[POLL] The Draft: A Very REAL Possibility...

[milkydoo]

Da**. Threads about the upcoming draft always seem to die when I ask those questions.

Maybe I need a stronger brand of deodorant or something.

There are also plenty of questions that the neocon Bush lovers don't like to answer because there simply isn't any answer that doesn't make the Republicans look like total dog shit. I'm still waiting for the happy-happy joy-joy responses for when I bring up the fact that Bush has rolled out the red carpet for suitcase nuke toting scum on our borders.

And I see some are still relying on their crystal balls to predict a 'no-draft' policy for the next 4 years. "We're not in WIII....blah blah blah". Well, if we're not now, we certainly could be next month or next year or so, seeing as how that is what the neocons have plainly stated they want and is the reason why they voted Bush back into office.....so he can whip some more ass and dig us in even deeper into ME territory.

But certainly nothing could ever happen to a significant chunk of our forces that would necessitate a draft......no, it's just not possible. When Reeve died, Rummy sent Homeland in to confiscate his red cape and now they're back engineering it so they can give one to each GI.

 

[Slydersan]

But certainly nothing could ever happen to a significant chunk of our forces that would necessitate a draft......no, it's just not possible. When Reeve died, Rummy sent Homeland in to confiscate his red cape and now they're back engineering it so they can give one to each GI.

Really ?!?! Damn I might have to enlist again...I always liked superman.

 

[RC]

RC

At a future time, OF COURSE, if they decide to put this bill forward for a vote, it will have to be given a new number at that point (and may be amended at that point too!). However, all of this can happen VERY quickly, since people have seen the bill, and are somewhat familiar with it.

That proves very little. Of course, any member of congress can at any time introduce a bill. So there's absolutely nothing I can say to disprove that this bill, that died in committee, won't be re-introduced by a republican or by a democrat or by a member of the libertarian party still to be elected.

But you cited a bill that is dead, as evidence that it is being "planned."

It's very possible that someone in Congress will introduce a bill voting me a lifetime pension for my service to humanity. No, the bill has not actually been introduced, but all of this can happen very quickly. I'd be happy to write the bill myself for any member of congress who wants to introduce it. I bet I could do it in an hour.

Now, your assignment is to prove it's not going to happen.

And you are not allowed to use the following arguments, because "it could happen very quickly":

It doesn't matter that nobody in Washington wants to vote me a pension.
It doesn't matter that there's no good reason to vote me a pension.
It doesn't even matter that nobody knows how much my pension is going to be, because I say there's a conspiracy to give it to me, and nobody has been able to disprove it.

 

[RC]

And I see some are still relying on their crystal balls to predict a 'no-draft' policy for the next 4 years. "We're not in WIII....blah blah blah". Well, if we're not now, we certainly could
But certainly nothing could ever happen to a significant chunk of our forces that would necessitate a draft......no, it's just not possible.

I'm not relying on a crystal ball. I never said that a draft is impossible. I am responding to people who tell us to a certainty that there is going to be a draft, but when I ask a few questions about that draft, they just disappear, becuase they don't have any answers.

They don't have any answers, because they are the ones relying on their crystal balls, and the rest of us are not privy to what they claim to be seeing in those crystal balls.

Again, since you know there's going to be a draft, please tell us how many people are going to be drafted. Again, you are the one who knows that there's going to be a draft.

Those of us who believe that you are wrong have already given a specific answer--we believe that zero people are going to be drafted, because we can't think of any plausible scenario where a number other than zero would be required. You seem to know differently, so please tell us what you know that we don't.

We've given our number. Please give your number.

 

[fruit loop]

Here's why.....

The troops in Iraq are stretched thin and enlistments are down. If there's a major disaster here in the USA or another terrorist attack, there will be insufficient troops to deal with the problem.

Here's the OTHER reason:

Not necessarily to further this war. Politicians have been drooling over the prospect of a draft for years "because it's good for you."

I think it will come in the form of mandatory community service (which is why it's no longer called Volunteer Work: it's no longer VOLUNTARY). Lots of schools are requiring it now as a condition of graduation, regardless of grades.

