News: US militery draft is back (I'm not joking)

[Guest]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1228178,00.html

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Fucking motherfuckers!

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=5834001&content_dir=ua_congressorg

Who wants to die for George Bush's mistake?

---dr.M.

 

[Guest]

Hi, doc.



I think Manu should vBoard script for this thread to be kept bumped up by robot posts?

Or, can this thread be made a sticky for a while and stay at the top of the page?

 

[oggbashan]

UK Armed Forces

Numbers of Defence Personnel

1 July 2001 Thousands

Total UK Based Personnel 304.0
Service 205.7
Civilian 98.7

Naval Service 42.4
Officers 7.8
Other Ranks 34.7

Army 109.5
Officers 13.9
Other Ranks 95.6

Royal Air Force 53.7
Officers 11.0
Other Ranks 42.7

UK based Civilians 98.4
Non-industrial 73.8
Industrial 24.5

Source: DASA (Civilian) and DASA (Tri-Service)


Last Updated: 6 Apr 04


Og's comment:

The UK Government is seeking to REDUCE these numbers. What do they know that GWB doesn't?

 

[Pure]

Of course that's great news about the draft**! Perhaps more middle class and Republican parents' kids need to be involved in bringing freedom to our brown brothers and sisters who worship the same god under a different name, and don't deserve to be subject to Saddam's torturers.

**Story has been lurking in the media and internet for a least a couple months. E.g., the re-activation of local draft boards.

 

[ruminator]

Of course that's great news about the draft**! Perhaps more middle class and Republican parents' kids need to be involved in bringing freedom to our brown brothers and sisters who worship the same god under a different name, and don't deserve to be subject to Saddam's torturers.

**Story has been lurking in the media and internet for a least a couple months. E.g., the re-activation of local draft boards.

It sure has. A noticable difference this time is the earlier projected phase of calling up many of the inactive reserve (a poorly worded notice was sent out by mistake causing many to wrongly volunteer for active duty in order to have a choice of assignment ). It's been reported that many of the first ones called will be those with special skills in computer, technology, languages and other skills. The age would also be active to 44. Lots of changes in the system recently and the few past years.

 

[Guest]

excerpts from Mab.'s link:

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin as early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election.

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005.

The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era. College and Canada will not be options.

[A] declaration [between the U.S. and Canada] involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country.

[T]his plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a shelter and includes women in the draft.

 

[champagne1982]

Next month will be the first time I've ever voted in a federal election. I'm thrilled to bits. Honestly.

I'm also dismayed that only 30 to 50 percent of the voters my age will actually vote and that we only have 2 real choices to vote for, neither of which is a good one.

Canadians have even less of a say in what we make law, our senate is by appointment. You wanna talk patronage?

I'm appalled that the current US of A and Canadian governments have taken our open border policy and modified it to anything but open. The news in our country was claiming these changes were the result of poor intergovernmental relations. Now, with a little bit of reading between the lines, it doesn't take a membership in mensa to see that they were actually bum buddies all along.

I pray that no one will ever have to kill cumpulsorily.

 

[gauchecritic]

I thought this was going to be about not serving bottled beer to armed forces.

Gauche

(There've been quite a few recent threads begun from The Guardian. Is The Grauniad paying by the link?)

 

[Guest]

...

 

[lucky-E-leven]

This is really frightening. What are the chances that this could become a reality?

~lucky

 

[Colleen Thomas]

This is really frightening. What are the chances that this could become a reality?

~lucky

I would put the odds at no better than 50/50. While it is true that you have a republican majority in both houses, a peace time draft is going to be extremely unpopular. While partisan politics rule the roost on Capitol hill right now, you can expect a lot of senators & represenatives to look out for number one, especially those facing reelection bids soon.

This is the kind of legislation most presidents wouldn't put forward until they were safely ensconed in their second term and had no fear of electoral repercussion for themselves. For an administration that has played almost every decision with an eye towards re election, it represents a very bold move.

