Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

DU SCOOP! (must read) $28 Million to get DRAFT READY BY JUNE 15, 2005!!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 01:45 PM
Original message
DU SCOOP! (must read) $28 Million to get DRAFT READY BY JUNE 15, 2005!!
Edited on Sat Nov-15-03 02:03 PM by Dems Will Win
Oh, so there are "no plans" to re-instate the draft? No, there are just EXERCISES and $28 million extra to get the whole Selective Service ready and open for business by June 15, 2005!!

Read this official budget carefully and you will see that Bush is gearing up the draft--there is no longer any doubt about it. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005, that the system is ready for activation within 75 days. So on June 15, 2005, expect the announcement that the first draft lottery since Vietnam will be held for 20 year-olds.

Here is where the DU rubber hits the road, my friends. This is a DU EXCLUSIVE as far as I know, so please read this one carefully and let me know what we are going to do about it. To put this all into context, the SSS has lain basically dormant for decades and now in the 2004 budget, Bush has added $28 million to get the whole thing ready to fly in 2005. The 4 performance goals below basically make the system ready for activation.

http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

<snip>

This FY 2004 APP identifies the activities and strategies that will take place during the
fiscal year to achieve Agency goals and objectives. It also identifies relevant performance
measurement target goals to be achieved. The performance goals for FY 2004 are:

1. Develop an Area Office Prototype Exercise that will test the Health
Care Personnel Delivery System (HCPDS) work flows and support
programs.

2. Redefine Agency infrastructure based on a Quinquennial Workload
Study.

3. Prepare and conduct an Area Office Prototype Exercise which tests
the activation process from SSS Lottery input to the issuance of the
first Armed Forces Examination Orders.

4. Ensure 90% of people tested are capable of implementing activation
procedures.

5. Ensure that 95% of the predefined readiness objectives are attained
and validated during an Area Office Prototype Exercise.

6. Train 90% of assigned State Directors (SDs) and Reserve Force
Officers (RFOs) on HCPDS and Timed-Phased Response (TPR)
functions and responsibilities.

7. Attain a 92% or greater compliance rate for men 18 through 25 years
old.

8. Attain and appoint Registrars in 85% of the Nations high schools.

9. Obtain 75% of all registrations electronically.

10. Maintain an average systems change request implementation time of
39 days.

11. Maintain a functional proponent and customer satisfaction level of
87%.

12. Have a telephone call completion rate of 93% or higher.

13. Answer correspondence in less than 10 days.

14. Train 90% of assigned SDs and RFOs on Alternative Service plans
and procedures.

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT

An annual report providing the results of the implementation of these performance
measures will be submitted by March 31, 2005. This report will address attained versus
planned levels of performance, explain unattained target levels, and identify where and
how strategies, performance goals, and performance indicators should be changed to
ensure that the SSS reaches its strategic and annual goals and objectives.


<snip>

VOTE FOR BUSH IN 2004, BE DRAFTED IN 2005!!

edited to correct 2003 to 2005.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DS1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. which is it? 2005 or 2003? both listed in post
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. oops! 2005, corrected it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
regnaD kciN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #8
32. In other words...
...not until after Bush would have begun his second term. Clever -- they can deny any draft plans until after the 2004 election.

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #1
33. 28 MILLION, WHERE DO YOU GET THAT FIGURE FROM???
LINK PLEASE, please pm me or email link to mac_onsite@hotmail.com


thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elidor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #33
42. The money is detailed in the link provided
As follows:

Strategic Goal 1: Increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the Manpower Delivery Systems (Projected allocation for FY 2004 $7,942,000)

Strategic Goal 2: Improve overall Registration Compliance and Service to the Public (Projected allocation FY 2004 $8,769,000)

Strategic Goal 3: Enhance external and internal customer service
(Projected allocation for FY 2004 $10,624,000)

Strategic Goal 4: Enhance the system which guarantees that each conscientious objector is properly classified, placed, and monitored.(Projected allocation for FY 2004 $955,000)

Total=$28,290,000

It would VERY interesting to know what their 2003 budget was. A dramatic increase in funding would telegraph their intentions to even the dumbest freeper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. The 2003 budget was $26 million
I think the $28 million was added to that to reach the performance goals so they would have more than DOUBLED it if true. But I haven't been able to locate the info to confirm this. Somebody help!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
2. #11 "customer satisfaction???? WTF is that???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
54. Yeah what is that?
DoD in Bushspeak is a client of the Selective Service System?

Or are there other right wing governments that has place an order for American conscripts? Perhaps one lead by a fellow named Chalabi?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. No, they are referring to those registering and being inducted as customer
"Customer" means the young men interacting with the Selective Service System...

This is a basic business performance improvement plan designed to activate the Selective Service with the first Lottery by June 15, 2005, if Bush asks the Congress to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
E_Zapata Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #56
68. You are right........
that's the first meaning of 'customer' but behind closed doors in the smoke filled chamber of SATAN.......'customer' are the dudes who will gain from our nubile cannon fodder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
E_Zapata Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #2
66. I caught that too........customer satisfaction?
I guess the question is: WHO is the customer? Halliburtan? the PNAC? The BFEE?

See......those are the evil customers if you think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
3. Why do you think young men continue to register even though there's no ..
draft at present?

It is because the system is ALWAYS ready for activation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. They are holding actual exercises next year, involving Lottery activation
Read it again:

1. Develop an Area Office Prototype Exercise that will test the Health
Care Personnel Delivery System (HCPDS) work flows and support
programs.

2. Redefine Agency infrastructure based on a Quinquennial Workload
Study.

3. Prepare and conduct an Area Office Prototype Exercise which tests
the activation process from SSS Lottery input to the issuance of the
first Armed Forces Examination Orders.

4. Ensure 90% of people tested are capable of implementing activation
procedures.

5. Ensure that 95% of the predefined readiness objectives are attained
and validated during an Area Office Prototype Exercise.

This is all new. Plus SSS has to report they are ready to go on March 31, 2005. Don't you get it? Why would they spend $28 million to hold activation exercises and report to the President the system is ready for a Lottery within 75 days if the system is suposedly active now. Think!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
20. What is this?
"Quinquennial Workload Study."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. Think it means 5-year review
After the draft readiness program, there is a 5-year review in 2006.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Agathias Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
119. agreed.
Selective Service Registration has been the law for decades through both Democrat and Republican Administrations - why do we keep hearing 'the sky is falling' about the Draft??

For over a decade the Military has RAISED entrance requirements, and been much more selective about who can get in - High School equivalency isn't accepted, criminal records that were ignored no longer are - selective to the point where many services in the last decade were falling far short of their enlistment goals.

Now, since 9/11/01, their enlistment numbers are up quite a bit, and no branch of service is making dire predictions about manning levels.

