More draft rumors
 

Well all you bush-heads out there, i hope your over 35 cuz 25 ain't gonna save yeah....cuz its comin:

Hey man don't blame me i voted for the other white guy!!!

Saturday, October 30, 2004

Potomac Watch: Administration's own actions fuel rumors of draft

By ERIC ROSENBERG
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld indignantly scoffs and scolds about the relentless rumors that the Bush administration is planning to reinstate the military draft.

"This plot is so secret that it doesn't exist," Rumsfeld wrote this week in the Deseret News of Salt Lake City. "To my knowledge, in the time I have served as secretary of defense, the idea of reinstating the draft has never been debated, endorsed, discussed, theorized, pondered or even whispered by anyone in the Bush administration."

In a radio interview earlier this month, Rumsfeld denounced the rumors as "a mischievous political effort that's being made to frighten young men and women."

This may come as a shock to the Pentagon chief, but most of the rumors have arisen from actions within the Bush administration, which has studied how to expand draft registration to include women, target some civilian work specialties for special attention by the draft and extend the required draft registration age from 25 years old to 34 years.

These draft plans were discussed at the Pentagon on Feb. 11, 2003, by the chief of the Selective Service System, the federal agency that would operate a draft, and senior Pentagon officials.

At the Pentagon meeting, the Selective Service System's then-acting director, Lewis Brodsky, and the director of public and congressional affairs, Richard Flahavan, met with Rumsfeld aides responsible for personnel issues.

Those aides included Charles Abell, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness; William Carr, deputy undersecretary of defense for military personnel policy; and a top Army personnel aide, Col. David Kopanski.

According to a copy of the meeting agenda, the Selective Service System leaders reviewed the past 30 years of draft registration planning and then made their pitch for more aggressive draft preparations.

"In line with today's needs, the Selective Service System's structure, programs and activities should be re-engineered toward maintaining a national inventory of American men and, for the first time, women, ages 18 through 34, with an added focus on identifying individuals with critical skills," the agency said in its February 2003 proposal.

The agency officials recommended formation of a government-wide task force "to examine the feasibility of this proposal" and design efforts "to market the concept" to congressional lawmakers.

The Arlington, Va.-based Selective Service System, which is independent from the Defense Department, envisioned the creation of a massive database that would require all registrants to indicate whether they have skills "critical to national security or community health and safety."

The database could then be used to fill key posts throughout the armed forces and federal, state and local government agencies in time of crisis.

Some of the skill areas where the armed forces are facing "critical shortages" include linguists and computer specialists, the agency said. As part of the expanded draft registration process, Americans would be required to regularly update the agency on their skills until they reach age 35.

The six-page proposal was initially made public after Hearst Newspapers filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

At present, the agency is authorized to register young men, ages 18 through 25, who are not required to regularly inform the government about their professional skills.

Separately, the agency also has in place a special registration system to draft health care personnel in more than 60 specialties into the military if necessary in a crisis.

Flahavan said Pentagon officials have not agreed to any aspect of the Selective Service's far-reaching proposal.

"We went over there, we briefed it. Nobody committed to anything," he said in an interview. "Those ideas are, in fact, dead. Nobody wants to talk about them. Nobody is interested in them" in the Pentagon.

Army Lt. Col. Joe Richard, a spokesman for Rumsfeld, did not respond for comment.

Rumors about the draft also have been fueled by the update of contingency plans for a draft of medical personnel in a crisis.

The New York Times reported this month that the Selective Service System had hired a public relations agency, Widmeyer Communications, to assess how to plan for such a medical draft. The agency advised that "overtures from Selective Service to the medical community will be seen as precursors to a draft" that could alarm the public, the newspaper reported.

The military draft ended in 1973 as the American commitment in Vietnam waned, beginning the era of the all-volunteer force. Mandatory registration for the draft was suspended in 1975 but was resumed in 1980 by President Carter after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

About 13.5 million men, ages 18 to 25, currently are registered with the Selective Service.

The issue of a renewed draft has gained attention because of concerns that U.S. military forces are stretched thin due to worldwide commitments.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist strikes, U.S. forces have fought two wars, have established a major military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq and have undertaken peacekeeping duties in Haiti.
Potomac Watch is a weekly look at issues and personalities in Washington, D.C.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...438_pot30.html

what about felons?

do they just stick my ass up on the front line without a firearm and hide behind me?

at first I contemplated I wouldn't be eligible, then I realized I'd probably be the perfect shield from some conservatives' perspective.

fuck.

There will be no draft.

It has to pass through a Congress where whomever votes in favor will be very quickly removed from office in the next election, and the party that supports it will be out of the Presidential races for a decade.

There will be no draft.

:lol: You post a very good pile of nonsense! You mean to tell me that a draft won't pass through a congress that is in total agreement with Bush and the position he has on the war and why he started it?

"the party that supports it will be out of the Presidential races for a decade."

Wow, it really is good that Kerry lost. Republicans out of presidental elections for a decade?? Oh, happy day!!

With troops dying, other countries leaving, no one back here willing to sign up for Bush's gurrela war, how do you think they will increase the troop levels? Espically if this new push in Falluja backfires and a lot of our guys get killed?

We'll see. Accoring to 51% of Americans, they approve of the war, they approve of the lie Bush told in order to go to war and they should be the first to send their kids. When this comes down, and this will be added to the list of Bush's lies, all of you will see the real "morailty" of the guy you voted for.

A proven liar with "morals" gets reelected on that very issue. I can't believe what this country has come to.

Fuck you Bush, I'm not going.

I was going to point out that they already have sent their kids over there.

