The Military Draft

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jemcam

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: earthman
It will if Bush wins. Bet on it.

I'll take that bet. How much?

I'm in for 100,000 grand.

Any takers?

You'll bet me that Bush will reinstate the draft within the next four years? You're on!

If so, I want some of that action.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: jemcam

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: earthman
It will if Bush wins. Bet on it.

I'll take that bet. How much?

I'm in for 100,000 grand.

Any takers?

You'll bet me that Bush will reinstate the draft within the next four years? You're on!

No silly. When bush wins there will still be no draft.

 

[0roo0roo]

oh i seem to remember cheney chiding anyone not for cutting back forces as unamerican in the 90's. and the cuts started with bush 1 to boot under the reason of the cold war being over eh? remember that? so don't play that silly game. bush ran in 2000 screaming the forces were not ready, the forces were dying. yet what did he do once he got into office? he stuck with the clinton budget!! then he went on vacations. he didn't pump up the forces like he seemed to imply we needed. so what was it? a lie? or is he just incompetent? or did he value that tax cut more then what it would have cost to build up the forces. he had plenty of time, yet he did nothing. on sept 10th 2001 he cut funding for counterterrorism. he doesn't give a rats ass about security or funding it. he only cared about his beloved tax cut, so don't give me that jive about clinton.

those predator drones and the conversion of our bombs to jdams during the clinton admin...well i don't see bush complaining about that

and they are they really owned? really? can they be sold as sex slaves in the middle east? maybe we can get rid of some of our national debt that way we can use them any way we like for any reason.....huh?

as said before, its within the letter of the law...however stretched it maybe, but it is not within the spirit of the law. it is simple abuse of power to cover for gross negligence.

 

[acemcmac]

We're just one dirty bomb away....

Anyone who resists the president in the aftermath of a terrorist attack is is a traitor...

Bush has proven that he doesen't mind waving the bloody flag if it helps him bully around congress... look at the iraq spending bills.

 

[jadinolf]

Originally posted by: Rustynuts
They already have one, it's called the Back-Door draft! That's why so many reservists are getting their ass shot off for a year instead of serving a weekend a month.

True but the reservists should have considered that before they signed up.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

as said before, its within the letter of the law...however stretched it maybe, but it is not within the spirit of the law. it is simple abuse of power to cover for gross negligence.

It is generally a good idea to carefully read any contract you sign. Particularly ones with the Federal government concerning military service.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

as said before, its within the letter of the law...however stretched it maybe, but it is not within the spirit of the law. it is simple abuse of power to cover for gross negligence.

It is generally a good idea to carefully read any contract you sign. Particularly ones with the Federal government concerning military service.

Yep. And this is every bit within the spirit of the law. They are not being retained because of numbers, but for their experience. That is EXACTLY what the law is there for.

 

[jemcam]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
oh i seem to remember cheney chiding anyone not for cutting back forces as unamerican in the 90's. and the cuts started with bush 1 to boot under the reason of the cold war being over eh? remember that? so don't play that silly game. bush ran in 2000 screaming the forces were not ready, the forces were dying. yet what did he do once he got into office? he stuck with the clinton budget!! then he went on vacations. he didn't pump up the forces like he seemed to imply we needed. so what was it? a lie? or is he just incompetent? or did he value that tax cut more then what it would have cost to build up the forces. he had plenty of time, yet he did nothing. on sept 10th 2001 he cut funding for counterterrorism. he doesn't give a rats ass about security or funding it. he only cared about his beloved tax cut, so don't give me that jive about clinton.

those predator drones and the conversion of our bombs to jdams during the clinton admin...well i don't see bush complaining about that

and they are they really owned? really? can they be sold as sex slaves in the middle east? maybe we can get rid of some of our national debt that way we can use them any way we like for any reason.....huh?

as said before, its within the letter of the law...however stretched it maybe, but it is not within the spirit of the law. it is simple abuse of power to cover for gross negligence.

You are out there man. I can see we can't discuss things and I certainly won't change your mind, but I speak from experience, not from what I've read or heard from leftwing.com or wherever you get your facts.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven

Originally posted by: K1052
Also, why do people think that the President can just push a large button marked "Draft" and it magically happens without any other approval?

Authorization for a draft must pass the usual hurdles in the Legislative branch before coming anywhere near the president's desk.

