A new draft - even though the candidates say no?

[mabus]

This guy makes some points. I don't know enough about the military to say if they are correct or not, I'll let people smarter than me answer that question.

Let me explain why they keep bringing this draft issue up - it's the easiest one to win on. Hands down, no question ask. People SAY they care about the enviroment,...but come on, we know one man can't level the planet unless he's Hitler, and the grass always grows back. Social Security - they can mess with it, but if enough people raise hell, a solution will be found, so don't worry. The economy - hell, the people make that work, not the government.

But the DRAFT, well, no one is saying what it really means.

All those slackers and lazy liberals who sit around and have kids out of wedlock, get stoned, hang out in the streets, whatever the hell people do who don't have jobs... will be violently ripped from their comfortable lives where they are surrounded by people who make them feel good and don't "offend" them, (That's so politically incorrect..) and get their hair shorn off, thrown in front of a very pissed off drill instructor who will scream at them and break them down to be a robot, as they believe, dragged all the way across the world to a desert with heat they've never felt before, no air conditioners, no comfort, and have to face people who must be described with some word we in America haven't invented yet. "Evil" applies to those who litter, who pollute, who ask a girl out at work, or tell a female worker they look nice in that dress, or have a minor disagreement with the NAACP, or go watch "The Passion," or watch a little porn, or download music from Kazaa, or make a wisecrack about Jews, or have sex in the Oval Office, etc.

When American's see people like al Zarqawi saw someone's head off because they met him, and happen to be a Jew, or American, or, you know, breathing, when they see the "Iraqi Police" being corrupt in ways corrupt politicians in America couldn't dream of, like, turning over civilians to the people who will saw their head off, when they see parents strap bombs to their own children and use them to blow up as many civilians as they can, or see people ripped out of cars and set on fire while still alive, then rip whatever body parts they can off the corpse and dance around with them laughing and praising Allah....

...our minds simply can't process the information. Our definition is evil is a husband having an affair. That husband would be a saint in some countries compared to what's there.

The fear of death speaks louder than taxes, social security, jobs, the enviroment, stem cells, or whatever we're arguing about here in the USA.

.......................................

Feeling the Draft
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: October 19, 2004

Those who are worrying about a revived draft are in the same position as those who worried about a return to budget deficits four years ago, when President Bush began pushing through his program of tax cuts. Back then he insisted that he wouldn't drive the budget into deficit - but those who looked at the facts strongly suspected otherwise. Now he insists that he won't revive the draft. But the facts suggest that he will.

There were two reasons some of us never believed Mr. Bush's budget promises. First, his claims that his tax cuts were affordable rested on patently unrealistic budget projections. Second, his broader policy goals, including the partial privatization of Social Security - which is clearly on his agenda for a second term - would involve large costs that were not included even in those unrealistic projections. This led to the justified suspicion that his election-year promises notwithstanding, Mr. Bush would preside over a return to budget deficits.

It's exactly the same when it comes to the draft. Mr. Bush's claim that we don't need any expansion in our military is patently unrealistic; it ignores the severe stress our Army is already under. And the experience in Iraq shows that pursuing his broader foreign policy doctrine - the "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive war - would require much larger military forces than we now have.

This leads to the justified suspicion that after the election, Mr. Bush will seek a large expansion in our military, quite possibly through a return of the draft.

Mr. Bush's assurances that this won't happen are based on a denial of reality. Last week, the Republican National Committee sent an angry, threatening letter to Rock the Vote, an organization that has been using the draft issue to mobilize young voters. "This urban myth regarding a draft has been thoroughly debunked," the letter declared, and quoted Mr. Bush: "We don't need the draft. Look, the all-volunteer Army is working."

In fact, the all-volunteer Army is under severe stress. A study commissioned by Donald Rumsfeld arrived at the same conclusion as every independent study: the U.S. has "inadequate total numbers" of troops to sustain operations at the current pace. In Iraq, the lack of sufficient soldiers to protect supply convoys, let alone pacify the country, is the root cause of incidents like the case of the reservists who refused to go on what they described as a "suicide mission."

Commanders in Iraq have asked for more troops (ignore the administration's denials) - but there are no more troops to send. The manpower shortage is so severe that training units like the famous Black Horse Regiment, which specializes in teaching other units the ways of battle, are being sent into combat. As the military expert Phillip Carter says, "This is like eating your seed corn."

