Thread: Have fun in Iraq, y'all . . .
10-24-2004, 12:31 AM #1
Have fun in Iraq, y'all . . .
Do I feel a draft in here?
from : http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5045559.html
Tom Maertens: Trust that Bush won't bring back the draft? Bad idea
October 22, 2004 MAERTENS1022
In a recent Newsweek poll, 38 percent of respondents thought President Bush would reinstitute the draft if reelected. In a Time poll, 42 percent expected a draft. Both polls were taken before John Kerry raised the issue.
The president has adamantly denied the draft story. He has even asserted that reelecting him is the best way to prevent a new draft. Bush is speaking out of both sides of his mouth on the issue, however: He portrays himself as more intent on prosecuting the war in Iraq than Kerry, which would logically make a draft more likely.
Are Bush's campaign promises credible?
In the 2000 campaign George W. Bush said that he would support allowing Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada, he would not raid the Social Security Trust Fund, and he would veto temporary storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. He broke all three promises.
In the same campaign Bush said that he would not only balance the budget but pay down a record amount on the national debt. He also claimed he opposed government intervention regarding same-sex marriage. He said the nation would have a $5.6 trillion surplus and that he would have a humble foreign policy. Does anybody remember those whoppers?
In the 2000 campaign, Bush said that he opposed nation-building, that he would end partisan bickering in Washington, and he blamed Bill Clinton for high oil prices. Whom would he blame for $55-per-barrel oil today?
Now Bush says that he plans to fight the war in Iraq with an all-volunteer force. This sounds like a faith-based, or maybe hope-based, policy.
It's common knowledge there aren't enough troops to maintain security in Iraq, much less to reverse the military deterioration. Two-thirds of U.S. servicemen polled by the Annenberg Public Policy Center recently said they believed President Bush "had underestimated the number of troops needed in Iraq." In other words, count on more troops -- after the election.
The Army has 33 combat brigades. Typically, two-thirds are stationed in the States and one-third overseas. Because of Iraq the situation is reversed and two-thirds are now stationed outside the country. All have been rotated into combat in Iraq or Afghanistan at least once, and some have served two tours there already. Reserve and National Guard units have been used to make up the shortfall, constituting almost 40 percent of the troops on the ground at present.
The manpower shortage is sufficiently acute that thousands of Guard and Reserve soldiers have been prevented from leaving the supposedly all-volunteer force when their enlistments are up. This is a "back-door draft," the administration's stopgap solution, at least until after the election.
Such coercive policies, predictably, are driving retention rates down. This makes a draft even more likely. The Army Research Institute projects that only 27 percent of Guard and Reserve soldiers intend to reenlist -- an all-time low. The Army National Guard fell nearly 10 percent short of its 2004 recruiting goal of 56,000 enlistees. In addition, many former soldiers mobilized under a special program have refused to report; they've been to Iraq and don't want to go back. The pool of young people who have committed to join the Army next year is only 18 percent of the total required.
The United States maintains troops in 130 countries, including 146,000 combat troops in Iraq and 9,000 in Afghanistan.
We also have 119,00 military personnel in Europe, 43,000 in Japan, 37,000 in Korea and other forces elsewhere. To maintain these commitments while continuing to rotate troops out of Iraq every 12 months stretches our forces to the limit. The present level of combat in Iraq is unsustainable with our current forces.
Maybe Bush sees a light at the end of the tunnel.
The head of the Selective Service told CBS News that he could start drafting people quickly. "I think we could do it in less than six months if we got the call," said Selective Service Director Jack Martin.
Bush says there won't be a draft to fight the war in Iraq while he is president. Unfortunately, his credibility on Iraq is no better than his record on campaign statements.
Anyone who can read now knows that the administration's claims about WMD and about Saddam Hussein's ties to 9/11 and Al-Qaida were false. The assurances that we would be welcomed as liberators and could use Iraq's oil money to finance reconstruction were patently absurd. It is public knowledge that the administration used forged documents and phony intelligence to claim Saddam was pursuing nuclear material from Niger and specialty aluminum for centrifuges.
Vice President Dick Cheney continues to claim that Saddam protected Abu Nidal, supposedly proof he supported terrorists, even though Saddam had had Abu Nidal assassinated well before the U.S. invasion. To make the same point, the administration routinely claims that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was working with Sadddam even though the evidence is that Al-Zarqawi came into Iraq after the invasion.
