November 4, 2003 7:46 AM
The administration scoffed at Rep. Rangel last year when he called for reinstatement of the draft. Now they are filling long vacant positions in local draft boards. Half the soldiers in Iraq are "not likely" or "very unlikely" to re-eenlist.
Charles Peńa, director of defense studies at the Cato institute:
The closest parallel to the Iraq situation is the British in Northern Ireland, where you also had some people supporting the occupying army and some opposing them, and where the opponents were willing to resort to terror tactics. There the British needed a ratio of 10 soldiers per 1,000 population to restore order, and at their height, it was 20 soldiers per 1,000 population. If you transfer that to Iraq, it would mean you'd need at least 240,000 troops and maybe as many as 480,000.The only reason you aren't hearing these kinds of numbers discussed by the White House and the Defense Department right now is that you couldn't come up with them without a return to the draft, and they don't want to talk about that.
You bet this is going to come up at tonight's Rock the Vote presidential debate.
UPDATE: You can submit questions for the debate via SMS to 26688. This is what I sent "Would u reinst8 draft?" For the record, I support the draft, and would serve if drafted (ie, I wouldn't pull any shenanigans to get out of it).
UPDATE 11/12/2003: The question was asked! Details here.
Bringing Back the Draft (11.04.2003)
Next Entry: You Have the Power (11.04.2003)
Previous Entry: HUGE Response to Uncovered! (11.03.2003)
Paul in OC:
There's a debate tonight? Man, I wish I had a Tivo right about now.
Tue Nov 4 2003 8:35 AM
Kyle:
I wouldn't serve if drafted and I would like fight like hell to keep others from it.
If the issue is mandatory service - there are many types of service more worthy and more productive than the military.
I hope that the majority agrees and think it a good sign that politicians are wary of bringing up the topic.
Tue Nov 4 2003 1:25 PM
James Eddy:
They should have manditory enrollment.18 months.
Give the benifits package. Result?
Less gangsters less gangs less crime less drugs
More employed people More taxes
!bingo! sounds republican Ya? NOT
see ya
Wed Jan 7 2004 2:20 AM
mark-o:
So when is the draft supposed to start? Please let me know so I can move to Canada.
Tue Nov 16 2004 7:16 AM
Rommie:
i was 222 on the draft. i join the air force.i think they need the draft. give the guys&girls.som
ething to do that caint find jobs.are go to colleg
e and then drop out. kids walk the streets. do drugs, are in up in jail.
Mon Feb 19 2007 7:24 PM
NJGuardsman:
I disagree with the draft; time and again people already in the military have said that they want people who WANT to be in the military, who want to serve their country in the armed forces â not indentured servants. Try and teach someone something when they have absolutely no desire to be there.
There are numerous ways to bring the military back to pre-Clinton levels without instituting the draft, chief among these is/are: money (pay/bonuses), tuition re-imbursement / tuition assistance, paid training in any number of occupations that translate to the civilian world.
To tell the truth, I was surprised and disappointed that there werenât long lines of people waiting to go into recruiting stations after 9/11.
Tue Feb 20 2007 8:38 AM
Mike of the Great White North:
I agree with NJ, the draft is not a wise choice; nor is it constitutional because it makes people property of the state. The choice to give ones life in service should always be purely voluntary and never coerced.
The only ones who want to institute the draft are using it for politics and I can see the reasoning behind it. If the lives of those deciding when and with whom to make war with had their own mortality on the line, they would exercise greater care in launching war. If their own family had to face the ravages of a war they chose to start, they would think twice about it. Yet this is not the way to go about it.
Further to that, I would ask NJ how he feels about 'stoploss' orders, the 'backdoor' draft if you will. Or the recall of reservists who have put in their mandatory time and are being pressed back into service. Raising the age of retirement in the army, lowering the standards for recruiting, allowing street thugs, criminals, rapists and kkk members to join so as to swell the ranks? What do you think of these?