Anyway, do we even have an all-volunteer Army at this point? Thousands of reservists and National Guard members are no longer serving voluntarily: they have been kept in the military past their agreed terms of enlistment by "stop loss" orders.

The administration's strategy of denial in the face of these realities was illustrated by a revealing moment during the second presidential debate. After Senator John Kerry described the stop-loss policy as a "backdoor draft," Charles Gibson, the moderator, tried to get a follow-up response from President Bush: "And with reservists being held on duty --"

At that point Mr. Bush cut Mr. Gibson off and changed the subject from the plight of the reservists to the honor of our Polish allies, ending what he obviously viewed as a dangerous line of questioning.

And during the third debate, Mr. Bush tried to minimize the issue, saying that the reservists being sent to Iraq "didn't view their service as a backdoor draft. They viewed their service as an opportunity to serve their country." In that case, why are they being forced, rather than asked, to continue that service?

The reality is that the Iraq war, which was intended to demonstrate the feasibility of the Bush doctrine, has pushed the U.S. military beyond its limits. Yet there is no sign that Mr. Bush has been chastened. By all accounts, in a second term the architects of that doctrine, like Paul Wolfowitz, would be promoted, not replaced. The only way this makes sense is if Mr. Bush is prepared to seek a much larger Army - and that means reviving the draft.

[Krokus]

I think it's obvious...of course...he won't say anything with the election 12 or so days away....:rolleyes:

[gibby59]

Why is it that people believe Kerry when he says he isn't going to do something, even when his record says different, but won't believe Bush when he says he won't do something?

[Cosmo_ac]

Here's the thing Gibby. Bush is a preemptive President. We all know that. Which means there's much greater a chance Bush will make more military strikes and/or invasions if he's elected. The most probable of those places are Iran or N.Korea. Problem is, the US still has to babysit Iraq for what more then likely will be years, and as is the military is strecthed to there limits. Blowing up a country is easy. Having to rebuild it afterwards and make peace, on the other hand is a very time consuming job. The only way Bush will be able to do this, unless he gets serious help from other countries, which as things stand, are a snowballs chance in hell, the US will have to bear the brunt alone. This means more soldiers, which will mean the need for a draft. However, nothings written in stone.


Mabus, i doubt anybody, Conservative or republican, would want to be called up for a draft. If they wanted to be soldiers, they would enlist.

[New2u]

If anyone saw the debate between Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore on T.V. where Moore asked O'Reilly that since he supported the Iraq war that much, would he send his son into the battle (Draft) (I'm not sure if it was a hypothetical question or if O'Reilly really has a son), O'Reilly's answer was interesting and said that he would go into the battle himself if need be to help the Iraqi people win democracy. He avoided Moore's question for some reason and never answered it. This was more of a "sideline" on the draft issue.

As far as who will initiate the draft (I'm also employed by the DoD and know a few things) regardless if it's Kerry or Bush, I suspect that somekind of draft will be instituted because the Guard as well as active Military personnel have been "stretched" to the limit so something will have to be done and soon. As mentioned, this will all come about sometime "AFTER" the general election on November 2nd.

[MrMacphisto]

ah.. well, this topic brings a great song to mind for those of us that plan on being conscientious objectors...

"O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!

From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee."

[Cosmo_ac]

On the bright side, Canada could use the population boost. :D

[giggleygirl25]

to answer the question as to why the president isn't believed when he says there won't be a draft...If and only IF he manages to say it with a straight face, then i might believe him ( i don't remember if it was the last debate or one of his speeches, he said there wouldn't be one but he was smirking when he said it).

[kurchatovium]

Actually the only bill suggesting the draft should be reinstated was introduced by a democrat (Charlie Rangels if I am not mistaken) so I would worry more about the draft if the democrats got elected rather than the Republicans.

[Cosmo_ac]

While the draft was put into place by a democrat, and i believe recently it was voted down, Bush's wars are more likely to create the need for a draft. Iraq is already straining the Amry to it;'s limits, So much that i've heard that they are planning to start using woman soldiers to be in the military front lines, something they have avoided for a long time now in the American military. They've even gotten instructors to fight oversea's now, i believe.

[kurchatovium]

The president has stated repeatedly there will be no draft. Why trust a party that has actually introduced legisaltion to introduce one rather than the guy who repeatedly stated there will be no draft. Seems like a no brainer to me.

