Well, here it is...The Draft

[Merijeek]

@xtisme

Maybe instead of ranting and waving your hands about, Merijeek, you could answer the core question asked repeatedly. Lets forget about Bush for a second. Do you have ANY evidence that, officially, the draft is being looked at in any way, shape or form, to be re-instated. Is Congress currently examining its options and forming the legislature to re-instate the draft? The Senate? Has anyone from the Administration said anything at all about the possibility of the draft?

You must have missed the post above where some corrected you on how the draft would be reinstated. Has anyone from the administration said anything about the draft? Yes, Mcclellan totally denied it. How much weight does that carry with you?

Apparently reporters were interested enough in the suggestion to ask the White House’s spokesman.

@xtisme

Because afaik the answer is…no. There simply…is…nothing…here. A lone Senator makes a statement that he THINKS it MIGHT be a good idea to reinstate the draft means nothing unless said Senator is currently in the process of actually putting forth legislature to GET the draft reinstated. And even if he is (which, again afaik he isn’t) what kind of support does he have for such an initiative in either house? What kind of support does he have in the Administration who would have to sign off on it in the end?

Except for the above, of course. And if you read the linked article, there’s another senator agreeing with him. As for the legislature considering it…no shit. Your point? You’ve heard of people testing the waters with shit like that, right?

What kind of support does he have? Well, shit, who knows? Maybe that’s what the trial balloon is for? Nah…

What kind of support does he have in the administration? Gee, I don’t know. I guess some suggestions about that ARE IN THE MOTHERFUCKING OP. Like, you know, on the one hand it would crush a bid for reelection, but on the other could be seen as GWB being willing to sacrifice his second term in the interests of seeing Iraq taken care of.

[/QUOTE]

If you just want to play ‘what if’ games, then orient your OP that way next time. Say “What IF Congress and the Senate put forth legislation to reinstate the draft and if the President signed it…”.
-XT
[/QUOTE]

You are aware this isn’t Great Questions, right? It sure as hell doesn’t seem like it.

Oh, and you forgot to point out where I said that Bush supported the idea of reinstating a draft. You and John sure seemed to jump on that idea before, but where’s a quote from me?

Again, just one will do.

-Joe

[Merijeek]

@John Mace

It’s very easy to interpret your OP as implying so, even if you don’t actually say it. Since quite a few people did, you should think about why.

Here is how I follow the logic implied by your OP:

**Some people are saying a draft is necessary for success in Iraq.

Bush wants to succeed in Iraq so badly that he might be willing to throw the election to do so.

Therefore, Bush might support a draft [in order to ensure success in Iraq].**

Congratulations, you got it wrong.

I was actually throwing a bone to the monkey in the White House by implying that he might make the tough choice at the cost of his political future.

I think the odds of that are so miniscule as to be non-existant.

@John Mace

Why say anything at all in your OP about Bush being so single-mindedly focussed on “success” in iraq unless you mean to tie that single-mindedness into the idea of a draft?

I never mentioned single-mindedly focussed on anything. I asked if they really cared so much about Iraq that they’d be willing to lose an election for the sake of it.

@John Mace

Just what exactly did you mean by this:You couldn’t possibly mean that he would toss the election if he opposed the draft, so it’s only natural to assume you are saying he would support it. I’m sure that how most people read it who commented as I did.

Is that in English? I mean, really, what are you trying to say? Because I didn’t say X, then I must have said -X? That’s some interesting logic.

@John Mace

In the future, you might simply ask instead of flying off the handle and throwing the “F” word around. Take that advice for what it’s worth.

You know what? Anyone else who tries to derail my OP or intentionally screw with my meaning on the sixth post in a thread can have all the “F” words they want.

And by “F” word, I mean fuck.

-Joe

[XT]

@Merijeek

You must have missed the post above where some corrected you on how the draft would be reinstated. Has anyone from the administration said anything about the draft? Yes, Mcclellan totally denied it. How much weight does that carry with you?

