# Coming soon, Exclusively From the Bush Administration: The DRAFT! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 4, 2003, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coming-soon-exclusively-from-the-bush-administration-the-draft/211424 "2003-11-04T21:37:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coming-soon-exclusively-from-the-bush-administration-the-draft/211424/61 "2003-11-05T16:39:40Z")
It beats huddling in my house and praying to Allah five times a day in front of my telescreen. I do believe in the absolute superiority of my cultural “exceptionalism” regarding political and religious freedoms. “Diversity” in that regard extends to my choice of weapons to repel the enemies, [foreign](http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/22/oct03/revel.htm)\* or domestic. > [@](#): > > The real danger—conceivably a mortal one—for European culture is that anti-American and antiglobalist phobias might derail progress. Guy Sorman has shown the scientific and technological retreats this obscurantism has led to in his book Le Progrès et ses ennemis. And this isn’t some “right-wing” or “left-wing” thesis; it is a rational one. It is defended alike by the liberal-democrat Sorman and by the socialist Claude Allègre. The latter wages war against the idea that Europe should abandon nuclear energy, genetic engineering and research using embryonic cells. Should the pressure groups that agitate against progress win the day, in twenty years the European states will regress, he writes, “to the level of the underdeveloped countries, in a world that will be dominated by the United States and China” (L’Express, February 7, 2002.) The anti-American fanatics will then have succeeded in making Europe even more dependent on the United States than it is today. Iranian nutballs: “Death to America.” Rightbackatcha, buddy. I’d love to loose a neverending stream of Baywatch reruns on your nation. I spit on your camel wife, and have sex with your flea-ridden daughter for pennies on the dollar. \*😃 He’s French. Other than Machiavelli, he’s the best author I read in college. ---
**Author:** ![ccwaterback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/df705f/32.png) [@ccwaterback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ccwaterback)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coming-soon-exclusively-from-the-bush-administration-the-draft/211424/62 "2003-11-05T17:00:39Z")
How to keep the unemployment rate low: Kill off your youth in meaningless wars. I think congress needs to pass a new law stating: If a draft is necessary, family members of the executive and legislative branches are the first to go. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coming-soon-exclusively-from-the-bush-administration-the-draft/211424/63 "2003-11-05T17:09:17Z")
Posted by **Dogface:** > [@](#): > > The draft will be Vietnam War-style. Indeed, it will probably be even worse. This is because the very people most necessary to ensure that draft boards do not rubber-stamp rich boy deferments will be the least likely to volunteer for draft board service. The ones most likely to volunteer will be the most likely to rubber-stamp rich-boy deferments. Does that mean we can expect Vietnam-War-style draft resistance (and, more broadly, public resentment)? I don’t think the Bush administration wants to risk that! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coming-soon-exclusively-from-the-bush-administration-the-draft/211424/64 "2003-11-05T17:48:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BrainGlutton \* > Does that mean we can expect Vietnam-War-style draft resistance (and, more broadly, public resentment)? I don’t think the Bush administration wants to risk that! I think it would be worse this time around. During the Vietnam War, there was the whole generational thing-- kids against the parents. Certainly there were plenty of “adults” protesting, too, but this time I think we’d have the soccer moms in the forefront of the protests. Unless we were in a real WWIII type situation, I just don’t think the country has the stomach for a draft. And that is a **good** thing, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coming-soon-exclusively-from-the-bush-administration-the-draft/211424/65 "2003-11-05T17:58:06Z")
Um, guys? I’m not a real big fan of Bush, but I just don’t buy this. Our time could be more constructively used arguing over [Weekly World News](http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/) headlines. Lemur addressed this quite well. It requires an act of congress. The boards have been depleted due to a natural cycle. Nothing to see here. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coming-soon-exclusively-from-the-bush-administration-the-draft/211424/66 "2003-11-05T18:00:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ccwaterback \* > \*\*I think congress needs to pass a new law stating: If a draft is necessary, family members of the executive and legislative branches are the first to go. \*\* Better still, whatever percentage of draftees gets killed, that same percentage of lawmakers who voted for war gets executed. ---
