The US draft

[HaVoc]

edit: They moved it. Here ya go

http://www.frontsteps.com/creations/100 ... 1110665700 (http://www.frontsteps.com/creations/1001/138/index.php?t=1110665700)

This may be a joke but this video brings up some serious points about the war and the different fronts. IMO The draft will happen within in the next five years unless the situation in Iraq improves. The fact of the matter is the troops levels are already extreme low and the situation in Iraq isn’t improving – in fact many sectors are progressively getting worse. Unless other nations join this effort the draft is bound to occur in the US.

[Innoxx]

404.

[imported_Fluffy_Bunny]

y helo thar kanada

[Mr.Buttocks]

It's only a matter of time....

[Himmler]

LOL. that was funny

[negative]

the thing that most people dont know is that the draft bill was passed by Democrats to scare people into voting against Bush. Now the bill is dead. There will be another civil war before there is another draft-id be willing to put money on that.

[Stammer]

the thing that most people dont know is that the draft bill was passed by Democrats to scare people into voting against Bush. Now the bill is dead. There will be another civil war before there is another draft-id be willing to put money on that.

Your right and wrong.

Yes, a democrat did start the bill, Sen.blahblah from New York. Last time I checked though he didn't start it to scare people into voting for Kerry(pussy), unless Americans are that stupid and think "Hmmm, a Democrat started a Draft bill, lets vote for a Democrat!"

[Drew]

[quote=negative]the thing that most people dont know is that the draft bill was passed by Democrats to scare people into voting against Bush. Now the bill is dead. There will be another civil war before there is another draft-id be willing to put money on that.

Your right and wrong.

Yes, a democrat did start the bill, Sen.blahblah from New York. Last time I checked though he didn't start it to scare people into voting for Kerry(pussy), unless Americans are that stupid and think "Hmmm, a Democrat started a Draft bill, lets vote for a Democrat!"[/quote:d49b0]

I believe the theory is that most Americans don't pay enough attention to know that a Democrat drafted the bill. And, even if it did become widely known, I'm sure the Senator - especially if he is from New York - was already chosen to be a sacraficial lamb for the party. Taking one for the team and all. Especially if it was New York, you know the Democrats want nothing more than to see Hilary gain power. Dumbass New Yorkers who voted her into office. Just usher in the Antichrist why don't you? annoy:

Anyway, sparing an attack on the United States itself, there will be no draft. A draft bill would have to pass both the House and the Senate and then be approved by the President. Few politicians are stupid enough to touch the draft because it is political suicide. Which further supports the theory that the Democratic senator who initiated the bill during the run-up to the election was coerced by the party into doing so.

[HaVoc]

You guys seem to forget that the US is fighting a war... unless other nations join effort the draft will be necessary in order to meet the required troop levels needed to gain control of Iraq.

[Jin-Roh]

I only know that the bill is dead.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm

[Drew]

As of December 2004, there were 1,411,287 officers and enlisted personnel in the United States military branches.

As of January 2005, there were approximately 150,000 officers and enlisted personnel deployed in Iraq. This is about 10% of the United States military capacity.

Pre-requesite for this topic? Know what you're talking about.

[Chango]

But how many of the other 90% can be moved from their current post to iraq without weakening those other posts?

[Drew]

You have to look at that on a case-by-case basis and make that decision. If we reduce troop levels in the middle US states or allied countries like Germany, we aren't looking at getting ourselves into too much trouble.

If I recall correctly, US doctrine is set up to be able to mobilize 40% of our personnel within two years.

[elstatec]

hake:

[HaVoc]

As of December 2004, there were 1,411,287 officers and enlisted personnel in the United States military branches.

As of January 2005, there were approximately 150,000 officers and enlisted personnel deployed in Iraq. This is about 10% of the United States military capacity.

Pre-requesite for this topic? Know what you're talking about.

Ok I didn't know that, thank you for enlightening me... If that it true than maybe there isn't a need for a draft, at least not immediately. But why hasn't Bush send more troops in when the current ones are struggling?

[elstatec]

hake:

AH WELL.

[Drew]

As of December 2004, there were 1,411,287 officers and enlisted personnel in the United States military branches.

As of January 2005, there were approximately 150,000 officers and enlisted personnel deployed in Iraq. This is about 10% of the United States military capacity.

Pre-requesite for this topic? Know what you're talking about.

Ok I didn't know that, thank you for enlightening me... If that it true than maybe there isn't a need for a draft, at least not immediately. But why hasn't Bush send more troops in when the current ones are struggling?

You just made me feel bad for being an ass wallbash:

Anyway, I get a bit heated about this kind of issue because so many people - especially US citizens - have no clue whatsoever when it comes to issues like this.

