America..they're actually talking about drafting your asses...

gimmesometruth27

VRinfidel wrote:

Agreed, I was truly impressed by the keyboard generals comment.

You've officially won the internet, "gimmesometruth27"

i wasn't trying to be funny at all..... thats what i call ppl on this board who vehemently support the war and now potential airstrikes on iran without signing up themselves and without knowing anyone actually over there risking their lives.

spiral out

beachdweller wrote:

every year congress representatives or senators talk about a draft, even before Bush took office. Some think that all citizens should serve, and I think there is something to that, but don't think it necessarilly means they need to serve in the military.

I do think females should have to register for the draft at 18 like males though.

The military is for more broken that most Americans know. The administration has not funded the military units not in Iraq so they can fix broken equipment, they don't have training funds, bullets to practice fire with, and they have been taking working equipment apart to fix multiple broken equipment. If the administration asked for the addional billions needed, last I saw the Army needs 10s of billions to get the units not in Iraq back up to deployment status. I'm sure the Marines, Airforce, and Navy aren't doing much better...though the Navy is probably less effected.

As for a draft, they've done everything they can to allow for anyone that tries to enlist in the Army, to succeed, raised the enlistment age from 36 to 42, you can be a felon, your IQ can be much lower, you can be deep in debt, and they throw money at you with large enlistment bonus's. The latest thing the Army just started this month is up to $45k to buy a house or start a business, that's on top of the GI loan you already get access to, and the enlistment bonus you might get, depending on job, and the college and GI BIll possibilities.

now maybe if they paid soldiers like Blackwater pays it's mercenaries they could meet their quota. you can get paid $10k a month to drive a bus in baghdad, and you get your own personal U S army soldier as your bodyguard, talk about kcuf'd up? a $900 to $1200 a month soldier guarding a $10k a month bus driver...worse taking a younger soldier, not an older seasoned one to do so.

Things are so messed up, I wouldn't mind a draft at all, like was already said, maybe then, finally the nation (sleeper) will awaken (sorry, just watched Dune, lol)

Where does all the money that america spends on the military actually go then? If it's not on equipment.

I mean don't they have the biggest budget by a mile, in the world.

Collin

g under p wrote:

There's no way they'll implement a draft. that's the one thing that will WAKE UP the nation out of it's complacency and bring them to an uproar.

True.

catefrances

anyone who has plans to avoid the draft can come stay at my place.

chopitdown

The president's position is that the all volunteer military meets the needs of the country and there is no discussion of a draft. General Lute made that point as well," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. - from the article too

know1

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Yeah take a look and hope/pray this dies out quickly.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070810/bush-war-adviser/

I'm partly in shock it's even coming into the media...

Won't happen.

gue_barium

I think it's an inevitability with control of the Middle East as it's goal. Is it any wonder the power to control the media is so sought after?

Skitch Patterson

chopitdown wrote:

The president's position is that the all volunteer military meets the needs of the country and there is no discussion of a draft. General Lute made that point as well," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. - from the article too

oh come on, you know better than that. You dont read the WHOLE article, you just read the fear inducing, attention grabbing headline for the purposes of this board.

Hartydog

Skitch Patterson wrote:

oh come on, you know better than that. You dont read the WHOLE article, you just read the fear inducing, attention grabbing headline for the purposes of this board.

Hahahahaha

gue_barium

Skitch Patterson wrote:

oh come on, you know better than that. You dont read the WHOLE article, you just read the fear inducing, attention grabbing headline for the purposes of this board.

I have a question for you. If a Draft Bill came across the desk of Bush, even knowing what he's said about it, do you think he would veto the Bill?

I don't think so. I think he would give some speech to the effect that, 'the American people have spoken'...blah blah blah, and he would sign the fucker into law.

g under p

gue_barium wrote:

I have a question for you. If a Draft Bill came across the desk of Bush, even knowing what he's said about it, do you think he would veto the Bill?

I don't think so. I think he would give some speech to the effect that, 'the American people have spoken'...blah blah blah, and he would sign the fucker into law.

Er WHAT!....At the risk of sending one or both of his Bush twins daughters to war. Hell no that'll never happen especially if he tries to come with some weak ass excuse to exempt them from going. He knows war is hell he ducked out on one remember.

