The W
Views: 99142101
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.9.07 1735
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Return of the draft?
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 3 Next(1220 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (43 total)
Gavintzu
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 365/443
EXP: 635557
For next: 24612

Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2836 days
Last activity: 2836 days
#1 Posted on 9.11.03 2151.26
Reposted on: 9.11.10 2155.43
Click Here (seattlepi.nwsource.com)

WASHINGTON -- The United States' uneven record in Iraq has kindled a small but persistent push to reinstitute the military draft, a politically charged idea that hasn't been seriously considered since the end of the Vietnam War.

Yet despite denials from the White House that a draft is under consideration, and despite the obvious political fallout of such a move during an election campaign, talk of a draft has heated up in recent days ...

The Defense Department fueled the debate this week when it placed a notice on its Web site asking for "men and women in the community who might be willing to serve as members of a local draft board."

The notice, which appeared on an official Web page for the Selective Service System titled "Defend America," explained: "If a military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal Boards throughout America would decide which young men, who submit a claim, receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service, based on Federal guidelines. Positions are available in many communities across the Nation."

The Pentagon wouldn't comment on the notice, and by yesterday it had been pulled from the Web site without explanation.


There have been rumblings about this in the last year or so, but that DoD website advertisement is kind of creepy.

Remember, American Wieners between the ages of 18 and 26 ... the northern border offers great decriminalized pot and Big Rock beer, while the southern border offers tequila and sunny beaches. You might not want to leave this decision to the last minute ... it might hit ya in December 2004.


Promote this thread!
Gugs
Bierwurst
Level: 83

Posts: 675/1857
EXP: 5343470
For next: 88774

Since: 9.7.02
From: Sleep (That's where I'm a viking)

Since last post: 487 days
Last activity: 13 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on 9.11.03 2219.03
Reposted on: 9.11.10 2219.04
The draft won't come back unless it is the last possible resource. Too much of a political hassle to either tell every 18 to 30-year-old in the country to be ready at amoment's notice or to tell a whole bunch of women that they;re still not completely equal. That would be oh so much fun, wouldn't it?
Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 145

Posts: 2411/6725
EXP: 37585100
For next: 19072

Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#3 Posted on 10.11.03 0008.44
Reposted on: 10.11.10 0013.24
Is Generation Y ready for a draft? I actually think so. 9/11 proved that we young'uns are still prepared to fight for what's right (Good God, I just quoted Hogan's theme song without even realizing it). If an actual major threat arose, I could easily see scads of volunteers into military service. The problem is, this bullshit conflict in Iraq sure ain't "what's right." I dunno about anyone else's college/university, but George W. Bush is pretty much Public Enemy #1 at my university (in Canada, I should add in the sake of fairness).

Gavintzu is correct in saying that re-instituting the draft would indeed be political suicide, so unless Bush really wants to fuck up the Republicans for 2008, it's just not a good idea. Hell, even hinting at the possibility of a draft might be yet another sore spot for Bush himself in 2004. If anything motivates younger voters, it's the thought that "Hey, this guy might send us into war? Fuck that! Where do I vote for the other guy?"

Also, Bush dodged the draft himself, so the ironing would be delicious.

Gugs
Bierwurst
Level: 83

Posts: 676/1857
EXP: 5343470
For next: 88774

Since: 9.7.02
From: Sleep (That's where I'm a viking)

Since last post: 487 days
Last activity: 13 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on 10.11.03 0108.59
Reposted on: 10.11.10 0109.16
    Originally posted by Big Bad
    Also, Bush dodged the draft himself, so the ironing would be delicious.


Alls I know is I'm getting straight A's, and that ain't not bad.

Generation Y might be ready for a draft, but the country isn't. When we get into a real conflict, then we'll see if it's necessary. This is just a case of either spreading too thin or putting people in the wrong place.
Nag
Landjager
Level: 61

Posts: 436/904
EXP: 1776816
For next: 99791

Since: 10.1.03
From: Enter your city here

Since last post: 2146 days
Last activity: 201 days
Y!:
#5 Posted on 10.11.03 0219.17
Reposted on: 10.11.10 0225.59
"Generation Y" isn't ready for anything but the next Eminem CD, but no need to worry it won't happen, at least during the election year. And while I don't think there would have been many objections with post 9-11 patriotism, me included, the momentum has obviously faded.