And what of those who have questioned the war and chose the side of truth against this immoral abomination. The Watada's of the army, the moral conscience you've tried to silence. If as you and I both agree that the only ones who should be in the army are the ones who want to be there, then should not the consciences objectors be given their path to freedom from committing aggression and war crimes instead of dragged into courtrooms for failed policy decisions?
And lastly NJ, you may feel surprised and disappointed all you want, but it wasn't a nation state, nor a military army force storming American shores, it was a 'tactic'. Most of the 'blue' staters got that and knew what had to be done. If anything... look to your 'red' state chums and look at them with your disappointing eyes... they sure knew how to blow the clarinets of war, but when their nation called, they slapped yellow ribbons to their SUV's.
Welcome back.
Fri Feb 23 2007 6:44 PM
Mike
âThe only ones who want to institute the draft are using it for politicsâŚâ â these are about the truest words youâve ever⌠âsaidâ the vicious sentiment behind this current movement to bring back the draft runs rampant and I personally think itâs disgusting. Those who back this donât mean it and donât want it, itâs just something else to pile on the administration, just something else to waste government time (along with non-binding resolutions, investigations, special prosecutors and so on), I would respect the Democrat Congress more if I believed these issues were genuine and not just another way to grab power.
This is not official and I do not represent the military as it pertains to this issue, now with that out of the way: Stoploss orders and reactivations are nothing new, Iâve already explained this but Iâll do it again â âstoplossâ is used when there is a deficit of people w/a certain skillset of which the military has a critical need and if thereâs a get between those being trained and those leaving that career field, a stoploss is issued because of mission requirements.
I knew what I was getting into when I enlisted (signed the contract), and so does everyone else for that matter. Reactivation is in the contract that is signed by everyone who joins the military in effect if youâre needed w/in a certain amount of time (Iâve heard between 4- 8 years, could be more or less) if you have a specific skillset needed by the military you may be recalled to active duty (ever heard of inactive reserve).
Raising the age of retirement in my eyes is a good thing, several people that have retired (because of age) have wanted to stay in, they have tremendous experience that will be lost to us. Iâ sure a lot of other would like to get out, it just happens to suck to be them at that time.
Lowering the standards would be a detriment (not to mention a slap in the face to those that have come before) to the military.
âallowing: street thugs, criminals, rapists and KKK members to joinâŚâ I have serious doubts as to weather the military will allow convicted criminals to enlist. Members of the military are held to a higher standard (we could be in serious trouble for just bouncing a check) and I donât think these people could live up to those same standards.
Does the word COMMITMENT mean anything to conscientious objectors, they are cowards plain and simple, they knew what they were getting into and now when the ârubber meets the road they get cold feet say âI didnât sign on for thisâ then what did they sign on for free benefits and trips to the base exchange whenever they want? Theyâre not kids anymore Thereâre no DO OVERS in the real world. This country ahs spent: time effort and a lot of $$$$$ to train us to do the job(s) we signed on for.
I joined the military during Clintonâs reign and me wanting to serve and protect my country took precedence over any issues I had with/about Clinton â l loathed the fact he was my commander N Chief but I still did my duty and while in uniform I never berated him or the office of the President (one of the first questions I was asked was if I was a conscientious objector â I bluntly said NO).And lastlyâŚ
We were attacked on 9/11 we were attacked by an entity, an organization and that makes them no less deadly or serious then is a country had attacked us. Just because you hang on the fact that a ânationâ didnât attack us doesnât mean it didnât happen
We were attacked just like we were attacked at Pearl harbor, almost 3000 people died in a matter of hours and that was mercifully short compared to those that died 60 years before. We fought the Japanese who believed they were fighting for their god (the emperor) [wow were have I heard this before does it sound familiar to you?] while a political party (the Nazis) was able to harness the power of an entire country (Germany) to attempt take over the world.