Peace
Earle

gue_barium

g under p wrote:

Er WHAT!....At the risk of sending one or both of his Bush twins daughters to war. Hell no that'll never happen especially if he tries to come with some weak ass excuse to exempt them from going. He knows war is hell he ducked out on one remember.

Peace
Earle

Conscription has always met some resistance in US History, yet it always invariably comes into being during times of war.

Also, I believe the Selective Service is still a male-only, ages 18-25 requirement, so there goes your theory on the Bush twins.

Skitch Patterson

gue_barium wrote:

I have a question for you. If a Draft Bill came across the desk of Bush, even knowing what he's said about it, do you think he would veto the Bill?

I don't think so. I think he would give some speech to the effect that, 'the American people have spoken'...blah blah blah, and he would sign the fucker into law.

This is a purely hypothetical question, as there is absolutely no way this would make it beyond its first vote...

but no, i dont think he would sign it. He's done some very dumb things, but I really really really doubt that he would sign a draft bill.

Open

Transcript...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12688693

All Things Considered, August 10, 2007 · Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan, says he is concerned about the toll the war in Iraq and extended deployments are taking on U.S. forces.

The man who is widely known as the "war czar" also says that from a military standpoint, a return to a draft should be part of the discussion.

On the ground in Iraq, Lute tells Michele Norris that there has been "demonstrable progress" on the security front. But on the political front, the Iraqi government is lagging behind, though he does cite progress at local and provincial levels.

How heavy a toll is the war taking on American forces? Do you agree with other military leaders who have expressed worries that U.S. forces are near the breaking point?

As an Army officer, this is a matter of real concern to me. Ultimately, the American army, and any other all-volunteer force, rests with the support and the morale and the willingness to serve demonstrated by our — especially our young men and women in uniform. And I am concerned that those men and women and the families they represent are under stress as a result of repeated deployments.

There's both a personal dimension of this, where this kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living room conversations within these families, and ultimately, the health of the all-volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions. And when the system is under stress, it's right to be concerned about some of the future decisions these young men and women may make. I think our military leaders are right to be focused on that.

There's also a professional and broader strategic argument to this, and that is that when our forces are as engaged as they have been over the last several years, particularly in Iraq, that we're concerned as military professionals that we also keep a very sharp edge honed for other contingencies outside of Iraq.

When military leaders, though, talk about the breaking point, what are they talking about? What's the real worry there?

I think that most who have talked about the stress on the force are concerned that in today's all-volunteer force, especially with the sort of quality individuals that we're interested in attracting to the all-volunteer force, that we're actually competing in the marketplace — in the labor marketplace — for a very narrow slice of high school graduates without records with the law who come to us with a clean bill of health and the potential to serve this country in some very demanding missions.

So when you're competing in that marketplace, I think the concern is that these people are challenged and feel the respect to the nation and feel a calling to something beyond themselves, beyond just a personal calling, and that these things remain in place and, therefore, make the all-volunteer force viable in the long run.

You know, given the stress on the military and the concern about these extended deployments for an all-volunteer military, can you foresee, in the future, a return to the draft?

You know, that's a national policy decision point that we have not yet reached, Michele, because the —

But does it make sense militarily?

I think it makes sense to certainly consider it, and I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table, but ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another. Today, the current means of the all-volunteer force is serving us exceptionally well. It would be a major policy shift — not actually a military, but a political policy shift to move to some other course.

Do you agree with that assessment that there is a real pressure point in the spring — that that's when the Pentagon will face some tough decisions about either extended deployments or reducing the time spent at home?

Yes, I do agree that come the spring, some variables will have to change — either the degree to which the American ground forces, the Marines and the Army in particular, are deployed around the world to include Iraq, or the length of time they're deployed in one tour, or the length of time they enjoy at home. Those are, essentially, the three variables.

It's interesting, because we often hear the president back away from discussions of any kind of timetable, because he says that it would show our cards to our enemies. But it seems that they would know this also, that the current force strength has its limits.

Well, remember that I said that there are three variables. So there's not a hard and fast stop to any level of commitment of American forces.

Now your title is assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan. Could you explain exactly what you do?

What I do is work alongside Steve Hadley, the president's national security adviser, giving full-time attention to the issues surrounding our policy and the execution of those policies in Iraq and Afghanistan and essentially give Steve Hadley a teammate who can attend full time to the demands of those two missions.

How often do you talk directly to President Bush?

Daily.

