly politically naive; seeing only one surface of a multi-faceted object.

Let me put a little perspective on it for you, because things on the surface are not always what they seem, especially once the right wing spin monster gets ahold of them.

Who brought the draft back up in bill?
Democrats.
Yes, that´s right, the Democrats brought not one, but two draft bills up.
Rep. Charles Rangel (vet)brought up a version in the House.
Sen. Fritz Hollings (vet)brought one up in the Senate.

You would automatically think "why those damn Dems! WTF are they thinking about??"

The answer is- Your children remaining safe, the system remaining fair. No more "Bush type ANG war escapes" or college deferrments.

To understand this you´ll have to drop the spin fed assumptions and look at the big picture.

It is no secret to both House and Senate members that Bush did not have enough manpower resources to do the job they took on in Iraq, and it is no secret amongst them that this is even more true when factoring in the rest of the president´s war plans and his cabinet´s assurance that they can fight a "two front war".
Simply put, they´re going to need more troops if they want to continue invading other countries.

Faced with the fact that GOP leaders were setting up readiness committees to put everything in place for a draft, to start soon after the election (everything except the actual lottery), and given the facts that these same GOP members are mainly made up of people that unfairly got cushy deferrments or non combat national guard assignments during the last draft based mainly on their familial or political contacts, they knew they could not allow that.

Worse yet, it was set up so that it wouldn´t go into effect or even to a vote until AFTER the election. Want to see the bill?

H.R.3598
Title: To require the induction into the Armed Forces of young men registered under the Military Selective Service Act, and to authorize young women to volunteer, to receive basic military training and education for a period of up to one year.
Sponsor: Rep Smith, Nick [MI-7] (introduced 12/20/2001) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 1/28/2002 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3598:

So we have Democrats, many of whom were drafted into Vietnam, that simply could not sit still while this same bunch of chickenhawks who were themselves "too good" to go to war sneakily repeated history and decided the fate of another generation of American men. This while their own sons and relatives got the same deferrments and cushy NG appointments. The very Same system used during the Vietnam war era.

What both Rangel and Hollings did was to kill this outright. They rushed to put their bills (which do not contain any provision for deferrments of any kind other than medical incapacity) onto the floor BEFORE election so that the Republicans would HAVE to go on record with their positions.
Clever eh?
That´s called taking one for the team.

As a result, there will now be no draft, at least until the Republicans pull this one out or make another out of dire need
reasons?
1. Their sons would have to go also
2, They would have to have gone on record BEFORE the election as pro draft


Thank you Rangel, Thank you Hollings.

If we must have a draft, it must include their children too.

Dear Citizen Dave;
My son is apprehensive about going to war.
He assures me he will not be any where near action...yet his original orders were to fly into Baghdad...postponed in September/early October...now back on "alert" since just before the election...
I am scared to death....
If he was going to Afghanistan, I would still be freaked out, but I would understand the necessity. (9-11)
But Georgie cooked this one up (Iraq) and rushed in with guns blazing without a thought of how to get out. THAT SCARES THE SHIT OUT OF ME!!
My 2nd oldest son was released from the Marines just before 9-11 and he has a back injury and VA benefits cut (crappy medical help, if any) and is feeling sad about his friends in Iraq and thinks he should be there. (depressed and angry)
My son's felt a duty to serve their country but with a SANE person at the helm.
All the men in my family since the Revolutionary War have served!
Except my little brother and my father was a 4F during WWII but served 35 yrs Civil Service with the Army.
I tried to join but my father would not sign my permission slip. I was 19 at the time. In the 70's....early
My youngest son has developmental disabilities and I do not know how to defend his being drafted. He is 16.
The wolf is at the High School......called "Career Day" ya right!
Let me put it this way:
I love my country.
It is the government that scares me!!
under george bush : the wacko!

PS. I divorced a Vietnam Vet....but he was drafted and joined the Coast Guard....

Well the problem with that strategy is that as soon as he does it-and he will, cause he has his sights set on the Iranian Oil and the pipeline to get it from Russia, it will be too late to protest or anything else. I have three sons and I am updating the passports and buying a condo in Canada. No way will the 48% who didnt put Hitler in office will serve. As the papers in Europe reported, "How Stupid Can America be?" That is the real question

I think this is the ultimate, put your lives where your rhetoric is, option. I have three sons and am buying a condo in Canada this week. When he opens his mouth (read my thin smirking lips), for the draft, and it will take a little while for dumbass Americans to forget that he actually said it ("No Nation BUilding"), then we should talk impeachment, better yet talk impeachment now. Why would the europeans help us, he has been a gun totten a-hole to the whole world. The real question is "Why"? How could that many Americans be that stupid? Or was it fixed?

Bush will introduce the "need" for a draft gradually. I have a friend from Pakistan who explained, what is well known in Europe, that Bush wants the oil that is in Russia and will need to invade Iran to get it to the water source. I guess these oil guys, and every last one of them-including Condeleeza Rice, in his cabinet, is an oil guy-thus no alternative fuels in this administration.

Praying and consulting with God is what Bush says he does and look where it gets us, at war with the world. I think Bush hears voices and is a dry drunk-psychotic. They also report that the drunken twins take a page from doing what they are told by dreams and voices that they interpret to be God. (which is exactly what schitzophrenics do)

It is interesting, I was reading with my fourth grader yesterday about how the British gave a charter to explorers to claim land in (Jamestown) by virtue of the natives not being "christians"-kinda like Bush and Iraq and then it will be Iran. He has taken a page out of the British Empire (where the Sun never sets) and Hitlers playbook that capitalizes on the fears and the lowest common denominator of people. So borrowing from the most henious sources in history, he may have won the election.

I have three sons-NONE will serve under any circumstances.

I'm active Air force and prior service Army(Infantry) there is NO chance I will be taking blue to green any time soon as my 11B MOS takes priority over my Air force AFSC. That's not to say I'm not willing to fight, I would be if I thought I could do any good but from where I sit the lack of troops in Iraq has less to do with manning issues and more to do with executive decisions and poor management. As far as a draft goes the AF will not see it, nor will the Navy or Marines. It is possible to draft only into the Army, and only in critical career fields (read as bullet stoppers). My best friend and I both left the Army, he went into the Marines as a Helo-pilot and has been to Iraq a few times. This war has been screwed up from the top for awhile now... when will politicians learn to listen to the Army war college when they make strategic recommendations? I understand 100% the Army's reluctance to take draftees, if I started getting them under me... they would be permanent trash engineers. Draftee's in the combat arms... is a horrible idea. The only reason to draft... is to save pennies. Draft someone into the Army for two years and you only have to pay them the first three ranks worth of pay. You don't pay any bonuses, or college money. If you are smart and take only single people you can avoid dependant pay as well. It's a chicken shit way to fight a war IMHO. I'm lucky, my days of digging a hole and taking a nap in it are over, and for those still out there I wish you the best. I promise this much, if a draft is started, I will take my uniform off on the weekends and join protests to end it.