[Cosmo_ac]

Kurtch, ;like i said earlier, we all know Bush is a Pre-emptve president. Thats a fact. Bush has already invaded two countries, this is also a fact. The president also stated that Homosexual marriage would be left up to the states, then decided to make a bill banning all homosexual marriages. This is a fact. Bush has no intention of Leaving iraq any time soon, this is also a fact. The US can not leave Iraq, unless there willing to admit a defeat and that democracy isn't always going to prevail. This is highly unlikely. The only way to lighten the US troop load, would to be bring in other countries. Bush can not do this. That is also a fact. As i already stated, the states is taking drastic measures, extending reserves enlistment time, taking trainers and sending them over, planning on using woman in the frontlines. There was an article posted not to long ago about SOldiers being threatened to be sent to Iraq if they did not re-enlist.

Things are not looking good. You then have Korea and Iran, which i have no doubt Bush see's as threats, and since Bush made his little speach about N. Korea, Iran, and Iraq being the new "Axis of evil", and already invaded Iraq, so Iran and Korea have every reason to feel threatened and continue with there plans to get nuclear arms (n.Korea deffinitly, Iran possibly if not more then likely). This won't sit with the US very well, particulerly the Bush council, and i don't think anybody would be suprised if Bush decided to attack them too.

[kurchatovium]

I suppose you have your reasons cosmo. I doubt the president would state he opposes reinstating the draft and then do it. Would be a very big mistake if he did. The question is why would the democrats introduce legislation to reinstate it to me that makes me very suspicious for it would be to their best interest to not do that.

[Cosmo_ac]

I doubt the president would state he opposes reinstating the draft and then do it.

Like i said. He also stated he would leave gay marriages up to individual states, then later tried to make a bill so they couldn't. So, obviously, like most politicians, just because he says something, doesn't make it true.

As for it being a mistake for him, hard to say. He won't have to worry about getting re-elected, so really he doesn't have much to lose. And if he can convince the US he's on the right track, and indeed about 50% still believe he is, even though revelations of the misinformation about Iraq have come to light (check Mr.Particuler's thread he created for an excelent read on that subject) by saying how in danger the US is, people might believe that is the only choice.

Persnally i don't think Bush wants to restate a draft, however it's a matter of numbers. BOHF made a rather good post about this issue.


Right now the US has not one but TWO active wars to fight (Afghanistan and Iraq) and these are taking up nine of the ten active duty regiments of the American Army (that's either deployed in, just returned from or about to be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan). Hundreds of enlistees are killed or wounded every month. Tours are being extended and enlistments prolonged. Troops are being transferred to Iraq from strategically important US bases in South Korea. The 138,000 US soldiers officially stationed in Iraq have been quietly supplemented with at least 10,000 private military contractors / mercenaries. Even so, as recent events in Falluja and Najaf make clear, all these bodies are not nearly enough to sustain the occupation.

Things in Iraq are getting worse, that much is obvious to anyone who cares to look and it's becoming increasingly obvious that there is little chance of the January elections delivering a situation which allows the US to simply withdraw the bulk of its forces. Worse, the US can't simply abandon Iraq, not after making such a big deal of bringing 'democracy' to the region, without leaving behind a civil war and another theocracy. Right now it's likely the number of troops required to properly contain Iraq is going to rise, not fall, and possibly to as many as 500,000 (based on pre-war Pentagon estimates). Other bases account for 176,000 troops in either the "war on terror" or peacekeeping operations.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The closest parallel to the Iraq situation is the British in Northern Ireland, where you also had some people supporting the occupying army and some opposing them, and where the opponents were willing to resort to terror tactics," says Charles Peña, director of defense studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "There the British needed a ratio of 10 soldiers per 1,000 population to restore order, and at their height, it was 20 soldiers per 1,000 population. If you transfer that to Iraq, it would mean you'd need at least 240,000 troops and maybe as many as 480,000.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Asume for a moment that Bush actually gets elected this time round , his policy is pre-emptive war. Just last night in the softest interview you will ever see he was asked by Bill O'Reilly:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133712,00.html

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O'REILLY: Would you allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon?

BUSH: We are working our hearts out so that they don't develop a nuclear weapon, and the best way to do so is to continue to keep international pressure on them.

O'REILLY: Is it conceivable that you would allow them to develop a nuclear weapon?

BUSH: No, we've made it clear, our position is that they won't have a nuclear weapon.