Has anyone bothered to look for or at similar Selective Service memorandum / plans from the '90s? Any differences?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #119
120. Things have changed in the last few months because of Iraq, Agathias
The National Guard survey said 49% of those deployed said they would never re-enlist and similar talk is coming from te Regular Army. Plus Bush's treatment of the troops and Anthrax vaccinations making hundreds sick and you have a very changed situation.

The DOD wouldn't even release the last re-enlistment and recruitment percentages, they were so low.

So low they would have tipped their hand on the draft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
A HERETIC I AM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
4. This doesnt surprise me at all
The Pentagon needs bodies to go forward with the policies of Shrubco if he gets reelected. I wonder what the recruitment rates are these days. Are enlistments down? I have heard several stories on NPR that indicate many reservists and active duty types are NOT reenlisting. They are headed for a manpower shortage and they know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. 49% of deployed National Guard in Iraqnam say they are not re-enlisting
Edited on Sat Nov-15-03 02:07 PM by Dems Will Win
They will need the draft bad by 2005.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theHandpuppet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #6
38. They must be running short....
... of poor and minority young women and men to fight their wars.

I abhor war, but dammit, I'm also sick of the poor and minorities in this country being used as cannon fodder so the followers of the Bushreich can feel safe in their gated communities with a Hummer in every garage. Perhaps when THEIR sons and daughters -- including the progeny of those in Congress -- are sent to the front lines they might have an epiphany of sorts.

How easy it is for the rich in this country to ante up the poor to fight these wars in order protect their "way of life". I say let them share the costs of their unfettered greed in terms they can really understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #4
103. and first termers
are not going in as fast as they used to

Fuzzy math in the bush administration works like this

We need 100 sailors this month

But Chief we only got 90

What do you know we met quoata, silly me we only needed 90
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
7. Geez, there is little doubt now!
I hope this item goes out far and wide. There is no question the draft will be re-enacted if Bush is elected. They will do everything they can to try and keep a hold in Iraq with the troops and national guardsmen they currently have, even if it means even more deaths, so that they can hold out on implementing it till Bush is re-selected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
9. Sounds about right...I didn't need a source to tell me the draft is coming
Do the math

Step 1. Have a pathetically rigged election with full Corporate TV Pravda compliance in 2004. Buunypants* reappointed Emperor, perhaps, if the actual voting is a tie, with a 15% "mandate" (yes, we have to beat the Busheviks by 7.5% in order to "squeak out a victory, IMHO)

Step 2. Draft, National ID Cards/passports, the end of Posse Commitatus, the end of habeus corpus (PATRIOT II)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
10. there's no way they're not contemplating the draft
Edited on Sat Nov-15-03 02:12 PM by Cocoa
all you hear about is our troops being stretched too thin, and missing recruitment goals.

If they're not contemplating a draft now, and preparing for it, then the SSS has no purpose.

I wish our govt. would stop lying to us, especially the military.


edit: important to say that contemplating and preparing is not the same as having decided, and that the draft will happen. This is not proof of that kind of decision, it's evidence that DOD is asking for increased preparedness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. The being ready to respond to correspondence in 10 days is really telling
You have 10 days to protest your medical I know. Why would they have to get a dormant service ready to respond to all correspondence within 10 days and have full customer service functional to 87% by March 31, 2005?

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. it's their reason for being
I don't think it's suspicious if they have objectives for themselves like that. They're in business to conduct the draft, if necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. It is very suspicious--for 30 years the system was held in dormancy
Edited on Sat Nov-15-03 02:25 PM by Dems Will Win
and people were required to register and boards were even let go to 80% vacancy. Now they are spending $28 million to make the system totally active by March 31st, 2005, especially the part about the Lottery activation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
E_Zapata Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #17
69. Hey, there is a bill stuck in committee (on hold)
to reinstate the draft. It's just sitting there.....and on the perfect right day.......probably march 16, 2005.....it will come up for a vote.

All the parts are in place, and this is not routine.

We got wars to fight, man!

The best thing to do is get this out far and wide......and get the moms of this country to VOTE DEM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #69
82. Two active bills currently sit in the Committee on Armed Services...
S. 89--A bill 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; to the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mr. HOLLINGS, January 7, 2003

<http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?W... >

Complete text on S. 89:

<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPad... >

======================================================

H.R. 163--A bill 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; to the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Lewis of
Georgia, Mr. Stark, and Mr. Abercrombie), January 7, 2003

<http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?W... >

Complete text on H.R. 163:

<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPad... >
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #82
104. Yes and if a draft is necessary
(We know better it is for Mr, bunnypants)

Then this was a way to preempt the excusee to the rich bill that
he would bring up

Mind yuo, when both Rangel and Hollings introduced this was in
the noble attempt to slow down teh war machine, but if the BFEE
gets the excuses for the rich, there will be hell to pay, hell
there will be riots anyway, but that is besides the point

Anybody wants to bet bush will enact a draft whether he wins or
looses?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kysrsoze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Sounds a lot like the mandatory Israeli military service requirement....
Of course anyone with enough money and influence will get around it - just like a few people we know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sable302 Donating Member (597 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
12. what the heck is the HCPDS?
Health Care Personell Delivery System?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. The Health Care is the Medical you take, the Personnel they deliver are
young men...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sable302 Donating Member (597 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Thanks n/t
..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
14. Will Pitt, can you write about this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
16. Somebody ought to shut that window-
I feel a draft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
19. Time to start organizing on campuses n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tnlefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
21. Does anyone have a link to the section of NoChildLeft Behind that
requires high schools to submit the names of the 17 yr. olds or risk losing funding? I can't seem to find mine right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. the recent announcement of test scores
showed that some or all minority groups did significantly worse than whites. Very interesting connection you're making between NCLB and the draft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #21
39. Links
Edited on Sun Nov-16-03 07:50 AM by soup
The full text of the legislation (See Section 9528, page 559)
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html


No Child Left Unrecruited

DID YOU KNOW

that the No Child Left Behind Act
requires high schools
to turn over student information to
military recruiters?

On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act, which he said would revolutionize education policies. But hidden deep within the 670-page piece of legislation is Section 9528, which states:


each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide, on a request made by military recruiters or an institution of higher education, access to secondary school students names, addresses, and telephone listings.


Public and private high schools must comply with this provision or risk losing federal funding. However, the legislation also stipulates that:


A secondary school student or the parent of the student may request that the students name, address, and telephone listing not be released without prior written parental consent, and the local educational agency or private school shall notify parents of the option to make a request and shall comply with any request.


Unfortunately, many high school officials are not complying with this last provision. Under pressure from military recruiters and unaware that they must receive prior consent from parents, high school officials are turning over names, address and telephone numbers of students without giving them or their parents the opportunity to refuse the release of that information. The military does not hide the fact that it uses this information to aggressively recruit high school students often against the will of parents and students. Nor is it a secret that these recruiting tactics target minority students.
>more:
http://grassrootsvoices.org/ufpstudent.html


on edit: title should read: Links - not Link s :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Big_Mike Donating Member (274 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #39
74. I was an Army Recruiter in '88.
All but one of the schools in our area supplied the names, addresses and phone numbers of the junior class in mid May. We were supposed to start contacting the kids during the summer (Delayed Entry Program for up to 365 days) so we'd have the whole year to try and get them.