You must have missed the day they taught reading comprehension. You even quoted me and STILL misread it. Thats fairly sad, no? Re-read what I actually wrote about “Do you have ANY evidence that, officially, the draft is being looked at in any way, shape or form, to be re-instated. Is Congress currently examining its options and forming the legislature to re-instate the draft? The Senate?”. As had been pointed out to me any initiative to reinstate the draft has to come from the Congress (which I knew about) or the Senate (which I didn’t) I incorporated that into my question…so ya, I did follow that. Too bad YOU didn’t.

@Merijeek

Except for the above, of course. And if you read the linked article, there’s another senator agreeing with him. As for the legislature considering it…no shit. Your point? You’ve heard of people testing the waters with shit like that, right?

Wow…that makes 2. A veritable avalanche of support I see. Could it be a trial balloon? Sure, it COULD be. But then again, it could just be a Senator talking out of his ass too. Come back when you actually have something besides smoke and bullshit. When its actually being considered (or even debated on) in either house I’ll pay a bit more attention.

@Merijeek

What kind of support does he have in the administration? Gee, I don’t know. I guess some suggestions about that ARE IN THE MOTHERFUCKING OP. Like, you know, on the one hand it would crush a bid for reelection, but on the other could be seen as GWB being willing to sacrifice his second term in the interests of seeing Iraq taken care of.

All this being hostile and waving your hands about isn’t helping your case IMHO. Why you are getting so upset is beyond me. There simply isn’t anything here but speculation. If all you want is some speculation pulled out of the ass, I’d guess that IF Congress and the Senate both decide to commit political suicide and pass a bill reinstating the draft the President will veto it. Happy now?

@Merijeek

You are aware this isn’t Great Questions, right? It sure as hell doesn’t seem like it.

My advice to you is learn to word your OPs better if you want to get a better response…and calm down. You are going way over board for this discussion. There just isn’t enough here to get excited about as you are.

@Merijeek

Oh, and you forgot to point out where I said that Bush supported the idea of reinstating a draft. You and John sure seemed to jump on that idea before, but where’s a quote from me?

As John already pointed out, thats how your OP reads. If you didn’t intend to put in anything about Bush’s support or non-support why did you throw him into the OP in the first place. You could have left it as “Will there be a draft? If so, what are the ramifications”. Instead you CHOSE to put in that bit about Bush. If it wasn’t your intention to include him in the discussion then what the hell WERE you trying to say?

Again, my advice is to fricking relax some. I can see this kind of emotion in one of the Iraq war threads. But there simply isn’t any reason to go off like this in THIS thread.

Oh, have a nice day.

-XT

[John_Mace]

Merijeek:

If you had simply written your OP clearly in the first place, you wouldn’t have confused so many people. Try to do better next time.

You keep saying “make the tough choice”. How the fuck are we supposed to know what “the tough choice” is? Is “the tough choice” to support the draft or not to support the draft.

All we need is clarity on your part.

[spifflog]

As a Naval Officer in the pentagon, I can tell you that there is absolutely no traction here for the draft. Absolutely none. It’s hard enough managing deployments and increasingly hazardous situations, without half of your troops not wanting to been there. This would create such a mess that we couldn’t ever get anything done.

[John_Mace]

@spifflog

As a Naval Officer in the pentagon, I can tell you that there is absolutely no traction here for the draft.

From the SJ Merc this AM (I’d give the link, but it requires registration):

PENTAGON DENIES NEED TO REVIVE MILITARY DRAFT

An internet-driven rumor mill about the possible return of a military draft is forcing Pentagon officials to step up denials that such plans are in the works.

…Rumsfeld said he didn’t know of anyone in the executive branch who believes it would be necessary…

As most of us suspected, the OP simply fell for grist from the “internet rumor mill”.