Now as gav said, December 2004 might be another story, well if the problem isn't solved by that point in time and January 20 gets called up. Well, yeah, I might have a sudden urge for Molson, Ice Hockey, and yeeeeeah, decriminalized weed.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2440/4700
EXP: 21509848
For next: 326814

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1238 days
Last activity: 1035 days
#6 Posted on 10.11.03 0644.11
Reposted on: 10.11.10 0645.45
It's not going to happen unles there is another attack or an actual war. Such a draft would have to be reauthorized by Congress, and it would take another catostrophic attack to justify it.
The Thrill
Banger
Level: 99

Posts: 673/2781
EXP: 9884612
For next: 115423

Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 158 days
Last activity: 5 days
#7 Posted on 10.11.03 0754.01
Reposted on: 10.11.10 0759.01
From what I've seen (and over the years, that ain't much, because this idea was SO far from consideration), the top officers in the armed forces (below the eggheads in the Pentagon and Defense Dept.) are soundly against a reinstitution of the draft. With an all-volunteer force, you're by and large getting soldiers, sailors and Marines that WANT to be there...as opposed to the misfits from old judges' "join the Army or go to jail" policies, and the 4-F losers with nowhere else to go.

Grimis is right...it'd take all-out World War III to bring it back. And that's the way it oughta be.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 129/2698
EXP: 8865831
For next: 122988

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#8 Posted on 10.11.03 0856.44
Reposted on: 10.11.10 0857.02
Thrill and Grimis, I agree. Our military leadership favors the all-volunteer force and think it produces better soldiers.
However, for the majority of the time without the draf twe were either not at war or we had a conflict like Desert Storm. The kids in ROTC when I was in grad school in the 1980's, while patriotic, were going to serve for the education either in college or in the armed forces. Nothing wrong with that.

If we stay in muddy situations like we are in now, a draft may have to be considered if enlistment falls below a certain level.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1506/2042
EXP: 6289066
For next: 103733

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3003 days
Last activity: 216 days
#9 Posted on 10.11.03 1142.40
Reposted on: 10.11.10 1142.56
With regard to a potential draft: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no and NO, thank you (and this from someone who's safely outside previous draft age ranges).

The most recent proponents of a draft are Charles Rangel and Fritz Hollings, as the linked article mentioned, but a couple of Republicans sponsored a similar bill in December 2001. Like Hollings' and Rangel's bill, it went nowhere.

The simple question remains -- in this day and age, could Congress ever pass a bill enacting a new draft that:
a) has no non-medical exemptions (no college loopholes, no sex-based (or sexual-preference-based) exemptions, no deferments -- if you have four working limbs, the right age and a pulse, you're eligible);
b) can be implemented in a timely and efficient manner;
c) can compensate the draftees and/or their families well enough that families don't go broke en masse in the absence of those drafted;
d) is enforceable (which would require a truly impressive law-enforcement brigade to track down and haul in dodgers nationwide)?

The simple answer is: of course not. So why does this nonsensical concept keep coming up?


(edited by vsp on 10.11.03 0943)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 131/2698
EXP: 8865831
For next: 122988

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#10 Posted on 10.11.03 1224.04
Reposted on: 10.11.10 1224.54
    Originally posted by vsp
    With regard to a potential draft: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no and NO, thank you (and this from someone who's safely outside previous draft age ranges).

    The most recent proponents of a draft are Charles Rangel and Fritz Hollings, as the linked article mentioned, but a couple of Republicans sponsored a similar bill in December 2001. Like Hollings' and Rangel's bill, it went nowhere.

    The simple question remains -- in this day and age, could Congress ever pass a bill enacting a new draft that:
    a) has no non-medical exemptions (no college loopholes, no sex-based (or sexual-preference-based) exemptions, no deferments -- if you have four working limbs, the right age and a pulse, you're eligible);
    b) can be implemented in a timely and efficient manner;
    c) can compensate the draftees and/or their families well enough that families don't go broke en masse in the absence of those drafted;
    d) is enforceable (which would require a truly impressive law-enforcement brigade to track down and haul in dodgers nationwide)?

    The simple answer is: of course not. So why does this nonsensical concept keep coming up?


    (edited by vsp on 10.11.03 0943)


The draft is being brought up once again for a simple reason. Bush, whether you agree or not, has involved us in actions where we are stretched thin. We are using a large chunk of the Reserve and National Guard. Our soldiers while doing their best are getting worn out, their families are stresed out, and there appears to be no end in sight. There is a real fear we will lose enough of active and reserve forces so as to be unable to fulfill our committments.

