# Bush to expand size of military **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 20, 2006, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-expand-size-of-military/384855 "2006-12-20T00:55:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2006, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-expand-size-of-military/384855/41 "2006-12-26T05:07:05Z")
In this age of reasonable efforts at gender equity, I think that the government would have a great deal of difficulty drafting men only and getting away with it without cases before the Supreme Court. That would be interesting. I don’t know where they are going to find these soldiers. Didn’t the gov break promises about enlistment bonuses? Our Tennessee National Guard is ill equipped to take care of things back home. If the New Madrid Earthquake decides it’s time for The Big One, the Guard will have to hitchhike to Memphis (or so the rumor goes). ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2006, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-expand-size-of-military/384855/42 "2006-12-26T05:35:46Z")
[QUOTE=Zoe] In this age of reasonable efforts at gender equity, I think that the government would have a great deal of difficulty drafting men only and getting away with it without cases before the Supreme Court. That would be interesting… [/QUOTE] In 1981 SCOTUS ruled that exempting women from Selective Service registration because the purpose of a draft was to get combat troops and since the military exlcuded women from combat they could exempt them from the draft. But it’s 25 years later, women serve in more roles than ever before. The distinction between combat and non-combat troops in Iraq seems to have become rather academic. Many (if not most) of the roles consripts would be likely to serve can now be filled by women. SCOTUS would definatly have cause to revisit the case. Of course we’re more likely to “win” Iraq then reinstate the draft 😉 . ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2006, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-expand-size-of-military/384855/43 "2006-12-26T06:13:20Z")
[QUOTE=Don26] The Iraqi Adventure (sounds like a bang up ride at Universal Studios) as you call it has ALWAYS BEEN nothing more than a battlefront in the War on Terror. [/QUOTE] No, it was _alleged_ to be a front in the war on terror. What it’s always been is an almost totally unplanned escapade, sold to the public by way of bullshit, wherein a small group of soldiers were asked to do something impossible. [QUOTE=BobLibDem] To be fair to Bush, this isn’t much different than the John Kerry 2004 proposal to add 40,000 troops. But back in 2004, the situation was thought to be salvageable. In 2007, this is going to be too little too late. [/QUOTE] Thought to be, but probably wasn’t, and it still would have taken Kerry quite some time to increase the actual size of the military. I don’t think reality had much to do with Kerry’s proposal, it was just something that was supposed to sound better than what Bush was doing. ---
**Author:** ![Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4da419/32.png) [@Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gala_Matrix_Fire)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2006, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-expand-size-of-military/384855/44 "2006-12-26T12:59:18Z")
[QUOTE=alphaboi867] In 1981 SCOTUS ruled that exempting women from Selective Service registration because the purpose of a draft was to get combat troops and since the military exlcuded women from combat they could exempt them from the draft. But it’s 25 years later, women serve in more roles than ever before. The distinction between combat and non-combat troops in Iraq seems to have become rather academic. Many (if not most) of the roles consripts would be likely to serve can now be filled by women. SCOTUS would definatly have cause to revisit the case. Of course we’re more likely to “win” Iraq then reinstate the draft 😉 . [/QUOTE] Yay! Maybe now we can get the Equal Rights Amendment passed! Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2006, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-expand-size-of-military/384855/45 "2006-12-26T15:07:10Z")
[QUOTE=Don26] The Iraqi Adventure (sounds like a bang up ride at Universal Studios) as you call it has ALWAYS BEEN nothing more than a battlefront in the War on Terror. [/QUOTE] That is a lie. An obvious, shamefaced, completely cynical lie the Bush Admin has been trying to sell us for four years. Don’t tell me you’ve bought it! :dubious: [Here’s](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=381910) what the war was really about, in case you were wondering (and it’s not quite the obvious thing). ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2006, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-expand-size-of-military/384855/46 "2006-12-26T15:08:53Z")
What i find intriguing: the rotten, corrupt elite that run this country do NOT serve, nor do their children. look at the Congress-how many congressment have children serving in the armed forces? Contrast that with the UK-Prince William just got commissioned at Sandhurst-it speaks reams about the degenerate class that runs this country. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2006, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-expand-size-of-military/384855/47 "2006-12-26T15:12:07Z")
[QUOTE=Don26] OK, we CAN walk away, what we cannot do is walk away and expect not to be attacked. [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: **BY WHOM?!** Iraq? No way. Iran? No **fuckin’** way. Al-Qaeda? Of course they’ll always be looking for ways to attack us, whether we keep troops in Iraq or not. Maintaining the occupation does not weaken **their** position, it strengthens it. Every Coalition soldier in Iraq is, willy-nilly, an al-Qaeda recruiter. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2006, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-expand-size-of-military/384855/48 "2006-12-26T15:15:03Z")
[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi] If we forced to politicians to pay a political and economic price for their follies, perhaps there would be fewer of them. [/QUOTE] They **do** pay a political price – if they fuck up too badly, they don’t get re-elected. But “fewer”? We have exactly as many politicians as we need – one to fill each elected office, plus a reserve waiting in the wings for their chances and keeping the former on their toes. ---
**Author:** ![Ignatz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/3be4f8/32.png) [@Ignatz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ignatz)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2006, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-expand-size-of-military/384855/49 "2006-12-26T15:16:53Z")
[QUOTE=Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor] And, in obviously unrelated news :dubious: the Selective Service System is undergoing a massive readiness drill. [http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061224/NEWS07/612240542/1009/NEWS07](http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061224/NEWS07/612240542/1009/NEWS07) [/QUOTE] Will that be followed soon by the State Department’s Passport Division for the large numbers of applications by the Canada-bound? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2006, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-expand-size-of-military/384855/50 "2006-12-26T18:07:07Z")