The more sweeping question is what it portends. Afghanistan & Iraq are not large enough troop commitments to warrant a draft. In so far as troop strength goes, both are easily within the active duty forces the U.S. has, with reserves called up to replace the actives at non-combat duty stations. It seems to me, that this is more of a calrion call, to let people know this party & administration are contemplating more foerign adventures.

-Colly

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Thanks Colly,

I was also wondering what the motivation was, if not further occupations and/or invasions. I only read the link Doc posted, but it seems as though this draft would be pretty all-encompassing. Including females, raising ages and snatching up kids out of high school the minute their academic year is complete.



~lucky

 

[ruminator]

This is really frightening. What are the chances that this could become a reality?

~lucky

Here's a decent short article that looks at the conflicting statements by the administration and the SSS.

http://www.everyweek.com/News/News.asp?no=4027



It's still a judgement call as to when and if, but the indications of all the politicians who claim that we need more troops in Iraq would lead me to believe that few ways exist to increase troop numbers.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

From TOM PAINE’S — A MEMORIAL DAY READER


Honor The Legacy
May 28, 2004

Veterans For Common Sense is joining other advocacy groups, including Amnesty International and EPIC, to send a message to President Bush this Memorial Day: Restore unequivocal support for the Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the dignity of all world citizens. SIGN THE PETITION



Abu Ghraib And The Federal Bench
May 28, 2004

This one's hard to believe: President Bush has nominated Department of Defense lawyer William Haynes for a lifelong judgeship with the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Haynes was responsible for the legal atmosphere that allowed the torture at Abu Ghraib—he disregarded human rights' groups complaints in early 2003 and signed off on the legality of withholding the Geneva Convention from detainees. People For The American Way is issuing an opposition statement to Haynes' nomination. Find out more and SIGN THE STATEMENT.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thanks Colly,

I was also wondering what the motivation was, if not further occupations and/or invasions. I only read the link Doc posted, but it seems as though this draft would be pretty all-encompassing. Including females, raising ages and snatching up kids out of high school the minute their academic year is complete.



~lucky

I tend to believe the wider scope is really a smokescreen. Selling it as neccessary for the War on terror, it makes sense to dress it up to appear to be a serious war time type draft measure. Unless they plan more occupations the need for division or corps sized deployments is minimal. Your best bet is to look to people in technical fields, where there may be a need soon, as the most likely draftees. The days when you drafted the poorest and least educated are in the past I think.

Division & regimental sized conflicts are likely to be rare and thus the need for cannon fodder is not high. Most of the army's weapons systems stress surviveability of the troops as a major requirement in design orders now. The only branch of service I can think of that still relies heavily on numbers is the Marine corps. That's because they still see amphibious deployment as thier primary role and the mathematics of war have shown you need a numerical superiority on the beachhead of at least three to one to ensure a successful landing.

With advances in bombardment ordanance and warplaes that may not be true any longer, but we haven't conducted a major amphib landing since Inchon and so thats still the accepted numerical ratio.

-Colly

 

[minsue]

I would put the odds at no better than 50/50. While it is true that you have a republican majority in both houses, a peace time draft is going to be extremely unpopular. While partisan politics rule the roost on Capitol hill right now, you can expect a lot of senators & represenatives to look out for number one, especially those facing reelection bids soon.

This is the kind of legislation most presidents wouldn't put forward until they were safely ensconed in their second term and had no fear of electoral repercussion for themselves. For an administration that has played almost every decision with an eye towards re election, it represents a very bold move.

The more sweeping question is what it portends. Afghanistan & Iraq are not large enough troop commitments to warrant a draft. In so far as troop strength goes, both are easily within the active duty forces the U.S. has, with reserves called up to replace the actives at non-combat duty stations. It seems to me, that this is more of a calrion call, to let people know this party & administration are contemplating more foerign adventures.

-Colly

I think you're right that the chances of passage are slim, but only if it isn't altered. The current verbiage includes women. The majority in this country still believe that women have no business in the military, much less in combat. Take the women out of the draft, though, and it's a whole other ballgame.