[Merijeek]

@xtisme

You must have missed the day they taught reading comprehension. You even quoted me and STILL misread it. Thats fairly sad, no? Re-read what I actually wrote about “Do you have ANY evidence that, officially, the draft is being looked at in any way, shape or form, to be re-instated. Is Congress currently examining its options and forming the legislature to re-instate the draft? The Senate?”. As had been pointed out to me any initiative to reinstate the draft has to come from the Congress (which I knew about) or the Senate (which I didn’t) I incorporated that into my question…so ya, I did follow that. Too bad YOU didn’t.

Gosh golly gee. Good point.

Where did I ever say that I had “ANY evidence that, officially, the draft is being looked at in any way, shape or form, to be re-instated.”

Let’s make it easier for you. Do you have any evidence that Merijeek said that he had any “evidence that, officially, the draft is being looked at in any way, shape or form, to be re-instated.”

If you guys want to read all sorts of Bush bashing into everything, go ahead. He deserves it, but this was not a thread that was meant to be one.

-Joe

[Squink]

Hey Joe
Where you going with that club in your hand?
Hey Joe
Where you going with that club in your hand?

Going down to bash that old president
You know I caught him messing around with the draft again

[Merijeek]

@Squink

Hey Joe
Where you going with that club in your hand?
Hey Joe
Where you going with that club in your hand?

Going down to bash that old president
You know I caught him messing around with the draft again

And now, in the interests of avoiding an eventual possible triple-banning, I’ll quit this thread with something that’s guaranteed to make everyone hate me:

Jimmy Hendrix was overrated.

-Joe, long live Clapton

[waterj2]

Let me try this. In the OP, you say:

Does this mean that GWB and his administration care so much about Iraq (whether their reasons are as stated, giving sweetheart jobs to their friends the defense contractors, whether it’s because they’re pure evil, etc etc) that they’re willing to toss an election over it?

(bolding mine)

It’s the “this” that seems to clearly be referring to administration support for a renewed draft. Maybe you didn’t mean to say that, but it seems pretty clear to me that you did indeed say it. If Bush isn’t considering reinstating the draft, it’s a pointless question. If you ask about what GWB’s motivation for reinstating the draft might be, you’re obviously implying that you think GWB will reinstate the draft.

[iamme99]

Well, at this stage, it is looking like we will need a lot more troops not only in the short-term, but in the long-term as well, to keep Iraq from erupting into continuous violence and civil war. So where are those troops going to come from? Will we take them from our other bases across the world? Will the government and military even acknowledge that more troops are needed before the election? Or will they continue to wear blinders and try to convince themselves (and us) that they can finish the job with the limited troops they now have?

If we stay in Iraq, I can’t see that there will be any other solution other than an eventual draft. Of course, Bush will deny this and won’t, at any cost, let a draft happen prior to the election. If Kerry gets in, he might have to do it. Or else cut and run, basically say screw it, we f**cked up, we’re getting out and leaving it to the U.N. to go fix up, whether they want to or not. btw: I saw a new bumper sticker today - “Iraq is Vietnam in Arabic”.

Here’s an interesting article where the expert quoted in the story thinks that “the United States must more than double its current military force of about 135,000 and confront the violent Iraqi militias consistently…”

**Stanford expert says Iraq spinning out of control **
Lack of security is dooming goals of U.S., he says
James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, April 25, 2004
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle

When Larry Diamond left for Baghdad in January as an adviser to the U.S. occupation authority, he took all the equipment he believed he needed to help construct a hopeful new nation out of the ashes of dictatorship: the academic models he had crafted over the years as an authority on building democracies, and confidence those models would work.

But the jarring reality of Iraq, with its escalating violence and collapsing civic order, forced Diamond to look for a few new tools beyond those listed in the textbooks. When he speaks now of the models for building democratic countries, he stresses a different set of equipment, which he found in short supply: body armor, armor-plated cars, a huge military presence.

The story of Iraq, this onetime optimist believes, is a tale of missed opportunities.

“We just bungled this so badly,” said Diamond, a 52-year-old senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. “We just weren’t honest with ourselves or with the American people about what was going to be needed to secure the country.”