Most of the people bitching are also the ones that don't understand how the electoral college works. I think they slept through some of their classes.

The major networks should run a "How a bill becomes a law." animation before every news broadcast.

If those morons couldn't understand School House Rock's "I'm Just A Bill," there is no hope for them.

 

[SuperTool]

I believe Bush when he says there won't be a draft about as much as I believed him in 2000 when he said he was going to be a uniter not a divider.
There very well may be a draft under Bush. We are stetched thin as it is, and he has a tendency for starting wars where none are needed.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I believe Bush when he says there won't be a draft about as much as I believed him in 2000 when he said he was going to be a uniter not a divider.
There very well may be a draft under Bush. We are stetched thin as it is, and he has a tendency for starting wars where none are needed.

Lookie! Another myth spreader with no idea what they are talking about.

Again, the US has no problem in filling military ranks. The stop-loss is being used to retain NCOs and Officers with experience... not to keep the number of troops up. The US is having no problem meeting recruitment goals and the size of the military is controlled by Congress. That controlled size is at it's limit. If more troops are needed, Congress needs to increase the amount allowable.

 

[SuperTool]

If it has no problem recruiting, why is it using the guard and reserve nonstop? If they had the full time troops they needed, they wouldn't have needed those reserves. Why are they giving out $15000 signing bonuses for new recruits? General Shinseki said it would take several hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq. Now when that reality catches up with the Pentagon, where are they going to get those troops? Until they tell us, I am going to make my own assumptions.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
If it has no problem recruiting, why is it using the guard and reserve nonstop? If they had the full time troops they needed, they wouldn't have needed those reserves. Why are they giving out $15000 signing bonuses for new recruits? General Shinseki said it would take several hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq. Now when that reality catches up with the Pentagon, where are they going to get those troops? Until they tell us, I am going to make my own assumptions.

Even though your assumptions are wrong.

The armed forces has always offered sign up and reenlistment bonuses to experienced GIs with good records. I was offered a very large bonus to reenlist, and it was peacetime.

They are using the Guard and Reserve because the SIZE the the total forces is regulated by Congress, and they cannot go over that limit. To have the number of full time troops increased, Congress would have to allow a larger standing force. What part of that can you not understand?

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: JDub02
technology is at a place now where we will never need a draft. and it will only get better. better technology replaces the need for boots on the ground.

still need some boots on the ground for general control, but not nearly as many. we're just fighting a really hard war since the enemy wears no uniform. hard to tell a terrorist from a normal iraqi ... unless he's holding a rpg

Until robotic foot soldiers that are reliable and capable are constructed, we will continue to need large amounts of troops for our little nation building exercises. Its true we could win wars with many countries with just our technology. But apparently, we wish to "liberate" them instead of carpet bomb them into oblivion.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool
If it has no problem recruiting, why is it using the guard and reserve nonstop? If they had the full time troops they needed, they wouldn't have needed those reserves. Why are they giving out $15000 signing bonuses for new recruits? General Shinseki said it would take several hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq. Now when that reality catches up with the Pentagon, where are they going to get those troops? Until they tell us, I am going to make my own assumptions.

Even though your assumptions are wrong.

The armed forces has always offered sign up and reenlistment bonuses to experienced GIs with good records. I was offered a very large bonus to reenlist, and it was peacetime.

They are using the Guard and Reserve because the SIZE the the total forces is regulated by Congress, and they cannot go over that limit. To have the number of full time troops increased, Congress would have to allow a larger standing force. What part of that can you not understand?

The part where you fill the shortfall should a need arise for more troops, if you are already using the reserves.
If you believe General Shinseki who said it's going to take several hundred thousand troops, then we are gonna need more troops. If you believe the neocon wiz kids at the Pentagon many of whom never served, then we are in great shape as it is. But those are the same people who failed to plan for the counterinsurgency and told everyone that it's unfathomable that we are gonna need more troops for the occupation than we need to topple the regime. I don't put much credibility in their words.

 

[Grunt03]

I do not think that the draft will come back, if it were to them who ever will be in office will bear the full brunt. What they are doing to get away from the draft is useing the Stop Loss / Stop Move policy.
Which means that those who were planning on getting out of the military cannot, those who were going to move to another duty location, cannot. If you are a reservist then you are put onto active duty and cannot refuse. This is the back door draft many are talking about.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool
If it has no problem recruiting, why is it using the guard and reserve nonstop? If they had the full time troops they needed, they wouldn't have needed those reserves. Why are they giving out $15000 signing bonuses for new recruits? General Shinseki said it would take several hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq. Now when that reality catches up with the Pentagon, where are they going to get those troops? Until they tell us, I am going to make my own assumptions.