[HaVoc]

lol

There is no need to apologize for that. You should see some of the shit I walk through in political threads.

[Ferich]

I don't know what you mean by struggling. It doesn't matter how many military personnel are in an area when you're getting weekly potshots or civilians are being attacked randomly. There's definately enough personnel that would be needed for an offensive in Iraq, but there's nothing to take offensive action against for now. And when that fighting is needed it's done, the beginning parts of the war for example. Fallujah also showed there were enough personnel for an offensive during the "peacekeeping."

Until this North Korea, Iraq, Syria, etc situation actually escalates more than just "SECRET FBI FILES THAT SAY BUSH SUCKED OFF SYRIANS FOR OIL" ...if you know what I mean - I wouldn't worry about them, well moreso let the people that it's their jobs to worry about it.

I find people in general are believing the negative conspiracy theories just because they're negative or "spicy". Somewhat puts a damper on what the people go through over there and some things they might've done right.

[Unknown_Sniper]

You also have to take into account not only our armys weakness but the iraqi's themselves. During the recent Iraqi elections the candidate that the United States was hoping would win was in fact not elected by the people. They chose in stead another man. They then told the US troops we dont need you anymore please leave. Now if bush starts throwing more troops over there then they will flip out and think that he is infact trying to gain power over there.
I very much doubt that there will be a draft in Iraq. If another conflict flares up within the next ten years however. I would not at all be surprised to see a draft of some sorts happen.

[negative]

we arent stuggling, your just used to the loeft wing media. We have fought the most succesfult War in military history (based on our goals)

[ninty]

We have fought the most succesfult War in military history (based on our goals)

oOo: X infinity

Wasn't the original goal to get rid of WMD?

[Stammer]

We have fought the most succesfult War in military history (based on our goals)

oOo: X infinity

Wasn't the original goal to get rid of WMD?

No, thats what the liberals want you to think.

wallbash:

[HaVoc]

we arent stuggling, your just used to the loeft wing media. We have fought the most succesfult War in military history (based on our goals)

Are you related to a wet sock with a hole in the big toe which is wrapped around a half eaten cheese sandwich which has been stomped on several hundred times because it was dropped in the middle of a sidewalk in New York City? The only reason I have such an inquiry is because you seem to have an intelligence level reminiscent of such an obscure item. The most successful war in history you say? You have either terribly mixed up the definition of “success” and “failure” or you happen to be the type of person who enjoys watching NASCAR, drinking abnormally extensive amounts of Budweiser and protecting your family from robbers, terrorists and liberal pussies with an array of high powered assault rifles; because only a person who meets that criteria would be able to be so blissfully ignorant. You didn’t find any WMD, the majority of the country doesn’t have basic utilities, there are constant attacks on the US despite the fact that Bush declared the end of the war nearly two years ago and the entire would thinks Americans are lairs, criminals, imperialists and even terrorists – success you say?

[Sgt>Stackem]

The most successful war in history you say? You have either terribly mixed up the definition of “success”

WRONG


You didn’t find any WMD,

They moved them


the majority of the country doesn’t have basic utilities,


They have more then when we started




there are constant attacks on the US despite the fact that Bush declared the end of the war nearly two years ago and the entire would thinks Americans are lairs, criminals, imperialists and even terrorists – success you say?



so far so good, if you compare it to other wars the death toll is much lower

[Pyro]

I love the idea of being forced to go to war in a free country...where the war they're fighting isn't even about protecting America.

[negative]

Havoc--I guarentee you that I know more about military history than you ever will. First, name one war that armies did not occupy after it was over. Secondly, everyone will always hate America -just as they did the Brittish. My favorite example is how the tsunami people, and other countries, complained about America not contributin enough money. Then, when we send our red cross, more money, and blahblahblah over there they tell us they dont need our help-and the world thinks we have overstepped our boundaries. I grew up in an area where you support your government-as I enjoy the best education (for free), best opportunities, and freedom to do whatever I want-but it seems that people have lost that thought (except for britain). Personally, I dont care what the world thinks because we could beat them in a war.
We did not find any WMD, so maybe we were wrong about that-but who cares. The dominos are falling in the middle east, and anyone who cant see that is blind. Since we didnt find WMD, we must now concentrate on destroying the enemy. And we have done that.

"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy." - General Tommy Franks

[Mr.Buttocks]

"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy." - General Tommy Franks


Better to date a "pussy" than someone who drops bombs on/shoots innocent men, women and children.

[Innoxx]

Yeah, what's with all this macho "my political spectrum's dick is bigger than yours" bullshit?

I am so close to making this thread disappear. If you guys are gonna bitch at eachother, at least try to be a little bit more constructive and try to look credible.