You attempt to mitigate the deaths of the victoms of 9/11, those of the military that have died until now and yes the innocents in the streets of Baghdad by calling it all a âtacticâ. Now I see you really donât give a shit about little brown people 7000 miles away lets just leave and theyâll be OK. How quickly we forget the lesson that Viet Nam taught us and the 100s of thousands that died in a matter of months after the U. S pulled out.
So go ahead stay with the âRETREAT TO DEFEATâ Congress, sooner or later the American will see the error of their ways and realize what they did last November and correct it.
Tue Feb 27 2007 5:56 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
I would respect a Democratic congress if it had the strength to carry out the will of the people. Itâs obvious that they donât.
Ill yield the position of contracts and stoploss to you since youâre in more a position to know whatâs in your contract. That being said, extending troops rotations and deployments indefinitely (especially reservists whose main duty is to the well being of their state) I find is as atrocious as a draft. You can craft the legality of it any way you want, its keeping people in who've done their contractual obligation.
And the standards for new recruits have been dropping. Look it up.
Your beratement of C.O.'s is puzzlement to me? You often invoke Nazi Germany as the grand example of your reasons for this war. Are you telling me that all those German soldiers couldn't stop the war if they knew their side was wrong? Those at Nuremberg could have used the 'i didn't get cold feet' defense as it were? When if ever can a soldier claim it if not in this case? You apparently can't separate the ability to fight and the ability to think. It is possible to believe in war of defense but object to a war of aggression.
I'm glad you brought back my little brown people comment. But you misapply it. My view is that your occupation exasperates and makes the situation even more dire for 'them'... and that the problem started with you going over in the first place. You have no defined mission, no ability to win without becoming what you set out to destroy, and drag the region down into hell because of one stupid man who got lucky twice on the ignorance of a nation.
I offer this final read, if you even bother. He eloquently says everything I have always wanted to say to you, but in such an articulated way that I would really appreciate you reading it and then getting back to me with whatever rebuttal you want. I donât see how you could disagree with a damn thing he says.
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=10584
Tue Feb 27 2007 10:42 PM
The Democrat Congress has heard/felt/seen the will of the people, the people want to win this war and they will not put up with leaving the military twisting in the wind. But they are just dissatisfied w/how the war is being prosecuted (which to me is understandable). That is why the will not cut funding, but giving in to their anti-military sentiment they proposed this âslow bleedâ little by little leaving the military in Iraq w/out the people & materials needed to keep them alive and to fight this war, youâre correct with friends like these who needs Al-Qaeda.
âespecially reservists whose main duty is to the well being of their stateâ - You know Iâve been inspecting my uniform and all it says is U. S. AIR FORCE (the planes do too).
I repeat it is a detriment to the military to lower the standards for recruitment (I never wrote that it wasnât happening).
The vast majority of Nazis at Nuremburg all tried to hide behind the âI was only following ordersâ defense and yes they should have revolted when they were throwing GERMAN Jews out of their own store windows â that to me would have been one giant tip off that this Hitler guy isnât all there but no I donât know of any German soldier that actually did, I guess there are but I donât know of any. German veterans of WW2 are held in as high esteem as allied veterans and that puzzles me, they are murderers and racists.
OH and by the way this isnât a war of aggression, we didnât invade first and then in retaliation have the Pentagon and two other buildings hit by planes.In your view, the military being in Iraq exasperates the terrorists well your view is wrong, itâs precisely our presence there ensured the seed of a democracy and we should be committed to that.
The mission is clear together with whatever Iraqi forces are available & able: Stop weapons & foreign fighters from infiltrating the country, kill/capture or run the foreign terrorists out of Iraq to allow the Iraqi citizenry to pick up the pieces of their lives so they are able to bring Iraq âforwardâ â this can be done in about 72 hours, weather the President and military leadership also think along these lines or has the will to do this in the way needed has yet to be seen.
I read the article you quoted in your last post and youâre right he does make some points but he like you cling to the fact that since the 9/11 terrorists were mostly form S. Arabia we should attack that country, would you make that same generalization since American blacks are disproportion ally a majority in prisons that we should incarcerate all of them (just to be safe)? Itâs their deeds/beliefs, not necessarily where they were born that is the problem.