Even though your assumptions are wrong.

The armed forces has always offered sign up and reenlistment bonuses to experienced GIs with good records. I was offered a very large bonus to reenlist, and it was peacetime.

They are using the Guard and Reserve because the SIZE the the total forces is regulated by Congress, and they cannot go over that limit. To have the number of full time troops increased, Congress would have to allow a larger standing force. What part of that can you not understand?

The part where you fill the shortfall should a need arise for more troops, if you are already using the reserves.
If you believe General Shinseki who said it's going to take several hundred thousand troops, then we are gonna need more troops. If you believe the neocon wiz kids at the Pentagon many of whom never served, then we are in great shape as it is. But those are the same people who failed to plan for the counterinsurgency and told everyone that it's unfathomable that we are gonna need more troops for the occupation than we need to topple the regime. I don't put much credibility in their words.

Again, the problem is not new recruits. The problem is EXPERIENCED troops and both past and existing limits on troop numbers.

To increase the size of the military, Congress needs to approve it. The stop-loss is not to maintain troop strength, but the number of EXPERIENCED troops. We have no problem getting raw troops, but without experienced officers and NCOs, they are ineffective.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool
If it has no problem recruiting, why is it using the guard and reserve nonstop? If they had the full time troops they needed, they wouldn't have needed those reserves. Why are they giving out $15000 signing bonuses for new recruits? General Shinseki said it would take several hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq. Now when that reality catches up with the Pentagon, where are they going to get those troops? Until they tell us, I am going to make my own assumptions.

Even though your assumptions are wrong.

The armed forces has always offered sign up and reenlistment bonuses to experienced GIs with good records. I was offered a very large bonus to reenlist, and it was peacetime.

They are using the Guard and Reserve because the SIZE the the total forces is regulated by Congress, and they cannot go over that limit. To have the number of full time troops increased, Congress would have to allow a larger standing force. What part of that can you not understand?

The part where you fill the shortfall should a need arise for more troops, if you are already using the reserves.
If you believe General Shinseki who said it's going to take several hundred thousand troops, then we are gonna need more troops. If you believe the neocon wiz kids at the Pentagon many of whom never served, then we are in great shape as it is. But those are the same people who failed to plan for the counterinsurgency and told everyone that it's unfathomable that we are gonna need more troops for the occupation than we need to topple the regime. I don't put much credibility in their words.

Again, the problem is not new recruits. The problem is EXPERIENCED troops and both past and existing limits on troop numbers.

To increase the size of the military, Congress needs to approve it. The stop-loss is not to maintain troop strength, but the number of EXPERIENCED troops. We have no problem getting raw troops, but without experienced officers and NCOs, they are ineffective.

In my HS graduating class there were at least 20 kids that enlisted out of a class of 180. And I'm not talking about ROTC or National Guard. I'm talking about the Marines, Air Force, Navy or Army, full blown. If my HS (a very small one at that with the majority of families middle to upper-middle class) represents even 20% of all the HSs out there, there will be no shortage of raw troops. Not to mention the people out of HS that are enlisting.

Just like you said Amused.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: K1052
Also, why do people think that the President can just push a large button marked "Draft" and it magically happens without any other approval?

Authorization for a draft must pass the usual hurdles in the Legislative branch before coming anywhere near the president's desk.

Because people actually believe that CBS, The NY Times, The Washington Post, and the LA Times actually tell the truth.

When people think it's the presidents sole decision whether or not to reinstate the draft, it's not the fault of the media. I don't remember any of those news sources ever saying that Bush himself will be reinstating a draft any time soon. Rather, those that believe the responsibility is that of the president alone are uneducated on how our government works.

Anyway, the fear mongering works on both ends. Yes, maybe some Dems would like you to believe that a draft may be coming thanks to Bush. But the Bush admin is guilty as well. They run commercials implying that terrorists are preditors waiting to strike, and that they'll strike when we're weak (e.g., if we elect Kerry). Talk about scare tactics!