[Sgt>Stackem]

[quote=negative]

"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy." - General Tommy Franks


Better to date a "pussy" than someone who drops bombs on/shoots innocent men, women and children.[/quote:98d02]



where do you get your info? I havent heard about mass bombing, of cluster bombings like WWII. Now in WWII there aere alot of innocents killed. The bombings have been very persise in this war. The people living in Iraq have bombed more innocents than we ever have

[ninty]

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4336929.stm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Oct28.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html)

[Ferich]

When compared to other wars, those numbers are small. Of course you can't compare different eras of history since the weaponry and tactics of fighting are different. But nevertheless.

I might be getting the wrong signal but are you trying to say American pilots/soldiers,etc shoot at Civilians on purpose???

It seems people are trying to "suprise" me with news of death tolls and the like, but really they match to any other war in history...especially one that's longer than a year and involves an insurgency.

[ninty]

I'm not sure if your addressing me or not, but i'll try and address your post.

When compared to other wars, those numbers are small. Of course you can't compare different eras of history since the weaponry and tactics of fighting are different. But nevertheless.



I agree. Compared to other wars those numbers are extremly small.

[quote:99bb1]I might be getting the wrong signal but are you trying to say American pilots/soldiers,etc shoot at Civilians on purpose???
[/quote:99bb1]

Not at all. I can sympathize with the troops over there. To tell you the truth, i'd much rather shoot a civilian and be safe than hesitate and be dead. When those guys hear and see that shit every day, I don't blame them for what goes on over there. I'd be the same way.

[quote:99bb1]
It seems people are trying to "suprise" me with news of death tolls and the like, but really they match to any other war in history...especially one that's longer than a year and involves an insurgency.[/quote:99bb1]
It's a different day and age. Back in the good ol days war was different. I don't know how or why, but today any casualties seem unappropriate. If 10,000 troops die in Iraq, do you think that will be tolerated? I don't. I think it's pushing it right now with 1,500 or around there.

[Ferich]

You need to mix in all the circumstances involved in that unique war not what year it is when saying what's a right death toll and what isn't.

When you look at how most of these American soldiers are killed, it's usually in a vulnerable vehicle catching shrapnel or one getting totally blown to bits. A mortar round lobbed into a barracks,etc. A lot of people can usually fit in certain vehicles/barracks, so that's a lot of bodies. A war involving an insurgency is much different than any convential war.

By the way, how many of the civilians were killed by insurgents?

[HaVoc]

I might be getting the wrong signal but are you trying to say American pilots/soldiers,etc shoot at Civilians on purpose???
.

This wasn’t directed towards me but I still feel the need to respond. Your engagement policies are reckless that is why there are so many friendly fire instances. IMO The US militarily would benefit greatly with some self reflection over this policy.

[Ferich]

I might be getting the wrong signal but are you trying to say American pilots/soldiers,etc shoot at Civilians on purpose???
.

This wasn’t directed towards me but I still feel the need to respond. Your engagement policies are reckless that is why there are so many friendly fire instances. IMO The US militarily would benefit greatly with some self reflection over this policy.

I can't get much from that, but as far as I know it's the same policies as any other country following the Geneva convention. You can go ahead and post as many stories of soldiers going nuts, friendly fire, etc but that happens in every war.

If you want to talk about reckless engagement policy, how about the Soviets in the afghan war?

You have some nice points though HaVoc.

[negative]

the US has the best engagement policy-the same as other nations. we tried to use the Israeli tactics, but they didnt work. War is war

[Short Hand]

Fuck I could give a shit anymore.. Why argue ? Proof could come in tommrow (not that it hasn't already), That the war was not over WMDs etc etc etc. It could show that infact it was wrong, every concept behind it was completely wrong yadda yadda yadda, and most of you would still indeed support the war. Nothing nayone could show you, or say will sway your minds. To you........

"we are the enemy". annoy:

[HaVoc]

Ahh… Well I can’t find the article but it was in Calgary Herald a few years ago when the war started. Now don’t quote me on this because I don’t have the article to confirm it, however it was comparing the British engagement policy with the American one and it mention that the British used a five step system to confirm hostile targets while the US used a two step system. My point is the US policy is not the same as other countries in fact it is one of the most aggressive engagement policies of any military.

[Pyro]

When compared to other wars, those numbers are small. Of course you can't compare different eras of history since the weaponry and tactics of fighting are different. But nevertheless.

I might be getting the wrong signal but are you trying to say American pilots/soldiers,etc shoot at Civilians on purpose???

It seems people are trying to "suprise" me with news of death tolls and the like, but really they match to any other war in history...especially one that's longer than a year and involves an insurgency.

Our wars in history were necessary.

And im sure there must be some soldiers who shoot civilians on purpose...fuck it is a serial killers dream. But over 90% don't.