O'REILLY: Period.

BUSH: Yes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So, presuming that they don't go and buy one from Pakistan, and that they keep developing their nuke facilities (and they'd be stupid not to considering it's now proven to be the only thing to stop an invasion), it's likely that Bush is going to go after Iran next from all those fabulous new bases in Iraq. Only... who's going to be using them? Moving forces out of Iraq would be a disaster if the country isn't pacified as a ground force could find itself trapped between two hostile forces . And Iran is a LOT bigger than Iraq and likely to be about as recpetive to the Stars and Stripes being marched into the country as Iraq is... well, look at the recent standoff in Najaf for an example.

The national guard is already being stretched thin with up to 45% of forces deployed to Iraq. There isn't any significant request from the Bush administration to increase recruiting goals for the next year so where exactly is the potentialy massive number of extra bodies coming from?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ned Lebow, a military manpower expert and professor of government at Dartmouth College:

"The government is in a bit of a box," Lebow says. "They can hold reservists on active duty longer, and risk antagonizing that whole section of America that has family members who join the Reserves. They can try to pay soldiers more, but it's not clear that works -- and besides, there's already an enormous budget deficit. They can try to bribe other countries to contribute more troops, which they're trying to do now, but not with much success. Or they can try Iraqization of the war -- though we saw what happened to Vietnamization, and Afghanization of the war in Afghanistan isn't working, so Iraqization doesn't seem likely to work either.

"So," Lebow concludes, "that leaves the draft."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I said at the start of this post it comes down to the mathematics but that's not quite true. It is a combination of mathematics and policies. Unfortunately Bush has put America on a very fast ride to war on multiple fronts where the objective is not to destory your enemy but to take and hold entire countries. That, as the administration is now finding out, takes a staggering amount of manpower. Sadly the conventional wisdom that any administration inherits the military of the previous one holds true, so if Kerry does win the race he's going to be facing the exact same problems, and there's really very little he can do to change the outcome.

From the LA Times...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...1,2908054.story


The U.S. military lacks sufficient personnel to meet the nation's current war and peacekeeping demands throughout the world in coming years, despite steps being taken by the Army to stretch its ranks and increase the number of soldiers available for combat, according to a Pentagon advisory board.

The report by the Defense Science Board, a panel of outside advisors to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argues that "inadequate total numbers" of troops mean the United States can "not sustain our current and projected global stabilization commitments." Army initiatives to create more combat brigades out of its 10 active divisions are "important, but partial, steps toward enhanced stabilization operations," the panel said.

The report offers several options for easing the burdens on a military strained by missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Among them are adding substantial numbers of troops and scaling back the number of peacekeeping missions. The board did not specify troop numbers.

The findings surfaced last week when Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) cited the report during a congressional hearing and questioned Rumsfeld about it. Rumsfeld called it an "excellent piece of work" but said the panel probably had not been briefed on the Army's plans to squeeze more out of existing forces before reaching its conclusions.

Rumsfeld has argued that the military has enough troops and that initiatives underway at the Pentagon will create more front-line combat forces. A key change at the Army is creating additional deployable combat brigades, in part by eliminating headquarters staff, a process known as "modularity."

"I don't know if they were briefed on … all the things we're doing in the department. I doubt it," Rumsfeld said last week, dismissing the criticism implied by the findings.

However, a copy of the panel's findings obtained by the Los Angeles Times indicated that the advisory group did account for the modularity plans. The panel found the plans insufficient to deal with the burdens that combat and peacekeeping missions are placing on the military.

"Modularity, in and of itself, does not ensure an effective stabilization capability," the report concludes.

A Pentagon spokesman said Wednesday that while Rumsfeld appreciated that the board undertook the study, he did not accept its conclusion that the U.S. military was too small to handle its global responsibilities.

"Obviously, we don't feel that their recommendation that we need to have a permanent increase in end strength is justified," spokesman Lt. Col. Gary Keck said. "There are many other people other than the Defense Science Board working on this issue."

Congressional Democrats, however, said the contents of the report showed that the Defense Science Board took a much more comprehensive look at the strains on the military than Rumsfeld at first acknowledged.

"They were fully apprised of what the military was doing," said Reed, who has introduced legislation to bolster the Army's ranks by 20,000. "They were quite familiar with the Army's plans to create a more efficient force. Still, they're pretty clear that you need more troops."

