Will GW Bush revive the draft?

[Cowperson]

A government controlled/Liberal media source owned by a large corporation, MSNBC, with a look at comments made by Democrats Howard Dean and Max Cleland that GW Bush will revive conscription if he's re-elected.

"I think that George Bush is certainly going to have a draft if he goes into a second term, and any young person that doesn't want to go to Iraq might think twice about voting for him."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6027815/

Agree or disagree?

Cowperson

[transplant99]

Wow. The fear-mongering from the extreme fringe on BOTH sides of this thing is becoming disturbing. Its clouding the REAL issues that this, and any, election should be based on.

Cleland and Dean both say the draft WILL be instituted if Bush is re-elected....how the hell would they know?

And this very article states this nugget...

Partly to remedy this heavy use of the Guard and Reserves, Kerry has proposed expanding the active-duty Army by 40,000 troops, but without resorting to a draft.

So how exactly is he going to expand the services by 40,000 people without forcing them too? Especially when he himself has stated that even if elected, he sees the US in Iraq for the next 4 years?

Well here is how...

Kitchens said Kerry could meet this goal of 40,000 by ordering an intensification of recruitment efforts.

So, you will get people to sign up without being made too, to go to a country that you yourself have stated the US will have presence in for at least 4 years. In essence you are going to get young people to sign up of their own valition to go to a war that (according to you Mr Kerry) they want no part of, by being "more intense" in recruiting?

Is their ANY logic in this stance?

Well maybe Bush agrees after all.

Both Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have repeatedly said they oppose a draft.

"We don't need the draft," Bush told a campaign audience in Florida last month. "I'll tell you one way you make (the all-volunteer Army) work. I just signed a defense appropriations bill, which is the fourth year in a row in which we've raised the pay of those who wear our uniform, and the pay's getting better. And the housing is getting better."

Noting the size of the U.S. population, more than 290 million people, Rumsfeld said, “If you add up everyone we are looking for in the active forces, 1.4 million and the Guard and Reserve and the selective reserve and individual ready reserve and if you add them all up, it’s about 2.5 million. And all you have to do is alter the incentives and we can attract and retain all the people we need. We do not need to go to compulsion.”

So the "neo-cons" have the exact same idea as the liberals?


Rumsfeld recalled that as a member of the House of Representatives in the 1960s, he introduced legislation to create an all-volunteer Army.

He thought in the 1960s that “we owed it to people to pay them and treat them like we would if we had to go out and in (the labor) market, attract and retain them.”

And in today’s all-volunteer military, Rumsfeld said, “That’s what we do.”


Uh oh Lanny...NOW what???

[Table 5]

Originally posted by transplant99@Sep 19 2004, 10:05 AM
So, you will get people to sign up without being made too, to go to a country that you yourself have stated the US will have presence in for at least 4 years. In essence you are going to get young people to sign up of their own valition to go to a war that (according to you Mr Kerry) they want no part of, by being "more intense" in recruiting?

Is their ANY logic in this stance?

it's called marketing. Why do you think McDonalds get people to come and eat absolutely horribly tasting food that clogs your heart and increases your waist-line? It's not inconceivable that heavier recruitment campaigns would get more volunteers....corporations do it all the time with their products, why should the government be any different?

[CaptainCrunch]

Its extremely doubtful that Bush would re-institute the draft, a move like that would be instant political suicide for the Republican party and the president.

All this is, is a smoke screen by a desperate democratic party that knows that the Kerry campaign is struggling and need to find a way to restart it by scaring people

Hmmm sounds familiar

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by transplant99@Sep 19 2004, 03:05 PM
Uh oh Lanny...NOW what???

What will they do? Lie to the American people, just like they have for the last four years, and institute the draft. Why should it matter after they win the election? They will have a mandate of four more years and can worry about spinning the media in year four. Who is going to be able to do anything after the election?