[negative]

to not support the war is supporting terrorism (at least now, maybe not before the elections)--take note from the Brittish Antiwar leader who resigned on this principle

[ninty]

to not support the war is supporting terrorism (at least now, maybe not before the elections)--take note from the Brittish Antiwar leader who resigned on this principle

This is something that drives me INSANE.

Do those who believe this really think the world is black and white? Good against evil? God against the Devil?

I don't support the war, I guess I support terrorism then. Would you like to add a little graphic in your sig stating that ninty is a terrorist? I'll make it for you.

[Short Hand]

pm a pic, ill make one for him : )

[Ferich]

When compared to other wars, those numbers are small. Of course you can't compare different eras of history since the weaponry and tactics of fighting are different. But nevertheless.

I might be getting the wrong signal but are you trying to say American pilots/soldiers,etc shoot at Civilians on purpose???

It seems people are trying to "suprise" me with news of death tolls and the like, but really they match to any other war in history...especially one that's longer than a year and involves an insurgency.

Our wars in history were necessary.

And im sure there must be some soldiers who shoot civilians on purpose...fuck it is a serial killers dream. But over 90% don't.

oOo:

Imo majority of the wars throughout history were unnecessary, but there's people in certain positions that have the power to make and keep them necessary. One person's necessary is anothers unnecessary.

I never said this war was necessary or not, I'm just defending the positive work the US soldiers have done in spite of doing it for what seems like nothing to certain people.

to not support the war is supporting terrorism (at least now, maybe not before the elections)--take note from the Brittish Antiwar leader who resigned on this principle

This is something that drives me INSANE.

Do those who believe this really think the world is black and white? Good against evil? God against the Devil?

I don't support the war, I guess I support terrorism then. Would you like to add a little graphic in your sig stating that ninty is a terrorist? I'll make it for you.

I wouldn't of even replied to that.

[HaVoc]

to not support the war is supporting terrorism (at least now, maybe not before the elections)--take note from the Brittish Antiwar leader who resigned on this principle

^^

The new Ponte! dance:

[Short Hand]

They have no fucking clue who ponte or reck is Havoc... this isn't biahq... or fpscentral.com lol...

[HaVoc]

lol well... hey... you do! So there... cool:

[Drew]

First off, regarding the US engagement policy, the United States not only meets the international requirements of the LOAC, it also exceeds them with their own ROE published as the SROE.

Here is some information on the LOAC:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm

Remember, the rules followed by the US - the SROE - meet or exceed minimum requirements of the LOAC in all areas. A copy of the unclassified portions of the SROE can be found here:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/dod/docs/cjcs_sroe.pdf

The United States military, after Vietnam, found it necessary to make identification of hostiles and hostile targets as streamlined and efficient as possible. I doubt you understand the weight of this since you're probably still in high school and never had an 8-year old start tossing grenades at you. I'm not saying I have, but I'm sure you catch my drift.

Again, research on this kind of thing is important. It is irresponsible to make a broad assumption that the US engagement policy is the cause of the majority of the civilian casualties in Iraq. As I recall, insurgents managed to exceed US-related civilian casualties for a full quarter of a year in a single day. Keep things in proportion.

[negative]

[quote:5028f]He added: "By simply calling for 'troops out', it gives succour to terrorists who are killing the very trade unionists and ordinary citizens we should be supporting."[/quote:5028f]



http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 30,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1424330,00.html)

[negative]

to not support the war is supporting terrorism (at least now, maybe not before the elections)--take note from the Brittish Antiwar leader who resigned on this principle

This is something that drives me INSANE.

Do those who believe this really think the world is black and white? Good against evil? God against the Devil?

I don't support the war, I guess I support terrorism then. Would you like to add a little graphic in your sig stating that ninty is a terrorist? I'll make it for you.

I didnt say you supported the terrorist-but it helps the terrorist newtworks

[ninty]

sleeping:

[negative]

yeah, i guess this has gotten offtopic--there will never be another US draft (hopefully).

[HaVoc]

Again, research on this kind of thing is important. It is irresponsible to make a broad assumption that the US engagement policy is the cause of the majority of the civilian casualties in Iraq.

Drew, first off you are doing a very good job of proving me wrong, something which doesn’t happen very often, so I would like you commend you that. And secondly I would like to apologize for stereotyping conservatives, more often than not I run across people who simply deny the facts and the support right wing agendas without fully understanding what they are supporting. You are an exception. Anyway maybe it’s not the policies then, but there is no denying the fact that the friendly fire rate of the US forces is disturbing high. I hate to blame it on the soldiers, but is it possible that the squad leaders are trigger happy? After all it is known that the US pilots that bomb the Canadians in the training zone in Afghanistan were given methamphetamine….