**Author:** ![5que](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/3bc359/32.png) [@5que](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/5que)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coming-soon-exclusively-from-the-bush-administration-the-draft/211424/67 "2003-11-05T18:07:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Squink \* > \*\*Here’s [where to sign up](http://www.sss.gov/fslocal.htm). \*\* I’m signing up! Finally a chance to get rid of those damn kids in the neighborhood, with their baggy pants and hip-hop music and their ball caps on backwards… ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coming-soon-exclusively-from-the-bush-administration-the-draft/211424/68 "2003-11-05T18:53:20Z")
Call it liberal porn as a way to pretend the problem doesn’t exist, but the return of the draft is a real possibility. Whether it’s political suicide or not, if the United States is going to maintain a long-term presence in Iraq the manpower has to come from somewhere. From Paul Krugman’s column in the NY Times on November 4th: > [@](#): > > … > But whether or not you think troop losses are important, there’s growing evidence that our Iraq strategy is unsustainable. The immediate issue is manpower. Some politicians are calling for a bigger force in Iraq — but even our current force levels can’t be maintained. > > In September the Congressional Budget Office analyzed how many U.S. soldiers could be kept in Iraq without extending tours beyond one year. The conclusion was that force levels would have to start dropping rapidly about five months from now, and that the forces in Iraq and Kuwait would eventually have to shrink by almost two-thirds. As the report explains, the Pentagon can use various expedients to maintain a larger force in Iraq, but all of these expedients would threaten to undermine our military readiness. > … It’s pretty obvious that there aren’t going to be any drastic reductions in troop numbers in Iraq anytime soon. But the current level of deployment is unsustainable in the long term without an increase in the size of the army. And with every month the war drags on, volunteering becomes less and less attractive to prospective recruits. Eventually something’s gotta give. We can either: 1. Pull out and let Iraq fend for itself. 2. Accept large numbers of international troops with the accompanying loss of US control. 3. Quickly devolve responsibility onto a new Iraqi army of questionable allegience. 4. Increase our military to the appropriate size (probably through the draft). 5. Close our eyes, stick our fingers in our ears, and hope everything turns out all right. I predice the Bush administration will choose #5. After all, it’s the approach they’ve chosen for the federal budget … .:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coming-soon-exclusively-from-the-bush-administration-the-draft/211424/69 "2003-11-05T18:56:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by NurseCarmen \* > \*\*Lemur addressed this quite well. It requires an act of congress. The boards have been depleted due to a natural cycle. Nothing to see here. \*\* Yeah, there will NEVER be a draft because it requires an ACT OF CONGRESS! After all, Congress has NEVER voted to authorize invading Iraq! ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coming-soon-exclusively-from-the-bush-administration-the-draft/211424/70 "2003-11-05T19:24:14Z")
“Ass Milk Turns Women Into Wild Sex Kittens” That’s news I can use. Especially when I get drafted. Ain’t gonna happen. But, just think about what good shape we’ll be in! ---
**Author:** ![Meteorshower](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/779978/32.png) [@Meteorshower](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meteorshower)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coming-soon-exclusively-from-the-bush-administration-the-draft/211424/71 "2003-11-05T21:54:53Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by dantheman_ > I’m curious, though - what’s all this about “young males”? Women serve on the front lines now; I’m assuming they wouldn’t be excluded from a draft. …right? I don’t mean to hijak and I’m not sure if you were being sarcastic or not (you did add a smiley…) I’ve asked myself the exact same question. My mother, who I am going to pretend is always right, told me that the reason that they wouldn’t draft women (at least, not at first) was simple. If a country goes to war, then it is assumed that some significant percentage of people are going to die. Which means that there will be a gap to fill in the population. If all the women go off to war, and the men stay at home, who is going to make some new babies? Middle-aged women could make a few children, but not a lot and with bigger health-risks. So you need healthy young women around. Unless,of course, you’re willing to implement some extremely massive immigration, ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coming-soon-exclusively-from-the-bush-administration-the-draft/211424/72 "2003-11-05T23:46:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*\*perhaps you can explain what exactly it was you meant by the title of your thread…? \*\* Why, I meant to echo decades of advertising slogans familiar to us all in the service of being punchy and amusing. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2003, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coming-soon-exclusively-from-the-bush-administration-the-draft/211424/73 "2003-11-06T00:01:36Z")
No one wants to take my $100 dollar bet? Cowards. Anyone who thought that the draft was likely would take my bet. The fact that no one wants to take my bet is proof that you all think that the draft is extremely unlikely. And given that the American people, Congress, the Bush administration, and the Pentagon are all against the draft, I agree with you. There will be no draft. No one wants a draft. Anyone who seriously proposes a draft will be commiting political suicide. The army doesn’t want draftees. There will be no draft. You know it, I know it, the American people know it. If you disagree, please accept my bet. If not, admit that I’m right. Or at least shut up about it, and stop pretending to believe that you think a draft is likely. Heck, I’ll even sweeten the deal. If a draft is enacted during the Bush administration, I’ll promise to vote a strict Democratic party line ticket for all national offices in the next election after enactment…house, senate, and presidential. And you don’t even have to promise to vote Republican if you’re wrong, I’ll throw it in as a freebie. No one wants my hundred bucks? Thought not. ---