The administration's litany of misrepresentations and outright falsehoods on Iraq is so pervasive that nothing it says can be taken at face value.
Yes, George Bush says there will be no draft while he is president, but don't bet your life on it.
Tom Maertens' writing on national security issues can be seen at www.tommaertens.com.
10-24-2004, 12:49 AM #2
big ass bump
10-24-2004, 01:37 AM #3
I can't imagine ANYBODY would vote for that fool GW.
10-24-2004, 03:25 AM #4Retired Vet
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
Can anyone here who knows me say that I didn't predict all this one year ago?.
I'm just a plain old grunt with 20 yrs experience (and counting). As I'm not an American I'm on the outside looking in, thank god. I've said this time and again, with 140,000 troops you CAN NOT win the war, you simply don't have the boots on the ground. Look, the American army is logistically top heavy, it takes anywhere between 3-5 logistical personnel to support one US front line soldier, now work out the maths on that one, how many front line troops does that put on the ground?.
On a side note, the UN have asked my government to supply troops for a possible UN force in Iraq. But I've sworn to my family that I'll retire from the army before setting one foot on Iraqi soil. I'm not fighting for a draft dodging war wongering bastard like Bush. I've been in many conflicts, so I'm not a coward, but this is one I'm walking right away from.
10-24-2004, 05:26 AM #5
Hope so! I totally support keeping a majoruty volunteer force- have draftees fill in the lines in job areas that are thin.
Last edited by BamaSlamma; 10-24-2004 at 05:30 AM.
10-24-2004, 09:30 AM #6
I hope bermich isn't offended that I copied and pasted his words of wisdom........
Originally posted by bermich:
"Thats a nice long article that is absolutely useless.
The draft WILL NOT be reinstated. It was voted on 498-2. The selective service would need BILLIONS of dollars to initiate a full draft. It would take at least a year just to start the process.
The draft is only a TWO YEAR term. NO military branch wants TWO YEAR term soldiers training. It is a loss of money. You cant a tank platoon in two years and then just when they are good, they are disbanded.
You cant train an apache pilot in two years.
The only thing the draft would be good for is for chefs and mail sorters. They wont be seeing active combat anytime soon.
For ALL of you INTERNET GOSSIP believers: RELAX. For all of you who quote articles and believe they are from a credible source: RESEARCH before you post them as FACTUAL."
10-24-2004, 09:53 AM #7Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
10-24-2004, 11:01 AM #8
Ya, and Nixon said he had a "Secret Plan" to end the Vietnam War in 1968.
Politicians will say anything to get elected, especially a first term president, because what's he got to lose? If he wins, he works for 4 more years. If he loses, he ain't gonna work ever again (partially because he's screwed up every business he ever touched, AND screwed up things in Texas, too).
But Bush doesn't want to be re-elected near as much as his "machine" wants to stay in power. They're a bunch of Dominionists (if you don't know what that is, look it up on the net) who are determined to re-make the planet in their image. And that's gonna take a number of messy wars. Not at all unlike Rome's emperors. And if they have their way, they will only hasten the decline of the US and the rise of the world's resentment of us.
Not that I'm gonna change any votes here . . .
10-24-2004, 11:03 AM #9Originally Posted by BOUNCER
Sounds just like American corporate structure.....way too top heavy. I was cruising around the airport the other day and noticed this really nice turboprop.....I asked who it belonged to.......guess what.......a retired general.......5 million dollar airplane.......now tell me the military is underpaid.......just the grunts......just like the workforce of America......we work and die so the elite can support their lavish lifestyles
10-24-2004, 11:36 AM #10Originally Posted by Badgerman
One way to look at things . . . the US is in the midst of a class war.
Rich against the middle class.
Bush's tax cuts netted the top 1% of people in the US 20% of the $$$. Question is, did they need that $$$ more than the unemployed folks without health insurance?
If you look at who's actually fighting (and dying) in this war, you'll find the majority come from lower-middle class backgrounds where military service is seen as their best way to get an education and a good job. Won't find many multi-millionaire's kids driving supply trucks to the guys on the front line.
But, if it wasn't for these guys, who would protect the financial interests of the overseas branches of US multi-national corporations? Who'd protect the oil fields for Mobil and Exxon and their shareholders?