[Drew]

Again, research on this kind of thing is important. It is irresponsible to make a broad assumption that the US engagement policy is the cause of the majority of the civilian casualties in Iraq.

Drew, first off you are doing a very good job of proving me wrong, something which doesn’t happen very often, so I would like you commend you that. And secondly I would like to apologize for stereotyping conservatives, more often than not I run across people who simply deny the facts and the support right wing agendas without fully understanding what they are supporting. You are an exception. Anyway maybe it’s not the policies then, but there is no denying the fact that the friendly fire rate of the US forces is disturbing high. I hate to blame it on the soldiers, but is it possible that the squad leaders are trigger happy? After all it is known that the US pilots that bomb the Canadians in the training zone in Afghanistan were given methamphetamine….

I won't even deny that most people who think they share my views tend to be on the less educated side of things. You are beyond 100% correct on that point biggrin:

Anyway, it's hard to really pick out one particular situation in combat and say, "This is why there is friendly fire," or "This is why there are civilian casualties." Combat is a very fluid and unpredictable thing. When you're making decisions with the knowledge that a hesitation or a mistake could potentially cost you not only your life, but cost the lives of your squad mates, it's going to affect your decision-making process. It is probably also a good idea to remember that the United States deploys an exponentially larger number of soldiers into combat situations around the world than does Canada or the UK. This could very easily be the reason for higher numbers of friendly fire incidents.

As for the incident with the US/Canadian friendly-fire.. there were a whole, whole bunch of problems with that. The commander who ordered the training exercise in the first place never reported it to CENTCOM in the area so that all entities in the area were aware. Not even the Canadian AWACS crew, who was providing the radar and imaging data to the pilots, knew that the soldiers on the ground were Canadian. They soldiers on the ground were also firing their weapons as it was a live-fire exercise.

That being said, the US pilots actually violated the ROE by not attempting to evade the fire (they were at 20,000+ feet I believe, which basically already evades any small-arms fire) prior to dropping the bomb. That's a problem with the specific officer and his commander.

As for the stimulants, they were on dexamphetamine as I recall. Very different from methamphetamine. It is still an extremely powerful stimulant, however it doesn't have a majority of the negative effects of methamphetamines.

[imported_Fluffy_Bunny]

to not support the war is supporting terrorism (at least now, maybe not before the elections)--take note from the Brittish Antiwar leader who resigned on this principle

Saddam Hussein does not support Osama Bin Laden.

The War in Iraq- politically correct imperialism, Iraq has a lot of oil, we take out the Government and ruin the country there's lots of $£ to be made rebuilding it and there would be no economic sanctions to be made against a crackpot dictatorship, the trade would flow freely and the US economy which was in recession can recover. There were no WMD's, this was just an excuse to launch an illegal pre-emptive strike against Iraq. If we were really concerned about fighting terrorism there's a million and one other places we could have invaded instead of Iraq, it just so happens to be that a large number of those million and one places do not have as much oil. There could be terrorists in Angola, the country is floating on oil, and a thousand times more corrupt than Iraq was, it could provide a safe haven for anyone on the run. But Fundamentalist Christians don't think the antiChrist will rule from Luanda, they think he will rule from Bagdad, and neocon Jews don't care squat for Black countries; to them it's all "zululand".

I sometimes wonder why we didn't invade Iran instead as they probably have closer ties with terrorists and have more evidence of WMD. I think I may have accidentally stumbled over Bush's foreign policy with this thought because Bush knew that Iraq didn't have any WMD's so decided to take over. But he wasn't sure if Iran had any, so he was catious not to provocate the disaster.

[eeves]

When compared to other wars, those numbers are small. Of course you can't compare different eras of history since the weaponry and tactics of fighting are different. But nevertheless.

I might be getting the wrong signal but are you trying to say American pilots/soldiers,etc shoot at Civilians on purpose???

It seems people are trying to "suprise" me with news of death tolls and the like, but really they match to any other war in history...especially one that's longer than a year and involves an insurgency.

Our wars in history were necessary.

And im sure there must be some soldiers who shoot civilians on purpose...fuck it is a serial killers dream. But over 90% don't.

I m not sure what your point was in saying " fuck it is a serial killers dream." However i do not think the US Army is recruiting psychotic people.

That s like saying...Im sure there must be some members who does not masturbate in this forum....but over 90% do. calmdown: I m not really trying to bash you, but just trying to prove that your statement was useless for this thread and was more like trying to either start an argument with someone or you just read the thread and you felt like saying anything. In other words spam it freak: ironic eek:

[Duke_of_Ray]

There is no way there will be a draft for just the war in Iraq, but it really does not matter, I am already taken care of.

[rdeyes]

i dont see why all the people from canada and england are all worked up , this is an issue that deals with america only.

[Ferich]

i dont see why all the people from canada and england are all worked up , this is an issue that deals with america only.