The politicos point to it as "Giving back to society" ad nauseum. They will talk up the "Benefits" - building character, responsibility of citizenship, etc.

That's how I think it will start. People won't necessarily be forced into the armed forces - but they'll be forced to give up their lives for jobs they didn't choose for x amount of time they don't want to serve.

Remember, it's good for you.

 

[RC]

The politicos point to it as "Giving back to society" ad nauseum. They will talk up the "Benefits" - building character, responsibility of citizenship, etc.

That's how I think it will start. People won't necessarily be forced into the armed forces - but they'll be forced to give up their lives for jobs they didn't choose for x amount of time they don't want to serve.

Well, finally someone has come up with something that sounds more plausible. I doubt it would happen (there are too many logistical problems), but at least that's more plausible than some undefined number of people being drafted into the military to "go to Iraq" or wherever on some undefined assignment.

Again, I doubt it would happen, but thanks for offering up something that sounds at least plausible.

 

[Ravekid]

We've given our number. Please give your number.

The 'numbers' issue is a moot point. Here is why I think we will have some sort of minor draft:

The way we are fighting this war is actually very smart. IF Iraq was a justified war about destroying radical Muslims....then I would be all for the war. The best way to do that would be to pick a central location to their part of the world and make it easier for them to come to us (MUCH easier for a US hating person in Syria to get to Iraq than the U.S.). Since the war is also about oil and other things, I no longer support it now that we have found no WMD and have Saddam in custody.

Some will say that we should stay there since the U.S. haters are still coming. Yes, I do agree...that is a great idea. The problem is that there is no longer a flood of folks coming in from other countries. Now that we have taken the gloves off and actually started bombing mosque and other sites that were off-limits and housing terrorists....I think you will see a slow down to some extent of the street battles. Instead, we will start seeing more covert ops from the enemy. Not only that, it has now been reported that U.S. troops have killed in cold blood innocent Iraqi folks:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...5nov05,0,5030596.story?coll=la-home-headlines

The more innocent folks that are killed, the more local folks might sign up for bombing missions, just snip troops, etc. etc.-----an understandable reaction that almost everyone here might do if the U.N. came in and wrongly killed one of our relatives.

I think one has to look at the _BEST_ case scenario: Militants go underground. The method of attack is road side bombs and some suicide bombings as well. Attacks are few and far between....but non the less folks still die. The problem is that if we leave.....they go back to a gurilla war. The different factions of Muslims start to kill each other. The 'free Iraq' never happens. That means we have to stay. My question to the 'no draft' folks is this: How many troops do we have in Iraq. If the best case scenario plays out, how many do we need? What is a good rotation: 6 months in/6 months out? 1 year in/1 year out? Will those who's service ends during the out time finally be allowed to leave? Why do we need to put into place stop loss orders....is the military admitting that too many folks will leave? What are they scared of that they won't allow folks to leave? Why did they call back into service the ready reserve if everything is going well there?

I figured that the troops from S. Korea and Germany would be enough...am I mistaken? Why has the government started to reactivate draft boards all over the U.S.? Why are nurses and doctors being looked at as folks that we _might_ need to draft?

To me...the longer we are in Iraq...even with relative peace, everything points to a draft. If could take five, ten, or more years of occupation before the citizens of Iraq finally understand how to live together peacefully. Do we have stats from a third party (i.e.: Non-US military, non-anti-military) source? Our local paper did a report on how one National Guard unit in Ft. Wayne Indiana retained only 67% of it's members. Our state tries to keep it at 80. The Lt. Col. blows this off by saying recently deployed units typically show lower retention. Well..if retention speeds up _and_ enlistments drop.....how will we deal with that? These are my reasons for why a draft is very likely. Take the best case scenario and put and end to stop-loss orders. Will this yield enough man power to stay in Iraq for another year? Two years? Five years? I don't think so.