During the Senate hearing last week, Rumsfeld said that if he were ever convinced by military commanders that a larger military was necessary, "then by golly, you're right, we'll have to go to an increase in end strength."

Top Pentagon officials concede that the U.S. military is stretched thin by lengthy combat and peacekeeping assignments since Sept. 11. The Army has been the service hardest hit, as some soldiers have been forced to pull back-to-back deployments in combat zones.

Officials in the Army remain concerned that the lengthy deployments will eventually take a toll on the all-volunteer force. On Wednesday, Defense officials said the Army had met most of its recruiting goals for 2004, yet might have more difficulty meeting them next year. The Army National Guard expects to fall roughly 5,000 soldiers short of its 2004 recruiting goal of 56,000.

Rumsfeld and the Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, have argued that the Army's plans to create 10 combat brigades from its current numbers over the next three years should be sufficient to get it through an assignment in Iraq that is already far more burdensome than the Pentagon predicted.

Last year, the Army projected it would have only eight combat brigades left in Iraq by late 2004. There are 20 deployed there.

Privately, some in the Army say that while Schoomaker's plans to create more combat brigades will be help ease the burden on the force, a potentially bigger problem will be addressing shortages of logistics units that provide front-line fuel, ammunition and engineering services — what the Army calls combat service support.

It is not yet clear, officials say, where such units are going to come from as the Army fills out more of its combat brigades.

"We've never had enough [combat service support] to go in two directions at once," said one Army official who works on readiness issues, speaking on condition of anonymity. "This is going to be where we are really strapped."


And my earlier post about Keeping soldiers in the Army because of a lack or soldiers enlisting.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6118277



Probe sought of re-enlistment tactics
Colorado congresswoman cites news reportsThe Associated Press
Updated: 9:30 p.m. ET Sept. 27, 2004DENVER -

A Colorado congresswoman called Monday for an investigation into allegations that Iraqi war veterans near the end of their duty were given a choice between re-enlisting or being sent back to Iraq.



Democratic Rep. Diana Degette, in a letter to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., asked him to look into whether the “White House or civilian Pentagon officials are pressuring the military to use coercive tactics to get soldiers to re-enlist in order to maintain the force levels necessary to fight the war in Iraq and war on terror.”

DeGette, at a news conference in Denver, cited reports in two Denver newspapers and calls she has received from several soldiers at Fort Carson, near Colorado Springs.

“They can’t meet re-enlistment goals, so they’re putting this hammer over their head, which is just wrong,” DeGette said. “In the long term, the integrity of our military is going to suffer.”



According to reports in the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post, soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team were told they faced reassignment to units expected to be deployed to Iraq or Korea if they did not either re-enlist by the end of the month or extend their duty until the end of 2007. Those who re-enlisted or extended would stay with the 3rd Brigade, which already was deployed for a year in Iraq.

Pentagon officials deferred comment to Fort Carson, which denied any effort to coerce soldiers into re-enlisting.

Fort Carson spokesman Lt. Justin Journeay said soldiers recently were given a form with three options; the third — neither extending nor re-enlisting — came with the understanding they could be reassigned.

Fort Carson officials said soldiers are being asked to record their choices so the Army can determine the strength of the force. The Army’s goal is to have units that stick together for several years with little turnover, Journeay said. He said Fort Carson was exceeding re-enlistment goals.

The adequacy of military manpower has become a volatile political issue. Democrats say the Bush administration, to satisfy personnel needs in Iraq and Afghanistan, is delaying troop rotations unwisely and making extensive use of Reserve and National Guard troops.

Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry recently said President Bush has a secret plan to call up more National Guard and Reserve troops immediately after the election. The president’s campaign called that allegation “false and ridiculous.”

© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[kurchatovium]

But why are the democrats introducing legislation to reintroduce the draft? I do not trust their motives. I think it is way to try to scare people into voting for Kerry assuming many will not bother to check to see who actaully introduced the legislation.

The abilitly of the US military to handle conflicts is still quite capable even though much of it was reduced during the Clinton Adminstration. I believe the US has seven main Battle groups. One of these would be more than capable of taking on the whole middle east. I doubt even if any more conflicts did arise that a vast new supply of soldiers would be needed. This is why the president does not want a draft. We have enough people now and it is much better to have people who wish to fight than people who are forced too.