It's depressing when you think about how the military is being used not to further the interests of John & Mary Doe in Anytown, USA, but Mr. & Mrs. Wealthy and Mr. "Daddy" Warbucks on Wall Street. They toss us a few crumbs from their larder and consider that their "fair share" contribution toward "trickledown" economics.
But, what the h---; I'm 48, I've already done my time in the military, I've seen a lot of ugly stuff. Since I'm single and have things pretty well laid out for myself, I'll be able to deal with whatever they throw at me over the next few decades, and have enough left over at my funeral to will them a pound of my fresh turds. But most of the rest of y'all are gonna have a time of it economically, especially if you have kids. I don't envy ya.
Again, I doubt I'll change any votes here . . . choose who you want, and endure the consequenses.
10-24-2004, 12:51 PM #11
Tock - You're getting out of perspective here. Is Bush responsible for this "war" against the middle class? No. Is Kerry going to fix the problem? No. Is Bush going to make the problem worse? NO. Bush is a much more solid candidate based on the economy, beleive it or not. The guy has plans to keep taxes low and not overspend this term, Kerry wants to socialize health care and raise em. Bush is also for privatizing Social Security, something that you have been worried about not having enough $. Well, whats Kerry going to do? Privitazing certainly has its advantages......especially when more $ are what is needed.
You ask if the wealthy needed all that money back in taxes....no they didn't. But they didn't get as large of a portion back % wise as did the rest of the country.....which is suprising, considering they pay most of the taxes in this country. But don't expect the left wingers to point that out.......
You act as though the military is a place where those who have been cast out go. Well, if they didn't want to be there, they wouldn't be. The army is on a volunteer basis, but you seem to forget that I've noticed.......besides, the military is a great option if you aren't going to college. The military is underpaid, says who? The troops don't think so, nor do they think their health care benefits are of poor quaility either. And I can back that up if you don't believe me.
10-24-2004, 02:11 PM #12Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
10-24-2004, 02:23 PM #13Originally Posted by saboudian
10-24-2004, 03:00 PM #14Originally Posted by saboudian
Seriously, your reply doesn't really have much to do with what I posted. I never said the rich were all about doing good for this country, I was talking about our tax system and how its not fair to say "Oh the rich got money back, but they don't deserve it." The might not NEED it, but they pay most of the taxes in this country, and if everyone in the country that earns an income gets a tax break, guess what? Yeah, that means they do too. Nice to know your flames are coming from someone whos so well informed........
Originally Posted by saboudian
But that answer probably isn't good enough for you, because you want the government to do something it can't: Take care of everybody. But if it wasn't for capitalism, there would be a lot more elitism and other such problesms. At least here you can work your way up, which is something I for one plan on doing.
10-24-2004, 03:52 PM #15Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
10-24-2004, 04:49 PM #16Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
This country's freedom is based upon proportionately greater contributions (and blood sacrifice) from America's poor, made necessary by economic conditions perpetuated by the folks in positions of political influence.
I'll bet ya that if politicians who voted for war had to send their own kids into battle first, before sending anyone else, Saddam would still be Iraq today. There would be 1100 more American soldiers alive today.
But alas, this is not the best of all possible worlds . . .
Vote your conscience . . .
10-24-2004, 09:39 PM #17
Tock I expect more than this from you. I know you are a well informed intelligent guy. So why continue to spead this Bull. I can even admit when my party is spining things.
Here is the end of this entire conversation. The bill was composed by democrates. With the intent to scare the general public into thinking they would be forced into the miltary. The author of the bill ( which was a democrate) didnt even vote for it. It was polatics at its best.
10-25-2004, 12:38 AM #18Originally Posted by Anhydro78
Reasonably well informed . . . hence, my opinion.
Agree or not, vote your conscience.
10-25-2004, 03:30 AM #19Originally Posted by Tock
Why bring up a different president that has nothing to do with this issue Tock?
You are bringing up a president from 30 years ago to give strength to the claim of a draft in 2004? What does that mean? Are you desperate to prove a point that you need to refer to Nixon in relation to Bush??
The draft would take years to reinitialize. Bush knows this. By that time, he would be out of office and wouldnt give a shlt. He also knows this. So what would the point be?? Plus, Im sure he knows he would be IMPEACHED if he brought back the draft.
Here is ANOTHER FACT TOCK. BUSH is not the person who can bring back the draft. It is CONGRESS. Congress gets to vote on it. It is not UP TO THE PRESIDENT solely.