And when — are you the point person there that gives the president the daily war briefing on progress in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I have daily contacts with the president alongside Steve Hadley, and of course that relationship is very important because, while I'm responsible for – as the point man on Iraq and Afghanistan in advising the president, Steve and I have to make sure that Iraq and Afghanistan are placed appropriately in the regional context.

I'm just curious – what do you think of the term war czar?

It's actually an unfortunate term because it doesn't describe my job at all.

But it's often how people describe you.

That may be, but it wouldn't be my choice of how I describe the job. What I'm trying to do here is actually facilitate the very hard work that's taking place on the ground and link it to the very hard work that's being done here in Washington across the departments of the executive branch with the priorities of what's required on the ground reflected in the efforts here in Washington. I'm in charge of about 15 people. Now that's not exactly very czar-like, but what I am able to do is make sure that efforts are aligned properly.

Well, you know what they say in Washington sometimes — that power is concentrated.

[Chuckles.] Well, I have 15 very qualified people, and we're working very hard to do our best to contribute to this effort.

gue_barium

Skitch Patterson wrote:

This is a purely hypothetical question, as there is absolutely no way this would make it beyond its first vote...

but no, i dont think he would sign it. He's done some very dumb things, but I really really really doubt that he would sign a draft bill.

Yet, you believed AT&t's out and out lying.

I'll go with my instincts and knowledge on this one. I think the scenario will follow the script that we've already seen with the American's dying on 9/11. Instead of planes flying into buildings it will more than likely be a huge loss of life inflicted upon our military. The bad guys will be terrorists again, of course, (facilitated by the CIA no doubt), and this event will grease the wheels for the rhetoric that is needed for a draft.

Skitch Patterson

gue_barium wrote:

Yet, you believed AT&t's out and out lying.

I'll go with my instincts and knowledge on this one. I think the scenario will follow the script that we've already seen with the American's dying on 9/11. Instead of planes flying into buildings it will more than likely be a huge loss of life inflicted upon our military. The bad guys will be terrorists again, of course, (facilitated by the CIA no doubt), and this event will grease the wheels for the rhetoric that is needed for a draft.

I have no reason to believe they ARE lying. I find it to be totally plausable that one idiot who was running the board happens to be a hard core republican, or a guy in india who thinks its against the law to say something bad about the government. I dont think it was some grand plan to censor eddie vedder- or they would have censored Do the Evolution or Worldwide Suicide... or they wouldnt have had them on at all.

This is even referenced in my silly thread listing the conspiracy theories i have seen on the board.. The draft is brought up seemingly every year, and it never even makes it past the first vote (has it even gotten that far?).. and if it couldnt get past the republican house and senate, i think its less likely to get past the democrats. If a draft happens within the next 3 years, ill eat my hat. (barring of course some sort of action being taken upon us by another large nation like china.)

gue_barium

Skitch Patterson wrote:

I have no reason to believe they ARE lying. I find it to be totally plausable that one idiot who was running the board happens to be a hard core republican, or a guy in india who thinks its against the law to say something bad about the government. I dont think it was some grand plan to censor eddie vedder- or they would have censored Do the Evolution or Worldwide Suicide... or they wouldnt have had them on at all.

This is even referenced in my silly thread listing the conspiracy theories i have seen on the board.. The draft is brought up seemingly every year, and it never even makes it past the first vote (has it even gotten that far?).. and if it couldnt get past the republican house and senate, i think its less likely to get past the democrats. If a draft happens within the next 3 years, ill eat my hat. (barring of course some sort of action being taken upon us by another large nation like china.)

The news snippets put out by officials each "year" about a draft (and other moving elements in washington) are vital for taking the pulse of the media, and its readers. It detects leaks in the form of "dissidence" which then allows them to move to correct anything they perceive as a hinderance to their goal.

Skitch Patterson

gue_barium wrote:

The news snippets put out by officials each "year" about a draft (and other moving elements in washington) are vital for taking the pulse of the media, and its readers. It detects leaks in the form of "dissidence" which then allows them to move to correct anything they perceive as a hinderance to their goal.

we'll agree to disagree.

gue_barium

Skitch Patterson wrote:

we'll agree to disagree.

It's a machine, buddy, a well-oiled machine.

gue_barium

Skitch Patterson wrote:

we'll agree to disagree.

They've got the country wired, man.