And then it hit me: a topic that hasn't been discussed is that a referendum of the president equates to a referendum on oneself at that point.

at the point one becomes emotionally and ideologically invested in the course of action, would we be surprised to find that such a person would be unwilling or unable to admit to oneself that the cause was not just, not a right course, not to be followed through? especially if one's progeny had been killed during that course of action?


hopefully roachboy will tune in to this and offer up an opinion.

Then answer me this: why on earth has the Pentagon now decided, after all these years, to once again staff these unneeded draft boards?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...077906,00.html

the day President Bush or any member of his cabinet publicly endorses a draft is the day my avatar changes to a pic of Ted Kennedy with the caption "i was wrong, the liberals were right."

i'll do it for a full month, i give you my word.

I'd rather have you promise to vote Democrat next time.

hey irate, what do you think of what kerry claimed was a 'backdoor draft?"

the notion that preventing people from leaving when their time is up amounts to a draft on the tail end of one's service?

does that bother you or do you see it differently?

and if you wouldn't mind explaining why not if you do see it differently.

thank you.

not w/out a counterbet my friend. :D

OK.

If a Democrat member of Bush's cabinet publicly endorses the draft, I will give you my first born daughter.

;)

i think it sounds like something the navy would come up with. :lol:

the rest of the draft discussion sounds downright hysterical to me but i do fear that a backdoor type of draft is something to be concerned about. the idea does bother me... but i do see it differently from a conventional draft.

i'm against a conventional draft (except in cases where the death of the nation and massive civilian causualties are plainly the cost of defeat) for many reasons... chiefly because when my life is on the line i don't want someone who didn't volunteer to be watching my back.

a backdoor draft is an entirely different animal. usually this means that the military would enforce a policy called "stop loss". stop loss should be lawful under emergency circumstances only until the military is given ample time to recruit and train replacements for those who choose to end their service after their obligation is filled. it becomes abusive when stop loss is a matter of policy and not a temporary solution.

my biggest problem with Bush defense policy is this very issue. i feel they are bordering on exploiting the discipline and loyalty of some of our troops by extending the stop loss rules unfairly. if congress will not pony up the money to train enough volunteering troops to win the war or if keeping soldiers years beyond their voluntary commitment is the only way of maintaining sufficient manpower... then i think that a serious re-evaluation of the method and purpose of the war is needed.

morale is high right now. the troops feel confident in the President and in their purpose. however, if that willingness to sacrifice is squandered by politicians who get too greedy to listen to the average soldier... then the line from need to exploitation has been crossed.

I am laughing my ass of right now. You are a damn fool if you think the draft is coming back. Just another so called scare tactic that only characterizes right wingers but the democrats are using. I would put every cent of my belongings and bet you there will not be a draft under this adminstration. And if there was i would go and serve becasue i have seen the world and you and i are blessed to live in this country and it is worth fighting for.

If there were a draft, I would not go. This war is not worth risking my life for. That said, I will join D Rice in his bet. There will not be a draft.

I'm 42. :D

One of the things that concerns me about extended tours is in regard to the financial security of the troops' families.

I only know 20-25 year old guardsmen (and some women). They weren't particularly miffed about going off to war, but some were understandably conerned about just war in general. Now that I think about it, some people were going off to egypt and jordan and places like that a few years back. I don't know what that has to do with anything.

but anyway, I am hearing stories in the media about fathers in the guard and I used to know middle aged guardsmen who had their own businesses. my concern becomes one of how their families are doing without their regular income. I don't know what their pay might be, so I can't speak to it with authority, but my understanding is that their domestic situation is not being paid attention to and/or not doing very well.

so while I can understand your line of logic, I'm not sure we're getting the full picture or ramification of what's going on in this regard. I'd like to know more but the media is acting toothless on this. all we see are young boys over there, for one thing. and that's not my understanding of the full composition of the guard. I also understood it to be supplemental income for people more our age--people who might be starting or have families and are in some type of regular career.

So, to everyone who states so confidently that there won't be a draft... it seems to me that this current war climate has a very good chance of escalating in ways not intended by the Bush administration. Right now, with only Iraq and Afghanistan in the picture, there is probably no need for a draft, however, throw Iran, N. Korea, Syria, and others in the equation... then what? Won't we be a bit militarily streached thin if our troops find themselves marching in Tehran, facing a REAL army?

Um I don't quite get this. My friend who works in Kitty Hawk just told me that he's going to be 'kicked out' of navy in the next six months because they needed to get rid of 60k persons. He's one of those guys.

So they need more men but they're at the same time short of men?

Will he be in a position for them to get him back after he is dismissed? I like news like this, it makes me think that a draft might not be necessary. I'm just worried that something unpredictable has a good chance of happening in regard to other countries actions against us.

yeah, this is true. the Air Force is required to reduce down about 40K in the same way. congress places a legal limit on how many people can serve in each branch of the military. there is also something like a 3% buffer the services are given if they end up going over a bit. sometimes, the military (for practical, economic, or political reasons) cannot accurately predict the ebb and flow of people from their jobs.

the thing is... no matter our force size or structure, the mission goes on. the navy is REQUIRED to trim the 60k guys in whatever way hurts them the least but their duties are still expanding with a two front war and no guarantee of peace in sight. this is were the backdoor draft that smooth was talking about comes in. they must do more w/less... so stop loss restrictions are put in place and the servicemen that remain must shoulder additional burdens.

one more thing... when you hear that the military is short of men, it's often referring to specific career specialties. they are short of meteorologists, engineers, computer specialists etc. but not short of actual volunteer numbers. recruiting quotas have been met easily for the enlisted force and i know they're still raising standards for officer candidates to sift through the abundance of applicants.