One school would only give the names of the kids. I had to go to the phone book, and call every family with that name, trying to find the kid that way.

So this is nothing new. They just tried to make it easier on the Recruiter. BTW, I called the school that didn't give names. They send a letter to every Junior's parents at the beginning of the final semester of the 11th grader's school year. The parents have to respond in the positive to have the name given over. This satisfies the requirement, and the parents hold the say over what happens.

The other way to go is to just say your kid has asthma. Not eligible to enlist. Any permanently disqualifing condition will keep the kid out of the draft line.

All that being said, I just don't see the services going for a draft. It takes too long to train someone to lose them in 18 months or two years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #74
77. Don't forget that the Bushies have stated repeatedly that the "war...
...against terror will take quite a while to win".

They're not talking months or a couple of years...they're talking decades. And to supply enough meat to the meatgrinder you have to have a standardized flow of meat.

Ugly way to look at it, but I'm sure that's the way the NeoCons are looking at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #74
85. What would keep bush from changing the draft to three years? Also draftees
might be used more for support than front line, high tech battlefield stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuckeFushe Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
22. It also implies that BushCo has the election in the bag to impliment this
think about that for a minute. Times up.


IMPEACH NOW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phaseolus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
24. How this will play out in the 'war of the pundits'
Once this takes hold in the public mind the Forces of Evil will spin this as 'Bush is a decisive leader who makes bold decisions without regard to polls, there's a war on, 9/11, Al-Qaeda wants to kill 100,000 of us, 9/11, and, oh yeah, Clinton got a blow job.'

To win the battle of the talking points we have to point out that

1.) he's hiding or at least soft-pedaling this until after the election (Arent there quotes out there saying there are no plans to reinstate the draft? There's gotta be something in the record we can nail him on...)

and 2.) We wouldn't *need* a draft if Bush hadn't fucked things up so badly in the middle east by invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and lying about all the reasons to manufacture a mandate.

Speakin' of that Al-Qaeda '100,000 dead' threat reported http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_2.htm... , who the hell is worldtribune.com, anyway??? If you wanted to scare the U.S. population into accepting a draft without too much complaining, this is the kind of story you'll want to run, right??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lostnfound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
27. kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BevHarris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 01:41 AM
Response to Original message
28. Excuse me but wouldn't this make a bit of a stir if a candidate
Edited on Sun Nov-16-03 01:41 AM by BevHarris
blasted this issue sky high? I really do believe that a candidate who says "And I am NOT in favor of reinstating the draft -- let's keep our sons and daughters alive and un-maimed!" would get a rousing vote from mothers like me, who have sons and a daughters of draft age.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Hi Bev, Yes I'm hoping the Dean campaign and the rest of them will refer
to this performance plan, which is really a draft activation plan to reduce the time needed to start the draft from 8 months to 75 days!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snoochie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #28
45. IIIRC three of the Dem candidates support drafting women
It would be hard for those to say they're not in favor of reinstating the draft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BevHarris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #45
67. Not really -- supporting draft of women doesn't mean reinstate it
two different things. I think this is a safe issue for Dem candidates to speak out against.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PaDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #28
52. Notify EVERY candidate
and alert them to this so they can blow this skyhigh immediately..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. Which ever candidate refers to this SSS Web page gets a Gold Star from
Dems Will Win!

Bets on who blows it skyhigh first?

Kucinich? Dean? Kerry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #53
105. Clark has started it
when asked he tells people we don't need no stinking draft

In nicer language of course

Reality is Bush has destroyed the armed services to the point that
we just may for National Defense and very short term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lefta Dissenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #28
58. Clark has spoken out clearly against the draft (eom)
Edited on Sun Nov-16-03 08:59 PM by Vote_Clark_In_WI
hey, that was my 100th post! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. Can you post that here in this thread, that would be great!
We need to keep pushing this and get everyone in the dialogue!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lefta Dissenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #59
70. will do, when I'm back onto my own computer
hopefully tonight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 02:00 AM
Response to Original message
30. PNAC cannot operate without armies of occupation. Uncle Sam wants YOU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. Exactimundo, my astute friend!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #31
51. They will need millions to carry out PNAC strategy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #51
63. Chimpy's cowboy diplomacy killed any chance of international help.
Poland, a member of the current coalition, is already complaining about Bush's bungling in Iraq.

Nations of the former Soviet Union will not be as eager to send thier young people to aid PNAC ventures in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texas is the reason Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 03:40 AM
Response to Original message
34. i've said it before, ill say it again- BUSH=DRAFT!....
this is our big winner in 2004- there is NOTHING more unpopular than a draft. if we get this message out, bushco is screwed in '04- by a margin even he couldn't steal through smpke and mirrors. if in Nov. 04 two out of every three people you talk to say they voted for the democratic candidate, not even jeb bush, working with diebolds' finest and rupert murdochs' minions could deliver that vote to bush inc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ryharrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 04:29 AM
Response to Original message
35. As a 21 year old,
I just have to say - I'm scared out of my mind. I've had nightmares about this. Fortunately I'll be finished with graduate school by then and I'll be free to move where I want. I live two hours from Canada, and have no problem jumping in my car on June 14th 2005.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemperEadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 06:01 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. Canada is closing that loophold... if you're going to Canada, go now
it isn't going to be the 60's all over again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #36
79. The loopholes to allow escape to other countries have...
...already been closed. There is no escape from this one unless you "disappear" entirely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. Don't have nightmares, the way it works, you might be too old to
be drafted. At least right away. Since you will be 23 in 2005, the 20-year-olds are drawn first. Then after they induct up to number 100-150 in that lottery, they start on the 21-year olds and then the 22-year olds. You would be in the 4th Lottery.

THERE IS ALSO ALTERNATIVE SERVICE. You can get a CO--but it used to be certain religions. Just join something like the Ethical Culture Society today! THey support COs in their doctrine.

Then you're in the AS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ryharrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Thanks, that's reassuring.
I also signed up for information on becoming a part of my local draft board. I figured that could only help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 06:17 AM
Response to Original message
37. Someone should save that page...
it will disappear soon, just like the "draft boards" page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
43. If this gets reported widely, Smirk is TOAST
Stick a fork in him.

He'll go down like a cheap whore
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snoochie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
44. bump
So will they be drafting women this time as well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. Negatory, m'am
No women.

20 year-olds first then
the 22 year-olds
the 23 year-olds
the 24 year-olds
the 25 year-olds
the 26 year-olds

then back to the
the 19 year-olds
and the
the 18 year-olds

No more student deferments and no more Canada. You can get a CO (as I did during Vietnam) but only from a liberal draft board in a big city.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmileyBoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #47
73. Why no more Canada???
If you think that the Canadians will want to kick me out of their country for evading the draft of a war that they DON'T AGREE with, then that's just silly thinking on your part.