Diamond was a senior adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority and spent several initially hopeful months in Iraq – lecturing on democracy, even in mosques, encouraging people to participate and helping shape laws that embodied his vision. He returned to Palo Alto in early April for a short break, then ran into an emotional brick wall, he said, when he contemplated the mess he had left behind.

Last Thursday, when it came time for Diamond to return, he did not get on the plane.

Instead, he was in his office at the Hoover Tower, disillusioned over the desperate turn of events he had witnessed and what he feels was a country allowed to spin out of control, in large part, he says, because of the Bush administration’s unwillingness to commit a big enough force to protect Iraqis from militias and insurgents.

“You can’t develop democracy without security,” he said. “In Iraq, it’s really a security nightmare that did not have to be. If you don’t get that right, nothing else is possible. Everything else is connected to that.”

Full article - Iraq spinning out of control

[John_Mace]

@iamme99

If we stay in Iraq, I can’t see that there will be any other solution other than an eventual draft. Of course, Bush will deny this and won’t, at any cost, let a draft happen prior to the election. If Kerry gets in, he might have to do it. Or else cut and run, basically say screw it, we f**cked up, we’re getting out and leaving it to the U.N. to go fix up, whether they want to or not. btw: I saw a new bumper sticker today - “Iraq is Vietnam in Arabic”.

I don’t understand why some people keep repeating the erroneous idea that a president can institute the draft. Only Congress can do that. And they won’t.

[iamme99]

@John Mace

I don’t understand why some people keep repeating the erroneous idea that a president can institute the draft. Only Congress can do that. And they won’t.

Well, given that Bush is Republican, that both the Senate and the HR are controlled by Republicans and that a Republican recently brought the issue up (flying a flag to test the waters?), what Bush wants in the current environment, he will get. If he says we don’t have enough troops and we need more and the only way to do that is to have a draft, I feel confident that the present Congress would rubber-stamp the authorization. Of course, they might add a modification to how the draft would run - something like, only people who are part of families with a gross annual income of under 40k will be eligible, to protect their own sons and daughters. :rolleyes:

[robby]

@Inigo Montoya

…Maybe enlistment numbers would be a bit higher if they actually paid soldiers a living wage?

According to this chart, an E-6 platoon sageant with 6 years in service makes less than $2,400 per month. That’s a guy in charge of a) a platoon of, like 40+ men and/or b) an ass-load of expensive equipment. I do better than that and I’m an automobile insurance claim rep in charge of a PC, a crummy office chair and a 30 year-old desk!

Entry level pay with a BA *might * be as high as $1,558/month.(E-4 if you go Army).

Maybe if welfare wasn’t an option for the leadership jobs, there might be a little more activity in the recruiter’s offices?

Oh, for crying out loud, not this again! I actually got a letter published in my local metro newspaper a couple of months ago rebutting this misinformation.

In short: a servicemember’s basic pay is not all he or she gets. To this must be added numerous non-taxed allowances that make up a significant portion of a servicemember’s total pay. These include housing allowances, subsistence allowance, and hostile fire pay (the latter of which, IMHO, should certainly be increased).

All together, these pays typically increase a servicemembers total pay by 30-40% (depending on the housing costs where he or she is stationed), and of this, only the basic pay is taxed. This does not even consider the free medical care, as well as the numerous specialty and incentive pays and bonuses offered to various members of the military, including career sea pay, submarine pay, aviation pay, nuclear incentive bonuses, re-enlistment bonuses, etc.

Also, between promotions, time in service raises, and cost-of-living increases, military pay typically increases much faster than in the civilian world. (My pay nearly tripled during my time in the service.)

In short, I served over ten years in the U.S. Navy, and feel that my pay and benefits were excellent. When I got out of the service and took a job as an engineer, I took a huge pay cut. (Which was worth it for me; the loss in income was counteracted by actually being around to see my son grow up.)

Supposedly low pay for members of the military is often repeated (and certainly does not help the efforts of military recruiters), but it is not borne out by the facts.

[John_Mace]

@iamme99

Well, given that Bush is Republican, that both the Senate and the HR are controlled by Republicans and that a Republican recently brought the issue up (flying a flag to test the waters?), what Bush wants in the current environment, he will get.

