yeah, i'd say our defense is satisfactory.

That link to the SSS administration goes to an annual report detailing the effectiveness of the program and its readiness as a whole. It says nothing of a preparation to enact a draft ...

If you don't mind my asking, are you male or female?

As to the questions brought up about misrepresenting facts to get men to sign the dotted line, yes, it does happen. And it happens to a fair number of enlistees...

male

::in comic book guy voice:: shortest post ever

The present military is different than that of years ago. Im not commenting its better; there is just more applicants. This element does go in cycles as well. When more military commericals are seen an expansion push seems to be needed. This is a double edged sword though. With a larger military; making higher ranks becomes more competitive than it already was. This is especially true for higher ranks. This may result in a higher quality of military officer and NCO staffing, but it can effect overall morale. THe bottom line is IMO; if you see a draft happen (Im meaning people who no intention of signing up) it will result in a situation that the shit has definately hit the fan on all levels--and probable national survival depends on it. Equally present is the recent need to have an adequate amount of presence in America for an attack here. Special operations in all branches is also being expanded.

There were times when I was in I hated what the situation was. There were times I was scared out of my mind. It would ahve been easy to blame it on the guy who recruited me. The reality was, is and always will be it truly doesnt matter what the recruiter says; everything your guaranteed, entitled to; have the potential of getting or going is spelled out in in clear easily understandable print.

Ive heard that it maybe a 17 year olds first contract; very true. A person must have a certain score on a militry entrance exam called an ASVAB to get in. One of the sections tested is reading. If a person has made it far enough to even be accepted for entering a legal agreement with the military; they have basic reading abilities.

If a person doesnt read every inch of what they are about to sign and then is going to complain about it . . .--no comment

If a person signs their contract and the government falls short---hey. . .take em to court and more power to them; theres no reason why they shoudnt win or even deserve to.

Id be interested to know if anyone has or knows someone who has taken the government to court for a lawsuit over the military not fufilling their part of the enlistment process.

Its really simple-- if a person doesnt desire the even remote possibility of being in harsh conditions with their life in their peers hands and their peers in theirs; they should not under any circumstance even consider signing up with the military-- period. Student loans and similiar benefits are an OK side benefit. but there is other ways of obtaining such aid.

Its just my opinion that more credit should be given to a person that finally has the legal status and proven themself academically that they should have the level of intelligence to empower their own descisons and deal with the direction it takes them with given level of accountablilty. Once in if they want to ride "this isnt what I signed up for" there IS ways out for such individuals, but it will not be an honorable (legal discharge status) departure. DO you really think it should be?


**Sorry for grammatical and spelling errors--Im tired but had to post this tonight before crashing. . . .

I think the assumption that most are 18 to 20 years old is mistaken. While this may be true of the infantry, it's almost certainly not true of the reservists and national guard troops in Iraq. They are typically either former military or already established in their careers, not right out of high school.

Even if your statement was entirely true, at 18 you have a pretty good idea about what the military is about. And you certainly do not go into an MOS like infantry without a real good understanding of what it means.

hmm what can i say, im Costa Rican- Canadian, so at the first wiff of draft in canada my parents smell and my brothers and I pretty much get shoved on a one way flight back to the tropics.

as to the situation in the states, this is how i see it.

Reservist are getting shafted pretty much in every fasion.

And i must also say i feel very sorry for all those 18 year olds who were pretty much forced into signing up into the armr because the goverment failed them in providing them a stable economy and actual chance at a higher education that lead to *real* jobs.

I mean from my perspective if you are 18, white, and live in some small rural area in the US , your are pretty much left with no alternative but to sign up with the army, not because this was your dream when you were five, but because you have a belly to fill.

take a look a Jess Lynch and many others like her.

disregard me if i made no sense, im falling asleep as i type this.

Im not attempting to approach you from a frictional angle; Im just curious as to what data has led you to these conclusions?

And how do you feel reservists are getting the shaft?

hmm from what i know reserves are to be used when they definatly needed.

reasons for war(and needing reserves):
saddam got big bombs and passing them out like candy to terrorist.

but as we knew all along that was bull.
reserve got called up, getting killed for crap, there never was an immediate WMD threat.

that is how i see them getting the shaft.

draft away

I think it has been fairly clearly demonstrated by the past couple decades that a military based on enlistment rather then drafting makes for a better military, at least for the united states. ask any military officer if they'd like to lead drafted soldiers into battle. The training and motivation are always better with career military troops rather then with draftees.

Anyway, I dont think there will be a new draft in the united states unless there is a major attack on the united states (by major attack, i mean a coordinated military operation by another country's military, ala Pearl Harbor, not ala september 11)

Allow me to relate a story to you:

Many years ago I was attending scout school at Ft. Knox, KY (OSUT for 19D, arguably as hard if not harder than the 13 series OSUT).

A friend of mine, who washed out due to poor eyesight, was asked by his recruiter if he "liked to go camping". When he replied yes he was enlisted as a Cav Scout. He was 22. Recruiters are about as trust worthy as car salesmen.