Now the differences between what Bush and what Kerry have said in regards to the increase in military size are minimal. What they plan to do with the increase in military size is substantial. Kerry is planning to build a defensive force where the majority of the forces reside in the United States. Bush is looking for more numbers to support the global forces (nee Iraq). Kerry also supports the concept of the development of more special forces units to deal with the terrorist threat while the Bush administration believes in the "shock and awe" method of massive military force.

Hey, believe what you want. I'm sure that you'll just argue that the truth is buried in the sands of Iraq, right next to those pesky weapons of mass destruction!

[FlamesAddiction]

In a way, a draft could be a good thing.

I think if there was an indiscriminate draft, it would make it harder for a president to wage a war of conquest without having to face the music. In a democracy, it's a lot easier to send a volunteer army to war, than a conscripted one.

[Table 5]

so would the ladies be joining the gents this time around? i mean they are liberated women after all...wouldn't want to deny them the right to get shot up.

[Looger]

never ever send women to a combat zone.

some of them will be taken prisoner.

so i'm a male chauvanist - give women every right and responsibility of the men EXCEPT combat.

sorry ladies, not on my watch.

as for the topic at hand, the US needs the draft like i need another hole in my head. the number of troops required to do the job in iraq can't me more than, say, double the current contingent, which is mild six figures.

recruitment incentives will go a long way i think. even in canada the incentives put in over the last few years have, well, reduced the number of qualified personnel bleeding away to more lucrative careers....

vietnam was something like 1 million, though most of them were probably guarding thai strip clubs...

the effectiveness of drafted troops, when coming from the land of luxury to getting shot at in a desert, is in question as well.

[Daradon]

I disagree that he will do it, but I'm hoping he does if he wins.

What you sow you shall reap. I'm not worried about him winning anymore at all. Let them have him. Another four years of Bush and we'll see how the States comes out. It's their country anyway. We just need a leader that won't kiss his ass and will try to get our borders going again, use leverage with the oil.

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Table 5@Sep 19 2004, 04:10 PM
so would the ladies be joining the gents this time around? i mean they are liberated women after all...wouldn't want to deny them the right to get shot up.

Very good point.

I would think that it would be a no, but it certainly opens up a can of worms no?

[transplant99]

Originally posted by Daradon@Sep 20 2004, 02:50 AM
I disagree that he will do it, but I'm hoping he does if he wins.

What you sow you shall reap. I'm not worried about him winning anymore at all. Let them have him. Another four years of Bush and we'll see how the States comes out. It's their country anyway. We just need a leader that won't kiss his ass and will try to get our borders going again, use leverage with the oil.

Well according to this guy...its already happened and no one told us about it!!!

Conscription is upon us...and the age limit is now 44!!

A mandatory draft is coming and it will come soon. Make no mistake about it. If you have a 'specialty' field such as health care worker or even computer skills (such as a degree in computer science), you could be 'drafted' into government service up to the age limit of 44 years old. You will have no choice in the matter as the Presidential Executive Order has already been signed and has become the "law", without the messy annoyance of congressional voting or debate, of course. The new age limit of conscription will also be pushed up to 34 years of age, not 26 years as was the traditional limit. They have now tied in Selective Service Registration with applying for a driver's licence in some 34 states so far.


Your joining the army whether you want to or not!!

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Daradon@Sep 19 2004, 11:50 PM
I disagree that he will do it, but I'm hoping he does if he wins.

What you sow you shall reap. I'm not worried about him winning anymore at all. Let them have him. Another four years of Bush and we'll see how the States comes out. It's their country anyway. We just need a leader that won't kiss his ass and will try to get our borders going again, use leverage with the oil.

Just taking your thoughts a little further and after reading many right wingers here supporting Bush, you'all have convinced me. I hope Bush wins the election and the American dollar drops to $.66 Canadian. Hell I even think we should give him a Stampede white hat so he has something to hold when he comes to Ottawa to renew our parternship. Just think of the posssibilities, teams like Colorado, Dallas, Detroit, etc would be havenot teams who would be forced to trade their stars to Canadian teams. Foote would look real good in a Flames uniform. Some American teams would be forced to fold, the possibilities are endless.