[QUOTE=ralph124c] What i find intriguing: the rotten, corrupt elite that run this country do NOT serve, nor do their children. look at the Congress-how many congressment have children serving in the armed forces? Contrast that with the UK-Prince William just got commissioned at Sandhurst-it speaks reams about the degenerate class that runs this country. [/QUOTE] That’s not really a godo comparison. The UK royalty does what they do out of obligation or honor, since the country pays millions of pounds a year to keep them in total splendor - and it’s not as if William or Harry is ever going to see combat. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2006, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-expand-size-of-military/384855/51 "2006-12-26T18:19:40Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] :rolleyes: **BY WHOM?!** Iraq? No way. Iran? No **fuckin’** way. Al-Qaeda? Of course they’ll always be looking for ways to attack us, whether we keep troops in Iraq or not. Maintaining the occupation does not weaken **their** position, it strengthens it. Every Coalition soldier in Iraq is, willy-nilly, an al-Qaeda recruiter. [/QUOTE] You’re logic is off. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, but we do not have troops there. On the other hand, none of the hijackers were Iraquis and we have lots of troops there. Therefore. having troops in a country prevents hijackers. It’s really simple when you think about it. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2006, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-expand-size-of-military/384855/52 "2006-12-26T18:30:38Z")
Meanwhile, back at the OP… I’m of the opinion that if the troops and funding are easily available, the chances of that country getting involved in a war are greater than otherwise. It’s all too tempting for boys to use their toys. Conversely, to avoid wars, especially non-defensive ones, it would be prudent to minimize the military and make the draft hard to implement. That’s it in a nutshell. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2006, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-expand-size-of-military/384855/53 "2006-12-26T18:30:49Z")
[QUOTE=Marley23] That’s not really a godo comparison. The UK royalty does what they do out of obligation or honor, since the country pays millions of pounds a year to keep them in total splendor - and it’s not as if William or Harry is ever going to see combat. [/QUOTE] To be fair, William **wanted** to serve in a combat capacity, but of course it would never be allowed. See [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=400377) thread. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2006, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-expand-size-of-military/384855/54 "2006-12-26T19:27:20Z")
[QUOTE=Don26] The Iraqi Adventure (sounds like a bang up ride at Universal Studios) . . . [/QUOTE] “Coalition of the Willing,” OTOH, sounds less like a military alliance than a curiously highbrow porn film. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2006, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-expand-size-of-military/384855/55 "2006-12-26T21:04:58Z")
[QUOTE=DanBlather] You’re logic is off. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, but we do not have troops there. On the other hand, none of the hijackers were Iraquis and we have lots of troops there. Therefore. having troops in a country prevents hijackers. It’s really simple when you think about it. 😉 [/QUOTE] I nominate\*\* DanBlather\*\* for GW’s number one advisor - unless he already is. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Don26](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/edb3f5/32.png) [@Don26](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don26)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2006, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-expand-size-of-military/384855/56 "2006-12-27T00:27:03Z")
[QUOTE=Musicat] Meanwhile, back at the OP… I’m of the opinion that if the troops and funding are easily available, the chances of that country getting involved in a war are greater than otherwise. It’s all too tempting for boys to use their toys. Conversely, to avoid wars, especially non-defensive ones, it would be prudent to minimize the military and make the draft hard to implement. That’s it in a nutshell. [/QUOTE] Yeah, because no one ever siezed one of our embassies and its staff when the military was weakened… 1979 HELLO Tehran… Desert One… Negotiations… Sanctions… 444 days of our people being held hostage… any of this ring a bell? ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2006, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-expand-size-of-military/384855/57 "2006-12-27T00:40:32Z")
Bush to expand size of military :dubious: Sounds like Bush is masturbating. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2006, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-expand-size-of-military/384855/58 "2006-12-27T00:55:01Z")
[QUOTE=Don26] Yeah, because no one ever siezed one of our embassies and its staff when the military was weakened… 1979 HELLO Tehran… Desert One… Negotiations… Sanctions… 444 days of our people being held hostage… any of this ring a bell? [/QUOTE] A crisis which, in case you’ve forgotten, [we brought on ourselves](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax) by restoring the shah to absolute power in 1953 for our own purposes; which should have taught us some lessons about meddling in other countries’ internal affairs. And a crisis that did **not** happen because America was military weakened at the time (we **could** have invaded Iran successfully, I’m sure, but that would have killed the hostages and the end result would have been like Iraq now, only worse), but because the new revolutionary government was one of heedless fanatical religious-national zealots. All of your arguments in this thread to date are not only misconceived, they are **completely irrelevant.** ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2006, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-expand-size-of-military/384855/59 "2006-12-27T02:24:00Z")
[QUOTE=Don26] Yeah, because no one ever siezed one of our embassies and its staff when the military was weakened… 1979 HELLO Tehran… Desert One… Negotiations… Sanctions… 444 days of our people being held hostage… any of this ring a bell? [/QUOTE] Do you really, honestly think the embassy was seized because anyone thought the military was “Weakened”? ---
**Author:** ![Don26](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/edb3f5/32.png) [@Don26](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don26)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2006, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-expand-size-of-military/384855/60 "2006-12-27T02:34:58Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay] Do you really, honestly think the embassy was seized because anyone thought the military was “Weakened”? [/QUOTE] It was siezed because terrorists are terrorists… Did the fact that Carter was unlikely to do anything worthwhile about it enter in to their decision, only they can answer, but, its a good bet. Reagan said (in so many words) that he was gonna bomb the shit out of them untill our people were released and miracle of miracles they were, the day he was inagurated. Some people only respect the judicious use of force and if you are too craven to use it, you can count on it being used against you. Just like little Billy who gets beat down on the playground because he doesn’t fight back. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-expand-size-of-military/384855.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-expand-size-of-military/384855.md?page=4)