I for one DO NOT THINK that it will be a problem for many people my age to flee to Canada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #73
76. US has new agreement with Canada msking return much easier
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MakeYourself Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #76
128. Running to Canada not an option
All, do you have more information regarding the policies of other countries, now being more willing to find "draft dodgers" or whatever people will be called? This is the first I'd heard of this. Canada was always the option in my mind...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trek234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #73
95. It is silly thinking on your part
Edited on Mon Nov-17-03 02:12 PM by Trek234
to believe Canada will not adhere to agreements it has made.

If Canada had no intent of returning those escaping a US draft they would not have made the agreement.

Also - Canada today is not like the Canada of Vietnam. They return TONS of people unless they have legit legal grounds for asylum, or other legal authorization to be in the nation. Because they have made an agreement with the US you will no longer have legit legal grounds to stay in the nation unless you can secure something along the lines of a work/settlement visa which, if you look up the procedure for doing so, would likely be extremely difficult for you. You're not a doctor, right?

Then, even if you secure such a visa, you will still be wanted in the US for the draft and will still face extradition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
feminazi Donating Member (911 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #95
112. re the canada-us agreement
any links on that? my son will be 23 in 2005, so he's probably safe. but i'd rather send him overseas than let bush use him for cannon fodder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fixated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
48. Sorry, but....
I've looked this over, and nothing looks too suspicious. Can someone point out how this is unique?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Right now to activate the draft would take 8 months. In 2004 they are
going to spend $28 million EXTRA to be ready to activate in 75 days from March 31, 2005. In addition, because of long deployments, fully half the troops now deployed are not re-enlisting, meaning that upwards of 30,000 National Guard and an unknown number of Army currently under arms would become civilians again at the exact time Cheney's PNAC plan calls for the U.S. to hold onto the Iraqi oil and take what they can of the rest of the oil fields. They will need millions of more men under arms to grab the oil then they have now. This is perfect timing you see to have the draft ready as soon as possible after the 2004 election.

You see, oil production will peak around 2011 and oil becomes very expensive after that, so PNAC is trying to make sure America has control of that oil and not Russia and China and the Arabs. It's called the end-game of our fossil-fuelish civilization...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. What's suspicicious is this!
They have let this program sit dormant--even after 9-11. Now 2 years after, they have very quietly spent $28 million to basically activate the system. That's because of a whole PNAC plan--for this was thought out in 2001. They need this draft so bad, they are willing to activate it by March 31, 2005 and are taking the risk to actually hold Lottery Exercises and total Area exercises of the medical exams during the election year of 2004--a huge political risk!

That's what convinces me they are serious about returning to conscription.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
55. Going to kick this sweetheart.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. I found this by surfing the SSS site and said "Holy ****! the Draft Board
notice being scrubbed was just the tip of the iceberg!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. I have passed it on to my mailing list with instructions
to save a copy of it on their drives.

I am going to contact a resource to do some checking for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. Thank you Alfredo!! We are trying to compare the FY 2003 budget with
the 2004 budget. It looks like the $28 mil is an increase over the regular $26 mil 2003 budget. Ask your resource that, please. So is the SSS 2004 $54 mil? That's what we need to know as well.

Thanks again!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicktom Donating Member (221 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
61. They will sell this the same way they did Iraq...
there are no plans on the presidents desk to attack Iraq, there are currently no plans to re-introduce the draft.

I agree that the best way to bring this out into the open is by the democratic candidates to introduce it. Make it an issue, now. Back this administration into a corner now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lizz612 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
64. This is the stuff of my nightmares, literally
I had a dream last October about all my guy friends dying because they were soldiers and I was the doc that was trying to save them. The better I knew them the more times they showed up on the table in front of me before they died. I'm 18, by 2005 my friends will be 19 and 20. :scared:

Oh and :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. There is Alternative Service, I got a CO myself during Vietnam
Then after your CO, you still might get off from the Lottery from even that. That's what happened to me.

The most threatened ages for this are the people who are today ages 17 to 20. They would be entered in the Lottery first throughout 2006.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #65
71. Send this link to every college paper in the country
Anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
absolutezero Donating Member (879 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #71
80. Im a college paper editor
this is going in tommorows edition at NJIT (hopefully)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JewelDigger Donating Member (440 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #71
89. How about getting the word out the High Schools too
Those currently high school juniors and seniors would be directly affected by this. Now is the time to get all those soccer moms/dads thinking about the possiblity of sending THEIR child off to the military for the purpose of ????? Maybe now they need to start thinking critically about the direction the US is currently headed in and WHY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmileyBoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #65
72. I'm currently 21. I turn 23 on Sept 8, 2005.
Should I worry??? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #72
78. Depends
You would be in the third or fourth lottery if it went through. Depends how fast Cheney wants to carry out the PNAC plant to grab the oil....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #65
81. How much you want to bet that "alternative service" this time around...
...will only be used to protect the sons and daughters of the wealthy?

Getting a CO will also be very difficult...new decade, new rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #81
83. What are the AS new rules, can you post here? Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MakeYourself Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #65
127. conscientious objector...service still required?
Dems Will win, you speak of being a CO yourself. I've been reading all about the mandatory draft for people between the ages of 18 and 26; the mandatory two years of service...it's all very scary. I will be 25 in 2005, supposedly not likely to be picked. My brother and sister on the other hand will be in the prime ages. My family is pacifists. We will not fight. We will not fire a gun. And yet the conscientious objector status still means we would have to serve in in the hospital wards during the war? I need to know more about this, we need information. Can you help me to clarify this?


In addition, I had read something years ago that since WWII, there is a law on file that not every child in a family can be sent to war...one child must be left to take care of the parents. True? Where can I read up on this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #127
130. If your in the Lottery year, if your number is chosen, and if your Draft
Board is liberal, you can get a CO. It's called Alternative Service and here is the official SSS info about it. You can actually get a non-military CO and work in conservation or for a local employer, etc.

Don't know the answer to your other question, The Quakers helped me with Draft Counseling and they must still have some somewhere.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION AND ALTERNATIVE SERVICE Printer Friendly Version

A conscientious objector is one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles.

HOW TO APPLY
In general, once a man gets a notice that he has been found qualified for military service, he has the opportunity to make a claim for classification as a conscientious objector (CO). A registrant making a claim for Conscientious Objection is required to appear before his local board to explain his beliefs.

He may provide written documentation or include personal appearances by people he knows who can attest to his claims. His written statement might explain:

how he arrived at his beliefs; and

the influence his beliefs have had on how he lives his life.

The local board will decide whether to grant or deny a CO classification based on the evidence a registrant has presented.

A man may appeal a Local Board's decision to a Selective Service District Appeal Board. If the Appeal Board also denies his claim, but the vote is not unanimous, he may further appeal the decision to the National Appeal Board. See also Classifications.