 

[Guest]

Take the women out of the draft, though, and it's a whole other ballgame.

I don't think they will take 'us' out, but they'll "discriminate" and use women for desk jobs, nursing, clerical crap, and maybe the high-tech stuff. P.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I think you're right that the chances of passage are slim, but only if it isn't altered. The current verbiage includes women. The majority in this country still believe that women have no business in the military, much less in combat. Take the women out of the draft, though, and it's a whole other ballgame.

I think they can get around that. Unless i misremeber, women have to Volunteer to see combat roles. It is not to far of a stretch to explain women will only be DRAFTED into support roles. On the other hand it may be included BECUASE it's so contentious. The sponsors could then offer to remove that part of it in order to "compromise" with those against the draft.

It's hard to say with political manuvers.

-Colly

 

[minsue]

Thanks Colly,

I was also wondering what the motivation was, if not further occupations and/or invasions. I only read the link Doc posted, but it seems as though this draft would be pretty all-encompassing. Including females, raising ages and snatching up kids out of high school the minute their academic year is complete.



~lucky

Text of S 89
Sponsor/Co-sponsor(s) 1
--- Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC)

Text of HR 163
Sponsor/Co-sponsor(s) 15
Jan. 07, 2003 Rep. Fortney Stark (D-CA)
Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)
Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Jan. 07, 2003 Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)
Jan. 07, 2003 Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)
Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY)
Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)
May. 19, 2004 Rep. Donna Christensen (D-VI)
Jan. 07, 2003 Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. James Moran (D-VA)
--- Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)
Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO)
Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
Jan. 07, 2003 Rep. John Lewis (D-GA)
Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL)

 

[minsue]

I think they can get around that. Unless i misremeber, women have to Volunteer to see combat roles. It is not to far of a stretch to explain women will only be DRAFTED into support roles. On the other hand it may be included BECUASE it's so contentious. The sponsors could then offer to remove that part of it in order to "compromise" with those against the draft.

It's hard to say with political manuvers.

-Colly

Yes, the 'compromise' did cross my mind.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Yes, the 'compromise' did cross my mind.

It isnt beyone reason to assume that's why it's in there. Considering the administrations attempts to return women to the role of homeaker & child bearer/rearer it seems even more suspicious to me. But I am extremely skeptical of any action taken by Bush Co. So I may be reading a lot more into it that there is.

-Colly

 

[minsue]

It isnt beyone reason to assume that's why it's in there. Considering the administrations attempts to return women to the role of homeaker & child bearer/rearer it seems even more suspicious to me. But I am extremely skeptical of any action taken by Bush Co. So I may be reading a lot more into it that there is.

-Colly

I'm becoming more and more skeptical of political manuvering bullshit by the moment. Check out the sponsors in the edited post above.

It's been quite some time since I've felt this fucking betrayed by politicians and the games they play. And that's saying quite a lot.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm becoming more and more skeptical of political manuvering bullshit by the moment. Check out the sponsors in the edited post above.

It's been quite some time since I've felt this fucking betrayed by politicians and the games they play. And that's saying quite a lot.

I wonder how much of Kerry being raked over the coals for his percieved Anti-militarisim has to do with that? The way the political winds are blowing right now, it seems that politicians are suddenly getting very concious of how thier voting record on military deployment & spending can be spun against them.

-Colly

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

... The days when you drafted the poorest and least educated are in the past I think. ... the mathematics of war have shown you need a numerical superiority ... With advances in bombardment ordinance and warplanes that may not be true any longer ...

I hope you are right ...

Urban Warfare — house-to-house fighting is the NEW warfare.

Iraq has proven that the military cannot depend upon advanced theories in asymmetric attack with state-of-the-art munitions. House-to-house, hovel-to-rubble, street-by-street, hand-to-hand combat is called for and that requires a large force of expendable grunts — low-income, poorly-educated, with no political connections.

Just like Viet Nam!