One such commercial mentions how Kerry voted against intelligence spending long ago. Well guess what, that was a different political climate. Bush was in office when the worst terrorist attack on our soil occured, and there was prior notice of the attack coming.

Bush would like you to believe that terrorism can only be stopped under his watch, citing the fact that he's resolute in Iraq, but does being resolute make up for ignorance? It seems to me that we never had a clear occupation time strategy.

EDIT: FYI, I'm moderate, leaning a bit to the left, but mostly sick of the BS politicians spew forth in this day and age.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool
If it has no problem recruiting, why is it using the guard and reserve nonstop? If they had the full time troops they needed, they wouldn't have needed those reserves. Why are they giving out $15000 signing bonuses for new recruits? General Shinseki said it would take several hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq. Now when that reality catches up with the Pentagon, where are they going to get those troops? Until they tell us, I am going to make my own assumptions.

Even though your assumptions are wrong.

The armed forces has always offered sign up and reenlistment bonuses to experienced GIs with good records. I was offered a very large bonus to reenlist, and it was peacetime.

They are using the Guard and Reserve because the SIZE the the total forces is regulated by Congress, and they cannot go over that limit. To have the number of full time troops increased, Congress would have to allow a larger standing force. What part of that can you not understand?

The part where you fill the shortfall should a need arise for more troops, if you are already using the reserves.
If you believe General Shinseki who said it's going to take several hundred thousand troops, then we are gonna need more troops. If you believe the neocon wiz kids at the Pentagon many of whom never served, then we are in great shape as it is. But those are the same people who failed to plan for the counterinsurgency and told everyone that it's unfathomable that we are gonna need more troops for the occupation than we need to topple the regime. I don't put much credibility in their words.

Again, the problem is not new recruits. The problem is EXPERIENCED troops and both past and existing limits on troop numbers.

To increase the size of the military, Congress needs to approve it. The stop-loss is not to maintain troop strength, but the number of EXPERIENCED troops. We have no problem getting raw troops, but without experienced officers and NCOs, they are ineffective.

In my HS graduating class there were at least 20 kids that enlisted out of a class of 180. And I'm not talking about ROTC or National Guard. I'm talking about the Marines, Air Force, Navy or Army, full blown. If my HS (a very small one at that with the majority of families middle to upper-middle class) represents even 20% of all the HSs out there, there will be no shortage of raw troops. Not to mention the people out of HS that are enlisting.

Just like you said Amused.

Again, if there is no shortage of troops why are we using the reserves as full time soldiers.
I agree we need a larger standing army, but the Bush administration is in denial about that, and they haven't asked for one. So frankly this administration is so out of touch with reality and the needs in Iraq, even if they believe we won't need the draft, that doesn't hold much water with me. They also believed that occupation was gonna be piece of cake and not require as many troops as the invasion. They failed to locate and secure weapons, so clearly they don't have enough boots on the ground, IMO.
Again, maybe with the status quo, we won't need a draft, but if you know anything about the people running foreign policy in this administration, they have big plans for the middle east, and are pretty casual about invasions.

 

[thomsbrain]

bush has lied to us before, and i read in the paper that he kept a mere 46% of his campaign promises from 2000. personally, i don't like the odds of "no draft" being one of the minority he keeps next time around. not to mention he will pretty much have to have one if he keeps up his shoot-first way of doing things. and while it would be suicide for kerry to push a draft through, it will not be political suicide for bush to do so. want to know why? he'll already be in his second term. so there ain't sh!t we can do about it if he has one. and with republicans in control on congress, i don't think it would be too tough for him to push one through if he wanted to. so from experience, we know not to trust anything he tells us before he gets elected, and that leaves us with only motive (large) and consequences (none). forgive me for not being reassured.

 

[jemcam]

Again, if there is no shortage of troops why are we using the reserves as full time soldiers.

Once again I'm telling you it was because the total force shifted from using more reservists and guardsmen than active duty back in the 90's. Are you always this thick? The role of the reserves and National Guard has ALWAYS been a part of the total force. (BTW National Guard and Reserves forces have served in EVERY war the U.S. has ever been in, going back all the way to the revolutionary war) The National Guard has a dual role, with both state and federal obligations, hence the reason the state governors can call them up for emergencies. The reserves have only a federal role and can only be called up for a federal emergency.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: jemcam

Again, if there is no shortage of troops why are we using the reserves as full time soldiers.