WHO QUALIFIES?
Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims.

SERVICE AS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR
Two types of service are available to conscientious objectors, and the type assigned is determined by the individual's specific beliefs. The person who is opposed to any form of military service will be assigned to Alternative Service - described below. The person whose beliefs allow him to serve in the military but in a noncombatant capacity will serve in the Armed Forces but will not be assigned training or duties that include using weapons.

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE
Conscientious Objectors opposed to serving in the military will be placed in the Selective Service Alternative Service Program. This program attempts to match COs with local employers. Many types of jobs are available, however the job must be deemed to make a meaningful contribution to the maintenance of the national health, safety, and interest. Examples of Alternative Service are jobs in:

conservation

caring for the very young or very old

education

health care

Length of service in the program will equal the amount of time a man would have served in the military, usually 24 months.

http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
absolutezero Donating Member (879 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
75. just in time for my little bro's 18th bday
Edited on Sun Nov-16-03 11:19 PM by absolutezero
I hate these assholes....every friggin one of them :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattNC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #75
92. if he's 18
he likely won't be drafted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #92
93. Not true, by June 2005, he'd be first in line for the first lottery
because men who are 20 in 2005 will be drawn in the first lottery (if Cheney wants one)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattNC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #93
94. i assumed
he's turning 18 in 2005, which would make him not likely to be drafted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #94
97. That's different
I thought he was 18 now. He wouldn't be drawn until 2007 then. But then he would be in the first drawing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
84. Are there affirmative action requirements for draft boards?
I'd to think of an all white draft board in a major city that is majority-minority.

Come to think of it, there should also be affirmative action requirements for draft boards on the basis of class AND race.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lefta Dissenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
86. Clark's opinion on the draft
for those who are worried that a military man is going to want to enslave young Americans:

Comments at the New Hampshire Town Hall Meeting - September?, 2003 (forgive any typo's, I was trying to transcribe off the videotape - 'pause' doesn't mean 'pause' like it used to)

I was speaking to the Long Island Foreign Affairs Association about three or four weeks ago, and they said, Do you think well need to reinstitute the draft? I said no, I dont think so, because at least for the United States Army, we dont want people in there who dont want to be there. We want volunteers, because thats the way youd run any organization, you dont want to force people to be there.



Rock the Vote Debate - November, 2003

General Clark, this is a wireless question. Would you reinstate the draft? I think they asked this because one of your senior campaign advisers, Congressman Charlie Rangel, says the draft should be reinstated. It's time. Is it?

CLARK: No. I don't think it's time to reinstate the draft. America's armed forces need people who want to be there. And I would not reinstate the draft.

(text snipped: referring to current problems in military)

But here's the key thing on the draft. We believe that the armed forces are better with a volunteer force. And what this country has to understand is that when it puts a foreign policy in place that the American people don't support, the answer for that is not to reinstitute the draft, but to change the foreign policy, and that's where we're headed with Iraq.

I thought he was asked the question about the draft in one of the one-on-one interviews, but I can't find it - I really need to organize my files!!!

:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starpass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
87. It's little tidbits like these.......
that can bring Bush down--fast. However, the tidbits need to pour forth from the mouths of the Dem candidates and the DNC. Will they pour forth----no, they never do. They always let the real ammo stay buried while they yack about stuff that most of this nation doesn't listen to. The repukes get right to the point and score. Like I said, definitely if Dean is our nominee they are going to scream "gay marriage" and nothing else and you know it will be highly effective. Well, here is one way Dean or anybody can scream something that will trump their garbage-speak. This one makes a whole bunch of yuppie moms and dads go pale with fright. Their children are meant to run the world, not die in wars necessary for economic expansion, darling. In the words of our great president "BRING IT ON, Dems, bring it on" because if you don't stop snoozing you are going to lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #87
88. this section reveals the 75-day goal:
Strategic Objective 1.2: Ensure a mobilization infrastructure of 56 State Headquarters,
442 Area Offices and 1,980 Local Boards are operational within 75 days of an authorized
return to conscription.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undergroundpanther Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #87
90. Resist
If your number comes up REFUSE TO REPLY. Refuse to answer them,burn the card in front of thier face. Do whatever it takes. DON"T OBEY the demand to be drafted to die. You have 10 days to Seek out every 20 year old in your town who was picked and every kid that might be picked and march down the street and burn your friggin card at a local recruitment station everyday,get angry parents involved who value the lives of thier kids more than empire.. DO Risk jail.Because if you go to fight bush's greed war,you most likely will face worse trauma,brainwashing,abuse, and bodily harm in a war than doing a stint in jail.

You might quite literally lose your mind,your body,your health your life at war. For what? Maintaining a corrupt corporate hegemony for a wannabe king who went AWOL himself. If Bush and the chickenhawks can be yellow and have a desire to live you can too,fuck the wingnuts and gung ho weirdos who would tell you standing up for yourself, and wanting to live your life in peace,and resisting extortion from the state is unpatriotic.If enough young people get some guts and act in thier own self interests together,the jails will have no room for all the resisters.It will work only if people stand together with courage and say NO in unity. YOu cannot be made into a human weapon if you REFUSE to be made into a human weapon. DISOBEY. Do not follow orders.Refuse to pick up a gun because you are told to. NO one can MAKE you kill anyone.They can try to however.Choosing peace begins with each of us saying NO and meaning it.

Sure alot of new jails have been built,in isolated areas and FEMA is lurking and the patriot act has scrapped the constitution,but there are too many of us.The powers that be,they know this is true that might be why there are so many nukes,to hopefully threaten us into submission with total annilation.FUCK thier extortion.I say give me liberty or give me death motherfuckers. I gotta die someday, and if I do I will go fighting,for what *I* believe in,for my own human values that mean something to *me* personally like freedom from authoritarian or business abuses,peace,equality,respect,love,compassion,my freinds my family.


I was talking to an old 60's radical who was there last night.

He told me how radical people were willing to lay thier lives ,livelihoods and everything else on the line for values they thought mattered,like peace,equality,love,justice,freedom from authoritarians,freedom from the draft.They CHOSE to stand up together and did the work to organize.They meant business and were willing to risk being hurt,being rejected by parents,getting arrested,losing it all, even violently fighting against the law ,police,government,business and the state to stand up for themselves and thier own values.

Radicals back then studied how propaganda works and questioned everything,they studied history, the history of revolutions and the constitution.They used thier heads,fists,flowers ,numbers and thier hearts.And when they stood up for themselves,together or alone,for thier future,thier values ,they sometimes were hurt,thier groups were infiltrated by agents,thier reputations were publicaly smeared,thier families were threatened and harassed,the public was terrorized,Hippie symbols and thier "uniform"(bell bottoms,long hair, beads ect) was co-opted by businesspeople and sold back to kids as a defanged image package to kids that were ignorant of the morality.