By the way I trust nothing from the LA Times. Its not called the Left Angeles Times here for nothing LOL. :D :D

[Cosmo_ac]

The abilitly of the US military to handle conflicts is still quite capable even though much of it was reduced during the Clinton Adminstration. I believe the US has seven main Battle groups. One of these would be more than capable of taking on the whole middle east. I doubt even if any more conflicts did arise that a vast new supply of soldiers would be needed. This is why the president does not want a draft. We have enough people now and it is much better to have people who wish to fight than people who are forced too.

Kurtch, if that were true, then the Army would not be extending peoples tours, calling up reservists, enlisting contractors, making soldiers do double duties in Iraq, asking Britains for more soldiers, calling in trainers to become active participants in the war, and planning to (if not already doing) sending women into the front lines. All of these things point to a lack of soldiers, not a surplus.

[kurchatovium]

The US miltary would be quite capable of going this alone. The request for other countries to share the load is largely to present a more united front against terrorism. (By the way I have the highest of regards for Tony Blair and Britain for this reason and Britain is a true ally in every sense of the word). The US miltary is quite vast though I would like it to be bigger. Reservists and such tend to always be called in first. It usually means thing are going well not badly. I actually know a couple of reservists. One is serving in Iraq now, the other is not. Below is a list of troops eliminated during the Clinton adminstration. It kinda shows just how big the military is I think. What was eliminated is as bigger as most other countries military.


709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) MILITARY PERSONNEL.
293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.


EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS.

* 20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT 232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS.

* 19 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114 NUCLEAR WARHEADS ON 232 MISSILES.

* 500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.

* FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS

* 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND SUBMARINES PLUS ALL THE SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS, AND LOGISTICAL ASSETS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN SUCH A NAVAL FORCE.

The question I ask again though is why are the democrats voting to reintroduce the draft? Something is fishy here.

[Cosmo_ac]

and yet they are still doing all the things i've stated Kurtch. For some reason you seem to be ignoring that. Keep in mind, Units like Navy and Airforce are almost useless in this type of conflit. It's not like WW2 where your trying to level a whole city. What the US needs is ground force soldiers. As far as why the democrat created the bill, it's hard to say. It could be a way to scare voters away from bush, but i doubt it. If the right wing media saw it and thought Kerry was behind it, And you know everybody would be looking closely on a draft bill and who started it, you can bet it would have been blasting that very loud. However, i don't think they did. I think, perhaps this senator did the bill as just something he believed in. The bill has already been voted on, and only two senators supported it. One of them said that they supported the bill because so many active soldiers were being put under a great deal of stress, and i assume they felt that a Draft would lighten the load.

[kurchatovium]

I think, perhaps this senator did the bill as just something he believed in. The bill has already been voted on, and only two senators supported it. One of them said that they supported the bill because so many active soldiers were being put under a great deal of stress, and i assume they felt that a Draft would lighten the load.

One of the bill's supporters was Charlie Rangel who is very liberal. He gave the reason, I believe, that he wanted to see more minority representation in the military. Which is odd cause usually the complaint is the opposite that the military is unfairly made up of too many minorities. As for lighting the load I do not buy it like I said there is more than enough capacity in the US military to handle this conflict.

As far going over all your points I will try to get to them. As I also said I do not trust anything from the LA Times.

So, presuming that they don't go and buy one from Pakistan, and that they keep developing their nuke facilities (and they'd be stupid not to considering it's now proven to be the only thing to stop an invasion), it's likely that Bush is going to go after Iran next from all those fabulous new bases in Iraq. Only... who's going to be using them? Moving forces out of Iraq would be a disaster if the country isn't pacified as a ground force could find itself trapped between two hostile forces . And Iran is a LOT bigger than Iraq and likely to be about as recpetive to the Stars and Stripes being marched into the country as Iraq is... well, look at the recent standoff in Najaf for an example.

One point here the major military force in the middle east was Iraq I believe. Iran's military pales in comparison to what Saddam had. Iran is much less of a threat and is much more easily handled. We are also strageically poised to take them on in the rare event we need too. However I feel with North Korea, Iran there are many diplomatic options to take so that no military action would be necessary.

Right now the US has not one but TWO active wars to fight (Afghanistan and Iraq) and these are taking up nine of the ten active duty regiments of the American Army (that's either deployed in, just returned from or about to be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan). Hundreds of enlistees are killed or wounded every month. Tours are being extended and enlistments prolonged. Troops are being transferred to Iraq from strategically important US bases in South Korea. The 138,000 US soldiers officially stationed in Iraq have been quietly supplemented with at least 10,000 private military contractors / mercenaries. Even so, as recent events in Falluja and Najaf make clear, all these bodies are not nearly enough to sustain the occupation.