Not necessarily. DO you think he’s going to pass his immigration reform-- that the Pubs in Congress are going to roll over on that? Not a chance.

Furthermore, do you have any idea how long it would be between now and when the first drftee arrived in Iraq if the draft were reinstated? It would probably take a year to just to get the bill thru Congress.

Ain’t gonna be no draft!!!

[Triskadecamus]

So a US Senator starts discussing the need for conscription. A Republican Senator. And the reflexive supporters of George II start saying that that isn’t evidence that George is trying to bring back the draft.

How do you folks think large power parties execute and about face on a touchy political issue when they want to? This kind of thing is not led from the front. You use Party Politics to do it. First you have a guy on the periphery start talking about how such a thing might be necessary. Then you have your non-substantive denials from the top. Like maybe a functionary saying “It is not one of the things being considered.” Then you let it simmer for a while as the body count rises, and the enlistment numbers drop. Later you can admit that you have to consider it, but are reluctant to do so. It makes you look so reasonable, you know.

Like bombing Cambodia. Certainly we would never bomb a neutral nation, without so much as consulting the Legislature.

This is in fact not just evidence that the Republican Party is about to bring back the draft, it is the first real political steps in the process of doing it.

It isn’t just about Iraq, you know. We got lots of other countries to invade and occupy before this crew is finished. That’s going to take manpower.

Tris

[XT]

@Triskadecamus

This is in fact not just evidence that the Republican Party is about to bring back the draft, it is the first real political steps in the process of doing it.

Well, since I can’t prove a negative (bordering on a conspiricy theory), Triskadecamus, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. I’ve got 20 bucks though that says there ain’t gona be no draft.

@Triskadecamus

It isn’t just about Iraq, you know. We got lots of other countries to invade and occupy before this crew is finished. That’s going to take manpower.

:rolleyes:

There is an addition 20 bucks that says we won’t be invading any other counties in the next 4 years, no matter who is president.

-XT

[John_Mace]

@Triskadecamus

How do you folks think large power parties execute and about face on a touchy political issue when they want to? This kind of thing is not led from the front. You use Party Politics to do it. First you have a guy on the periphery start talking about how such a thing might be necessary. Then you have your non-substantive denials from the top. Like maybe a functionary saying “It is not one of the things being considered.”

You are absolutely correct. This is how it’s done. But it’s also indistinguishable from chatter by a few folks who are out of the mainstream. Americans would stand for a draft if the country were really threatened. But for Iraq? No way, no how. It would be political suicide for whoever tried to push it thru.

[rjung]

@John Mace

Americans would stand for a draft if the country were really threatened. But for Iraq? No way, no how. It would be political suicide for whoever tried to push it thru.

Well, Bush does insist that he pays no attention to polls, or anti-war protesters, or the will of the American public. And if he gets re-elected to a second term, he doesn’t have to care about his political future, either…

Put the two together.

[XT]

@rjung

Well, Bush does insist that he pays no attention to polls, or anti-war protesters, or the will of the American public. And if he gets re-elected to a second term, he doesn’t have to care about his political future, either…

Even if this were true ( :rolleyes: ), its not up to Bush but in the hands of the Congress (and/or maybe the Senate if John is right) to start a bill to re-instate the draft. All Bush does is sign it or veto it once its brought to him. And I don’t think its going that far out on a limb to state that the majority of both houses DO watch the polls and are concerned with re-election, no? Because they get more than two terms you see, and it would be pretty clear where the bill came from, no?

Again, I see nothing but speculation and bullshit in this thread. Does anyone have any indications (REAL indications, not test balloon theories with no basis in fact so far) that either the Congress or the Senate is looking into re-instating the draft? If not, any speculation that this might be some kind of test balloon by the administration, etc, is just that…speculation, without any basis in reality. Feel free to cite any REAL information indicating that either the Military, the Administration, or the main body of the House or Senate WANT a draft.

-XT