The meaning and hope contained in the fight of the 60's,was co-opted by kids who just wanted to piss off square parents and it went down hill. The store bought packaged image of rebellion still appeals to the lazy thinker,fence sitter,the moderate,the materialistic, the cowards who have no soul but want to"fit in" with the kewel crowds and score chix. People who have heart,please go,enlighten these people. In the 60's people questioned the "powers that be" with some teeth so they were labeled a 'threat' to "order" .The anarchists of today face the same bigoted stigmas and ignorance about what anarchy is when it comes to popular opinions..And the state did everything in thier power to destroy the hippies and they will do the same thing to the new radicals.One must ask what sort of"order" was so upset by such a display of boldness conviction,self determination and character in average people standing up for what is right,just and good??
The 60's radicals were systematically undermined,harassed co-opted,even killed because the 'leaders' were terrified of them and what they represented to thier status and control over us all.


Authorities knew the young radicals parents were terrified of losing what they had invested in the old social "order" and had a limited vision and understanding of what the hippies were doing because the hippies were so youth focussed in thier rebellion.The parents were shocked at the image, the sexuality,the differences. Older people naturally get scared of big social changes especially as age creeps upwards they have conservative tendances because they have lived more life-time and can see death coming. Teenages can risk alot because they have a feeling of invicibility and hope that youth gives them. Old people and young people need each other.

The young hippies had communes and a stable community except there was no place for older people within them.There was a generation gap.So of course older people knew which side thier bread was buttered on.Some hippes didn't fall for the politically expeident scare tactics but thier parents did because of self-interest. And as the hippies got older they lost the vision,and now becaue the spectre of the draft brings it all back they are remembering that vision.Cultural revolution includes all the generations because a culture consists of all generations,each are different but all need justice equality freedom.ect.Old hippies can see thier mistakes now that they are aging parents. Young radical people need to reach out to older people,thier parents and teach them,radicalize them.


This old hippie I was speaking to...he told me a about the riots on DC.He was there!He said millions of people were there,protesting..not just one million but a few million.Many people were actually fighting,some were throwing rocks at cops, breaking things,ect. Many people were putting themselves on the line literally,for what they knew was important.It was a real culture war.
For the radicals back then there was cultural/literal war on against corrupt authoritarians and thier systems.
So many people got arrested in DC that day in 1969 fighting they filled up the police station,filled up all the paddywagons,so eventually they were detained in a football stadium. So many people were arrested they could not hope to jail them all or prosecute them.So after awile they were let go.For once the government saw it was not all powerful and it could be disobeyed, disregarded and controlled dispite all it's threats,appearances of authority,it's dominating demeanor, and stoked up fear. Authority was revealed for what it is, an impotent game played against the people who have self esteem and self determination who haven't sold themselves out.The police cannot contain millions of people simply standing together, standing up for what is right,and being willing to fight and risk stepping out of thier comfort zones for the sake of thier own integrity and values of human rights,equality,love and freedom.

He told me about Kent state when those students were murdered by trigger happy police,who put young barely trained mps on the line to do the killing for old white authoritarians. He told me the strangest thing was seen in how some adults,some of them parents themselves reacted to the deaths at Kent.Why parents all over the country did not riot I have no clue.The parents who lost thier kids did not step up and organize with other parents against the unjust deaths of thier kids.They wimped out,sold out,let it go and be forgotten and some families of the killed students were even heard saying they got what they had coming to them.This is just evil.
If it were my kid killed by the government at Kent state for standing up for what is right I would be demanding some heads to roll and I would NEVER shut up or sell out my heart and soul will not let me betray myself and my own integrity like that.

So,even if no one stands with you in your resistance I would hope you have a sense for the duty to stand up for yourself,for your own integrity ,for what you value and for the concept of freedom in the future.This thing is way bigger than me or you right now.
Please guys if the draft happens to you ,Refuse,RESIST and do not sell yourself out to terror tactics because you think you are alone. Calm your parents,talk to them,explain why.Reach out to others who support what is sane.Ignore the voices that desire you to die for any state sponsored war even if it comes out of the mouths of people you love or trust.You all are worth more than cannon fodder for an empire. If you don't resist for yourself, resist the draft so that your own kids or thier freinds will not have to die fighting or resisting another ogliarch's war for an empire someday when you get old and scared.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattNC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
91. what in here
actually suggests the draft is coming back? nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #91
96. It says the first day the draft COULD come back would be June 15, 2005
Congress does have to activate it BUT... Read it again. Bush is spending $28 million to reduce the time needed to activate it from 8 months to 75 days.

They are saying "no plans" to re-instate right now. The point is this: by March 31, 2005, the Congress could authorize and the first Lottery would then take place by June 15, 2005. If they don't spend this EXTRA $28 million, then the draft would still be 8 months away from any activation point. I suppose you think Bush is spending $28 million EXTRA to get the draft ready and then he won't activate it?

In essence, you are asking everyone here at DU, especially the 16 to 20 year-olds, to TRUST GEORGE W. BUSH that he is such a politically-minded person he would NEVER bring it back in 2005 because it would be political suicide way off in 2006 and 2008!

Please read about PNAC too, along with how many soldiers will not be re-enlisting and then do the math. Thanks!





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattNC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #96
99. i've done my research
I completely understand why activation time would be decreased to 75 days from 8 months. If we faced a catastrophic event that suddenly required a large-scale # of troops, I can certainly understand the desire to want quicker implementation of the draft. So to answer your question, yes, I think he's spending $28 million but won't reactivate the draft.

You're saying Congress COULD authorize a draft. Well, Congress COULD do a lot of things, but they realize the political repurcussions of a draft. I see no reason for them to vote for a draft.

I'm a 21 year-old, and no I don't trust George W. Bush, but that doesn't mean I believe a draft is coming back either.

Concerning the lack of re-enlistment, there's nothing to suggest we'll have any sort of emergency with our manpower. The latest recruitment figures surpass each branch's quotas. Furthermore, how can you think a draft is on the way, especially with Rumsfeld being such a large proponent of a lighter, more agile armed forces? And even if he isn't back for a second-term, plenty others are against conscription, including the military. Despite what many here think, Bush doesn't have a carte blanche to do whatever he wants.

Concerning PNAC, I know all about PNAC, but I don't buy into the conspiracy-minded DU'ers who think they're going to invade Iran, Syria, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc. in Bush's term. I have no reason to believe it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #99
101. 49% of deployed guard say they will not re-enlist
and Army deployed is saying they will not re-enlist as well but no numbers on that yet...

we will soon have to re-invade Afghanistan at the least.

again it is trusting Bush to not invade. No one could have thought he would invade Iraq and need 250,000 men in the year 2001.