 

[RC]

Here is why I think we will have some sort of minor draft:

But I can't see how there could be a "minor" draft. A draft, whether it's one or a million, is going to be very unpopular. If you only need a few people, the political cost would be just too great, and it would be much easier to pay huge bonuses to people who enlist rather than start the draft.

And this is true even for physicians and other very specialized needs. Before they start drafting, I suspect they would get a lot of doctors to consider something along the lines of serve ___ years (with a commission or as a civilian contractor) and we'll pay every last dime of your student loans. I'm guessing you would get more doctors by doing that than by drafting them and taking them kicking and screaming.

 

[TJA]

Considering that this is Bush's last term I think he's far more likely to pull the 100,000 troops out of Germany long before there's any mention of a draft. Doing something like that would have multiple benefits for him, he can stick one to the Europeans while mending some fences with the Russians and give South Korea and Japan something to really think about before they complain about our troops stationed there.

 

[brihard]

The thought of a draft would scare the crap out of me too, but not for the reasons you have. I'm already in the military, and the thought of potentially serving alongside conscripts is frightening. I wouldn't want to go to war knowing that the guy beside me wants to be in college right now, and may well decide to cut and run if and when the lead starts, or jsut cower in the bottom of his foxhole. Conscripts generally have much lower morale, initiative, and incliniation to fight. I'd go out patrolling with ten volunteers over fifty conscripts any day. Serving your coutnry's military is a privilige and an honour, and I wouldnt want anyone who doens't see it that way to do so; particularly not in combat arms.

I think that if you can't get enough of your citizens to volunteer for a war, you probably shouldn't be fighting it.

 

[Night Breeze]

Time to get brutal and bloodthirsty. The draft will not happen. The total number of troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan does not equal a Battalion of Army Infantry. Casualties are really non-existent to the tactical flow of combat operations in the theatre. Divisions that have served their combat rotations are much more battle blooded and would need much less replacements to reach battle readiness. Second point is the sophistication of the modern battlefield weaponry would require conscripts to serve at least four years on active duty to qualify in their basic military occupation and still be able to do a tour in combat. No draft would be allowed to last that long per conscript. The modern battlefield commander has troops that want to be where they are whether they are male female army navy marine or air force. The days of going into service or going to jail are gone. Those same technical weapons systems require intelligence to survive and shoot on the battlefield and draftees did not have that aptitude and thus became cannon fodder or cooks supply guys.(No disrespect for those guys but being a fighter pilot or an air defense gunner requires a bit more intelligence than a guy opening cans of beans) Finally I am a career Army Officer that happens to be retired Regular Army. I am subject to recall till age 65 and could be asked to return to active duty. My skills as a combat pilot and battle planner have deteriorated but with refresher training I could train new troops at the school house level or replace line pilots that could go into combat. Of course if my lot came to report to a combat unit deployin to a combat zone I would in a minute because during my career I was always in a combat unit. To sum it up no draft no way no time soon and that is from a military perspective. Give Bush credit he has always listened to his military leaders advice and he would not go against their wishes in regards to a draft.

 

[Ought Six]

The simple fact that everyone is ignoring is that a draft requires an act of Congress, and there is no way Congress is going to vote for one. It would be political suicide to vote for a draft, and congressvermin put keeping their jobs ahead of all other things. Telling your voters you are going to conscript their kids will end your career very quickly.

Of course, there are some folks who are only interested in GW-bashing and fear-mongering, and they will continue to ignore the facts and claim a draft is "imminent" or "a real possibility" when it clearly is not.

 

[Fuzzychick]

From what I know, please correct me if I am wrong but Congress belongs to Bush....

 

[Ravekid]

The simple fact that everyone is ignoring is that a draft requires an act of Congress

Last time I checked...so did fighting wars. It is funny how the pro-war folks will say "Well, just because war is not declared, doesn't mean the president can do whatever he wants with the troops." I honestly believe our founders were meaning that our military would not be used to go and fight for certain issues (ie: Oil) and that they would only be used to fight for the safety of the U.S. I want to see an lawfull order that declares war on Iraq. I won't hold my breath though. Also, isn't there something in the Constitution that says Congress shall pass laws and regulate interstate commerce. If that is the case....how the hell does the President get by with 'Executive Orders' that ban the importation of certain firearms?