10-25-2004, 07:45 AM #20
if there is WW3 there still will not be a draft
10-25-2004, 11:13 AM #21Originally Posted by bermich
Ok ok ok . . . so we have a difference of opinion.
Makes no difference to me if there's a draft or not, they won't be coming for me. I've already done my time in the USAF.
But for y'all, keep in mind that if Bush and his Dominionist pals want to pursue their expansionist plans, that means more armed conflicts, and sooner or later they're gonna need more fresh meat than what's volunteering.
Think what you like, vote for who you like, and have fun at the front.
10-25-2004, 11:01 PM #22
To stabilize Iraq.....and invade Iran we would need about 1 million troops on the ground......if that happens......there WILL be a draft
10-26-2004, 12:09 AM #23
Ah hell, let's just negotiate with the terror-mongers. When the European Union sees
fit to allow us to act then all will be cool right? Ask yourselves if you really want a tax
and spend party in the White House now. Figure out your current tax rate. As an employer I am being driven out of business with the taxing of our nation currently.
Oh, and by the way as employment is my field I would just like to asl 1 question,
Mr Kerry says he will bring jobs back to America. He also says that he will raise the minimum federal wage 2 dollars and hour. Hence, he will actually be sending many more jobs overseas. I also employ a couple of reservists who are shipping out in
January. The do not complain, they signed up and are going to do their duty. They
**** sure want an administration that will support them. Just like Mr. Kerry supported his Vietnam Vet buddies. If Mr. Kerry does win (which he won't) then
you all deserve his Psychotic wife as your first lady. What a glorious day that will be when every time she opens her mouth she spews absolute idiocy. Just check Mr. Kerry's voting record on ANY military expenditures and it will scare the crap out of you
if you have half a brain. Whether you like it or not we are at war. There is a very large portion of the world that will not be happy until our way of life and us are dead.
This is fact. REMEMBER - kill and infidel(that would be you and me) and receive 72
virgins in heaven with Allah. I know that I am just a war mongering son of a B, but
I WILL NEVER FORGET my fellow Americans jumping out of that building that a terrorist
flew a plane into. Vote your conscience to be sure, just make sure you know the facts
and not the spin. One more thing if that Mutha had called my daughter out on national TV I would kick his blue blooded ass. This prick doesn't know what it is to be a man. Tell me one issue the prick hasn't flip-flopped on. Go ahead.....Nobody
has been able to give me one yet.
But, alas this is a Bodybuilding forum so screw all of it and Train til ya puke............
Huge isn't a thing, it's a way of life........aaaaaaahhhhhhhhh
10-26-2004, 12:35 AM #24Originally Posted by Badgerman
. . . or, if North Korea decides to attack South Korea.
Oh yah, they'll have to send some more US troops and bombs over there in a hurry, which will leave someplace really s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d out. And ya never know what other crazy country will start something . . . maybe Bush will discover Iran has WMDs and decide he has to "pre-emptively attack" them. Or maybe it'll be Libya . . . or maybe he'll decide he needs an easy win, and go for Andorra.
Quite seriously, though, I don't envy you 19 to 23 year old guys . . .
10-26-2004, 12:54 AM #25
Dont you know the draft is a liberal concept according to the author of this bill pushed through congress to scare all americans.
His intentions was that he didnt think it was right that only under privileged youth was fighting our war. His intentions was to drag everyone out of college to help even out the playing feild.
WE went to war for oil. oooiiiiiiilllllllll!!!!!!!!!!! That and to take advantage of the camel trading market. Yep oil and camels where the only motives.
10-26-2004, 01:05 AM #26Originally Posted by Badgerman
I dont think IRAN is that big of a deal. If the US wanted to do damage to IRAN, it wouldnt send in ground troops. It would anchor battleships and lob missiles at it. It would do air runs at night like we usually do in the beginning of a war. We have NO REASON to INVADE Iran. We would just bomb the fvck out of it.
I dont see the Bush administration sending more troops into Iraq. I think they know they fvcked up with post war and would like to slowly pull out and cut or losses. BUT THEY WONT ADMIT THAT DURING RE ELECTION.
There is no way they would say that. It would be political suicide. Hell, Cheney getting a flu shot is brought up in the news like a SCANDAL of murder.
So, IMO, I see the Iraq campaign convieniantly left over to the "IRAQI" government because we will say they are NOW capable of taking care of themselves. Regardless of whether they are or not.....
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)