I hope it doesn't happen but if the youth and the parents even get wind of this readiness plan Bush will lose electoral votes he woldn't otherwise so it's up to DUers to get the word out to the colleges about this $28 million.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattNC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #101
107. disagree
"we will soon have to re-invade Afghanistan at the least"

Huh? There's no doubt the situation is not as stable as we want it, but talk of another invasion is silly to say the least. There's nothing to suggest this is going to happen.

"No one could have thought he would invade Iraq and need 250,000 men in the year 2001."

I could've thought he would invade Iraq in 2001. I thought it was pretty much going to be a guarantee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #107
110. Re-invading Afghanistan will be necessary soon. Today's NY Times:
Edited on Mon Nov-17-03 03:43 PM by Dems Will Win
While the failure of American policy in Iraq in recent months has been painfully visible and at the forefront of public debate, the Bush administration's failures in Afghanistan have been as serious, and the risks are also great. It was Afghanistan, not Iraq, that was the spawning ground for the Sept. 11 attacks. And now, less than two years after President Bush celebrated his first military victory, Afghanistan is in danger of reverting to a deadly combination of rule by warlords and the Taliban, the allies and protectors of Osama bin Laden.

A revived Taliban army, flush with new recruits from Pakistan, is staging a frightening comeback. Major cities remain in the hands of the corrupt and brutal warlords. Much of the countryside is too dangerous for aid workers. The postwar pro-American government led by Hamid Karzai rules Kabul and little else. Opium poppies are once again a major export crop. And Osama bin Laden remains at large.

This alarming state of affairs is not mainly the result of hidden conspiracies or bad luck. It flows from a succession of bad American policy decisions. These began with the Bush administration's reluctance to commit enough American troops to Afghanistan. Then it prematurely declared victory in its rush to a war of choice with Iraq.

The reliance on a relatively small American force in Afghanistan was hailed at the time as a new model for low-casualty, high-impact warfare. But it forced Washington to rely on Tajik and Uzbek warlords and their followers to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan's cities. Many of those same cities are still controlled by those warlords.

The limited size of United States forces may also have contributed to Osama bin Laden's escape by leaving much of the early searching to poorly equipped Afghan militias and Pakistani border forces with no strong motive to succeed. The hunt for America's Public Enemy No. 1 should have been the Pentagon's No. 1 priority.

Another costly mistake was the administration's failure to press for a robust international peacekeeping force that could displace the warlords and strengthen the central government. NATO recently took over the leadership of the 5,500-member international force and is now preparing to send some peacekeepers outside Kabul for the first time. The numbers being considered, fewer than 500, are still far too small.

Washington also did not spend enough on postwar aid, slowing down such vital projects as repairing the main highway from Kabul to Kandahar. American reconstruction aid has now been increased by $1.2 billion for the next year. That is not yet enough.

The drafting of a new constitution is also a hopeful development. But as things stand now, it is no more than the Kabul City Charter. Unless far more is done to establish security in the many areas where it is still lacking and to reinforce the authority of the Karzai government, there can be no economic and political revival. There is a very real risk that soon, Afghanistan may once again turn into a sanctuary and training ground for Al Qaeda and other international terrorists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattNC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #110
113. nothing in that
suggests anything about needing to re-invade Afghanistan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #113
114. The Taliban and Osama
will soon have training camps again. That is why we will have to re-invade Herat, parts of the north and the South by the spring or summer next year. Not now...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattNC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #114
117. there's no guarantee
they'll have camps again by next year, and if they do, I'm sure an aerial campaign would suffice.

there's nothing to suggest we need to re-invade Afghanistan, or that it's going to turn into a large-scale quagmire like the Russians saw. that's nothing more than speculation on your part.

concerning the other post below, even if the article is accurate, i don't see it requiring large-scale troop numbers (wasn't there a suggestion of us losing tons of soldiers at Tora Bora too?). everything by the administratoin has suggested we'll see a gradual decrease of troops in Iraq, not this massive increase that you're talking about.

enjoyed the discussion today, but i've got to jet. although we don't agree on the possibility of a draft, if you want to setup something to help spread the word about the newest SS implementations, let me know. (msharrin@bulldog.unca.edu )

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #117
118. Thanks Matt, but you have to understand that Bush is lowering
Edited on Mon Nov-17-03 09:24 PM by Dems Will Win
troops now in Iraq and Afghanistan for political reasons, not military, he is ignoring the actual military threats. Operation Iron Hammer is just to distract the media and the public from the fact that Saddam is in the Wadi with 50,000 troops and tens of thousand of foreigners and they can't get him without bunker busters and 3,000 dead.

The air force is powerful but never changes situations on the ground. Infantry does.

Rove has decreed No War in 2004. That only means in 2005, No Inductee Will Be Left Behind.

Yes it's just speculation, but I feel my scenario, is far more likely than your speculation that things will be OK in Afghanistan with some bombing and Saddam really doesn't have an underground city with an underground army in the Wadi, from which they are running the current turkey-shoot.

I hope you're right and I'm wrong!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #117
123. Hey Matt, Rummy's memo said "We haven't made bold moves yet"
Just one month ago in the memo leaked to the world which complained about how the War on Terra was going, Rummy said--and I quote:

"My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves."


Don't you see, Matt? This is straight from the PNAC horse's mouth, the guy that wrote the PNAC plan in the 90s himself. He happens to be in charge of all those guns in that big five-sided building.

Invading Iraq and Afghanistan were not bold enough for Rummy! The only thing bolder would be re-instating the draft, invading Syria, Iran and pouring thousands of troops into Central Asia to hold off the Russians and Chinese.

Don't watch what they say in public, Matt, that is just to put everyone to sleep. Watch what the PNAC planners say in their private memos to each other!

June 15, 2005! The FIRST DRAFT LOTTERY. Mark my words.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #113
115. How about this article? It's what happened to the Russians, they took
Kabul and fought for 10 years, losing hundreds of choppers.

We will have to take back the areas the Taliban take and it will go on for years. Bush is too incompetent or doesn't want to catch Omar. We will have to escalate and increase troop strength to 30,000 if we are ever to hold Afghanistan.

And of course no one has been told this by the media but the Mossad reports that in Western Iraq, Saddam has a whole underground complex that he is actually directing things from. When he kicked his 2 sons out in an argument, they were caught and killed right away. The Mossad estimates an additional 100,000 troops would be needed to take the underground complex (which may be why they are so intent on the nuke-tipped bunker buster bomb) and even then we would lose 3,000 dead. (looking for this link -- only from Debka.com but everything we have seen points to the possibility of this being real). If it is true, then we need to send 100,000 extra to Iraq, which is now flat-out impossible. That could be another reason why the draft is being ramped up so dangerously close to the 2004 election...

Here is a Guardian article from yesterday on how we have already lost Afghanistan outside of 2 or 3 cities:

Stronger and more deadly, the terror of the Taliban is back

Close to Kandahar is a little village they call the cradle of the Taliban. Now, two years after the collapse of Mullah Omar's feared regime, the fundamentalist movement is once again on the march. In this disturbing report, Jason Burke in Sangesar tracks a resurgent menace

Sunday November 16, 2003
The Observer


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,69...