P. S. Click on my name to see true American patriots at work
Fri Mar 2 2007 12:46 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
"But they are just dissatisfied w/how the war is being prosecuted (which to me is understandable)."
-Sorry NJ, thatâs a load of tripe. Poll after poll now show its not about the 'prosecution', it IS the war itself. A majority wants American troops out. They've seen past all W's bullshit reasons for the war, the lies and they donât want another dead serviceman to create a theocracy in Iraq. Only neocons and likudniks want you in there still, hoping that they can cause an 'incident' to escalate a war with Iran."That is why the will not cut funding"
-Dems won't cut funding because they're spineless. They worked the antiwar crowd to win their seats, now they're true colours show. Unlike you, I will BLAST the democrats for their failure to listen to the American people. I have no clue what Jim or Dave would say, but I can say unequivocally that the Dems are full of shit now. Their chickenshit approach to playing both sides of the field is pathetic. Pelosi is a sham, two faced cretin. I used to support MoveOn.org, but then saw that their principles werenât real tangible issues, but with getting Dems into power even when they didnât deserve it. Many times Iâve said I would hold no allegiance to any party and true to form in 2008, were I able to vote, id go Republican. Iâd vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat. A respectable patriot, whoâs views never âflip-floppedâ or wavered, who stood by his decision against his own party and the conviction to go against popular support. See NJ, thatâs what it takes to be courageous, when everyone else is on the bandwagon and calls you a traitor because itâs politically expedient. Everyone else, Democrats in particular, continue to be âBush liteâ and hand him the ability to commit more atrocity. With notable exceptions like Hagel and Ron Paul, Congress has abrogated all of its responsibilities to an emperor, and as such the great republic of America is dead."You know Iâve been inspecting my uniform and all it says is U. S. AIR FORCE (the planes do too)."
-You know, I don't hear that old slogan "One weekend a month, two weeks a year" anymore in those Guard advertisements anymore.
"yes they should have revolted when they were throwing GERMAN Jews out of their own store windows â that to me would have been one giant tip off"
-Yeah, isn't it amazing what the German version of FAUX newz was able to accomplish. Germany, in a recession, devastated economically by the extremely unfair reparations asked for in the Treaty of Versailles, had a convenient scapegoat for its money problems. Also a great time to play the 'moral' card and throw homosexuals and nonbelievers into the mix. And after the convenient Reichstag fire.. how dare the germans not shut up and listen to their commander in chi... er.. chancellor. Loyalty oathes, spying on german civilians, demonizing opponents of Hitlers grabs for power as unpatriotic and traitorous. Where have i heard all this recently...?
OH and by the way this isnât a war of aggression, we didnât invade first and then in retaliation have the Pentagon and two other buildings hit by planes.
-Oh thats funny... because i could swear that you did. Because I really donât remember Iraqi gunboats firing off Manhattans coastline. You continue to show some severe defects in intelligence by trying to conflate the 2. Let me sum it up for you again. Under Saddam⌠there was NO terror funding to Al-Quada, working relationship with Al-Quada, or any plans to give bombs to Al-Quada. Bin Ladan would have used it on Saddam, and Saddam kept bin Laden out of Iraq. Whatever bullshit you continue to swallow by tricky Dick n Coâ is for you to deal with you psychiatrist and not on this forum. So stop with the 9-11/Iraq conflagration, it just makes you look stupid. You invaded Iraq with no international consensus, boat loads of malarkey by David Frumâs Office of Special Plans, tons of pushing by AIPAC to rid one of Israelâs enemies, and Haliburtonâs interests, not to mention the near 1 trillion budget the Pentagon and its military industrial complex piglets get to roll in for their Raptors which do dick all in combating real terror cells.âIn your view, the military being in Iraq exasperates the terrorists well your view is wrong, itâs precisely our presence there ensured the seed of a democracy and we should be committed to that.â
-âwell your view is wrongâ gee NJ, I just love to be told Iâm wrong by someone whoâs been wrong on virtually every Iraq war issue under the sun. From prewar intelligence follies to infinite number of âturning pointsâ right up to this surge that WILL fail. I hate saying I told you so but itâs pointless. Your one track military mind is ill suited for creative solutions to problems aside from a ball peen hammer.