Not really, it could definately cause certain things to happen. Especially if the Britons are our Ally during a draft. Would they do the same? My ignorance of the British equivalent of a draft can be understood.

And it doesnt matter what country youre from to be anti war.

[rdeyes]

ok

[Machette]

*edit*

[ninty]

According to this site, the US draft will be reinstated within 75 days of March 31, 2005:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/19/191951/450

[Drew]

That is some interesting information. I still don't think there will be a draft, simply due to how grossly unpopular it would be. It would more or less assure a Democratic victory in the 2008 election and I just don't see Republicans making that move.

That being said, I guess we can't really rule out the possibility that something VERY big is taking place behind closed doors. You never know what kind of war might be about to break loose, etc. that could fuel the need for a draft.

That being said, I suppose I have reason to be slightly concerned about the idea of a "non-combat skills" draft.

Because of heart surgery I had as a child, I cannot be drafted into a combat role. I would also be passed over in a general draft. However, because of my national registered IQ scores (I've said it once and I'll say it again, having a high IQ does nothing but suck) I would be called up in the first round of a non-combat draft to be trained in a specialized field such as intelligence analysis, etc.

So, yeah. Could be interesting.

[ninty]

Here's another article for you:

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sec ... icle=27847 (http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=27847)

[Drew]

Again, good link with an interesting perspective. Still, I think it's going to take a major catastrophe to see a draft before 2008.

I must admit that the idea of the draft, while somewhat of an inconvenience, is something to which I am not entirely opposed.

Many countries, Spain is one I can name off the top of my head, require high school graduates to engage in 9 months of community service or military service. Many other developed nations require compulsory military service of their young citizens for a few months or a year. This is, in essence, an entire generation of military personnel who are good for at least one tour of duty, more if they opt to remain in the military. I personally think it would be great for the evermore retarded kids pouring out of schools these days.

I'm not even really worried about the draft, to be honest. Military service would only make my resume look even better and I know I wouldn't end up in a combat role. On top of that, I just finished up my degree so I'd enter service as an officer.

[ninty]

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sec ... icle=27871 (http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=27871)

[Coleman]

According to this site, the US draft will be reinstated within 75 days of March 31, 2005:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/19/191951/450we can expect to see a 75% pregnency increase among drafted females

[ninty]

rolleyes: sleeping:

http://www.blatanttruth.org/selective_service091304.pdf

[quote:9d42d]We now know that on February 11, 2003, Charles Abell, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and William Carr, Deputy Undersecretary for Military Personnel Policy, met with Lewis Brodsky, the Acting Director of the Selective Service, Flavahan and some other officials. This is the highest-level meeting you could have about the draft, outside of Rumsfeld and his inner circle. The proposed changes discussed in this meeting include:


* Allowing a non-combat draft for shortages in critical skills, without calling a combat draft. This non-combat skills draft would induct men and women ages 18 to 34.

* Fill labor shortages of all kinds throughout not only DoD but the Dept. of Homeland Security and other agencies as well, especially high-paying professionals like computer networking specialist or linguist. However, truck drivers, cooks and several hundred other skills are also considered "critical".

* Create a single-point, all-inclusive database, in which every young person would be forced to send in a "self-declaration"--like an IRS form--of all of their critical skills, chosen from a long list o f several hundred occupations like the Air Force Specialty Code with Skills Identifier. The usual penalties of imprisonment and/or a $250,000 fine would apply to all non-registrants.

* Upgrade the Medical Draft so that it collected data on skill sets and other information in the same way the Skills Draft would.

* Reduce induction time from being able to deliver all inductees in 193 days down to just 90 days for skills and medical inductees.


The Agenda document begins by declaring:

"With known shortages of military personnel with certain critical skills, and with the need for the nation to be capable of responding to domestic emergencies as part of Homeland Security planning, changes should be made in the Selective Service System's registration program and primary mission."

And goes on:

"Defense manpower officials concede there are critical shortages of military personnel with certain special skills, such as medical personnel, linguists, computer network engineers, etc. The costs of attracting and retaining such personnel for military-service could be prohibitive, leading some officials to conclude that while a conventional draft may never be needed, a draft of men and women possessing these critical skills may be warranted in a future crisis, if too few volunteer."

So the Agenda document proposes:

"In line with today's needs, the SSS structure, programs and activities should be re-engineered towards maintaining a national inventory of American men and (for the first time) women, ages 18 through 34, with an added focus on identifying individuals with critical skills."