Of course, there are some folks who are only interested in GW-bashing and fear-mongering, and they will continue to ignore the facts and claim a draft is "imminent" or "a real possibility" when it clearly is not.

Instead of Bush lovers saying "There is not going to be a draft!", I would actually like to here their opinion on the idea of a draft alone. So, here is the big question to all the "There is not going to be a draft!" Bush die-hards: If there was a draft, would you support it? For example, what if Iran decided to attack our troops while in Iraq. Do you folks support Bush and therefore believe his every word (even though he is a politician) and would support a draft then or do you feel like I do that the draft is nothing more than slavery?

 

[Green]

"here is the big question to all the "There is not going to be a draft!" Bush die-hards: If there was a draft, would you support it? For example, what if Iran decided to attack our troops while in Iraq."

I am NOT a Bush diehard but with that said, I also do not support a draft, unless everyone, including the Bush twins, are subject to it.

If Bush is so gung-ho on sending your kids off to war, why aren't the Bush twins at the very least, signing up like dad as 2LT's in the National Guard? They could be a real boost of morale for the troops by merely putting them out there on USO tours.

If the military is good enough for the rest of us, why not the Bush twins?

MAJ Green, USAR (Ret.)

 

[Fuzzychick]

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!

 

[Fuzzychick]

"here is the big question to all the "There is not going to be a draft!" Bush die-hards: If there was a draft, would you support it? For example, what if Iran decided to attack our troops while in Iraq."

I am NOT a Bush diehard but with that said, I also do not support a draft, unless everyone, including the Bush twins, are subject to it.

If Bush is so gung-ho on sending your kids off to war, why aren't the Bush twins at the very least, signing up like dad as 2LT's in the National Guard? They could be a real boost of morale for the troops by merely putting them out there on USO tours.

If the military is good enough for the rest of us, why not the Bush twins?

MAJ Green, USAR (Ret.)

GLAD SOMEONE COULD HAVE THE BALLS TO SAY WHAT ALOT OF US ARE FEELING...THOSE WITH KIDS READY TO BE SENT OUT FOR A CAUSE THEY NEITHER BELIEVE IN OR DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE ARMY NOW........ESP SINCE THEY WISH TO BE SOMETHING ELSE WITH DREAMS AND ASPIRATIONS BY GOING TO COLLEGE.....FLAME ME IF YOU MUST BUT A DAMN LOT OF US FEEL THE SAME WAY EVEN IF THEY DON'T POST IT BUT HAVE MADE THEIR FEELINGS CLEAR..............

 

[Deborah]

From what I know, please correct me if I am wrong but Congress belongs to Bush....

They will rubber stamp whatever he wants, even more so than they did in the last four years. Not having gridlock to keep a balance is a scary thing and the president can now push his agenda without opposition or obstruction.

 

[Ought Six]

Rk:

"Last time I checked...so did fighting wars. It is funny how the pro-war folks will say "Well, just because war is not declared, doesn't mean the president can do whatever he wants with the troops." I honestly believe our founders were meaning that our military would not be used to go and fight for certain issues (ie: Oil) and that they would only be used to fight for the safety of the U.S. I want to see an lawfull order that declares war on Iraq. I won't hold my breath though."

I agree that the War Powers Act should have been found unconstitutional, but it was not. And I have already debunked the "we did it for the oil" lie many, many times. Repeating it will not change the fact that it is a lie. Iraq is part of the War of Cultures. Those who voluntarily blind themselves to that are not survival-minded people.
----------

"Also, isn't there something in the Constitution that says Congress shall pass laws and regulate interstate commerce. If that is the case....how the hell does the President get by with 'Executive Orders' that ban the importation of certain firearms?"

Importation of firearms into America is international, not interstate commerce. Many acts of Congress have granted the Executive authority over that.

=============================================================

As for the draft, I think that most people here do not support it. But since there is not going to be one, and the claim that there will be one is a blatant lie, the point is moot.