| Author |
Message |
    
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 453
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 11:57 am: | 
|
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.163:
"To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes
They are going to let this slide until after the election and then spring it on us next year.
If you have sons, daughters, nephews, neices, grandsons, grandaughters, brothers, sisters (or indeed if you are between the ages of 18-26) You need to let yourself be heard. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 538
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 01:59 pm: |
|
I waffle on this subject.
Because although I know they would certainly like to impose a draft, I can’t help thinking that even the mentioning of such could cause many to call for Bush to be impeached.
Chris. Present a scenario upon which the White House would attempt to initiate a draft. |
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 458
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 02:22 pm: |
|
Abm:
I don't think the American public will react.
The war on terror is still going on. Al Quaeda is running wild in Iraq. We cannot allow an Islamic Republic in Iraq that will menace its neighbors. We need the oil. We can't cut and run. They can present the scenario they got where they are running low on manpower--though the casualties among our troops are arguably low--900 or so dead, 5-6,000 wounded (there are rumors that some 20,000 more have been "medically evacuated)--the troops they have there now cannot stay there forever--one thing they rarely stress in war movies is that soldiers have to be relieved in the line of battle even when their casualties have been low--Patton maintained they can attack for 72 hours, in other cases they maintain they can stay in the front lines for 2 weeks to a month and still other studies maintain that they can stay in combat for a total of something like 280 days and then, no matter how well trained or motivated or healthy they started out, they just are no good in combat any more.
In Iraq there are no rear areas in which to relax, they are in danger the whole time they are there--ambushes when moving, firefights with resisters, mortar and rocket attacks on their bases and encampments--
Then you got the situation with North Korea that is still radioactive, and the situation with Taiwan, and the garrison we have to maintain in Bosnia, and the low level war in Columbia going on
And don't forget most of the Coalition of the Willing, some 22,000 is slowly melting and the Iraquis have turned down the use of Jordanians and Turks
They should have 300,000 troops in there now. They have something like 130,000. To keep them at even those inadequate levels. They will need to rotate all or most of them out and replace them with fresh troops. And, even once they get them, there will be the casualties necesitating a steady flow of reinforcements. Reenlistments and recruitments are not now keeping pace with requirements (they claimed they were for months and now have started hitting the panic button)
The scenario is the one that is looking them in the face now--they have to have a draft or get out of Iraq. Our honor is at stake. |
A_womon
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: A_womon
Post Number: 343
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 02:29 pm: |
|
Well, I'll just be going to jail for dodging the draft, cuz my ass aint going over there!!!!
I am a scared female and I don't want to see nobody getting blown to bits and maimed and I damn sure don't wanna be the one that's getting that way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
A_womon
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: A_womon
Post Number: 344
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 02:33 pm: |
|
Chris, When I clicked on the link all I got was a blank screen.
And why does it always have to be the young ones that have to die or be crippled for life before we even have a chance to live?
I have seen some pretty fit 30 and 40 year olds!!! these days So why does the cut off age have to be 26? |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 540
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 03:15 pm: |
|
Chris,
I trust that everything you say about Iraq and the military may indeed be valid. Again, I certainly believe they would like to institute a draft (one I am sure that would be weighted against the children of the less affluent/power families). But I still think there are too many unanswered questions and doubts about our entire war effort to justify executing a draft.
I think, before there is a draft, the following items will either be initiated or accelerated:
@ The enlistment period of ALL military personnel will be extended.
@ Retired/discharged military personnel will be involuntarily re-enlisted.
@ Reserve/auxiliary personnel will be move to active status.
@ Personnel will be moved, perhaps even across military branches, from less to more active duties/places.
@ Mercenary fighters will be contracted.
@ Auxiliary services (e.g., cooks, administrative, janitorial, etc.) will be contracted.
@ Some convicts will under certain scenarios be permitted to enlist.
A_womon,
I agree. I think that one of the crueliest aspects of war is that old men who have had a chance to live their lives can causually send those who have not to die in some foreign land. Moreover, I think were there no such age limit, we would ALL be a lot more rationale about engaging in these Godforsaken efforts.