Once again I'm telling you it was because the total force shifted from using more reservists and guardsmen than active duty back in the 90's. Are you always this thick? The role of the reserves and National Guard has ALWAYS been a part of the total force. (BTW National Guard and Reserves forces have served in EVERY war the U.S. has ever been in, going back all the way to the revolutionary war) The National Guard has a dual role, with both state and federal obligations, hence the reason the state governors can call them up for emergencies. The reserves have only a federal role and can only be called up for a federal emergency.

give it up dude. he's beyond help. just take em out back and put him down.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: jemcam

Again, if there is no shortage of troops why are we using the reserves as full time soldiers.

Once again I'm telling you it was because the total force shifted from using more reservists and guardsmen than active duty back in the 90's. Are you always this thick? The role of the reserves and National Guard has ALWAYS been a part of the total force. The National Guard has a dual role, with both state and federal obligations, hence the reason the state governors can call them up for emergencies. The reserves have only a federal role and can only be called up for a federal emergency.

They are there for temporary emergencies, not long term occupations. We are using them as active duty troops. So If we are using our reserves as active duty troops, who are we gonna use if we have another emergency? Could very well be a draft. Maybe with status quo we won't need one, but are you willing to bet your life on the status quo? Not me.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool
If it has no problem recruiting, why is it using the guard and reserve nonstop? If they had the full time troops they needed, they wouldn't have needed those reserves. Why are they giving out $15000 signing bonuses for new recruits? General Shinseki said it would take several hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq. Now when that reality catches up with the Pentagon, where are they going to get those troops? Until they tell us, I am going to make my own assumptions.

Even though your assumptions are wrong.

The armed forces has always offered sign up and reenlistment bonuses to experienced GIs with good records. I was offered a very large bonus to reenlist, and it was peacetime.

They are using the Guard and Reserve because the SIZE the the total forces is regulated by Congress, and they cannot go over that limit. To have the number of full time troops increased, Congress would have to allow a larger standing force. What part of that can you not understand?

The part where you fill the shortfall should a need arise for more troops, if you are already using the reserves.
If you believe General Shinseki who said it's going to take several hundred thousand troops, then we are gonna need more troops. If you believe the neocon wiz kids at the Pentagon many of whom never served, then we are in great shape as it is. But those are the same people who failed to plan for the counterinsurgency and told everyone that it's unfathomable that we are gonna need more troops for the occupation than we need to topple the regime. I don't put much credibility in their words.

Again, the problem is not new recruits. The problem is EXPERIENCED troops and both past and existing limits on troop numbers.

To increase the size of the military, Congress needs to approve it. The stop-loss is not to maintain troop strength, but the number of EXPERIENCED troops. We have no problem getting raw troops, but without experienced officers and NCOs, they are ineffective.

In my HS graduating class there were at least 20 kids that enlisted out of a class of 180. And I'm not talking about ROTC or National Guard. I'm talking about the Marines, Air Force, Navy or Army, full blown. If my HS (a very small one at that with the majority of families middle to upper-middle class) represents even 20% of all the HSs out there, there will be no shortage of raw troops. Not to mention the people out of HS that are enlisting.

Just like you said Amused.

Again, if there is no shortage of troops why are we using the reserves as full time soldiers.
I agree we need a larger standing army, but the Bush administration is in denial about that, and they haven't asked for one. So frankly this administration is so out of touch with reality and the needs in Iraq, even if they believe we won't need the draft, that doesn't hold much water with me. They also believed that occupation was gonna be piece of cake and not require as many troops as the invasion. They failed to locate and secure weapons, so clearly they don't have enough boots on the ground, IMO.
Again, maybe with the status quo, we won't need a draft, but if you know anything about the people running foreign policy in this administration, they have big plans for the middle east, and are pretty casual about invasions.

JemCam has explained this. The shortage of active duty troops exists because of LIMITS ON TROOPS STRENGTH SET BY CONGRESS. The same goes for the % of active duty vs reserve and guard troops.

The rest of your post is baseless speculation and opinion. Let's stick to the facts, OK?

The size of the army is set by congress. The rate of recruitment is just fine. The stop-loss is NOT about keeping up troop numbers, but about keeping experienced soldiers on duty until raw recruits can be trained and gain experience.