**Author:** ![Short](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b38774/32.png) [@Short](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Short)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2003, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coming-soon-exclusively-from-the-bush-administration-the-draft/211424/74 "2003-11-06T02:47:59Z")
> [@](#): > > **Lemur866** wrote: > No one wants my hundred bucks? Hmm… If you think there is less than a fifty percent chance of there being a draft it would be ill advised to take this bet. However, I am not comforted by a fourty percent chance of a draft, or a twenty percent chance, for that matter. I still hope you’re correct. ---
**Author:** ![Short](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b38774/32.png) [@Short](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Short)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2003, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coming-soon-exclusively-from-the-bush-administration-the-draft/211424/75 "2003-11-06T02:56:07Z")
> [@](#): > > **Lemur866** wrote: > No one wants my hundred bucks? Hmm… If you think there is less than a fifty percent chance of there being a draft it would be ill advised to take this bet. However, I am not comforted by a fourty percent chance of a draft, or a twenty percent chance, for that matter. I still hope you’re correct. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2003, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coming-soon-exclusively-from-the-bush-administration-the-draft/211424/76 "2003-11-06T12:30:06Z")
Getting drafted is now the official end of freedom? Note to Usama, you have almost won. Just blow up a few more transport helicopters and keep buttering up the French and Germans. They like to be overrun before they begin fighting. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2003, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coming-soon-exclusively-from-the-bush-administration-the-draft/211424/77 "2003-11-06T12:43:58Z")
Hello – being drafted _is_ the end of freedom for the draftees. ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2003, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coming-soon-exclusively-from-the-bush-administration-the-draft/211424/78 "2003-11-06T13:02:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Meteorshower \* > \*\*I don’t mean to hijak and I’m not sure if you were being sarcastic or not (you did add a smiley…) > > I’ve asked myself the exact same question. My mother, who I am going to pretend is always right, told me that the reason that they wouldn’t draft women (at least, not at first) was simple. > > If a country goes to war, then it is assumed that some significant percentage of people are going to die. Which means that there will be a gap to fill in the population. If all the women go off to war, and the men stay at home, who is going to make some new babies? > > Middle-aged women could make a few children, but not a lot and with bigger health-risks. So you need healthy young women around. Unless,of course, you’re willing to implement some extremely massive immigration, \*\* I wasn’t being completely sarcastic, but the smiley was added in a futile attempt to thwart a steady hail of slings and arrows in my general direction, as is the custom whenever I post in GD. However, you didn’t add one of your own, so I - with my on-the-fritz sarcastometer - cannot ascertain whether you yourself are kidding or not. Do not fret! It is not because you are not clear; it is because I am too dense. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2003, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coming-soon-exclusively-from-the-bush-administration-the-draft/211424/79 "2003-11-06T13:04:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BrainGlutton \* > Does that mean we can expect Vietnam-War-style draft resistance (and, more broadly, public resentment)? I don’t think the Bush administration wants to risk that! You misunderstand completely. What gave rise to the widespread resistance was when the Vietnam War-style draft stopped being that style. The hallmark of the Vietnam War draft was the rubberstamp rich-boy deferment. If mummy and daddy could afford to get you into college, you could get out of service. Knock up your sorority-member girlfriend in the last couple of months and you get another deferment. It wasn’t until the college deferment got cancelled that a bunch of overpampered hypocrites finally “discovered” that war in Vietnam was “wrong”. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2003, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coming-soon-exclusively-from-the-bush-administration-the-draft/211424/80 "2003-11-06T14:23:34Z")
Let me just be a “leftie” for a moment… Where’s Usamadamah Omar? IMO, that’s criticism from the “right.” YMMV. Until we have those guys, we need to up troop levels to whatever it takes. Hopefully there will be a “willing old guy” to take the place of an “out of shape or cowardly young guy” exception. Border security in Iraq and Afghanistan is paramount – without intruding into Syria, Iran, or Pakistan. Unless that can’t be avoided. No biting off any more than taking care of the nations we are trying to babysit already. Thanks for your support France and Germany. I’ll be sure to remember your generosity in _our_ time of need. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coming-soon-exclusively-from-the-bush-administration-the-draft/211424.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coming-soon-exclusively-from-the-bush-administration-the-draft/211424.md?page=5)