There is also another solution. Increase pay significantly. Make sure their VA benefits are improved and secure from Congressional meddling. Have a large enough active force so we don't burn out our active and reserve forces. The way we treat our current military and veterans is often an embarassment. If you lay your life on the line and give up a good portion of your youth to serve your country, we owe you big.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1507/2042
EXP: 6289066
For next: 103733

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3003 days
Last activity: 216 days
#11 Posted on 10.11.03 1429.46
Reposted on: 10.11.10 1432.06
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    The draft is being brought up once again for a simple reason. Bush, whether you agree or not, has involved us in actions where we are stretched thin. We are using a large chunk of the Reserve and National Guard. Our soldiers while doing their best are getting worn out, their families are stressed out, and there appears to be no end in sight. There is a real fear we will lose enough of active and reserve forces so as to be unable to fulfill our commitments.

    There is also another solution. Increase pay significantly. Make sure their VA benefits are improved and secure from Congressional meddling. Have a large enough active force so we don't burn out our active and reserve forces. The way we treat our current military and veterans is often an embarassment. If you lay your life on the line and give up a good portion of your youth to serve your country, we owe you big.


And where does the money come from? (I'm not suggesting that our soldiers and vets don't deserve it; I'm suggesting that the cost (if it's done right and applied widely and properly) will be astronomical, and the usual suspects howl like hyenas whenever the words "tax increase" are spoken in public.)

Without the provisions I mentioned (which are mind-numbingly unlikely), the notion of a potentially "fair" draft is ridiculous. Rangel knows that; his support of a draft is meant to CURTAIL military adventuring, not to expand it. (His rationale appears to be that when upper-and-middle-class families' sons are conscripted, the subsequent outrage would cause the President (whoever it would be then) to deploy them more cautiously. I think Rangel's a dangerous ass, because he's willing to put unwilling conscript pawns in uniform (and at the mercy of the current and future Commanders-in-Chief), assuming that the affluent wouldn't find ways around their "duty," and assuming that things would resolve themselves before many conscripts get deployed and killed.)

If we run low on bodies to "fulfill our commitments," there are two options. One is to obtain more bodies by any means necessary; the other is to revise our commitments.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 132/2698
EXP: 8865831
For next: 122988

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#12 Posted on 10.11.03 1457.01
Reposted on: 10.11.10 1459.01
>

And where does the money come from? (I'm not suggesting that our soldiers and vets don't deserve it; I'm suggesting that the cost (if it's done right and applied widely and properly) will be astronomical, and the usual suspects howl like hyenas whenever the words "tax increase" are spoken in public.)

Without the provisions I mentioned (which are mind-numbingly unlikely), the notion of a potentially "fair" draft is ridiculous. Rangel knows that; his support of a draft is meant to CURTAIL military adventuring, not to expand it. (His rationale appears to be that when upper-and-middle-class families' sons are conscripted, the subsequent outrage would cause the President (whoever it would be then) to deploy them more cautiously. I think Rangel's a dangerous ass, because he's willing to put unwilling conscript pawns in uniform (and at the mercy of the current and future Commanders-in-Chief), assuming that the affluent wouldn't find ways around their "duty," and assuming that things would resolve themselves before many conscripts get deployed and killed.)

If we run low on bodies to "fulfill our commitments," there are two options. One is to obtain more bodies by any means necessary; the other is to revise our commitments.


I agree with your last statement. I think that if we prioritized what we really need in terms of weapons systems and would seriously look at waste in the Dept. of Defense, there would be more money. Iwould hope that this is one time that if a tax increase were necessary, no one would object. There is something obscene about our military and their families living under the poverty level.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1509/2042
EXP: 6289066
For next: 103733

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3003 days
Last activity: 216 days
#13 Posted on 10.11.03 1501.10
Reposted on: 10.11.10 1501.32
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    I would hope that this is one time that if a tax increase were necessary, no one would object.