Afgahnistan is all but wrapped up so it is no longer on the table as far as I am concerned. I disagree as well I think there are more than enouh people to turn the tide in Iraq. The death tolls are tragic but are slowly turning in our favor. The Iraqi's deserve a democracy after all they have suffering they have gone through with Saddam. We can not let them down.


Things in Iraq are getting worse, that much is obvious to anyone who cares to look and it's becoming increasingly obvious that there is little chance of the January elections delivering a situation which allows the US to simply withdraw the bulk of its forces. Worse, the US can't simply abandon Iraq, not after making such a big deal of bringing 'democracy' to the region, without leaving behind a civil war and another theocracy. Right now it's likely the number of troops required to properly contain Iraq is going to rise, not fall, and possibly to as many as 500,000 (based on pre-war Pentagon estimates). Other bases account for 176,000 troops in either the "war on terror" or peacekeeping operations.

I disagree strongly. Things are getting better. I have talked to people who have been there. They tell me not to beleive the media hype. I would also suggest that these numbers are highly skewed. No way are 500,000 thousand troops ever going to be needed ever to maintain the peace in this region. In a short time I feel the numbers shall begin to decrease as the Iraqi's get trained to handle their own security. As I said I am very suspicious of these numbers, but I can not quote at this time actual numbers for who is there and who is not. Or what our actually military size is at present.

"The closest parallel to the Iraq situation is the British in Northern Ireland, where you also had some people supporting the occupying army and some opposing them, and where the opponents were willing to resort to terror tactics," says Charles Peña, director of defense studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "There the British needed a ratio of 10 soldiers per 1,000 population to restore order, and at their height, it was 20 soldiers per 1,000 population. If you transfer that to Iraq, it would mean you'd need at least 240,000 troops and maybe as many as 480,000.

Again I disagree strongly. I don't know who Mr. Pena is or the Cato institute and I don't think I trust this source anymore than I trust the Los Angeles times. I am not certain I believe the analogy anyway. The vast majority of Iraqis desire a new goverment to replace Saddam's sadistic regime. Not certain what the situation was in Northern Ireland.

Well I am tired now and I am gonna go beddie bye. I think we may just have to agree to disagree on the numbers here cos. But nice chatting with you. :D :D :wub:

[Cosmo_ac]

One point here the major military force in the middle east was Iraq I believe. Iran's military pales in comparison to what Saddam had. Iran is much less of a threat and is much more easily handled. We are also strageically poised to take them on in the rare event we need too. However I feel with North Korea, Iran there are many diplomatic options to take so that no military action would be necessary.

I'm just going to tackle this point for a moment. Iraq was never the Major military force in the middle east. I believe that title goes to Egypt, though i could be wrong. Back in the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq was having it's ass handed to them. Then, in steps the US which supplied Iraq with weapons, and more importantly, Chemical weapons, which were key to winning that war. It wasn't that Iraq had a large army, or even a well supplied army, it was the fact they had chemical weapons which made them a force to worry about. Then, they overstepped there limits with the US, and enter the gulf war. Once the gulf war was over, about 10 years of sanctions were imposed, and add in the US making air strikes on military targets from time to time, and Iraq's force became undersupplied and lacking quality weapons. However, it was still believed they had chemical weapons, so nobody wanted to fuck with them.

As it turns out though, they had no weapons anymore. Basically, they were bluffing. So, there biggest weapons were gone. If you look at the weapons the insurgents are using, you can see just how underfunded the army was. Most of there weapons are said to be old and rusted and in some cases, home made.

Then, we take a look at Iran, which i don't believe has had to deal with anything in the way of sanctions like Iraq, and has Medium range missles that could strike anywhere in Iraq and israel. Add into the fact that Iran is a much larger country then Iraq, and is considered a holy land by many, and you have a fuck of a time on your hands. NOw, i don't doubt the US could level Iran, but the death toll would be incredible, and you can bet that Terrorist support world wide, and hatred of the US would increase considerably. The US would have little option but to go into Iran like they did Iraq, unless they wanted more world wide hostility, and if they did that, the insurgent level in Iraq would seem like childs play compared to Iran insurgent levels.