The head of the Selective Service then explained to the Deputy Undersecretaries how the Skills Draft would work:

"... In addition to the basic identifying information collected in the current program, the expanded and revised program would require all registrants to indicate whether they have been trained in, possess, and professionally practice, one or more skills critical to national security or community health and safety. This could take the form of an initial "self-declaration" as a part of the registration process. Men and women would enter on the SSS registration form a multi-digit number representing their specific critical skill (e.g., similar to military occupational specialty or Armed Forces Specialty Code with Skill Identifier), taken from a lengthy list of skills to be compiled and published by the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. Individuals proficient in more than one critical skill would list the practiced skill in which they have the greatest degree of experience and competency. They would also be required to update reported information as necessary until they reach the age 35. This unique data base would provide the military (and national, state, and municipal government agencies) with immediately available links to vital human resources...in effect, a single, most accurate and complete, national inventory of young Americans with special skills."

In short, if a Skills Draft and Medical Draft are authorized by Bush and the Republican Congress in 2005, nearly 40 million young people and a somewhat overlapping 13.5 million doctors, nurses and specialists ages 20-44 will have to go to their local Post Office and register with the IRS. The form will have on it a list of several hundred skills for the skills draft, and at least 61 medical specialties for the Medical Draft form, probably along with a host of other medical occupations, from dental lab technician to health forms processor. Under penalty of a $250,000 fine, these tens of millions of Americans will "self-declare" their name address and all of their skills--and they could be drafted for any one of them--by writing down the coded number for that occupation. Recently, the DoD asked the IRS to help them track down the whereabouts of 50,000 Ready Reserve soldiers they had lost track of, so not registering could be very problematic in 2005.

But this new FOI-recovered document and the actions that the SSS admits they are taking in 2004 proves that at the very least, a Skills Draft and Medical Draft are being quietly readied for 2005--"just in case".

From the FOI document, we now know at the end of the Feb. 11 Agenda document the Head of the Selective Service presented the Pentagon with three 3 Options. Option 1 was to maintain the status quo of male-only registration and the not-quite ready Medical Draft. Option 2 was to put the whole Selective Service into "Deep Standby" with reduced funding. From all indications, and from the statements of the SSS itself (see timeline below), the Pentagon has obviously decided to go ahead with Option 3a and Option 3b, which read:

"Next Step A. #3. Restructure the SSS and shift its peacetime focus to accommodate DoD's most likely requirements in a crisis. Plan for conducting a more likely draft of individual with special and critical skills.

a. Minimum requirement: SSS mission guidance and time lines must be redefined promptly by DoD to allow more relevant pre-mobilization planning and funding for the possibility of a critical skills draft at M+90 or sooner (M+ is the number of days from authorization of a draft to delivery of the manpower to the DoD -ed.). Peacetime registration of men 18 through 25 would continue, but consideration would also be given to identifying men with certain critical skills among these year-of-birth groupings. A post-mobilization plan would also be devised and computer programming accomplished for a full-blown critical skills draft. The HCPDS program is completed, brought to the forefront of SSS readiness planning, and tested through exercises...

b. Expanded pre-mobilization requirement. SSS peacetime registration expanded to include women and men, 18 through 34 years old, and collects information on critical skills within these year-of-birth groupings..."

Note that the memo is recommending that a minimum requirement for going forward would be a "post-mobilization plan would also be devised and computer programming accomplished for a full-blown critical skills draft. The HCPDS program is completed, brought to the forefront of SSS readiness planning, and tested through exercises"

From all signs, the Selective Service was quietly asked by the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security, to undertake Option 3a and 3b of the Agenda memo over a year ago. The possibility of a Skills Draft or Combat Draft, and the apparent attempt of Donald Rumsfeld, Selective Service spokesman Amon and Acting Director Brodsky to mislead reporters and the public on this issue deserve full debate before the election.

[/quote:9d42d]

[ninty]

Forgot to post this the other day:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,1 ... RC=army.nl (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_age_032105,00.html?ESRC=army.nl)

[ninty]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&c ... &printer=1 (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&u=/nm/20050323/us_nm/iraq_usa_reserve_dc&printer=1)

[ninty]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... 30-ON.html (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0330draft30-ON.html)

[Coleman]

interesting sig you've got there.

[TGB!]

What is lost in all of these links and conspiracy wrangling is that. . .shocks and gee-willickers - the Selective Service is DOING ITS JOB. The "special report" is no more special the the annual report of last year, or the year before - or the year before that. But folks unfamiliar with how things work, get exposed to "new information" and think some new change is happening in the wind. Shocking.

The "damning March 31st report" - is as they say in the biz. . ."business as usual". . .

You may however continue to hand wring and worry about a non-existant draft issue.[/img]

[Short Hand]

[quote="TGB!":80ce4]What is lost in all of these links and conspiracy wrangling is that. . .shocks and gee-willickers - the Selective Service is DOING ITS JOB. The "special report" is no more special the the annual report of last year, or the year before - or the year before that. But folks unfamiliar with how things work, get exposed to "new information" and think some new change is happening in the wind. Shocking.