That being said, they do a very important job, and without them I would be up Shit Creek....

i'm canadian and if the US was going to give citizenship for joining the American Army(like they did for Canadians during Vietnam) i'd say sign me up, because even though i don't agree with thier foriegn policy the US does provide thier troops with the best equiptment possible to do the job.

While this is true with the grunts, its just the opposite for the medical people. The military pay for docs is pretty bad and they recruit on the premise that you can be lazy (I kid you not) and not worry about getting sued. As such you either have young doctors just out of school paying for scholarships with their time, and a lot of guys who couldn't cut it in private practice. Now I'm sure there are some great docs in the military, but on average I'd stay away. At one recruitment event I asked the recruiter if I'd be working on base personnel’s children if I signed up. He said unless I was stationed overseas I most likely wouldn't be since in the states they get private insurance and take them off base.

What did his contract say and did he bother to read it. He was 22 right?

Wow, you sure have a lot of degrees!

Anyway, in terms of the medical care, I don't know anyone who went "off base." My family always went to military hospitals because it was 100% coverage.

The doctors were top-notch and had excellent equipment. Given that we invest a huge amount of money into training and maintaining our troops, it shouldn't be surprising that we would want to keep them healthy!

I don't even know what you mean by "private practice" since the days of people seeing patients in their homes ended like 50 years ago. AFAIK, med students are groomed for their future as soon as they start their training. In our university, for example, the students are trained in the hospitals and pretty much know where they are going to go after graduation. I suspect that military medical staff enlist before they embark on their training, not after they "discover" they can't make it in "private practice."

"Private Practice" doesn't mean practicing medicine out of your home, it just means practicing medicine through a non-academic organization, like doctors running their own businesses.

They don't enlist, but they do commit themselves to a certain period of service in exchange for scholarship money. They can opt out of service if they can come up with the cash to pay back the scholarships plus interest. They attend the same medical schools as other med students and the education is the same until residency, when they complete residencies in the military system as opposed to academic hospitals.

This is my understanding of how it works although I may be slightly off. I know that each of the services does things somewhat differently.

I was being facetious. The point I was making was that almost all of our doctors are trained and employed by public insitutions or wealthy, private corporations--they don't run their own businesses. That is, the closest we have to doctors in private practice are people who went through education systems like Harvard and work at Sharp's, Gottschalk's, or any other affluent private hospital. They don't go through years of medical school and languish in some private office on a street corner. the exeption to this might be in rural areas but, obviously, someone wouldn't be unable to "make it" if they were the only doctor within a 50 mile radius.

I may have misused the term "enlist" but I was thinking of the process you described. We evidently agree that military doctors enter medical school with the intent of working for the military long before they fail to succeed in private practice. I suspect that the allure of education funds, guaranteed job placement after graduation, and excellent benefits account for their decisions moreso than them being a bunch of lazy, incompetent doctors who couldn't make it in the "real world" as Ustwo suggested.

And your friend never once in his 22 years saw a movie, read a book, or watched a documentary that showed what the infantry did? Further, he never bothered to talk with or research the MOS he signed up for beyond just what the recruiter told him? I don't think so.

Recruiters can be bastards. I got screwed over by a recruiter when I got mono right before completing the second phase of OCS for the Marine Corps. He assured me that I would go to the later class the summer before my last semester in college. He lied and it put my status back a full year and added 4 weeks onto the training I would have had to do. I ended up choosing not to go through with OCS because I didn't want to wait another year. I could point to him as the reason I didn't start a military career, or I can be more realistic about it and say, yes he lied but I didn't go the extra mile and make sure I got it in writing that I'd be in the next class. It's as much or more my fault than it is the recruiter's fault. I know you already know this but it's worth saying, a recruiter isn't your mother, he/she isn't your friend. A recruiter's job is to get people into the service. Some do it while being completely above board while others are selective in the truths they share.

At 22 both your friend and I were old enough to know not to believe everything you hear and to be damned sure about any document that you sign.

His contract said:

1. 19D10
2. 13F10
3. 11B10


Pretty clear, huh?

You are failing to see the bigger picture. Recruiters are E-5 (at a minimum), have years of experience, and are experts at their jobs. Recruits are not. They do not have the knowlege, or the access to the information that recruiters have.

It is very similar to sitting down at a table with a lawyer who does not represent your interests and trying to work out a contract.

I am not saying that all recruiters are dirtbags, quite the opposite, but many recruits have been shammed into jobs they are not prepared for by a recruiter looking to make his monthly goal.

Now, that being said, once you raise your hand and swear in you are obligated by you oath of enlistment to fullfill whatever duty you may have been duped into. Such is life.

I spend 6 years as a regular! Where will the money come from to finance the draft? At the rate of closing bases, where will they train? One advantage though would be we could have people on home ground to enforce a tighter border. But then I think there are probably enough people here who would volunteer for that job.

1. No, this will cause many more problems that it will solve. First, you will have thousands of people who have no desire to be there in the first place causing major morale issues and affecting the effectiveness of the individual "solider."