âThe mission is clear together with whatever Iraqi forces are available & able: Stop weapons & foreign fighters from infiltrating the country, kill/capture or run the foreign terrorists out of Iraq to allow the Iraqi citizenry to pick up the pieces of their lives so they are able to bring Iraq âforwardâ â this can be done in about 72 hours, weather the President and military leadership also think along these lines or has the will to do this in the way needed has yet to be seen.â
-whatever Iraqi forces are available⌠right. Oh thatâs all you got to do⌠and in 72 hrs no less? Iâd like to know where you picked that number.. out of your arse maybe? Do tell how it would be done in 72 hrs General NJ. I sure would like to know how your military expertise was passed up for the likes of Zinni, Eaton, Odem, Batiste, Newbold, Trainor, Gordon, etc.. theyâve all had a bite at it and most have had something along the lines of âbiggest mistake in US historyâ attached to their descriptions of this Iraq endeavor. Give me the 72 hr endgame please.
âI read the article you quoted in your last post and youâre right he does make some points but he like you cling to the fact that since the 9/11 terrorists were mostly form S. Arabia we should attack that country, would you make that same generalization since American blacks are disproportion ally a majority in prisons that we should incarcerate all of them (just to be safe)? Itâs their deeds/beliefs, not necessarily where they were born that is the problem.â
-Hmmm, you go from saying he makes valid points and then say we âclingâ to that inconvenient fact you cast a willful blind eye to? Shows me youâre a fool. You CLING to the idea that based on bullshit Saddam was a superthreat that had to go, contrary to the evidence. Yet EVIDENCE shows that virulent anti-american/fanatical Islamic terrorism is grown, sponsored and is the education de jour in S.Arabia. 9-11 hijackers were Saudi. Your other ally in Pakistan is also probably where Bin Laden is celebrating his 50th, nuke technology pumped out into the market from there and never ceasing Bush burnings in effigy. Oh and they have nukes too. Whatâs that line you love so much⌠âdeal with the devilâ. Sane people look at you and donât think twice NJ. Hypocrite. Oh and your black analogy is wrong on two accounts. 1. Blacks are profiled more and donât have access to high priced lawyers so they plead out to sentences. Far from me to say lockâem all up, id say reform the system. 2. According to you, because blacks are involved in said crimes, we should start shooting Mexicans and albinos.
âP. S. Click on my name to see true American patriots at work â
-I did. We seem to have a different view of patriotism. I make no bones and will not challenge the fact these men, you included do your jobs and do it for your country. Further I wont say I personally understand it (I havenât gone through it) but I can intellectually understand the fight for your friends/leave no man behind bond that one builds out there. But you blindly do it, without question because thatâs what soldiers do. Donât question just do the mission. While you may be willing to continue going off to Iraq and fight for it, there are many that do not yet are duty bound to do so. The Patriots that Iâm so fond of, that you vehemently blast as âtraitors, terror sympathizers, etc.â are the ones that want you to see past your blinders and bring you home so no more of you have to die for your presidents bullshit. Heâs fond of saying history will judge him. Guess what, heâs been judged and history will look upon him as the worst president ever in the life of your nation.On a side note⌠the patriots you look at so fondly above. Sometimes they donât look like patriots, heroes, or anything other than evil occupiers over there. And as Iâve told you a billion times over, itâs their perceptions that matter, not yours! Click on my name if you dare and look at the photo and tell me why he shouldnât join the insurgency?
Sun Mar 18 2007 4:02 AM
Email:
   
|
  
 |