The "damning March 31st report" - is as they say in the biz. . ."business as usual". . .

You may however continue to hand wring and worry about a non-existant draft issue.[/img][/quote:80ce4]


You never change prick. You are honestly no better then Bob Novak.

[negative]

i dont like tgb, but he is right. Noone cares about those links. It doesnt make you look smarter, or prove any points.

[TGB!]

[quote="Short Hand":6cd98]

You never change prick.[/quote:6cd98]

Being right - no I dont. Should try it sometime Fatty McCallister.


[quote:6cd98]You are honestly no better then Bob Novak.[/quote:6cd98]

Name-Dropping-Conservative-Pundits!=Social-Awareness

Try again Charlie Brown. . .I promise this time I wont move the football.

[ninty]

"The war on terrorism will not be over in our lifetime. It is different than the Gulf War was in the sense that it may never end. At least not in our lifetime. The way I think of it is, it's a new normalcy."

Vice President Dick Cheney, October 21, 2001.

[TGB!]

ninty can you actually post something that has ANY relevance or weight to the topic at hand or do you just comb through the inter-web looking for whatever soundbite or piece of "info" that SOUNDS clever and relevant but really doesnt matter. . .

Great - VP Cheney recognizes the complexity of fighting an ideology and not a solid enemy - that has FUCK ALL to do with troop strength and the draft. . .

Youre wrong - and your sources while being TECHNICALLY right. . .misconstrue the message.

[ninty]

sleeping:


If you can't make the connection between the quote and the current situation, then I don't know what to tell you bud.

[TGB!]

sleeping:


If you can't make the connection between the quote and the current situation, then I don't know what to tell you bud.

Which is another way of saying you cant back your quote up. Its a - one more time - irrelevant quote there guy. You have YET to establish any solid link between the "war on terror" and "current draft needs". Instead youve relied on links and websites that have taken out of context the task and responsibility of the SSB's. You - unsuprisingly - are playing dirty pool with facts to support your assertion.

Good on ya chap.

[ninty]

And where exactly are your facts?

The only thing you do in response to any post is try to intimidate with your "unlimited knowledge" on every subject.

I don't know how much blunter it can get. When an Army general, analyst or other person with knowledge and experience in the subject voices their opinion, I’d much rather listen to their view than your opinion that seems to shoot down anything anyone says that is contrary to your own beliefs.

I use articles, because as I’ve said before, I feel it important to back up the statements I make.

On this particular issue, it's impossible to know what will happen in the future, that is why we look to experts for opinions to the questions we want to know. There will always be people on either side until it can be proven one way or the other. Fact is, you can't say with 100% certainty that there will be no draft. And I can't say there will be a draft with total conviction. All I can do is research the topic, and come to an educated conclusion.

[Drew]

Just FYI on this...

This year there has been a very pointed and blatant push for employers to ensure that every company displays the USERRA information. If you don't know what that is, you can read about it here:

http://www.osc.gov/userra.htm

The acronymn stands for Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. This act guarantees that anyone who is drafted into service will be given their job or a comparable job back upon their return.

Just something to think about.

[ninty]

That act also covers volunteers, which is something that we don't have in Canada that we should.

If a reservist is deployed in Canada, the place he worked for doesn't have to give him his job back. We probably don't have legislation like this because in order for reservists to be deployed, they must volunteer. But if we were ever in the situation where reservists were forcibly deployed, many people could be out of their day jobs.

[Short Hand]

And where exactly are your facts?

The only thing you do in response to any post is try to intimidate with your "unlimited knowledge" on every subject.

I don't know how much blunter it can get. When an Army general, analyst or other person with knowledge and experience in the subject voices their opinion, I’d much rather listen to their view than your opinion that seems to shoot down anything anyone says that is contrary to your own beliefs.

I use articles, because as I’ve said before, I feel it important to back up the statements I make.

On this particular issue, it's impossible to know what will happen in the future, that is why we look to experts for opinions to the questions we want to know. There will always be people on either side until it can be proven one way or the other. Fact is, you can't say with 100% certainty that there will be no draft. And I can't say there will be a draft with total conviction. All I can do is research the topic, and come to an educated conclusion.


He does it to everyone ninty. It makes his e-penis get stiff.

[Pyro]

The one thing I notice is that the people who serem to be representing liberal viewpoints...are the only ones considering and respecting the other side.

[Madmartagen]

The one thing I notice is that the people who serem to be representing liberal viewpoints...are the only ones considering and respecting the other side.

true, but coleman and drew were cool. i thought it would be cool at first to have a political forum, but just like in offtopic, it just turns into a flamewar. i find it pointless to engage in politcs on this site.