You are an optimist of the highest order. Somewhere, Grover Norquist is clasping his head and screaming, and he doesn't know why yet.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1431/1759
EXP: 4912974
For next: 79896

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1285 days
Last activity: 51 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on 10.11.03 1502.17
Reposted on: 10.11.10 1503.14
Instituting the draft right now would be political suicide, a pretty major military blunder. The last thing our troops need right now is draftees on the lines... We will lose far fewer troops and make far fewer misakes with the troops we have now than if we insituted the draft. They are better trained, more experienced, and could serve far more effectively without having to babysit a bunch of warm bodies.

OF COURSE they are looking at the draft though. For all intents and purposes, we are at war. The situation is chaotic, and if we are forced into another theater of conflict, we might just need those warm bodies. I expect the government to be preparing for every eventuality, and preparing for a draft, if it is needed, is one possible course of action. I'd rather it be thought out in advance, than sprung on the country out of nowhere...
redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 152

Posts: 3041/7534
EXP: 43590463
For next: 711299

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 448 days
Last activity: 448 days
#15 Posted on 10.11.03 1527.44
Reposted on: 10.11.10 1529.01
These draft boards, do they pay well?
As for the draft, its doubtful it would happen. However, December 2004 would be a time when fleeing to Canada would be less advantageous. First, it appears passports are going to be necessary to cross the Canadian-US border, thus making it more difficult to get across. Second, its mid-winter, who the hell is going to want to flee to Canada during the balmy winter months? And third, and possibly most importantly: It'll be at the beginning phases of the NHL strike of death, thus meaning your in Canada in the winter and you don't even have hockey to watch. Might as well be in Siberia.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2447/4700
EXP: 21509848
For next: 326814

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1238 days
Last activity: 1035 days
#16 Posted on 10.11.03 1531.57
Reposted on: 10.11.10 1531.57
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    I would hope that this is one time that if a tax increase were necessary, no one would object.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Never, not with so much waste in each department and so much asinine social spending.
Gavintzu
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 366/443
EXP: 635557
For next: 24612

Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2836 days
Last activity: 2836 days
#17 Posted on 10.11.03 1903.17
Reposted on: 10.11.10 1905.23
Hmmmm, lots of people think that a draft is unlikely, if not impossible, but I'm not entirely sure ...

If the current conflict in Iraq causes enlistment and reenlistment rates for the military and National Guard to plummet in 2004 and 2005, ... won't the government have to bring back a draft? The U.S. military is stretched mighty thin right now as it is ...


DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 135/2698
EXP: 8865831
For next: 122988

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#18 Posted on 10.11.03 2228.41
Reposted on: 10.11.10 2229.04
    Originally posted by Gavintzu
    Hmmmm, lots of people think that a draft is unlikely, if not impossible, but I'm not entirely sure ...

    If the current conflict in Iraq causes enlistment and reenlistment rates for the military and National Guard to plummet in 2004 and 2005, ... won't the government have to bring back a draft? The U.S. military is stretched mighty thin right now as it is ...





Exactly. As stated in an earlier post, we have two choices right now. Produce more military personnel or reduce our commitments. Our current Administration, IMO, is unlikely to to do the later, which leaves the former. With the likelehood of decreased numbers reupping in both active and reserve forces, a draft becomes more likely.

All Presidents either have a mission, are concerned about their legacy, or both. Bush has chosen, for god or ill, that the "War on Terror" is his mission and legacy. The people he trusts are also not inclined to move away from the current position.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1510/2042
EXP: 6289066
For next: 103733

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3003 days
Last activity: 216 days
#19 Posted on 11.11.03 0712.40
Reposted on: 11.11.10 0714.54
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Bush has chosen, for god or ill, that the "War on Terror" is his mission and legacy.


This is either a Freudian slip or an entertaining coincidence.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 140

Posts: 629/6298
EXP: 33048027
For next: 238460

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 42 min.
#20 Posted on 11.11.03 0830.20
Reposted on: 11.11.10 0831.57
Obviously none of you posters have ever served, or if you have served, you fail to remember two small words that prevent a mass exodus of troops. STOP LOSS. The government can, and will issue a stop loss order when it is needed, ensuring nobody can get out, or retire when thier contract is up, if there is a war, or other military requirements that would make it detrimental to the military for them to leave the service. Happened in the first Gulf War, and I am sure some people have had it happen to them this time around. If it gets to be a REAL issue, then the order comes out, and the troops stay.
Pages: 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: Chretien steps down December 12
Next thread: Centralized Governments want UN Control of the Internet
Previous thread: Pick Your Prime Minister
(1220 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Return of the draft?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.249 seconds.