And I will go you one step further. I would urge that if a draft is instituted, at least one of the adult, able-bodied children or grand-children of everyone in the US Congress, President and the Supreme Court should be made to serve in some capacity that is near live action. |
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 460
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 03:24 pm: |
|
Abm:
They already have done everything but the last, and in today's high tech army they can't use dumb convicts--nor do they want them nor do they need them when they got all these nice dumb fat high school grads around.
Finally they know the American public won't do anything about it. Congress won't impeach Bush, they are the ones that have introduced the bill. |
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 461
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 03:42 pm: |
|
A_woman:
It won't post here (probably the work of THE MAN!)but type in the address and you should get there. |
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 471
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 03:30 pm: |
|
Abm:
Here
Experts: U.S. Military Overstretched, Morale Risked
Alan Elsner – Reuters January 8, 2004
WASHINGTON - The U.S. military is overstretched by deployments in Iraq and elsewhere, forcing the Pentagon to keep thousands of soldiers and reservists in uniform long beyond their release dates with potentially dangerous effects on morale, experts say.
"There is no question that the force is stretched too thin," said David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland.
"We have stopped treating the reserves as a force in reserve. Our volunteer army is closer to being broken today than ever before in its 30-year history," Segal said.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and U.S. commanders concede that the 1.4 million-member active duty armed forces, which have been cut by about a third since the end of the Cold War, are stretched by deployments in South Korea and Europe as well as post-2001 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But Rumsfeld says he has seen no evidence so far in a major ongoing Pentagon study to support calls from analysts and some Army officials to boost the service's strength by perhaps 20,000 troops to 500,000.
Signs of strain are appearing, however. Segal said the National Guard finished last year around 10,000 below its recruitment target and he predicted more severe recruitment and retention problems next year.
To stem losses, the army has started offering re-enlistment bonuses of up to $10,000 to soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. At the same time, it is preventing soldiers rotating home from retiring or leaving the service for up to 90 days after returning to their home bases.
Blocking Departures
The Army alone has blocked the departure of more than 40,000 soldiers, about 16,000 of them National Guard and reserve members who were eligible to leave the service this year, the Washington Post reported this week.
The Pentagon said that 187,746 National Guard and Reserve troops were mobilized as of Dec. 31, 2003. About 20 percent of the troops in Iraq are reservists or Guard members but this proportion is expected to double next year.
Their enforced service has created major financial and emotional difficulties for many. Last month, a group of angry reservists sent out an e-mail entitled "Chained in Iraq" complaining that their businesses and careers in the civilian world were being ruined by their enforced absence.
Karen, 28, an air traffic controller, was supposed to leave the Navy in December 2001 but her retirement was frozen after the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center.
Eventually she signed on for two extra years after being promised she would be posted to the same base as her husband. Instead, she wound up in Iraq.
The two years have expired but she recently received notice of another eight-month deployment there starting next month. After five years of marriage, Karen, who did not to be named or directly quoted, has never lived with her husband.
Margo Loomis is engaged to a captain in the Army Rangers whose service was supposed to end in May 2002. He is currently in Iraq and has been told he should expect to remain there until next Christmas.
In an e-mail to Reuters, Loomis said her fiance, whom she declined to name, has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. "My fiance and I are now 27 and 28 and are eager to begin our future together," she wrote.
"Every minute of every day is filled with concern for him. From my understanding, soldiers were not to be sent to war-zone type of deployments for longer than six months. I guess our country is no longer playing by the rules."
Threat to Military?
Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a non-partisan think-tank, said an army where soldiers were forced to serve against their will was an unhappy military and would eventually become an ineffective military.
"The fact that the force is stretched so thin creates conditions that make more people anxious to leave. We're darned close to this becoming a serious operational issue," he said.
Rumsfeld said this week the number of troops being prevented from leaving was relatively small and the military had been able to retain the numbers of people it needed.
"We've got a number of programs underway to reduce stress on the force today. I think that there's been a very positive response to the way that this is being managed," he said.
Analysts believe some strains are inevitable as the force is remodeled to make it more flexible and based more on high tech weapons than boots on the ground.
General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added: "We're asking extraordinary things from the force and their families. I think most individuals understand and their families understand what we're asking them to do. We're asking them a lot. They're responding magnificently."
Last updated 11/01/2004
|
|
Email This Page