2. No, because they signed up for it. Isn't there a provision somewhere that states that extended duty may be required in dire needs? Well, as fucked up as Bush is and as fucked up the reasons for starting war #1 and soon to be war #2 are they current servicemen should serve. They signed up for it.

3. If that fucker actually starts a war with Iran and ESPICALLY if it's over the same reasons and with the same "evidence" that he gathered in Iraq, then yes, there will be a draft. Once again proving dumbya a liar. I personally, will be either in a jail cell in the middle of the riot demonstration.

Anyone care to join me?

It seems to me that the people supporting the draft the most are on the left, and they are doing so in order to drum up support against Bush.

Does anyone else see this?

It will certainly increase immigration to Canada. Maybe help to reverse the brain drain...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I want some of what he's smoking!

Um.... No.

Most people on the Left are pretty much against the war I'd think. I'm definetly on the left and why would I support the draft to drum up support againt lord bush? There's enough of resintment towards him to go around already.

janey, I've also heard that Canada will send the draft dodgers back this time. The US gov't's thought ahead this time and very quietly established an agreemetn with Canada to send the dodgers back home. It's a very messed up situation.

I say fuck Canada. Go to Mexico. They don't care and they have cuter women.

1. No, I think we'll see extreme civil unrest if the draft comes back.

2. Yes. 15 months of duty overseasis a little excessive for a reservist if you ask me, let alone a full-time soldier.

3. Yes. There's no way we can do Iran/Syria without a draft or using foreign troops.

I said that they seem to support the draft in order to drum up support against Bush and by extension, the war.

I believe Host has said as much and I know that Democratic senators have brough the issue up for just such purposes.

That's how it seems to me.

From the Democrats in Congress creating the bills to reinstate the draft, to the Democrats bringing up the issue throught the election, it seems that many believe that by getting a draft through they can get support against Bush, even when he isn't the one pushing for it.

I don't think it's the majority of the Democratic party, just like it isn't the majority in most cases of charges brought against groups by the public. However, just enough to be annoying :)

Nope, I think it's just you.

Actually, the people on right are the ones supporting the draft...

Stompy -

"the people on the right" do not support a draft. Name one person, just one, to support that allegation.

Lebell, however, makes a very good point.

Who has been bringing up the idea of a draft as a scare tactic?

Who keeps claiming a draft is imminent, even after two years of making the same claims?

Who tried to pass a bill about the draft?


The answer to the above questions is the same.

Show me otherwise.

There is real evidence to support Lebell's assertion.

Where is yours?

Among Americans in general, there is little support for the draft, and that support is about equally expressed in Dems, Repubs, and Independents. There have been several polls in the last year showing this.

The Rangel bill was of course a ploy; Rangel himself did not vote for it. Its purpose was simply to attempt to assert a dramatic point: namely that if there had been a draft there never would have been an Iraq war.

The primary voices in favor of a draft traditionally are military hawks, who are primarily conservative. However, it's difficult finding anybody these days who publicly advocates the draft, regardless of their private opinion on the matter. It's just not good politics.

There are people on the right within this very forum who support mandatory military service. And I'm sure I could do a Lexis search and find several Republicans who have advocated a draft. But what would be the purpose of naming them?

During a time of war such as this, discussion of the draft is always worthwhile.

Canada won't end up sending draft dogers back. They said they didn't support it last time either. No way we would stop a brain drain from the US

I think the draft will create far more problems than it will solve. The only problem it can really solve is a potential shortage of military personnel.

The problems it can (and most likely will) create are:

• The obvious violation of rights.
• Filling the military with people who are pissed off about being forced to serve. Imagine what that will do to morale.
• The time and money that would have to be spent tracking down and dealing with the inevitable problem of draft-dodging.

It's fair as long as the reservists and guardsmen are made aware of the possibility of long-term deployments before signing up.

Yes, but the politicians who vote for it will probably give it a more politically correct name than "the draft" and it will likely allow/require some of the slaves to serve in a non-military/humanitarian capacity.

Well, you know, they could leave their rural home towns for places with more economic opportunities. If you're willing to get sent off to foreign lands for a paycheck, what's the big deal about moving to Arizona or something?

Why institute a draft? Why not just raise military salaries $10K across the board? If you pay people a decent wage to join the military, they will.

If there were 100 people employed by the US military, that would raise the budget by 1 million dollars. 1000 would mean ten million. 10,000 would be 100 million. 100,000 would be a billion dollar increase. Does anyone actually know how many people collect "military salaries" so that I can see just how unrealistic this suggestion is?

As for the whole debate as to who is bringing up the draft: The people on the right think the left is doing it. The people on the right think the left is doing it. Maybe no one is doing it. Maybe no one is actually bringing it up. That would be nice, because it means we could stop bickering about who is bringing it up and why.

considering that we spend 400 BILLION a year on the military, and that starting pay is, IIRC, already in the 13,700 range for a new E-1, yeah, it'd increase manpower costs, but certainly less than implementing a draft would.