I honestly don't know what "being in position for them to get him back" means... I know he's been in Navy Intelligence for over 4 years now so I don't think they're going to take him back after dismissal, if that's what you mean.

Anyways, armies seem to always have lack of speciality guys. I served my time (mandatory in Finland) as a weatherman and there wasn't too many guys trying to be one (well, they actually didn't advertise the good sides of being a weatherman in the army).

Anyways, there's only so much time you can invest into teaching the infantry which side of the tree a left-handed guy should shoot ;)

Good thing I never registered :D

why are you people so against serving your country? if you wouldnt die for your country LEAVE

Fighting a war that has nothing to do with the safety of your country and one that you don't believe in does not constitute “serving” your country; it constitutes being a coward for fighting for something you don't believe in.

For me personally, I don't believe in war at all, therefore I would not fight no matter what the purpose behind it is. If it comes down to life and death, I am off to another country, if the apocalypse is at hand and the only way to survive is to fight, than I will fight for myself and the ones I love, not any one country.

Even if it were true, I wouldn't go. They won't take me from my son. End of story. I'd rather be in jail and see my son once in a while than be overseas and possibly not ever see him again.

If you weren't quite so hysterical, you might have noticed that the Military Draft Bill, H.R. 163, introduced by DEMOCRAT Charlie Rangel, was voted on and defeated, 402-2.

Fritz Hollings, another DEMOCRAT, couldn't even get a co-sponsor for the corresponding Senate version.

Stay in school

Stay in school. stay as long as you can. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!

Thank you for posting this before I had to look up their names.

There is no draft, there WILL BE NO DRAFT. Short of N. Korea invading Souel (sp?), or China invading Taiwan there will be no such draft.

It was (yes look it up if you want) a DEMOCRAT who put it up during the elections for political purposes, the Republicans finally forced a vote on it to put down the stupid ass rumors (read: this and the dozens of other posts).

The question of a potential draft is a valid question. This is always true during a large-scale war. The answer to the question is ultimately unknowable at this time. We can deduce probabilities based on information such as the number of active troops, the number of reserves, where troops are located, what requirements there are for those locations and the probabilities for escalation in troop levels based on potential circumstances (additional simultaneous wars, escalation in activity of existing conflicts), etc.

I personally have not looked into any of that information as it pertains to a draft because I will not be drafted and whether any of my friends or family are drafted would have had no bearing on my vote.

For many people, those two facts are not applicable and the concern of a draft is real.

But the answer to the question of whether there will be a draft is assuredly not going to be found in any politician claiming that they will not have a draft, nor in the artificial purposes of the Democrats bring draft bills to the House, nor in the artificial purposes of the Republicans bring it to vote in order to vote it down.

A seperate, and valid, question is the one posed by smooth - is the "back door draft" essentially equivalent to a draft that causes concern.

This is unbelievable i do not understand why so many jack assess talk about a draft.. this is the 2nd time i have personally seen a conversation ( the first time was a real "old" couple talking to their grandson at a restaurant in OH) they interrupted my breakfast so when i was done eating i said to them what im gonna say here minus all profane language ( i try to respect the family setting) . Why would you even contemplate the draft. Let me think less than 1500 casualties have happened in Iraq.. We still have some military left .. if for some fucked up reason we did get attacked or need to attack some place i have no doubt the volunteers would be lining up down the streets to protect and serve our country i would be in front of the line in my area even tho i am married and have 2 kids.. The only people who would be scared of a draft really are basically pussies.. There have been so many wars and killing world wide what is utterly amazing the US hasn’t been dragged into it sooner. the people that say o but why should we care about what happens else where big fucking yellow bus we are everywhere there is no country that the us isnt a part of someway including north Korea even if its only 1 ameriCAN that gets gunned down killed or hostage whatever its an attack on America if we need to defend ourselves do it.. Don’t be scared oh i may have to kill someone i say fuck that its time to dole out the justice. but oh i might get killed i say fuck that too kill or be killed if your not ready to die its time get right with GOD if you don’t believe in GOD than who cares if you die.... your gonna sooner or later why not do what all the people who died defending this country did in the past do it do it proud just git - r dun sooner or later someone else is gonna want to rattle our cage and when the time comes they got an ass whoopin coming there are plenty of citizens out there who understand and believe in this country all the people say this is w's way of finishing his dads war what a crock of shit Iraq had it coming Afghanistan had it coming north Korea dam right its got it coming Iran yeah they do too why should this great country "talk" we’ve been talking for 200 years and it still has gotten us in a war about every 35 years..... War happens its time America realized that... oh wait........... Most of us have (bush won by popular vote also)

While I have not researched when it came into being, the regulation that an active duty member could be retained in the service during wartime has been around for a very long time.

I can't believe that any service member has ever been unaware of it.

Furthermore, I declined to join the reserves upon the end of my active duty time, because (a) there was no pay billet for me, and I certainly wasn't going to drill for free, and (b) I was not willing to risk the financial losses I would sustain if I were activated.

While I have sympathy for the hardships suffered by those who were activated, I don't have sympathy for the whiners who tried to duck out of their sworn obligation. I haven't heard any of them offering to give their pay back.

As a footnote, I can tell you that when I'm considering candidates for a job, I will bend over backwards to hire someone who's been in the military. They've always been the best employees.

#25
:::OshnSoul:::
The devil in me.........
:::OshnSoul:::'s Avatar

Donor
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Wherever I put myself last......

Even if it were true, I wouldn't go. They won't take me from my son. End of story. I'd rather be in jail and see my son once in a while than be overseas and possibly not ever see him again.
__________________
I'll keep fighting to live until there's no reason to fight, and I'll keep trying to see until the end is in sight, you know I'm trying to give so c'mon give me a try, you know I'm dying to live until I'm ready to die.



what i like is the total conradiction of your quote and your post....

Nah, I'm not goin anywhere.

I have a few different perspectives on this, but there's really only one that I currently follow:

I didn't vote for Bush, but 59 million people did. Any mistake he makes is his own. Conspiracy theories aside that his administration will bring on WW3 and the end of our freedoms as we know it, I feel that him being in office is dangerous. I believe in natural selection, so if people want to appoint a leader that could potentially get us into some deep shit, then I personally won't defend them. I'll gladly let nature run its course.

The death toll in Iraq is only 1500, and really, it's not that much. That doesn't bother me. It's the hypothetical situations - what if we started shit with Iran, what if we started shit with N. Korea, etc... that could have a runoff effect and blow up into something bigger than we anticipated.

I know these countries will eventually have to be dealt with because they're potential "hot zones", and understandably so, however, if this administration is stupid enough to get itself into something that it can't handle, then it deserves to fall.

I just don't feel that this country, at this point in time, is worth defending because I don't feel that it does its job in defending me. I'm not talking about the terrorist boogeymen, but personal freedoms and politicians who do their hardest to uphold the constitution.

Yeah, I can still go to work, school, and do pretty much whatever I feel like whenever I feel like it, but it goes deeper than that, and the reasons for that are probably best explained in a different thread, but I will give just one example (and it's very minor:

Politicians seem to be worried about the green, as in $$. Notice the amount of attention the MPAA/RIAA have received in the past few years, yet more important and pressing issues like spyware are allowed to run rampant and out of control (yes, it was just recently a bill was passed to help stamp out spyware). I don't think that should be defended. Or shit like the Patriot act... there's just too many hypocrites running things.

See, this country started off GREAT, but somewhere along the lines, people started taking advantage of the system we have and lost sight of the main goal. In fact, I feel we're close to doing a complete 180 and going in an opposite direction than intended.

There's more examples, a LOT more, but in all - I'm not too proud of this country right now. Anything this country gets itself into in the next 4 years, it needs to deal with on its own. I'm not saying 59 million people are STUPID, but if they feel this is the type of leader they want elected, then THEY can fix the mess until they learn to think more carefully about who to elect.

I'd rather sit in a jail knowing I stood up for what I believed in as opposed to being pushed around and forced to do something I don't want to do.

At the same time, I do realize that war is sometimes necessary to get desired results, but if its misused (ie Vietnam), then I don't think I should have to fix that mess.

If it was something like another Hitler that amassed this massive army and we didn't have enough manpower to fight it, then that's another story. I just don't fight trivial wars, that's all.

My not registering started off as laziness when I was 18, but as I got more into law and more aware about politics of this country, it was more of a direct refusal to comply with the law. Just because it's law doesn't make it right, and personally, I'm okay with breaking this law - it's what I believe in.

Not to mention, someone who's forced to fight is exponentially less efficient as someone who volunteered. It's moot anyway, there will never be a draft.

that sounds like the perfect compromise really... you have your belief and are sticking to it i have to and very loudly do aplaud that. thats really what america is all about.



[quote] Politicians seem to be worried about the green, as in $$. [quote/]


amerricans almost seem to aprove of this in some grotesque way. some would say they were suporting it by reelecting bush who is supposedly for the big bussiness therefore the big money.. i would say yes most politicans look at there job as a a damn good way of making money wether it be the local police chief who happens to have a private "fund" or the vice presdent who happens to make money off a large priavte compnay subbed out to the pentagon which he was a part of long before vice presidency. but still politicsis just an verry provocative enterprise.



isnt that what modern day america is about using the system

woman succesfully sues mcdonalds spilt cofee in lap

there are way to many of theese stories too list

i still say if your called to duty cowboy up... its time....

It seems my complete unemployability may save my ass yet. I'm more than confidant that I have no "critical skills" that the military would be interested in. Sucks for you engineers and medical personnel though.

Unless we see autonomous Iraqi police and military forces spring up soon I'm fairly certain there will be a draft. The Stop-loss system for keeping troops in Iraq seems to be stressed to it's limit. There are troops that have spent five of the last six years in the field away from home in Bosnia, Afghanistan, then Iraq.

The day the much-maligned "missing explosives" story broke was the same day that 50 Iraqi police volunteers were stopped at a checkpoint, disarmed, proned flat to the ground, and summarily executed. I don't see the Iraqi's being able to police themselves any time soon.

We've recently sold 500 bunker-buster bombs to Israel, which it's not unfathomable they will use to attack Iran's nuclear energy and weapon facilities a la Iraq 1981 . I don't see Iran hesitating to invade Iraq if this occurs in which case I'm not sure even a draft will do much good. I don't think Iranians see much of a difference between Israel and the U.S. This is all worst-case-scenario of course.

The more important question here is of course could there be a draft? Does the military still have the capability to indoctrinate and train conscripts? I could see a lot of 18-20 year old boys being succeptable to military brain washing, much older than that I'm not so sure. One thing our culture drills into Americans at an early age is a (mostly imagined) need for individuality. Not a value prized by the military.

All this talk of a gender-neutral draft is interesting to me also. I know some fairly tough 18-25 year old women who could probably hold their own in a warzone. I also know quite a few young women who would be completely useless in battle, I don't care how much training they have. Hypothetically it's pretty hilarious to think about GWBush sending wave after wave of 18-year-old girls at the enemy, but I wouldn't put it beyond him.

Don't need a draft as long as BUSH keeps doing bullshit like this so he can say he isn't drafting anyone. Why or how this man got re-elected when he pulls shit like this is beyond me. Course he swears he loves the military then cuts retirees benefits, VA hospitals and people smile and love to eat his bullshit.

Aw ell, sure all you think this is just sour grapes, but how would you feel??????? Course it's easy to answer BS with BS when you don't have to worry about it, happening to you so you can say anything.

Not only served his time BUT his reserve time and then make up some faulty "we never truly discharged you". Can't wait till they come for us Navy guys and send me a letter like that.....
=========================================================
Veteran Sues After He Receives Duty Order

Sat Nov 6,10:00 PM ET U.S. National - AP

HONOLULU - A veteran of the first Persian Gulf War is suing the Army after it ordered him to report for duty 13 years after he was honorably discharged from active duty and eight years after he left the reserves.

Kauai resident David Miyasato received word of his reactivation in September, but says he believes he completed his eight-year obligation to the Army long ago.

"I was shocked," Miyasato said Friday. "I never expected to see something like that after being out of the service for 13 years."

His federal lawsuit, filed Friday in Honolulu, seeks a judgment declaring that he has fulfilled his military obligations.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Harry Yee said his office would defend the Army. He declined to comment further. An Army spokewoman at the Pentagon declined to comment to the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

Miyasato, 34, was scheduled to report to a military facility in South Carolina on Tuesday.

Within hours of filing the lawsuit, however, Miyasato received a faxed letter from the Army's Human Resources Command saying his "exemption from active duty had not been finalized at this time" and that he has been given an administrative delay for up to 30 days, said his attorney, Eric Seitz.

Miyasato, his wife, Estelle, and their 7-month-old daughter, Abigail, live in Lihue, where he opened an auto-tinting shop two years ago.

His lawsuit states that Miyasato is suing not because he opposes the war in Iraq but because his business and family would suffer "serious and irreparable harm" if he is required to serve.

Miyasato enlisted in the Army in 1987 and served in Iraq and Kuwait during the first Persian Gulf War as a petroleum supply specialist and truck driver.

Miyasato said he received an honorable discharge from active duty in 1991, then served in the reserves until 1996 to fulfill his eight-year enlistment commitment.

The Army announced last year that it would involuntarily activate an estimated 5,600 soldiers to serve in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Army officials would be tapping members of the Individual Ready Reserve — military members who have been discharged from the Army, Army Reserve or the Army National Guard, but still have contractual obligations to the military.

Miyasato said he never re-enlisted, signed up for any bonuses or was told that he had been transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve or any other Army Reserve unit.

"I fulfilled my contract," Miyasato said. "I just want to move on from this, and I'm optimistic that I'll be successful."

Miyasato speculated that he may have been picked because his skills as a truck driver and refueler are in demand in Iraq. He told reporters he did the same work as that done by a group of Army reservists who refused to deliver fuel along a dangerous route in Iraq last month.
=================================================

Link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...d=519&ncid=716

PS Loco: Iran has already stated that they would not hestitate to use nukes if we made any move they deemed hostile to them. Hope you are wrong.... pray to God you are wrong... because we have some truly dumbass people who have "we can do anything because we are the shit" attitudes and they see that threat as an invite to attack.

look at the up side: the drinking age will be 18 again!

I've heard though that alcohol is prohibited in our middle east bases and operations. Is this still true? Sounds like a clear recipe for mutiny to me.

Yeah because Muslim is a dry religion I think almost every Arab country over there is dry and treat alcohol possession as a serious crime.

I know for sure alcohol is illegal in Iran, not sure about other middle eastern countries.

Perhaps, the solution, is to deny them the nukes in the first place.

I have a friend who left Iran about 10 years ago.

To have a party with alcohol in Iran, the first thing you do is pay the police off. This way the police won't bother your party. As an added bonus you can get the alcohol from the police that they confiscated from others.

Apparently Muslims in Iran can be imprisoned or lashed if caught with alcohol, but Jews and Christians are allowed to drink as long as it is in private.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3697652.stm

War has never solved anything besides ending slavery, nazism, facistism, and islamic militants

it's impossible to dissect someone's reason why they wouldn't go to war because sincere pacifists and cowards both use the same excuses. no cowards admit they are one to others (and probably rarely to themselves), so they invariably think of some face-saving reason they'd never fight.

i don't know anyone on here well enough to make a judgement between a moral objectionist and a coward... so i won't.

There will be no draft. Wouldn't it be great if more worthless youth actually stepped up so we wouldn't need more troops?

Let me make sure I understand this. There is NO employer who's deemed you a suitable person to hire, and you consider that a great situation? And we're supposed to be impressed with your perspicacity?

Just tell me that you're not living off the tax dollars of people who actually work. Especially people who are proud that they work.


I can assure you that people can be brainwashed at a later age. I saw plenty of older college students who intended to vote for Kerry. Hook them up with a rock star, and they're lemmings.


So you believe that women in the military are all infantry, and that they never work in such jobs as supply, medical, communications, or as pilots?

If every woman in the military were suddenly gone right now, the services would be unable to function.

posted by UsTwo
Perhaps, the solution, is to deny them the nukes in the first place.
Hope you aren't suggesting more events like the misplaced attack on Iraq. We have failed to deny Nuclear bombs to many of the least stable countries in the world (Pakistan, N. Korea, Soviet Union, China) even when that was our position. What can you possibly suggest that will allow us to accomplish this?

Yes, yes I am.

They currently are not shouting 'death to America' in their ruling bodies.

Day one: They shout death to America with the possibility of nuclear weapons.

Day two:
http://w1.132.telia.com/~u13206896/images/f117.jpg

Day Three: They shout death to America without the possibility of nuclear weapons.

"Failed to deny" is inaccurate. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton GAVE nuclear material to North Korea, because they believed their promise to "use it only for generating power." How idiotic was that?

Don't forget that if it's ever winging its way toward us in a missile, that missile will be guided by our own technology, which Loral sold to the Chinese.

Documents verify that ".. the president [Clinton] was informed that Loral may have contributed technology to China's ballistic missile program before he decided to grant Loral a waiver on February 18th of this year [1998] to permit them to export yet another satellite to China."

Can you say, "big fat campaign contribution from Loral?"

First if you know your history Carter really didn't have much choice. China needed electricity and to be brought into the modern age. Plus, don't be so naive as to believe that without our help the Chinese would never have developed it on their own. What Carter did was provide SAFE plans to develop power plants. Otherwise China would have had disasters worse than 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl... but I'm sure to some of you who don't give a damn about the world and people you would say that was what China deserved.

Clinton helped China because China offered to turn over any illegal sales from the ex-USSR's "missing" arsenal. Again, in order to protect yourself you sometimes must help your enemy to believe he is on equal footing. Do you trulky believe that ANY president would give information out that the Chinese would not be able to get either elsewhere or on their own? Well, I'm sure some of you are so f-ing partisan and hate filled that you would believe that.

Does the article you quote from talk about how Rev. Moon (owner of the Washington Times and close friend to the Bush's) sold nuclear subs to N. Korea, how he gave millions to N. Korean leaders for the sole purpose to help their nuclear program? (BTW.... why did Reagan and Bush SELL Moon those subs anyway? What does a private citizen who runs the mother of all religious cults need with them? And why did Bush I let Moon sell them to North Korea?) Course you won't answer those questions, you'd rather point fingers at the president from the other party and say it was all his fault, Reagan and the Bushys NEVER, NEVER did anything bad.

Point is, we have had president's giving China and N. Korea information for a very long time, and it isn't just one party. What do you think Nixon truly did when he went to China DURING A WAR AGAINST THEM? HOw do you think Nixon was able to end the war?

Study your history.

UsTwo, your fantasies of our efficiency leave me baffled. All these countries have shouted "death to America" at some point, when, exactly, should we have atttacked each of them in your opinion. Your concept of international relations makes me understand their desire for nuclear weapons.
No, I consider this part of the process. The United States has provided weapons for many our enemies. It is a constantly shifting range from friend to enemy(see photos of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein) It is these events that make the fantasy of our military strength so unsustainable, the one hand is giving while the other takes away.

We tried the cold war, it sucked.

Pakistan is helping us.

China is a demon waiting another 20 years.

Iran is now.

I do so very much hope you are not recommending an incursion into Iran.
This would be quite detrimental to stability in the region, and to our country as a whole. While I simply disagree with the invasion of Iraq, I would be extremely opposed to the same in Iran. Partially because we would likely lose such a war (three times the area of Iraq) but also because it would create the conditions for a third world war. Such a move would likely draw all parties, and the possibility of Nuclear assault into play, not something I am willing to consider as a viable course of action.

Opinion only....not reality

Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, period.

If that means blowing up their reators, so be it.

Iran has one of the better chances of having an anti-islamofacist revolution, and I'm willing to wait and see what happens, BUT if the choice is between letting the current Iranian government gain nuclear weapons, vrs bombing, I side strongly with bombing.

What part of "THE IRANIANS HAVE ALREADY SAID THEY WOULD USE NUKES IF WE SHOWED ANY AGRESSION TOWARDS THEM" do people not understand?

It's not a question of do they have them, or will they use them ..... it's a REALITY. Do we need to prove the US is so great that we are willing to start a nuclear war to prove it?

W. in all his greatness could have prevented Iran from getting this far, but chose instead to invade a country so down beaten from years of assault that they couldn't do much, and yet they are holding their own so far, aren't they?

Now we have people on this board wanting Iran or saying "if we invade Iran it MAY lead to nuclear war"...... there is no maybe.... there is only it WILL.

One can only hope, this is not the direction we are heading. If indeed it is, I fear for humanity, as the results should be relatively obvious. But then again....I have always looked towards worst case scenario, as the possible reality.

Where does this fear come from? Who would come to Iran's aid?

what a bunch of brat kids... i mean so verry typical. mmmm well if i can drink it might be ok... o the country were goging to dosnt support drinking well i guess its not so cool after all

oh wait i hat bush im not going..

sounds like a great big case of my parents have given me evreythign i want wip my as for me and why shoudl i start changing now.

otherwise known as pussitis thats puss- ite- is for those of you whos parents did your homework for you...


i hear the exact same thing form all the rich kids who got in the army for a free ride to school and then a war happens ( wether its rite or not ) and then all of a suden well i dont want to go fight.. i just want to goto school......

how about this scenerio clinton decides that we need to finish what bush sr started and creates the whole school deal and bouuses and all that shit that all the pretty people signed up for. and then leaves a not on the desk in the oval office for bush jr saying ok buddy i got the numbers for you now its your turn to use them.. go fucking invade someone yeah iraq is a great place...


that would fuck with some people....




edit #1


ok this was in response to #'s a long time ago.. but hey let er rip if yall want...

One possible scenario that comes to mind:

We attack Iran
Iran attacks Isreal
Isreal retaliates

If Isreal decides to attack ANY country in the middle east....it will escalate.
We do not have the needed forces to have a ground war in Iran.
Iraq would seem like childs play in comparison to an Iranian War.
We are far from "Winning" in Iraq at this time.(see tonights headlines)

If we cannot maintain control over Iraq, What makes one think we could attack, and control an area three times that size....with three times the population?

Seriously Ustwo....do you honestly think a War in Iran is a good Idea?

They said the same thing about Iraq, and Iraq would have a lot getter chance of attacking Israel than Iran.

We have already won Iraq, this is called clean up, and because we are a humane victor we are willing to risk our troops when no risk is really necessary. How would Iran do any better than Iraq, which was thought of as the strongest? Iran would be surrounded, but that is only a land battle.

A simple surgical strike is all that is required.

Would YOU rather wait and face the same people WITH nukes?

As the information pertaining to the current power, and armament of Iran is in question, and it is unlikely you would believe it if you were shown, this is becoming a pointless debate. As to my actual question, of whether you consider war with Iran to be a good Idea, I think you answered it quite well. Thank You for your reply.

Please, I'm all ears.

Thank you......but I will need to pass on the offer. Appreciate the information though.

Guess I need to find my own links.

Edit: Found a good one http://www.csis.org/features/0407_IransMilForces.pdf

You are right, I'm not worried in the least.

Its like Iraq lite. More untrained men, less real weapons.

It would save a lot of effort if you would read what I said before trying to "correct" it.

I said NORTH KOREA. There's a difference between North Korea and China. They happen to be two different countries.



Clinton demonstrated that he would do or say anything, including bombing countries without even consulting Congress, if he thought it would keep him in office.

BTW, why is it okay to hate Bush, but saying anything negative about Clinton is "f-ing partisan and hate filled?"

Well, if you can still manage to read your monitor with your knee jerking so furiously, I'll correct you again:

In January, 1994, a Japanese trading company "Touen Hoji" in Suganami-Ku, Tokyo, purchased 12 F and G Class submarines from the Russian Pacific Fleet Headquarters. These submarines were then sold to a KN (North Korean) trading company. Although this transaction garnered a great deal of coverage in the Japanese media, it was not disclosed at the time that Touen Hoji is an affiliate of the Unification Church.

Do you happen to remember who was president in 1994? Kind of hurts your credibility when people see that you blamed Reagan (who left office five years before), now doesn't it?


Likewise, but add geography to the list.

Bahrain and Dubai were certainly not dry, and while Kuwait and most of Saudi Arabia were, there definately wasn't any shortage of "listerine bottles" of jack!

All US naval vessels are dry. HMS naval vessels are not. We used to love taking tours aboard the ships of our conterparts of the British Royal Marines!

Aaaah the good ole days.

-bear

ustwo brings up a salient point with his posting of the stealth jet photo. Americans and the world at large should be aware that Americans are capable of, and have exhibited violent behavior unrivalled in the annals of history [note I am NOT making a value judgement]. The other unspoked draft alternative is the use of overwhelming indiscriminate ordinanace: napalm, carpet bombing, or nuclear weaponry on population centers. These weapons are in place and there are contingency plans for their use. If our leaders feel threatened enough they will use them, ask the old folk in Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Tokyo, or Nuremburg--they can tell you about American vengence.

It's as if GWBush declared "mission accomplished" and you stopped paying attention. It turns out that Iraq had far fewer functional conventional weapons and troops than our prewar intelligence indicated (and none, zip, zero, 0%, nada of the WMDs we thought they had). And yet we're in a position of facing 50-100 attacks per day on our troops with a steady casaulty rate.

Your statistics fail to address the biggest adversities our country would face in a possible Iran invasion. If only they lined up their tanks and troops and we could line up our weapons across from them and have at. Sorry ustwo, that kind of war hasn't occured in the past 50 years. It's much more important to look at the prevailing sentiment of the people (rabidly anti-American), experience of the troops (Iran has troops that have actually been in battle not just seen them on TV), terrain (Iran is mountainous which would provide ample cover for a resisitance), and distribution of small arms (I'm not sure about Iran on this, but I would guess it's pretty similar to Iraq--an AK for every person).

If war is such a cakewalk why don't you enlist?

REALLY??? WOW...that's awesome. That would be sweet to pull that off over there. Pretty interesting experience. Good thing they don't do that here in the States. We have enough crackheads as it is :crazy:
- Undercover_Man

I'm sorry but you have a very short history book. You are so far from logic here I have to wonder if you post this impared. Saying our 'violent behavior' is unrivalled in history is so amazingly wrong that I would think it was a troll post if you weren't so consistant.

Uh oh! Am I not being patriotic enough for you? Did you miss my [not making value judgements] disclaimer? Tell me which other nations have offensively detonated nuclear weapons and I'll concede that the U.S. has had an undistinguished record of violent wartime acts.

What a concession that will be too, to be rated average in violent acts. :love:

Why do you hate America?

I think a draft was more likely under Kerry- being that Dems started the bill


Or wait Would we rather have Clinton - a firefight and we back outta Somalia- that sends the wrong message... We arent a Spain


I'd trust Bush with my life- He'd go nuclear before we had a draft


Its like Reagan, you wnana President that acts so crazy- they think he'd push the button

:thumbsup:

Well....we're gettin' to see, pretty quickly, where the real threats to
America's future are coming from......from the white house, and from the
heeartland. Uncannily similar to Macnamara's description of General Curtis
LeMay's attitude during the Cuban missle crises (see the film, "The Fog of
War"). And.....when Powell resigns from Statee, just disband the department,
and recall all the ambassadors......ain';t gonna need 'em.....anymore!

Reagan ????? Reagan......oh...you must mean this Reagan.....

I agree...except that this war we're fighting now isn't trying to protect our "Beloved Country"...it definately is about Oil and revenge. Soon enough though, we will have to fight to protect our country, because everyone in this World hates us. Except the UK...oh, and don't forget Poland :lol:

Under Bush's proposed plan, this would no longer matter

Worthless youth? I hope that's not your true feelings because us "worthless youth" are the future of the country that you live in and love.

I think what people don't seem to understand here is that Iran DOES have and continues to develop nukes. The MILITARY is stretched way too thin for us to continue our dedications around the world. And finally, people need to realise that the US is not the only country that possesses nuclear materials or nuclear "Secrets". All of that is for sale if the money's right

What makes you think I hate America?

It was a joke.

Yes, but you know that was a political ploy, right? He never intended for the bill to pass and, in fact, opposes the war. His points were to (a) get the draft issue out there, and (b) show the hypocrisy of those who support the war, but not if their own kids could get called up for it.

That sounds almost exactly like something Michael Moore would've said during the part of F 9/11 where he was going around trying to get the members of congress to sign their "children" up for the military.

Yes, it sounds like this Senator has taken the Rovian Fear Mongering 101 course. The discussion on the draft issue has become WAY overblown, and basically turned into a scare tactic to drum up anti-war support. I'm not saying its bad, but take it for what it is. The draft isnt coming back unless we find ourselves in another world war. I know alot of you are ready to beleive we are on the brink of nuclear apocolypse... but we're not there yet.

I think we're on the same page but want to be sure. As I understood it, SOB cited the Rangel bill's resounding defeat as an indicator that there won't be a draft (and he/she took some glee from the fact that it was proposed by a Democrat). My point was that the Democrat in question proposed the bill, not because he supported a draft, but rather to protest the war.

Supporting a draft is poison to any politician, so you'll never find someone who supports it (publicly, anyway), so you should not look at Rangel's stunt as anything more than a stunt.

FWIW, I happen to think that the military is overstretched right now (as evidenced by the "stop loss" measures already implemented and the deep dip into the National Guard for Iraq deployments), so a draft or some major reshuffling of troop deployments (do we really need all those troops in Germany anymore?) would be necessary if there were another military conflict (whether initiated by GWB or by an opportunistic third country).

Actually it never mattered anyway. It was a myth, just like the "only son" clause.

Yes, my reply was tongue-in-cheek. However, I thought the 402-2 vote was worthy of note. Particularly for those who are making plans to head for Canada to avoid this supposedly imminent draft.


Yes, a "stunt" at taxpayer expense. Rangel is one of my least favorite politicians.

Although I haven't researched it, I thought that there was an announcement of a major reduction in forces stationed in Germany.

Around three or four months ago, if memory serves.

The sort of sad thing about the draft stunt, was that they were hoping to appeal to the base emotions of the youth vote. Fear, sloth, and cowardice. The assumption was they would not want to serve their country.

In other words, they thought the youth would act like they would.

Please, please, please get off your high horse, would you?

Do you honestly think that young people don't want to go to Iraq because they are scared, lazy and chicken? Could it possibly be because they don't support the war in the first place? Do you think that if people were called to serve, they would be lazy cowards in combat (or, to be more precise, do you think there would be more lazy cowards than in any other conflict?)

Stop it, ok? Honest policy differences are one thing, but this kind of attitude is really counter-productive.

A military conscription will probably not happen.

However, if there is a "national emergency" in which hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of Americans die here in the states (i.e. suitcase bomb, bio-warfare, etc), I could easily forsee the majority of the public supporting a draft whilst our Congress takes no blame for.

:(

I think it's hilarious when people call others cowards, yet they're the ones who refuse to go fight themselves :D

You say coward, but I'll retort with a lovely middle finger to your direction and a grin on my face full of happiness because I know my life won't be WASTED for some bullshit cause. Complain alllll you want, because it really does go in one ear and out the other.

There's a trend where people have this ego in thinking, "It's your DUTY to serve your country, you should be PROUD!" Yeah yeah, guess what? I couldn't give a fuck less! That type of moronic thinking is what gets people into deep shit to begin with. I have more important things to worry about, and trust me, the terrorist boogeymen won't affect it at all :)

So, if you're head is swelling with this illusionary sense of pride and patriotism for your country, then by all means, suit up and walk to the front lines with a gun. The more, the merrier!

I'll be sitting here living my life the way *I* want not giving a shit about the whiners and complainers that attempt to toss insults of "coward" or "traitor". Coward? Hah, here, let's play some russian roulette. Let me hold this gun to your stupid head. Oh, don't wanna do it? Coward ;)

FWIW, I don't think this is productive, either (obviously edited to leave just the worst of it)

*shrug*

Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

Yes, but we all have a duty to maintain civil discourse as well.

I get it--it's like this:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Stompy's Answer:

Sure hope he's interested in killing my kids and taking their lunch money so I can run away!

Democrat's answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or Oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.

Republican's Answer:

BANG!

Southern Republican's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click....(sounds of reloading).

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips?

I have said many times before, and I'll say it again. I don't think a draft will happen, but if called up, I will go serve, regardless of where it is. Not because of patriotism, not because I believe in the cause, but because I believe in the men that are fighting, and I'll be damned if some enemy puts a bullet in a soldier's head because I wasn't there to watch his back.

Your analogy doesn't hold Sob. You're describing a situation in which there is an imminent threat. It is perfectly legal under international law to carry out a "pre-emptive war" if there is an imminent threat of attack.

Well, no.

It's actually like this:

Democrat:

BANG! Then feel badly about it later, wondering what drove that man to take such desperate action and resolving to try to figure out a way to stop others from descending that far.

(PS: I am a Democrat - at least most of the time)

Please do not get anymore personal in this thread.....lest it be shut down....and time outs issued