<snip>

Now it is 25-year-old Mullah Akhtar's turn to use Sangesar's only mosque's only microphone. 'The Taliban are good men trying to do good things for our country,' he says.

He is right to use the present tense. On the northern horizon, jagged hills are just visible. They are the stronghold of men loyal to Mullah Omar. Despite two years of effort by the US-led coalition, the cleric remains free. Indeed, he is more than just free. The hi-tech onslaught that followed the 11 September attacks in America appeared to have consigned the Taliban to the overfull dustbin of Afghan history. But in recent months they have crawled out again. The Taliban are back. And if for the moment they are confined to a few isolated, inaccessible, lawless mountain valleys, their power, military and political, is growing.

Last week the resurgent Taliban began striking into the cities and against heavily armed coalition troops. Their efforts were once limited to hit-and-run attacks on far-flung government outposts or aid projects and the assassination of moderate clerics. But in the past eight days they have attacked a column of armoured vehicles near the Pakistani border, killing a Romanian soldier, and detonated a series of bombs in Kandahar city itself and in Qalat, capital of Zabul province. The Taliban's leaders are also refusing to surrender a Turkish engineer who was kidnapped two weeks ago while working on the key road from Kabul to Kandahar. Instead, they issued threats to kidnap Western journalists.

The Taliban are expanding fast. The deputy governor of Zabul admits most of his province is now controlled by the militia. Most of Oruzgan province and around half of Kandahar province is now beyond government authority.

Even in supposedly loyal areas there are many loyal to Mullah Omar. In the Maiwand district of Kandahar province, Sher Ahmed Hakiya, the local chief, said: 'Many here were with the Taliban. Now they have all given me written pledges of their allegiance, so I am confident that there will be no problem.' Few are so optimistic.

The number of the new Taliban is unclear. A US-led operation in September, which claimed 300 'kills', seems to have had little impact. Some estimate that several thousand fighters have been mobilised in the Taliban-controlled areas.

<snip>

In June, Mullah Omar set up a 10-man leadership council to co-ordinate a new strategy aimed at cutting south-eastern Afghanistan off from the rest of the country. Their aim, according to Western diplomats in Kabul, is to make the region too insecure for development work.

'If the Taliban can prevent the benefits of postwar reconstruction reaching local people, the disillusionment and alienation created will boost support,' one said.

So far, the strategy is working. International aid organisations are restricting their operations in the south-east. 'It's just too damned dangerous these days,' said one NGO security officer.

'Since this council was set up, the Taliban jihad has much improved,' Mullah Abdul Rauf, a Taliban official, said in a telephone interview. The result is an increasingly divided Afghanistan. In Kabul, aid money, private investment and a relatively secure environment have sparked a boom. Though many citizens remain destitute, the city is transformed. Under the Taliban, the streets were empty and shops boarded up. Banking facilities barely existed and there were almost no functioning telephones in the country. Now the bazaars are packed, traffic jams are common, mobile phones are everywhere and the money market turns over $10 million each week. The new currency is stable. 'It's so many times better,' said Ghaffour, a dealer at the market.

But the growth has yet to reach the south-east, the region which has been hardest hit by the recent droughts. The new Afghan constitution, though welcomed by most in Kabul, means little in this back country 300 miles from the capital. Much of the new economic activity in Kandahar is fuelled by the cultivation of the opium poppy - and next year's harvest is predicted to be the biggest ever.

'We have a lot of traffic on the roads now, which is good,' said the governor of Kandahar. 'It's a shame that one in 10 vehicles is carrying drugs.'

'There's a serious risk that this country will become a narco-state,' one senior ministerial aide told The Observer . In the south-east that has already happened, at least locally. The chief of one district begged The Observer to ask the government to send him a replacement for his police chief who, he said, was running 20 opium shops.

'Drugs people here are too powerful for me alone,' he said. Traffickers - keen to prevent Karzai's government from gaining enough strength to crack down on their business - are thought to be helping the Taliban.

<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #113
116. Afghan 30,000 needed, Iraq an extra 100,000, plus the re-enlistments
are way down.

Sounds to me like they will need to draft close to 200,000 in 2005. That's just to stabilize Iraq and the Afghans.

Come to think of it, they will probably let both Iraq and Afghanistan go to hell until the eleciton is over and then gear up for a 2005 offensive to take Saddam's underground city in the Wadi region and take back the parts of Afghanistan we will have certainly lost by then.

That would be the politically safer plan. Rove told the RNC: "No War in '04!" (Meaning Katie Bar the Door in '05)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #96
100. With Bush firmly planted in the WH in 2005, Tom Delay running congress,
who's to stop them?

Wake up America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goobergunch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
98. Fuck...that's my 18th Birthday
I think that qualifies as the worst birthday present ever.

:grr: :grr: :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #98
108. take this to yoru school
and ahem share....

WE NEED YOU GUYS to help us vote this poser out

And I may add... it seems that all people are engaged by are
games, (with some exceptions, aka you) Think if the draft will
not have yoru friends going huh! Where do I register to vote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
javadu Donating Member (291 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
102. Does Anyone Know Current Enlisting and Reenlisting Stats?
And, more importantly, does anyone know how those stats compare to the same stats during the Clinton years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #102
106. DoD used to release those numbers
they are not, firs clue

Second clue, Navy times had a banner 10K jobs cut (we did not meet
quota really)

Third clue, my neighbor is a recruiter and yes, they magically meet quoata, mstly they are closest to the actual numbers, every month. They just go about saying we needed 100 sailors, oops did I say 90?

Fuzzy math is alive and well
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #106
109. Aha I knew it!
The re-enlist and recruitment numbers are too horrendous to release.

It would be too obvious that they have to start up the DRAFT again!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #102
111. a survey of deployed National Guard was 49% say they will not re-enlist
that's devastating....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
number6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
121. wolfee-shitz says we need it....
more blood fur oil :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #121
122. OMG! Do you have that link?
WTF!! and LOL!! and OMG!! one more time!

It's Wolfee-shitz who is the whiz kid, he is their main planner. If he says we need it, that's what Cheney and Rummy are telling Dumbya.

OMG!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #122
124. Rumsfeld memo said "we haven't made truly bold moves yet"
Re-instating the draft and invading Syria and Iran would be truly bold at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #124
125. uh-oh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MakeYourself Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #122
129. Wolfowitz: "We need this and we are going to get it"
I believe this is the link in question:
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/121103wolfowitzdraft.ht...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpaceCatMeetsMars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
126. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #126
131. Kick for hitting Buzzflash
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #131
132. OMG!! LOL!! and OMG !! again! Let's get this everywhere!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frank frankly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
133. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-03 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #133
134. for Matt and Cocoa, PNAC Statement of Principles, signed Dick, Rummy, Jeb!
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples...

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.


Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Dec 27th 2014, 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC