What we need to kickstart the Draft: ANOTHER TERROR ATTACK

[mopaul]

The fine people who created the infamous PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY, (PNAC), famously stated that the only thing that would set their plans into effect would be 'another Pearl Harbor type event'.

A catalyst that would qualify invading and conquering the middle east in American's war wary minds. And now, the impending draft, which bush says will not happen, needs a catalyst to soften our minds to their plans.

Has bush ever lied to us? Would he lie about the draft? Yes, and yes.

And the one thing needed to get our heads right about all this invasion shit is of course, another convenient terror attack to fill young men's hearts with patriotism and nationalism and need for revenge. Another terror attack is what bush really needs right now.

And since the world is literally teeming with anti American terrorists, I'm sure some are even now making plans to ensure that we the people will respond accordingly and be good little fattened lambs.

Our hearts and minds must be made to follow in lock step. When you got em' by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.

[James T. Kirk]

1. Draft, draft, draft. Blah, blah, blah.

For the millionth time, there is not going to be a draft. The people who want a draft only want there to a a draft so they can be against it.

[tavalon]

3. And you'll be sure to come back here and

admit you were wrong when they implement it, right?

[James T. Kirk]

4. Yes. I have bookmarked this page.

And you'll come back and admit I'm right when there is no draft?

[H2O Man]

5. "Where are the New Recruits?"

An article in TIME magazine (1-17-05; pages 36-41) quotes US military leaders as saying that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are taking a toll on the military that is resulting in its "rapidly degenerating into a broken force." While it is true that there are some military leaders who believe there is not a need for a draft, it is absolutely false to pretend that they are not voicing concern over the inept policies of Rumsfeld et al. We are heading in the direction of a draft; this does not mean it is impossible to avoid one, just that the country will need to change direction if we are to avoid the need for a draft.

[James T. Kirk]

177. Recruits still coming in.

See link:
http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/docs/recsum04.pdf

[DistantWind88]

8. We need a time-limit

People have been saying a draft is "Imminent" for well over a year now. They've been wrong every time thus far.

[H2O Man]

10. Having read DU for that period

I can honestly say I have not seen a single person say that there would be a draft before the election. Can you come up with a list of a dozen or so people saying that there was an "Imminent" draft? Or even two, as "people" is plural? One?

[DistantWind88]

11. Sorry I was just a lurker then

Didn't memorize names, but I saw several Draft posts over the last 18 months saying that the draft was gonna be in June of 04, then "right after the election," then in "January 05." Suffice it to say, there is still no draft.

[H2O Man]

12. Interesting.

Just for sake of discussion, a "draft" is the forced conscription of people who would not be in the military by choice. At this point in time, people who were supposed to be ending their service in the National Guard are having their "enrollment" extended by compulsion. Hence, to say that there is not a draft is simply wrong. The only question is will the draft become larger and more inclusive.

Those who have said the draft is imminent were indeed correct. It is important that we set the record straight on that. Those who say there won't be a draft are, for one reason or another, wrong.

[DistantWind88]

13. Having one's enlistment extended

to the full term is not a draft...they signed on the dotted line KNOWING that the 4-6 years they signed up for active duty could be extended to 8-10 years if "required." They volunteered; that's not a draft.

I'm curious as to when you think this draft is going to start.

[H2O Man]

15. As stated,

forced conscription of those who are not volunteering is by definition a form of a draft. It is unfortunate that some will split hairs, and say that as long as it doesn't affect them or their family, it's no problem.

As far as an exact time line, I am not particularly concerned with placing bets on things immediate. A sad symptom of our societal pathology is our need for instant gratification, and the demand for things NOW. All things significant take time. Hence, if I am on an interstate highway heading west, I will certainly end up in a westerly destination .... unless I turn around. We are heading in a specific direction as a nation. There are some children in the back seat, so to speak, demanding to know "when will we get there?" It depends upon road conditions how quickly we get to a destination .... and it looks like a storm on the horizen.

[DistantWind88]

16. It's not splitting hairs

they volunteered, KNOWING their enlistments could be extended. I did the same.

I was not drafted; I knew what I was getting into.

[H2O Man]

20. Okay.

If you want to have a meaning other than what the word means, that's fine.

A few questions: {1} Do you support the Bush administration's policy in Iraq? {2} In the Middle East? {3} If not, what are the two major areas you have disagreements with? {4} Do you believe that there are significant differences of opinion on military matters between some military leaders and Rumsfeld & friends? {5} Have you read the TIME article I mentioned?

No "trick" questions here. Different people can have very different points of view. I'm just curious what point of view you have. Thanks.

[DistantWind88]

21. Answers

1. Hell no. Not worth ONE American life.
2. I support some aspects of the policy on the ME, but disagree with most. What I do support: Supporting (not imposing) democratic movements in the ME; supporting Israel's survival, but not expansion.
3. I don't agree with our whole-hearted support of the Saudis; we could be much tougher on them. We need to use economic tools to encourage the Saudis and others to bring about reforms (especially democratic and human rights reforms). A judicious mix of carrots AND sticks could bring about some change if done in concert with the EU.
4. Yes
5. Yes

And there will not be a draft.

[Balbus]

32. Well done!

[H2O Man]

86. Interesting.

Although we disagree on the question of the draft, I think we would agree on almost everything in questions 1-5.

I think that some interesting things are occuring in the United States in regard to opposition to the Bush war in Iraq. There are not some of the divisive issues that there were in the Vietnam era .... people who oppose this war are not placing the blame on the men and women in uniform, as happened 35 years ago.

There is also an open difference between what many military leaders say needs to be done, and what Rumsfeld and his side-kicks are pushing for.

Thus, the non-military people on DU who oppose the war tend to be opposed to the Bush plans and the Rumsfeld methods to reach the president's goals. They do not oppose the soldiers.

So when there are a handful of military people coming on DU, and focusing on a thread such as this, stating there will be no draft, I hope that you are able to accept that we believe the military prefers to be an all-volunteer force. But we also see that the Rumsfelds really aren't listening to some of the military leaders who they should be listening to. And there is every reason to believe that the administration, at the urging of the neocon/Cheney influences, will continue to push our country in a direction that will create more problems for both the military and those not in the military.

Many of us believe these foolish actions on the part of the Cheney/Rumsfelds will result in the need for a draft. That's not an "anti-military" feeling, and its not discounting the opinions of those in uniform. It is saying that those who make the decisions -- men like Rumsfeld -- have discounted the opinions of the military.

[leesa]

19. How about 27 years like one soldier?? Denial...it's a lovely thing!

[Lerkfish]

88. why is it important semantically to deny there is a draft, or will be one?

why is that such a compelling talking point for the right wing?
does any rational person believe we can continue to overcommitt troops that are dying by the handful every day without replacing them? Especially as we are plotting to overthrow even more muslim countries?

In what reality do the republican apologists live to continue to adamantly deny there is or will be a draft? I honestly do not understand why they run so fast and so far from the truth, when it follows them whereever they go.

[DistantWind88]

92. Pony up

your evidence, real evidence, of the draft.

[Lerkfish]

102. again, why is it important to you? I asked first.

what do you win?

[Swamp Rat]

107. A free ride to Iraq and MREs for the whole tour.

Of course, those who lose their arms or legs will have to pay for their amputations, their hospital food, and transport back home.

[DistantWind88]

109. And you served, when?

[Swamp Rat]

112. Why aren't you in Iraq?

Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Swamp Rat]

130. Good bye!

:hi:

[DistantWind88]

135. See yah! Going over to take your cousin's tour?

[Sterling]

179. And when their is one they will be the first to say....

"But of course we need a draft!"

[tuckessee]

201. The timetable is up to PNAC

Iraq is not last Middle Eastern nation that America's warmongers wish to invade.

In order to eventaully "put boots on the ground" in Iran and/or Syria conscription is an absolute necessity. There simply aren't enough combat troops available and those that are are already taxed beyond belief.

I figure you'll see a draft within the next one to five years - certainly within a year after next president takes office. I suspect there will be some type of catastrophic event to make the draft more palatable.

If you really want to know, you'll need to ask Perle, Wolfie or Rummy.

[Sterling]

206. I am glad the majority of us here understand this.

I am getting a kick out of the desperate effort to deny this elephant in the room.

[SouthernDem2004]

22. Pfft. now you are reaching. I am in the Guard and...

Stop Loss has been used for a while. It was used during Iraqi I, Bosnia etc. Everyone that signed on the line knew about stop loss. If you sign a 4 year contract it is actually called a 6 year. 4 in the guard and 2 ready reserve.

No draft, will not be a draft....

[H2O Man]

23. Interesting.

Both people on this thread who are saying that there will be no draft are either currently or recently in the military.

Thanks for your opinion.

[DistantWind88]

24. Gee, maybe

that tells you something.

[Sterling]

68. Yes it does, but not in the way you think.

nt

[DistantWind88]

76. Your service

and units? HQ time?

[SouthernDem2004]

172. I do not...

post personal info on here. I am an Officer in the Army Guard and have been active in the past.

[Sterling]

181. Do you think this is some kind of pissing contest?

I don't understand why you would ask that in this context?

[SouthernDem2004]

186. That is ....

not what he meant. The military is actually a small tight knit family. The odds are we may have served at the same place at one time or another. It is a rather normal question between members of the military.


Peace

[Sterling]

200. I never stated I was in the military, it was a stupid challenge

I am very clear on what he was trying to say. He has done it already in this thread. He feels that saying you are in the military gives you some sort of special credibility on the topic. Obviously he has proved that not to be the case on this thread.

[fob]

80. I think you missed some aspect of the discussion. I don't recall who

posted the info, but the discussino was always about the implementation of a draft and that certain aspects of it would need to be put in place. Like getting draft boards up and running, and getting legislation moving and some of those steps have occurred. I don't recall the specifics but there is one step that has to be declared a certain amount of time BEFORE an actual draft can take place. That part, whatever it's called, is what was being talked about as moving along and if it were in place in January 05 then the soonest a draft could start would be June (July?) 05.

I beleive there are bills that have this language in it with HR #'s ad everything. I apologize for the vagaries of detail but someone here will post it I'm sure.

[Stirk]

30. Not in my experience.

For the last year or two, people on DU have been saying a Draft will be starting up by June, 2005. I agree with them.

And this argument about "it's political suicide, they'll never do it"... it's ridiculous. Dismantling Social Security is political suicide. Lying to start a war should be political suicide. The list of politically suicidal things the Bush Administration has fervently pursued is very long.

[DistantWind88]

53. I'll be looking for you come June

[Sterling]

72. Ever read PNAC?

There will be a draft. When? As soon as they decide they want to take it to the next level. That looks like it will be an attack on Iran. Tell us how they do the PNAC without a draft?

[DistantWind88]

79. When's the draft, then?

Come on, when's it gonna happen?

[Beetwasher]

94. That's A Dumb Question. When's the Next Terror Attack?

When are we going to attack Iran? Or Syria? Can you answer that?

We'll need a draft sometime around then. Maybe before, maybe after, but around then, whenever that may be.

If/when there's another terror attack, there will be a draft. That's when it will happen.

Bushco. is so open and honest about they're real intentions all the time, right? So, we should just take his word for it that there will be no draft, right? How silly. When there is a draft, I'm sure he'll be open and honest about it too, right? He won't be sneaky and cynical and call it something else OTHER than a draft and insist everyone call it that, so it won't be known as a draft. It will be the "Emergency Military Enhancement Act" or something like that. Then people like you will be able to scream "SEE! It's NOT a draft! It's Military Enhancement!"

Dumb question.

[Swamp Rat]

95. Yeah, it's a Red Herring posing as a stupid question.

:D

[DistantWind88]

96. Several on here have been saying there WILL

be a draft. Of that, they have no doubt. If they are so sure, they OUGHT to have some evidence to back that up. With that evidence comes a time frame. So when is it?

[Swamp Rat]

97. When you go to the recruiter this afternoon and join up.

Does that answer your "question?"

[DistantWind88]

98. I served

So in other words, you have no idea if/when there will be a draft. That's all you had to say.

[Swamp Rat]

103. Since you are well-trained, you should go to the recruiter and rejoin.

Your country needs you! No excuses for prior service, sex, age, disability! My cousin is on his second tour and wants to come home. Will you take his place? Instead of whining about what specific day a draft will start, why don't you just rejoin now? They DESPERATELY NEED YOU NOW!

Your question about when - specific day - the draft will begin is a Red Herring argument and completely irrelevant. Nice try, but you will have to do better than this at DU.

[DistantWind88]

105. Actually they don't need

me, as I'm doing the exact same job now that I did on active duty. Why don't you go take your cousin's place--he's your family member.

[Swamp Rat]

110. HAHAHAHA!!!!! That's all you got bud?!?

Of course I'm NOT going to Iraq to participate in an illegal, immoral war of aggression! I'm a REAL American who believes in RULE OF LAW and our Constitution.

Don't be a coward! Be a real patriot and GO TO IRAQ NOW!

NO EXCUSES!!! Quit shirking your duty and making excuses!

By the way, my cousin is a REAL soldier! :D HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DistantWind88]

115. I served my time in Iraq (GW1) and Afghanistan

Funny. I did not see you there...

[Swamp Rat]

119. Nothing funny here... Why aren't you in Iraq?

Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?

[DistantWind88]

122. Again, I did my time....you?

[Lerkfish]

142. and what job would THAT be?

shilling for the govt?

flamebaiting for the GOP?

verballing abusing democrats for boy-king?

stop when I get it....

[DistantWind88]

143. Gee by saying the daft is not imminent

I'm now a right-wing shill? Amazing.

[Lerkfish]

147. answer post #102

first, then reread the post your just replied to.

What IS your job, then, that you are doing the same thing as you were while on active duty?

[DistantWind88]

150. My job

is none of your business, but I work in the same office I did as when I was on active duty.

[Lerkfish]

156. but its YOUR business who did and didn't serve...riiiight?

:eyes:

and you STILL have not answered post #102

[DistantWind88]

159. Not at all

He's so hot on people serving, I was asking when and where his service was.

[bvar22]

166. Would that be :

The Ministry of Truth?

[Swamp Rat]

167. "Now for something completely different!"

"Claire de Lune" performed by a man with three buttocks. :D

[Lerkfish]

168. so...I'm guessing you never actually saw any action...

never were in harm's way, never were in theatre.

I'm assuming this because there's no way you could be working from the same office all this time, if you served in GWI and Afghanistan from the same office, and now as a civilian.

psyops?

MI?

civilian contractor/torturer?

[DistantWind88]

108. So, again

You have no specific evidence of an imminent draft. Thanks for playing!

[Swamp Rat]

111. I'm not "playing" with you. I'm totally serious.

Why aren't you in Iraq right now?

[DistantWind88]

117. Why aren't you?

[Swamp Rat]

120. Can't you read? Go back to post #110.

Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Why aren't you in Iraq?

[H2O Man]

123. I have a question:

Many patriotic Americans believe there is a significant difference between the first war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, and the current war in Iraq. Do you believe that there are important differences? Regardless of your opinion, would you accept that a rational and patriotic person can support the first two, and yet oppose the current war?

[DistantWind88]

124. Absolutely.

I do.

[H2O Man]

140. That's good.

I'm convinced there are numerous areas of agreement and shared values between the left and the military. Perhaps one of the most tragic errors of the Vietnam era was the acrimony between the anti-war forces in America and the soldiers. I think that it is crucial that the anti-war people today take a proactive stance in supporting the troops. I think that buying/donating phone cards and things such as that is an important step in healing our national wounds.

[Sterling]

182. Probably because he was smart enough not to get caught up in this war.

What's your excuse?

[Sterling]

183. Within the next four years probably two.

There you go. PNAC has another war planned in the next four years. We will not be able to fight it without a draft. My opinion. You are welcome to check back with me later.

[Beetwasher]

99. You've Been Given CONDITIONS

After the next terror attack and probably before we invade Iran or Syria.

You've been given conditions that are equitable to a timeframe.

Your call for specific dates is a load of crap when the draft is actually dependent upon CONDITIONS that have to be met first, NOT dates. When the CONDITIONS are met, there will be a draft. Of that I have no doubt. YOU are the one erroneously coupling a time frame w/ evidence of preparations for a draft. That's bullshit. When the conditions are met, there will be a draft. It's easy to understand, that is if you're not full of shit.

[DistantWind88]

100. So in other words

Those who are saying there WILL be a draft are full of shit, correct?

They have to be, since there is no way of knowing IF there will be another terror attack OR an invasion of Syria or Iran OR that a draft will be a logical extension of any of those hypotheticals.

Thanks for proving my point.

[Beetwasher]

101. LOL! The Only One Who Is Full Of Shit

Is the one who is claiming that people are saying there will definitely be a draft REGARDLESS of certain conditions being met. I've yet to see a single person say there's going to be a draft NO MATTER WHAT. Only YOU are saying that people are saying that (with no evidence to back it up, of course). So I guess that means that YOU are........

Conditions met=draft (almost definitely)
conditions not met=no draft (probably, but who knows?)

Will the conditions be met? I think they probably will be. Can I say that DEFINITELY? No. Nor have I seen many who DO say that. Put up or shut up. Where are all these people saying there will be a draft NO MATTER WHAT.

[DistantWind88]

104. I'm disputing the imminent

draft that several on here have been proclaiming" first it was last June, then right after the election, then in January, now, by June. Okay, where is it? I'm saying there IS no imminent draft.

I'm saying this - THERE IS NO IMMINENT DRAFT. PNAC IS NOT CALLING FOR A DRAFT. THE ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT HAVE SECRET DRAFT PLANS.

The only person calling for a draft in DC is Rep Rangel.

I'll be here come June, let's see what you say then.

[Beetwasher]

106. Put Up Or Shut Up Chester

Where are these people??? Everyone I see has conditions attached, such as a terror attack and another invasion.

PUT UP CHESTER, WHERE ARE THE PEOPLE CLAIMING IT'S IMMINENT NO MATTER WHAT! Either put up, or you are de facto full of shit.

[DistantWind88]

114. here are some from yesterday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3032939&mesg_id=3032988&page=

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3032939&mesg_id=3033018&page=

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3032939&mesg_id=3033088&page=

[H2O Man]

118. To DistantWind88:

If you've been in the military, then I want to discuss things rationally and respectfully with you. Just below this, I posted some information that I am hoping you will respond to. It's not a challenge, or to insult your opinion. It's simply to try to have an informative discussion on this important topic.

[Beetwasher]

125. And Where Are The One's Who Are Saying

It's going to happen NO MATTER WHAT...Still waiting...I see people discussing the evidence, such as PNAC letters, draft boards being filled, and people commenting that they think this means a draft is coming, and I agree, but no one saying "There's going to be a draft NO MATTER WHAT". So, you are full of shit.

[DistantWind88]

126. Here's another

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3032579&mesg_id=3033105&page=

[Beetwasher]

128. Where's the IMMINENCE Part?

And the part where it's NO MATTER WHAT??? Still waiting.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beetwasher]

134. LOL! This, From Mr. Strawman?

Learn what a CONDITION is.

[DistantWind88]

137. What conditions (other than * winning) are attached to

"there WILL be a draft right after the election if * wins?" Do you NOT recall seeing posts like that?

[Beetwasher]

138. No, I Don't

But so what? Then you should be happy, you have your date (roundabouts), and that person was wrong. So, because that person (if they exist) was wrong, does that mean that there will now definitely NOT be a draft? :eyes:

I also see people like you claiming that there definitely will NOT be a draft. How do YOU know that?

How stupid.

[DistantWind88]

141. I'm saying there IS NO IMMINENT draft

can you NOT comprehend that?

No one on this fucking board can tell you there WILL be a draft, yet several keep trying. Good bye.

[Beetwasher]

149. Buh Bye, Chester! Yes, Run Away!!!

Yes, I know that's what you are saying and it's bullshit, because I've yet to see anything but YOUR claims that so many people here are saying there IS an IMMINENT draft. I see people claiming that they think there WILL be a draft and most of them base this on various pieces of evidence and dependent upon certain conditions being met.

You don't seem to be able to grasp the subtle nuance of evidence and condtions.

See ya, Chester!

[DistantWind88]

127. Thet are speaking about it as an absolute

not a hypotehtical---there is a difference.

[Beetwasher]

129. Oh, Really?

How do you know? You discussed it w/ each and every one of them?

You do know what conditions are, don't you?

[DistantWind88]

133. I don't see conditions attached to:

"there will be a draft, count on it" do you??

And there were plenty of other threads in months past that said the draft would be reinstated RIGHT after the election if * won. Do you not recall those?

[Beetwasher]

136. "There Will Be Another Terror Attack, It's Not A Matter of If, But When"

Who said that? (hint, they are part of the gov't) So, with that statment, do you demand a date from them?

How stupid.

[DistantWind88]

139. Big difference between

predicting a terror attack and saying bank on the draft being re-instituted. I've had enough of you, you don't understand nuance.

[Beetwasher]

145. LOL!!! Oh, That's FUNNY!!!!

The gov't has all the cards and evidence and does all the planning, but we the public should know when exactly the draft is going to be reinstated. :eyes: A draft that is predicated upon there being another terror attack and invasion. A terror attack predicted as CERTAIN to happen by the gov't. Not IF but WHEN. Now THAT'S nuance! LOL! But you demand from us the date of the draft, but NOT the date of the next terror attack from the govt't! You're a laugh riot, Chester!

[DistantWind88]

153. You're the one saying there will be a draft

how about some eveidence???

[Beetwasher]

160. And There Will Be

When and if the conditions are met. I think it likely that they will be met and that there will be a draft. It would be called something else, something Orwellian, so that people like you can then say "It's NOT a draft! It's military enhancement!"

Evidence? Nothing would satisfy you, so why bother? When/if the draft finally comes, as I said, even THAT won't be evidence enough for you because they won't call it a draft and you'll say "See, it's NOT a draft! It's military enhancement!" or whatever such nonsense they decide to call it.

[Lerkfish]

151. LOL! you're the one stating as an absolute that there will be no draft.

[DistantWind88]

155. There is no imminent draft

Correct. That is what I am saying. There is no imminent invasion of Iran. There is no imminent invasion of Syria.

[Beetwasher]

161. There Is No Imminent Invasion Of Iraq. We Have No Plans to Invade Iraq

Oops! We all saw where that lead...:eyes:

Ahh, yes, now I notice the CONDITIONAL that you are applying to your idiocy...No IMMINENT draft, no IMMINENT invasion...Interesting how that little conditional gets slipped in there...:eyes:

[Swamp Rat]

164. Thanks for pointing this out.

"Imminent," as you already know, is a popular rhetorical device. ;)

[Lerkfish]

163. Keep telling yourself that, if you like.

I however, believe what the PNAC agenda states, and I've not been disappointed yet.
I further am able to rationally assess observed phenomena and discern the pattern of preemptive rhetoric. Further, I can glean a great deal from actions:

several counterthreats from Iran and Russia concerning US air forces templating anti-aircraft batteries in Iran....the departure of halliburton employees...the use of terms "imminent threat" from Isreal and the US concerning Iran's nuclear program...

I can put two and two together, and have been all along. I've always been right. Why? because I believe the absolute worst about this administration, and I am never disappointed.

[H2O Man]

113. Now, now ....

Let's not get into name calling .... on either side. You're asking a fair question. Let's see if we can give you one thing that makes us think that there is a strong probability that there will be a draft.

Now, if you've been reading DU, you are no doubt familiar with the "Issue Paper" that resulted from the 2-11-2003 meeting between Charles Abell, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; William Carr, Deputy secretary for Military Personnel Policy;Lewis Brodsky, the Acting Director of the Selective Services, and a few others.

I'm just going to quote the first line from their Issue Paper. "With the known shortages of military personnel with certain critical skills, and with the need for the nation to be capable of responding to the need for the nation to be capable of responding to domestic emergencies as a part of Homeland Security Planning, changes should be made in the Selective Service System's registration program and primary mission."

I have the rest of the paper, and I assume you are familiar with it. Why don't we discuss it here, and see if a reasonable person could conclude that there are some in the federal government and military who believe a draft may be a necessary option in the future.

My goal isn't to argue about the military itself. I'd bet that I have more family and friends serving in the military than the average American. I say prayers for our men and women in uniform every single day. I do oppose the policies of Cheney & Rumsfeld, and I do not think that anyone should confuse them with either what is good with the military or with our country.

Let's have a rational discussion. Thank you for considering my offer.

[DistantWind88]

121. Absolutely

If you know anything about the military, (and it seems like you do)you know they PLAN for any eventuality. That doesn't mean they THINK something will happen, they make plans in CASE it does.

That said, there may be SOME in the federal Govt who think a draft MAY be necessary at some point in the future--that's why we have selective service. It does NOT mean a draft is Imminent.

[H2O Man]

132. Good answer.

Of course, it's possible that I think it is good, because I agree with it.

Certainly, it is the duty of the military to plan for any and all possibilities. And there is always going to be a relatively wide view of opinions, even within the military, on what is necessary .... and what is needed today, and likely needed tomorrow.

My concern isn't the military itself. Good Lord, I'd be opposed to my family. But I am concerned -- very concerned -- that people who do not have any military experience (other than avoiding serving in Vietnam, and now more than willing to send other people to do what they didn't dare attempt), are creating more hostilities than we should be fighting.

I'm a minority on DU because I don't believe that our government played any role in 9-11. I think that "Imperial Hubris" and "Through Our Enemies' Eyes" should be required reading. People on the left often confuse Usama bin Laden's having a tangential (at best) relationship to CI/MI in Afghanistan during the war against the Soviet Union as "proof" that UbL is somehow controlled by CI. If that were true, then Ho Chi Minh, who definitely was an OSS/CI asset for years, must have worked for LBJ.

We are in a serious struggle. However, many on the left, including those you are debating today, don't have confidence that this administration has the capability of handling our national interests in the best manner.

I've often quoted Patrick Buchanan (hardly a left-winger) who in his fascinating 1999 book "A Republic, Not An Empire" noted, "If we continue on this course of reflexive interventions, enemies will one day answer our power with the last weapon of the weak -- terror, and eventually cataclysmic terrorism on US soil." (page 44)

That, of course, was merely a prediction on his part, just as the liklihood of a draft is merely a prediction on my part. But as Patrick Henry said in 1774: "I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no other way of judging the future but by the past."

[Swamp Rat]

146. Hi H2O Man.

Good on you for spending time with the less informed on this thread. Since family members have been sent to combat in Iraq, I've lost my patience with the armchair generals, freeps, and clueless that regularly come here... you're a better man than I Gunga Din. ;)

Personally, I know NO soldiers who've seen and been in combat, that will deny what we're actually doing in Iraq right now. The consensus is that it is wrong, immoral, unconstitutional and illegal and they want to come home NOW.

The draft seems inevitable if Bush stays in power and continues to allow the PNACers to run our foreign policy. What do you think about this?:

Open Letter
A bipartisan group urges the congressional leadership to substantively increase the size of the Army and the Marines.
01/28/2005 12:00:00 AM
www.weeklystandard.com or go to www.kurtnimmo.com

Dear Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Speaker Hastert, and Representative Pelosi:

The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume. Those responsibilities are real and important. They are not going away. The United States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come. But our national security, global peace and stability, and the defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world require a larger military force than we have today. The administration has unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces to the size needed to meet today's (and tomorrow's) missions and challenges.


So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years. There is abundant evidence that the demands of the ongoing missions in the greater Middle East, along with our continuing defense and alliance commitments elsewhere in the world, are close to exhausting current U.S. ground forces. For example, just late last month, Lieutenant General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, reported that "overuse" in Iraq and Afghanistan could be
leading to a "broken force." Yet after almost two years in Iraq and almost three years in Afghanistan, it should be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice's term, a "generational commitment." The only way to fulfill the military aspect of this commitment is by increasing the size of the force available to our civilian leadership.
The administration has been reluctant to adapt to this new reality. We understand the dangers of continued federal deficits, and the fiscal difficulty of increasing the number of troops. But the defense of the United States is the first priority of the government. This nation can afford a robust defense posture along with a strong fiscal posture. And we can afford both the necessary number of ground troops and what is needed for transformation of the military.


Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power and the duty to raise and support the military forces of the United States in the hands of the Congress. That is why we, the undersigned, a bipartisan group with diverse policy views, have come together to call upon you to act. You will be serving your country well if you insist on providing the military manpower we need to meet America's obligations, and to help ensure success in carrying out our foreign policy objectives in a dangerous, but also hopeful, world.

Respectfully,
Peter Beinart - Jeffrey Bergner - Daniel Blumenthal - Max Boot - Eliot Cohen

Ivo H. Daalder - Thomas Donnelly - Michele Flournoy - Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

Reuel Marc Gerecht - Lt. Gen. Buster C. Glosson (USAF, retired) - Bruce P. Jackson

Frederick Kagan - Robert Kagan - Craig Kennedy - Paul Kennedy

Col. Robert Killebrew (USA, retired) - William Kristol - Will Marshall

Clifford May - Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey (USA, retired) - Daniel McKivergan

Joshua Muravchik - Steven J. Nider - Michael O'Hanlon

Mackubin Thomas Owens - Ralph Peters - Danielle Pletka - Stephen P. Rosen

Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales (USA, retired) - Randy Scheunemann - Gary Schmitt

Walter Slocombe - James B. Steinberg


Max Boot. “Max Boot, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations and former editor for The Wall Street Journal, occupies the extremist end of the neoconservative ideological spectrum,” writes Right Web. He is also connected to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Eliot Cohen. Cohen is considered “the most influential neocon in academe.” Right Web notes, “Cohen is famous for his thesis that the war on terror constitutes World War IV, and that the Cold War should really be considered World War III… Cohen has been affiliated with a number of hawkish advocacy groups, including the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and the Project for the New American Century. He also serves on the Defense Policy Board, the Pentagon’s in-house think tank, which has been heavily criticized for members’ conflicts of interests and for its stilted ideological profile. (Nearly a third of the board members come from the staunchly conservative Hoover Institution.)”

Ivo Daalder. Daalder was a prominent member of Clinton’s National Security Council staff. He is considered a “liberal hawk,” a term that is not considered an oxymoron in Bushzarro world.

Thomas Donnelly. Another PNACer. As Donnelly wrote for the Strausscon “think tank” AEI, “the strategic imperative of patrolling the perimeter of the Pax Americana is transforming the U.S. military, and those few other forces capable and willing of standing alongside, into the cavalry of a global, liberal international order. Like the cavalry of the Old West, their job is one part warrior and one part policeman—both of which are entirely within the tradition of the American military.” Considering who is president, the cowboy metaphor is apropos.

Frank Gaffney. A Richard “Prince of Darkness” Perle understudy, Gaffney “is one of the key heavy-lifters of the neoconservative-hawk policy institute world,” as Right Web puts it.

Reuel Marc Gerecht. Gerecht, a former CIA agent and recruiter, was a “vocal proponent of War upon Iraq, Iran and Syria well before 911,” according to Disinfopedia. “If President Bush follows his own logic and compels his administration to follow him against Iraq and Iran, then he will sow the seeds for a new, safer, more liberal order in the Middle East,” Gerecht said in the AEI 2004 Annual Report. In other words, an “order” ruled by Israel and the United States.
Gary Schmitt. Schmitt is the executive director of PNAC, the Strausscon “think tank” responsible for Bush’s Iraq invasion. Enough said.

Robert Kagan. Kagan is one of the top dog Strausscons, co-founder of PNAC, and buddy of William Kristol. In the preface to Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in America’s Foreign and Defense Policy, edited with Kristol, Kagan quotes Elliott Abrams, another rabid Strausscon, who “describes the faulty logic that has driven American policy toward the Middle East for more than a decade, warning that the security of Israel, Turkey, and American friends in the Arab world may be jeopardized unless the United States shifts its focus toward strengthening friends and consolidating American influence in the region,” possibly, as the above letter indicates, with conscripted bullet-stoppers.

William Kristol. Kristol edits the Rupert Murdoch financed Weekly Standard, essentially the Strausscon house organ, and is also a co-founder of PNAC. In 2002, Media Bypass reported, “In what has been called ‘punditgate,’ conservative journalists Bill Kristol and Erwin Stelzer of The Weekly Standard … have been exposed for accepting Enron largesse. … Kristol, chief of staff to former Vice President Dan Quayle, took $100,000 without disclosing the payments at the time. … Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard who postures as an independent journalist, got the money for serving on an Enron advisory board…” In other words, in addition to plotting and facilitating the murder of 100,000 or more Iraqis, Kristol also works for criminal organizations and does not bother to report the income. If your local grocer did this, he would be thrown in the hoosegow.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[H2O Man]

170. Hey, Buddy!

I'm always going to be respectful of people who have served in the military, unless they give me a reason not to. And although I might not agree with the opinion of a couple of the people with military backgrounds who have recently joined the discussions on DU, it's important to keep open lines of communication. For we do not want anyone from the administration/neocon movement to be able to cut off those lines .... and to falsely paint anti-war people as "enemies of the state." And, indeed, that is one of their goals.

I have more respect for someone who will come on DU and say, "I disagree with the beliefs expressed here," and then be open to a frank and honest discussion of the issues, than those who pretend to believe what democrats on the left believe, but actually are here for other purposes.

And so as I've said before, we should always both ask and welcome questions. People, be they in the military or not, have a moral obligation not only to themselves, to be skeptical and to demand proof of any and all statements that claim to be one of fact! Because in the final analysis all tyranny rests in fraud and deceit, and depends upon convincing unsuspecting people to accept at face value a false assumption .... and any person who for even a moment abandons or suspends that questioning spirit has at that very moment betrayed all of humanity.

So I'm always open to being questioned, and to open discussion.(grin)

[Swamp Rat]

171. You are right, of course.

So, what did you think about the Weekly Standard article by the PNACers? Are they not calling for a larger military since this one is "broken" and too small for the expanding war(s)?

Seems to me that a draft is necessary in order to fulfill and win their Anblick und Kampf.

[H2O Man]

173. What do I think?

Well, it reminded me of what John Dean wrote about them in "Worse Than Watergate." On pages 103-104, he lists 15 of their tactics/beliefs, as described by a republican Congressman from Texas, Ron Paul. (Paul is a libertarian.)

Among their beliefs is:

- A belief in a powerful federal government.

-The belief that the ends justify the means, and that playing "hardball" in politics is a moral necessity.

-That lying is necessary for the state to survive.

- That certain facts should be known only by a political elite, and withheld from the general public.

- That the US should engage in preemptive war, and rely upon military force to achieve the desired goals they identify.

- They openly endorse an American empire, and are unapologetic about their calls for imperialism.

- They believe in using military force to get their way.

- They scoff at the Founding Fathers' advocating neutrality in foreign affairs.

- They belive 9-11 resulted from too few foreign entanglements, rather than too many.

- The want to redraw the map of the Middle East.

- They view civil liberties with suspicion, and dismiss debate that is based upon constitutional grounds.

That sums up what I think of them. Unlike the majority of republicans, and the vast majority of people in the military, I do not believe that they value the most important things about America: family and community values and the United States' Constitution. I trust them less than I do a rattle snake or a dog with the rabies.

[Swamp Rat]

174. Ha! I agree with all your points, especially the reptile reference.

;)

But, I was referring to the January 28th Weekly Standard "Open Letter" to the Congress. Are they not directly requesting a "military draft" without mentioning the actual word "draft?" I doubt they are going to get many willing volunteers, nor do I think they are naïve about this, but they have a history of cloaking their rhetoic - the scenario they promulgate puts the Congress in the position where they MUST enlarge the military, while letting Bush off the hook...

I was just curious as to your interpretation, that's all. :)

[H2O Man]

175. Well

what I meant was that in order to try to reach their goals, they will be willing to spill the blood of as many middle- and lower-income families' youth as needed. And I think that we all know that their grand plans requires far more military intervention in the Middle East. More military intervention will likely require more soldiers.

It is fair to say that the plan to have air strikes in Iran, which obviously is not certain -- but is definitely being advocated by the neocons, would not require more troops on paper. But we know that what the neocons put on paper ain't usually true ..... note our welcome in Iraq. Despite what they may say, and regardless of what they actually believe, air strikes in Iran are going to lead to an increased regional conflict .... which would serve as the requirement for a bipartisan call for a draft.

It's important to remember that the neocons say that the war in Iraq is not a religious war. Of course it is. What they say is not as important in my opinion as are their actions. And their actions are entirely those of a war-mongering cult that will sacrifice American youth for their grand design.

[Swamp Rat]

176. thanks n/t

[Sterling]

187. All good points but this one explains a lot to me.

"They belive 9-11 resulted from too few foreign entanglements, rather than too many."

These "entaglements" (very polite term for invadeing countries to control reasources)were the main goal of the PNAC people who got Bush in power.

You keep refusing to consider important pieces of this story in context of one another. That is why you can say things like that Ho Chi Mihn comment up the thread.

[H2O Man]

193. Not the case .....

I do not refuse to consider anything. I've read, with an open mind, the serious information on DU and other sources concerning LIHOP and MIHOP. Among my circle of friends and associates, all of whom I have a great deal of respect for, a large percentage believe very differently than I do. Several believe in MIHOP, and most believe in LIHOP. I do not doubt for a moment that our national security has been compromised since the Supreme Court appointed Bush. I believe that this administration has amoral sociopathic people who do not believe in the Constitution.

Yet this does not in any way rule out the liklihood of another culture producing people who hate the USA due to the policies of those amoral sociopaths. A quick study of history shows us that empires always will have tribal leaders from distinct cultural backgrounds attack them. And that same history does not have numerous examples of the empire controling/faking tribal attacks for economic gain.

[Sterling]

197. You ignore information in your opinions.

You for whatever reason fail to include vital parts of the story in the opinions you post on the subject. Fail is a better word than refuse I suppose. I should not assume you do it on purpose.

"Yet this does not in any way rule out the liklihood of another culture producing people who hate the USA due to the policies of those amoral sociopaths"

You are correct but given that was pretty much the only time we have been attacked by these people you suggest did 9-11 and that it suited there goals far less than the previous to the event stated goals of PNAC your scenario seems less likely.

I respect that you are willing to engage in a discussion of this topic. And of course I respect we do not agree. I do challenge you to continue to consider these things as events unfold. time has only made my opinions on this subject more concrete.

[H2O Man]

203. I trust that you

are serious when you say that this "was pretty much the only time we have been attacked by these people you suggest did 9-11...." But it shows that one of us is certainly excluding a great deal of available information here. Obviously, neither of us are going to include a full volume of writings on the brief posts we put on DU. But if you are going to venture an opinion, you need to be more familiar with the world around you. Just buy and read -- with an open mind -- the book Imperial Hubris. Pages 91 to 100 list about 73 "Al Qaeda victories" which occured between 2001 and 2003. Obviously, these are not all examples of flying airplanes into buildings in American cities. But they are all --without exception -- part of a struggle between tribal forces and empire.

[Sterling]

208. I was not aware of any 9-11 style attacks on the US since 9-11.

Plz help me out here? That was my point. 9-11 was NOT like the normal Muslim fundie terrorists attack. It was more like a military operation. It also seems it had some inside help from our military that day as well. Some one decided to schedule a lot of simulations for that day that helped our military personnel in their confusion.

Every rock you turn seems to point to 9-11 being some sort of inside job.

I have to sign off for the night. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my posts. I am sure we will pick this up again on some other thread. It has been a pleasure.

[H2O Man]

211. Really?

Please list the military operations that you are comparing 9-11 to? There is only one good example, and it supports my point of view, not yours. You might also want to consider that what you are calling "terrorist attacks" are indeed military operations, just from a different point of view than you are familiar with.

[Sterling]

185. If that were true, then Ho Chi Minh, who definitely was an OSS/CI asset fo

No that is just something you made up. It's pretty much the same kind of leap in logic the person you are arguing is using. They are two different situations and I am disappointed someone as smart as you thinks two totally separate historical situations have to be identical.

[H2O Man]

190. That's fine.

It's okay with me if you feel differently. Not only do I respect your right to think differently, but I encourage you to continue with it.

Actually, the example of Ho fits quite well. There are numerous similarities, most all of which far outweight the differences. I think your reaction to my saying it may be because it is accurate. But no matter: I am confident that someone as smart as I believe you are should always think for yourself. Even if your ideas are very different than mine, I trust your ability to think for yourself.

[Sterling]

194. Nice response in terms of being polite.

But this part you should expand upon:
"There are numerous similarities, most all of which far outweight the differences" and this "I think your reaction to my saying it may be because it is accurate." (I assure you it's not because I think you are right on this that I bothered to reply to the idea)

Ho was not involved in a Terror attack that was used as a pretext for an invasion of the ME. I think regardless of whatever similarities you may find historically that single difference is crucial when you consider who was be hing 9-11.

[H2O Man]

199. Well

I hope that you are able to discuss this in more reasonable terms than saying nothing Ho did resulted in an invasion of the Middle East. I trust you know that I am able to find Tonkin, Annam, and Cochin on a map.

Now, are you saying that the US didn't accuse Ho of "aggression" and use that as a pretext to invade a sovereign country? Would you debate the fact that Ho has a well documented history of working directly in cooperation with the US? Speak to me about Ho's nationalism; sense of history; familiarity with guerrilla warfare; with wars of attrition conducted against occupying forces; and, if you are interested, tell me about the influence of Nguyen Trai and even Le Loi?

I hope that your curious nature leads you to continue to study and learn. I've noted that I never assume that I know everything, and am always attempting to keep an open mind. Thus said, I'll be interested in what I learn from your response. Thanks!

[Sterling]

204. Gulf of Tonkin was not terrorist attack and since proved to be a

fabrication. It unlike 9-11 never happened. Or at least not like the military originally said it did. I think that incident supports the opinion that the US gov has a history of fabricating events and using them for strategic goals. Ad a little Operation Northwoods to your PNAC and bam you have a "new pearl harbor".


Unlike the "war on terror" there actually was a war in Vietnam. It was very clear who Ho was working for and against at that point. He was not some shadowy figure that got dragged out for US propaganda purposes from time to time he openly fought against us and we openly fought against he and his interests. We all know how that worked out.

In the case of OBL we have done everything but make an effort to capture and or defeat him. Instead he has served as an all purpose boogie man to launch a war of conquest. It is a lot easier to fabricate an image of man who has no uniformed military, no geographic base of operations and is not representative of any nation state than it is to make Ho into a CIA asset. Apples and oranges my friend. The idea of Ho working as a US asset judging from the events of the 1960's is pretty silly, I am sure you would admit. The case for AL CIA DUH is a whole different animal. Plz consider this.

[H2O Man]

210. The Gulf of Tonkin ......

is one tiny event on the surface of a deep lake. Have you studied the history of Vietnam? Tell me about Ho and the OSS? If you are familiar, you should be able to tell me their nickname for Ho. In fact, there are plenty of documents that show the relationship between Ho and the Viet Minh in the WW2 era with our intel community. You will be hardpressed to find similar documents from the Afghan resistance mentioning UbL. (I'm not talking about articles authored after the fact.)

While I agree that there was a war in Vietnam, I can't agree that there isn't a "war on terror." If you can't see similarities between the US experience in Vietnam and the current experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, then it makes this conversation difficult.

[H2O Man]

212. Still hoping that you

will tell me your thoughts on Nguyen Trai and Le Loi. And I trust you won't simply try googling. If you don't know them, and don't know why they are important to your understanding what I am saying, that's fine.

[ElectroPrincess]

152. What cracks me up in a bizarre way is this new angle at

a stop-gap for implementing the draft until, Rove hopes, after the 2006 election.

My nickname for it is the "Combat Death Gratuity" where loved ones of dead combat troops are placated like the 9-11 victims through $100,000 compensation. Now, that's not near the million dollar payment that the 9-11 families were doled out. However, it's significant. The * Administration hopes that will keep the families from joining the anti-war protests.

I hope the above will not work. My child's life is worth far more than $100,000 or even the extended insurance to be allowed ($250,000 up to $400,000) in the near future. NO amount of money is worth my child's life, and most especially in an illegal and immoral war. Sure, it would be much different perspective if OUR Country was protecting and promoting true democracy, but we are NOT.

I think Rove has over-extended himself in assuming this extent of stupidity of the American Sheeple. Would you be a proud parent on your block, to have your child come home in a box? Would this new proposed allotment of $100,000 up from 12,500 for combat death gratuity lessen your grief? I sure hope not.

[Swamp Rat]

165. "Combat Death Gratuity"

Good one ElectroPrincess! :thumbsup:

Those of us with family in Iraq are not interested in their blood money. :mad:

[Sterling]

180. I am getting the impression that military people are clueless.

From what I read on this thread.

[underseasurveyor]

213. Here I'll fuckin say it

By the first of April or May of this year -2005- the offices will be staffed (they started taking applications not to long ago=big DUH clue there ya think:eyes: ), supplied & equipped and the doors will open. Within 60 or 90 days after that, approx. (give or take), the first inductees will begin filing in. That's when!

I sincerely hope I'll be made to eat some serious crow. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE I hope to eat the whole bird, feathers, entrails and all. And I'll do it GLADLY.

I was concerned about the possibility of a draft returning almost from the moment bush took over the white house, that's pre Sept. 11th. Longer than most. I was told I was absolutely out of my mind, nuts, whacked, it'll never happen. MMMmmmmm see how far things have progressed since then.
Know thy opponent, know what is important to them, what is it they want and by following their history and background, also consider what they have accomplished already and one can see just exactly how far they're willing to go to attain it.

$$P$$$$$$$$$$$$O$$$$$$$$$$$W$$$$$$$$$$$$$E$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$R$$


(bookmarked!)

[Stirk]

81. Please do.

I have no problem admitting fault. It happens.

I hope I can expect the same courtesy from you if you're proven wrong.

Perhaps you could start by admitting to mischaracterizing the consensus opinion here at DU. I've never seen people on DU cite the target dates you claim. Unless you can back it up with some links, of course.

[DistantWind88]

84. It wasn't a consensus opinion

and I never claimed it was.

Let's see what happens in June, shall we?

[Stirk]

89. Yes, let's.

[bvar22]

90. He was just saying....

that SOME people were saying that.

[davekriss]

34. There was an election to steal first...

Now that the Bush* is secure in office, anything (and every horrible thing) is possible, given that we have a Republican House, a Republican Senate, conservative courts up and down the line, and a near-monopolized press that does nothing but sing Bushian praise at his every neo-con move.

[tavalon]

214. Fair enough

Do we have a deadline on this? I think it will happen this year.

[James T. Kirk]

215. Will not happen in 2005.

The draft will also not happen in 2006, 2007 or 2008.

[tavalon]

217. I do hope you're right Capn.

but I don't think you are.

[leesa]

18. No facts, just blather from you. GOP pay you?

How do you expect the thirty years of war Bush and Cheney have promised us to go on without the draft???

Wishful thinking is not thinking at all.

[SouthernDem2004]

75. Pardon me but where are your facts?????????

[Sterling]

188. http://www.newamericancentury.org/

You should check it out. You really need it. Anyone who has read this and lived through the last 4 years has a rough understanding of where they are taking this crusade. To think we can accomplish these goals without a draft is completely stupid.

I take the PNAC at their word. They have yet to disappoint me.

[James T. Kirk]

218. No the GOP does not pay me.

The GOP does not pay me. I'm stating my opinion on my own for the fun of it. Ask your boyfriend Karl Rove and he will confirm I'm not on the payroll.

FACTS!
1. There has not been a draft in the US since the 1970s.
2. There is no draft now. You can say what you want about reservists being extended or activated unexpectedly, but that was part of their deal and is not a draft.
3. The only draft bills recently voted on were not created by the party in the majority of both houses of congress and the bills were resoundingly crushed.
4. It would be political suicide for either major party to propose a draft.

There is not going to be a draft any time soon. Not for decades. Beyond 2050, who knows?

There are lots of other things to get worked up about, like social security, terrorism and the 2006 elections.

[Raster]

178. Yes, there will be a draft. The war machine needs raw materials. And...

...human beings, usually kids, are prime resources. Ever tried to have a war without soldiers? Now that the Iraq (s)Election has been spun more times that a Disneyland teacup, bush* and $hrubco are feeling righteous and ready to spread more freedom and liberty.

Right now very nasty people are figuring out ways to bring Iran and perhaps Syria into the party. bush* and his keepers have no plans to leave the middle east. Period. The Afghanistan/Iraq/????? war has turned out to be the biggest military cash cow in the pasture. Feel a draft?

[James T. Kirk]

191. Not feeling drafty at all.

The United States does not use "kids" in war. All of our military personnel are adults who volunteered. Not like back in the Kennedy-Johnson days.

[Sterling]

195. I have seen plenty of 19 year olds listed among the dead.

Maybe it's part of your job to believe this stuff but it is obvious to the rest of us you are completely wrong.

[Raster]

196. you're either a fool or a conspirator. perhaps both.

[James T. Kirk]

216. I am neither a fool nor a conspirator.

I am in intelligent person and I disagree with you. Deal with it.:P

I don't believe there will be a draft any time in the near future. If I'm wrong, I'll post on DU and apologize. But, all this draft hysteria is annoying. People get so worked up about something that's not going to happen.

[Name removed]

207. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire Bush]

2. Take it to the bank.

We will be hit with another terror attack, there will be a draft, and we will go into Iran.

Let's Roll!

[Steve L]

17. I Agree

I read William Cooper's conspiracy theory book Behold a Pale Horse and thought it was pretty far out until I found that some of the things in that book are echoed in the official PNAC website. 9/11 was their new Pearl Harbor and spawned some of the rabid patriotism we see now. My biggest fear is that I'll turn on the TV one day and I'll see another attack. Aside from how terrible it would be, what would follow for our country would be shocking. The majority of the population would be willing participants in letting our country turn into a fascist police state.

[BeHereNow]

85. Hey Welcome to DU Steve L

And you are voicing our collective worst
fears...another attack and the people will
allow the final conversions to martial law.
Makes you think about moving to a remote
island, doesn't it?
I would like to go to NZ, personally.
BHN

[annabanana]

6. and on the domestic front.."Anarchists attack"

CBS is reporting the firebombing and attempted firebombing (small and unsuccessful) on a two recruiting stations with the anarchist's symbol scribbled on the wall. A 19 year old is in custody. There have been no details yet.

[mopaul]

7. hhhmmmmmmmm

things are heating up around here in America.

[James T. Kirk]

192. Anarchists have been at it a long time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Czolgosz
:mad:Damn anarchists.:mad:

[Sterling]

198. It was a joke dude.

You really need to practice.

[James T. Kirk]

219. Anarchists are no joke.

They assassinated a US president. I take them seriously. Damn anarchists.

[H2O Man]

9. Two days ago

on DU there was a discussion about boxing, with several references to Muhammad Ali. I'm stuck in a small section of my house, after another auto accident last week. So I got out my many hours of Ali tapes, and I watched his fights etc from the Vietnam era. It got me thinking that it would be almost impossible for a young athlete to do what Ali did in '65 & '66.

I may be repeating myself, but I think that the subject that mopaul is hammering on is absolutely necessary .... we need to work as partners with the younger, draft-age people, and become organized in our resistence to the military policy of this administration. And that includes recognizing that most of the democrats in the congress support the aggressive war policy of Bush/Cheney.

It is my firm belief that CO offers the best avenue for the anti-war movement. On my blog, I am making clear that this is not limited to people with religious belief systems. A person can admire the teachings of Gandhi, for example, without sharing his exact religious convictions. We need to have all generations work together NOW to articulate the anti-war message.

[King Coal]

14. Here's how it will happen.

They will introduce a program of "national service". That way they can still make sure the poor kids are the ones that have to go into combat. The rich kids will serve in the Peace Corps. or some kind of easy duty.

[BeHereNow]

25. EXACTLY!

They have already suggested the idea of
mandatory "national servitude" for 18 year olds.
I think the suggested term of "service" was two years.
BHN

[BeHereNow]

27. Remember Wes Clark's "Civilian Reserve" plan???

Therefore, to form this Civilian Reserve, I will
challenge every American to be prepared to
serve their country in times of need.

Here's how it would work: Every American
age 18 or over will have the opportunity to
register for the civilian reserve. If you register,
you'll be asked to list your abilities and the
types of service that interest you.

By registering, you commit that those skills
can be called on at any time - domestically
or internationally -- for the next five years.
Every five years thereafter, you will be given
the opportunity to re-register.

Should something happen during your
five-year commitment that demands your
skills, you can be offered the opportunity to
serve for a period of up to six months.

Your service could be here in the United
States, in the aftermath of an earthquake, a
forest fire or a severe storm. Or you could also
serve in distant lands, where the struggle for
social justice and equality demands our
immediate aid. As a village struggles to
overcome isolation and hardship, a tribe
works to preserve its ancestral territory, or a
nation tries to piece together a government
of laws.

You could be biologist, a truck driver, or an
accountant. Under this program, you'll be
offered the opportunity to get involved when
your skill set is needed, working with
professional staff, lending your talents to the
task at hand, making a difference.

For example, members of the Civilian
Reserves could be deployed to help to fight
forest fires.

Members of the Civilian Reserves could also
aid overseas in response to our ambassador's
calls for assistance in helping nations deal
with environmental disasters, political and
legal development, and economic growth.

The Civilian Reserves would provide a basis
for marshaling and coordinating their efforts.

The Civilian Reserves would work in
partnership with the professional first
responders as well as other non-profit and
non-governmental organizations.

Under my plan, the President will have the
power to call up to 5,000 civilian reservists by
Executive Order, and with an act of
Congress, would be authorized to mobilize
even more.

Members would be offered the opportunity
to serve as the need for their skills arose. And
the call to serve would, in almost all cases, be
voluntary. For the most part, Civilian Reserve
members could choose whether or not to
accept the call to action.

Under circumstances of grave national
emergency, the president would have the
authority to issue a mandatory call-up. But
this would be exceedingly rare.

Still, if called, this service will not necessarily
be easy.

Those who serve may be asked to give up to
six months of their lives. In return, they will
receive health care, a stipend, and the same
rights accorded all our national guardsmen
and women - the right to return to their jobs
when their service is done.

This bold plan would not create a big, new
government bureaucracy. Rather, it would
use technology to register the skills of those
who volunteer to serve, working largely
through existing organizations, and stand
ready to demonstrate what we all know: In
the American people there exists the spirit
and the talents necessary to meet any
challenge.

And by organizing the Reserve in advance,
my proposal will improve efficiency and
potentially save money by reducing the
inevitable duplication, waste, and delay that
plague ad hoc responses to crises.

I will ask for this service with the full
knowledge that at some point people may
be called to give up the comfort and routine
of their daily lives.

But it is time for more Americans to find
satisfaction in sharing service.

This Civilian Reserve will complement and
build upon the standing army of service that
already exists in this country. The volunteers
who are working to combat the persistent
problems in our society. The volunteers who
work with children needing mentors and
tutors ... seniors needing dedicated care ...
schools needing renovation ... and parks and
trails needing repair.

And most importantly, the Civilian Reserves
gives Americans the opportunity to volunteer
now. To begin to step forward and accept
the responsibilities, the duties, and the joy of
the New American Patriotism."

Wes Clark- 2003

NOTE: The IMPORTANT clause is THIS:
"Under circumstances of grave national
emergency, the president would have the
authority to issue a mandatory call-up. But
this would be exceedingly rare."


Commentary on Clark's expanded "Patriotism" plan
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2003/10/101479.shtml

[Theres-a]

33. GULP!!!

:scared:

[BeHereNow]

35. Add that to the PNAC letter and VOILA!

Problem solved!
Gulp, sputter and choke.
They have planned far and wide-
sooner or later we will ALL work for them.
Did you notice the option of renewing
your serfdom every five years?

BHN

[Theres-a]

36. That's not volunteerism...That's slavery!

:mad: What happened to freedom?

[Sparkly]

40. The proposal is for a voluntary commitment

Are other federal jobs slavery?

[Theres-a]

47. I was referring to the "mandatory call-up"

[Sparkly]

52. The program would be voluntary. n/t

[BeHereNow]

45. Serfdom to the Empire IS the plan.

They just wrap it in pretty word packages
and stamp "NEW PATRIOTISM" on it.
And as an added market appeal, they
have "dem" propose it!
That way the masters keep their hands clean
when the people realize what the package
REALLY contains.
BHN

[Avalux]

37. Bill Kristol mentioned this very thing

on CSPAN this morning. He said PNAC isn't for a military draft right now, but they'd be on board for a mandatory civilian service with part of that military.

Yes, it's all planned out, and what if all of them are in on it? Even the Dems we think are on our side. Wouldn't that be ironic.

[Sparkly]

41. "Mandatory civilian service" is different. n/t

[Avalux]

43. You're right Sparkly

I apologize - kinda went off on a tangent there. Seeing Kristol this AM freaked me out completely.

[Sparkly]

44. No problem! It's understandably an emotional topic.

I just want to make sure the differences among the proposals are clear. :hi:

[BeHereNow]

49. You SHOULD be freaked out.

That is the APPROPRIATE reaction.
Of course the PNACers are not going to
call building additional supplies of cannon fodder
a "draft." No way- they will wrap it in something
like the Clark proposal. A NEW Patriotism-
sounds all pretty and nice like a "Peace Corp"
Peace and PNAC do not EVER appear in the same
picture.
They will sucker a bunch of youngsters into this
"volunteer" "civilian servitude" with propaganda
about helping "old people" and children and then
ship their asses off to God knows where to
support the Empire. Well considering we are NOT
wanted in the majority of the countries we are
occupying and intend to invade and occupy-
What do you want to bet those teachers and
truck drivers will need a GUN to survive?
BHN

[Avalux]

55. "Law to Remedy the Misery of the People and the Country"

The Enabling Act (in German: Ermächtigungsgesetz) was passed by the Reichstag on March 23, 1933. It was the second major step after the Reichstag Fire Decree through which the Nazis legally established Nazi Germany by giving the Chancellor (then Adolf Hitler) dictatorial powers over Germany.

The full name of the Enabling Act was Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich (Law to remedy the misery of the people and the country).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act


They've learned well from the Nazi's...

Those who forget history are destined to repeat it.

[BeHereNow]

61. You get it.

"Under my plan, the President will have the
power to call up to 5,000 civilian reservists by
Executive Order, and with an act of
Congress, would be authorized to mobilize
even more."
They wont call it a draft- but the results will be the same.
We have a country FULL of unemployed, uninsured,
uneducated young people- what to do with them?
Offer them a pretty package called civilian service-
a chance to build schools and parks and see the world,
yada, yada...bleh.
One big attack and hey, we need ya over here in
Iran kids, oh and you'll need this gun.
I can't BELIEVE the gullibility of people or the
lack of understanding as to what is coming under
the PNAC Bush cabal. WORLD occupation IS the plan.
If you can walk, talk and breath- they intend to ship your
ass off to defend empire- THAT IS THE PLAN.
BHN

[Avalux]

63. Yeah, I get it.

I almost wish I didn't. So those of us who "get it" - what do we do about it?

[BeHereNow]

67. Figure out how to survive it.

We wont stop them- we can try, but trust me
they are WAY ahead of us and we have at least
ten, maybe more, VERY bad years ahead as they continue
to try to overtake the world.
Everyone but them KNOWS they will fail-
but that is not the problem. The problem
is that they FULLY intend to try it.
Now where does that leave us?
I am fully prepared to hide out in another
country until it's over, or the rest of my life if need be.
BHN

[Sparkly]

71. Let's be clear which "IT" we're talking about

BushCo's plans involve gutting civil service, not implementing a new program anything like the Clark or Kerry proposals. Their method is to privatize things like construction in Iraq, to make profits for industry; we pay for it, but these are not federal employees as such, either civilian or military.

If a Democrat were to become elected and implemented a voluntary civil service program, the way to "survive it" is: don't volunteer.

Meanwhile, reinstatement of the military draft is a real danger.

[Sparkly]

64. Let's deal in facts, please.

Clark's proposed program would be voluntary. There is no combat training involved.

If you choose to believe that we'd take these civilians, give them guns, and send them to Iran -- all as an easier, sneakier alternative to a military draft -- go right ahead and believe that. But let's make a distinction between that belief and the actual facts.

I have no disagreement with you when it comes to the PNAC Bush cabal and their intentions. But let's be clear that voluntary civilian programs proposed by Democrats are a separate matter.

[BeHereNow]

70. Yes, let's deal in facts

WHO ultimately has power over these civilian "volunteers?"
Whether the program is introduced by a dem or a repub,
WHO is given the power to deploy them anywhere on the planet?
What do they powers that be INTEND for the planet?
Did you miss the prezteldents speech?
Where exactly do you think these volunteers will end up?
Working as serfs at MILITARY installations all over the globe.
Washing dishes and delivering mail.
And yes, they will need to be armed because they
will represent the empire and be HATED.
BHN

[Sparkly]

74. Are you talking about a civilian service program under BushCo?

Because I don't see them headed in that direction at all. Their trend is toward privatizing everything and sub-contracting out.

The voluntary civil service ideas were proposed by Democrats. These would not be part of the PNAC agenda.

[BeHereNow]

78. The labels are irrelevant. The INTENTION is what matters.

The intention is to spread empire and they will need
many bodies to try it.
They will call it this or that, but none of that really matters.
What matters is that they will go to any lengths to continue
building the numbers of citizens indentured to the kingdom.
I fully think that young people who volunteer for
a civilian service program could easily find themselves
working in a military base, in the middle of a country
who does NOT want them there.
BHN

[Sparkly]

82. The parties are different; their policies and proposals are different

It seems you're jumbling together proposals from Democrats with the PNAC agenda, saying that this Democratic idea could be misused in the hands of Republicans. But the entire government -- including the military -- is right now misused in the hands of Republicans. There's no question they're dangerous at the helm no matter what.

But if Democrats gain back the White House and enact a civilian service program, it doesn't follow that they'll toss diplomacy and adopt the PNAC agenda too all of a sudden; and Republicans are not proposing a similar civil service program to the Clark or Kerry proposals... So these don't necessarily mix.

I think it's far more expedient for BushCo to stretch the military, continue to use stop-loss orders, continue to deploy the National Guard overseas way beyond what they were ever intended for, and outsource everything they can. And I agree that it wouldn't take much to scare to public into supporting a draft. That's the real danger, imho.

[BeHereNow]

83. How many dems voted against Kind-a-sleezy again?

Sorry, but the truth for me is in what people DO.
Very FEW dems are actually DOING what the party
proposes to represent.
And yes, I agree a draft would be easy for them to
pull off in the event of another attack. I will go one further
though and sya I believe they are capable of pulling
people into global empire buiding through both a draft
AND a civilian service program.
BHN

[Theres-a]

58. bingo.

[BeHereNow]

42. Our Four Star Friend IS one of them.

Not to start a flame war with Clark supporters,
but the devil IS in the details.
Clark served on the Sirva board-
"Who is Sirva?" you may ask...
They specialize in relocating employees and mercs for
multinational corporations.
Clark also is a major stockholder in Entrust.
"Who is that?" you may ask again...
A division of Nortel- funded by the Carlysle group.
What does Entrust do?
They make computer security stuff for our
friends at Homeland Security!
YAY!
The corruption burrows DEEP on BOTH sides
of the aisle. A fact that remains denied and ignored
by both parties.
I don't trust ANY of them.
BHN

[Sparkly]

50. Facts -- let's be careful here, please.

http://www.sirva.com/about.html
http://www.sirva.com/companies.html
Sirva brands include such evil companies as Allied, Global and GB Nationwide. Can we leap to conclusions about anyone who was ever remotely affiliated with Sirva at any time and for any length of time?

http://www.entrust.com/corporate/factsheet.htm
http://www.entrust.com/partners/index.htm
Entrust partners include Motorola, Microsoft and Adobe. What should we assume about anyone even remotely affiliated, at any time and for any length of time, with Entrust?

[Sparkly]

39. Keyword: "option" n/t

[Sparkly]

38. Let's be clear what we're talking about & what the differences are

There's already the potential for a "mandatory call-up" of those who have NOT volunteered, and one that would include combat duty -- in other words, a draft. That's not what this is. Clark is talking about a voluntary civilian registration here. ("You could be biologist, a truck driver, or an accountant.")

Kerry proposed something along the same lines with his "service for college" plan:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_service/plan.html

Again, these are not combat positions -- they can be teaching, construction, helping seniors, cleaning the environment, etc.

[BeHereNow]

46. Dream on.

The OPERATIVE clause, the one that MATTERS
is the power given to the pResident to activate
them INTERNATIONALLY by executive order.
Have you forgotten who the pResident is and
what his agenda entails?
How nice, teachers, truck drivers and biologists
helping build parks and schools all over the world!
sort of like the national guardsmen now in IRAQ.
BHN

[Theres-a]

48. right on nt

[Sparkly]

54. The program would be voluntary. n/t

[BeHereNow]

56. WHAT does this mean, given the PNAC agenda for global control?

"Under my plan, the President will have the
power to call up to 5,000 civilian reservists by
Executive Order, and with an act of
Congress, would be authorized to mobilize
even more. "

THINK about it!
BHN

[Sparkly]

60. The proposed "civilian reservists" would join voluntarily. n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. It means it is like the National Guard, which people join voluntarily

And for better or worse this plan is as good or evil as the Guard is. No, actually that isn't fair to this plan. As was pointed out above, the stress is on V.I.S.T.A. type skills. I was in V.I.S.T.A. so we can talk about that if you want.

The mechanism is already in place to reconstitute the Draft, registration is mandatory for 18 year olds. Any mandatory call up for any mandatory program is by nature controversial, so even the Republicans would avoid that if they can talk enough people into signing up for the armed forces without it. But if they needed it, the draft is available. If their ability to promote their agenda without a draft is endangered they will spin those circumstances in a way that make it seem unpatriotic to oppose the draft, and then they will reinstate it. They don't need a new back door program.

Wes Clark is from the JFK coming of age generation. He fully bought into the "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" world view and lived it. That is what is reflected in this proposal, nothing more sinister. The rare mandatory call up part of it would be out front for any one who joined this program to contemplate before agreeing to volunteer. Governors can order elements of the National Guard to fight forest fires also. That is the model. In extreme circumstances resources can be mobilized.

My experience of Clark is that he would be open to rethinking that aspect of his proposal if he became convinced that it got in the way of it's real goals of inspiring voluntary participation in addressing societies problems. I am not a big fan of the entire 5th degree of association guilt by mapping connections style of tarring people. Clark, and maybe Kucinich, were the Democrats were were most outspoken against PNAC's plans during the last election cycle. In Clark's case he was explicit and drew a personal attack from PNAC's director.

[Beetwasher]

26. Yup, It's Coming, and It WILL Be In A Blue State. Also, Another Bonus

It let's them put their fascist agenda into SERIOUS high gear. You ain't seen nothing yet. You think they're abusing the constitution now? Hahahahahahahaaha! Get ready for PATRIOT II and the rounding up of the Muslim population AND anyone else they don't like.

So, the real question is, why would Bushco. NOT let another attack happen when they have EVERYTHING to gain from it and NOTHING to lose?

Gains: Draft, Lot's of dead liberals in a blue state (punishment), acceleration of fascist agenda etc.

Lose: ?

[Avalux]

28. Familiar with the Enabling Act after the Reichstag Fire?

That's where we're headed. 9/11 and the Patriot Act were a prelude. Something much bigger and grandiose is coming....and the aftermath will allow permanent changes to our Constitution, giving Bushco unlimited sweeping power. Election 2008? Not sure we'll even get the chance.

[BeHereNow]

29. I agree 100% with you BW!

They are just getting started.
BHN

[SmokingJacket]

31. And this time it would have to be nuclear.

That would freak people out enough to accept a draft, and to allow Bush to go back on his "promise."

Shit... I might even be freaked out enough to enlist if that happened.

Well, no. But it would have a devastating effect on the psychology of the country.

[LiberallyInclined]

51. Another terror attack on u.s. soil would negate the need for a draft-

remember what happened post 9/11- the morans were flocking to the recruiting stations to go kick some arab ass...
same thing would happen if it happened again.

[Sterling]

66. Sorry that was mostly BS.

Most of the kids who were gung ho for that shit are already regretting it in Iraq. They signed up to chase OBL not wage an oil crusade. The number of people who enlisted was not enough to fulfill PNAC's agenda.

[LiberallyInclined]

73. it doesn't matter if they regret it later

once they sign up, their ass belongs to uncle sam.

and another terror attack on U.S. soil, especially one that rivals 9/11 in scope and loss of life will motivate a LARGE number of people to join up-

if you don't want to believe it, it's of no consequence to me.

[ElectroPrincess]

162. If an attack happens which, I hope and pray it does NOT,

I hope all those arrogant snot nose Young Republicans at CU and other Universities go en masse to their local recruiting stations.

I'd have no problem sending all those chest-pounding sons and daughters of Republican and NeoCon (some are democrats ya know) chicken-hawks to Iraq.

Maybe then they'll leave University professors in peace to lecture as they see fit. You know, like the First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees. :-)

[tom_paine]

57. Yep. LIHOP (or perhaps MIHOP) #2 is coming, probably to San Francisco

Yet ANOTHER "value" that Busha and his pal Bin Laden share:

hatred of homosexuality.

Yes, I think for that reason, San Francisco will be next.

Keep your heads down, San Franciscans, Bush/Bin Laden is going to use YOUR CORPSES to window-dress Phase Two of the Transformation.

[xultar]

59. YUP kill some Liberals/Progressives and get the rednecks to sign up

wow won't that be great.

[Sterling]

62. There was a similar thread last night but someone locked it.

It was a good op IMHO. I would like to know what the hell is going on here.

[Sterling]

65. The thread was called something like "Nuclear Sacrifice being prepared"

If this stuff keeps up I will be skipping the next fund drive which I had planned on donating. I hate being told what to think and what I can discuss.

[LiberallyInclined]

77. maybe today's youth DESERVE to be drafted-

it could give them a little appreciation for their rights and freedoms...

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3017116

...Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.

[Behind the Aegis]

87. I agree.

All of these people stating "what date will it happen" are missing the forest for the trees. I don't think anyone on this board is privy to that information. Even if they were and announced it, it would be dismissed as "conspiracy theory" due to increased "sensibility(?)" here at worrying what the other side will think of us. I kept waiting for Shrub to say "Read my lips, there will be no draft!" That would have been interesting, to say the least! However, I think they already had their invasion plans ready and he knew that would be bad to state. When he has to begin the draft, he will call for all "patriots" and that is how he will get sheep to the slaughter.

Another terrorist attack would be spun as..."we did all we could to protect America, but the liberals fought us at very pass and look what happened?!" Then the "democrats" would fold like a house of cards and rush to be as "patriotic" as the Reich-wing.

I don't think another big attack will work like 9-11. I feel it will be several attacks in the "heartland." This would terrify the populace even more than an attack in one of "those liberal cities." The rage from interior attacks would cause the freepers to react with a fervor like we have never seen.

All in all, we need strong democrats to start the impeachment proceedings, AT ONCE!

[Swamp Rat]

93. And I agree with you that smaller, multiple attacks in the "heartland"

would be just as effective, perhaps more so since many Americans are already scared of their own shadow.

As for Right Wingers, Freepers, et al, they need to shut the fuck up or join the military... but most won't because they are armchair-general-pansies. They'll just talk about this thread in Freeperland making idle threats while masturbating. They ARE the "New American Cowards."

Start the impeachments NOW!!!

[Swamp Rat]

91. THERE WILL BE A DRAFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PNAC wants war war war, from the Mediteranean to the Persian Gulf. Don't believe me, read about it in their OWN WORDS! It seems the only way to stop a draft is to impeach Bush and his entire administration now.

Those of you on this thread and elsewhere who BLATANTLY REFUSE to acknowledge this should post apology threads when the draft becomes official... better yet, some of you military, war mongering types who lurk here should join the military TODAY and go to Iraq. No EXCUSES for prior service or disability! That way you can relieve my family and friends, that have ALREADY SERVED MULTIPLE TOURS, who want to come home.


Posted by poe in another thread:

Open Letter
A bipartisan group urges the congressional leadership to substantively increase the size of the Army and the Marines.
01/28/2005 12:00:00 AM
www.weeklystandard.com or go to www.kurtnimmo.com

Dear Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Speaker Hastert, and Representative Pelosi:

The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume. Those responsibilities are real and important. They are not going away. The United States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come. But our national security, global peace and stability, and the defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world require a larger military force than we have today. The administration has unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces to the size needed to meet today's (and tomorrow's) missions and challenges.


So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years. There is abundant evidence that the demands of the ongoing missions in the greater Middle East, along with our continuing defense and alliance commitments elsewhere in the world, are close to exhausting current U.S. ground forces. For example, just late last month, Lieutenant General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, reported that "overuse" in Iraq and Afghanistan could be
leading to a "broken force." Yet after almost two years in Iraq and almost three years in Afghanistan, it should be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice's term, a "generational commitment." The only way to fulfill the military aspect of this commitment is by increasing the size of the force available to our civilian leadership.
The administration has been reluctant to adapt to this new reality. We understand the dangers of continued federal deficits, and the fiscal difficulty of increasing the number of troops. But the defense of the United States is the first priority of the government. This nation can afford a robust defense posture along with a strong fiscal posture. And we can afford both the necessary number of ground troops and what is needed for transformation of the military.


Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power and the duty to raise and support the military forces of the United States in the hands of the Congress. That is why we, the undersigned, a bipartisan group with diverse policy views, have come together to call upon you to act. You will be serving your country well if you insist on providing the military manpower we need to meet America's obligations, and to help ensure success in carrying out our foreign policy objectives in a dangerous, but also hopeful, world.

Respectfully,
Peter Beinart - Jeffrey Bergner - Daniel Blumenthal - Max Boot - Eliot Cohen

Ivo H. Daalder - Thomas Donnelly - Michele Flournoy - Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

Reuel Marc Gerecht - Lt. Gen. Buster C. Glosson (USAF, retired) - Bruce P. Jackson

Frederick Kagan - Robert Kagan - Craig Kennedy - Paul Kennedy

Col. Robert Killebrew (USA, retired) - William Kristol - Will Marshall

Clifford May - Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey (USA, retired) - Daniel McKivergan

Joshua Muravchik - Steven J. Nider - Michael O'Hanlon

Mackubin Thomas Owens - Ralph Peters - Danielle Pletka - Stephen P. Rosen

Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales (USA, retired) - Randy Scheunemann - Gary Schmitt

Walter Slocombe - James B. Steinberg


Max Boot. “Max Boot, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations and former editor for The Wall Street Journal, occupies the extremist end of the neoconservative ideological spectrum,” writes Right Web. He is also connected to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Eliot Cohen. Cohen is considered “the most influential neocon in academe.” Right Web notes, “Cohen is famous for his thesis that the war on terror constitutes World War IV, and that the Cold War should really be considered World War III… Cohen has been affiliated with a number of hawkish advocacy groups, including the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and the Project for the New American Century. He also serves on the Defense Policy Board, the Pentagon’s in-house think tank, which has been heavily criticized for members’ conflicts of interests and for its stilted ideological profile. (Nearly a third of the board members come from the staunchly conservative Hoover Institution.)”

Ivo Daalder. Daalder was a prominent member of Clinton’s National Security Council staff. He is considered a “liberal hawk,” a term that is not considered an oxymoron in Bushzarro world.

Thomas Donnelly. Another PNACer. As Donnelly wrote for the Strausscon “think tank” AEI, “the strategic imperative of patrolling the perimeter of the Pax Americana is transforming the U.S. military, and those few other forces capable and willing of standing alongside, into the cavalry of a global, liberal international order. Like the cavalry of the Old West, their job is one part warrior and one part policeman—both of which are entirely within the tradition of the American military.” Considering who is president, the cowboy metaphor is apropos.

Frank Gaffney. A Richard “Prince of Darkness” Perle understudy, Gaffney “is one of the key heavy-lifters of the neoconservative-hawk policy institute world,” as Right Web puts it.

Reuel Marc Gerecht. Gerecht, a former CIA agent and recruiter, was a “vocal proponent of War upon Iraq, Iran and Syria well before 911,” according to Disinfopedia. “If President Bush follows his own logic and compels his administration to follow him against Iraq and Iran, then he will sow the seeds for a new, safer, more liberal order in the Middle East,” Gerecht said in the AEI 2004 Annual Report. In other words, an “order” ruled by Israel and the United States.
Gary Schmitt. Schmitt is the executive director of PNAC, the Strausscon “think tank” responsible for Bush’s Iraq invasion. Enough said.

Robert Kagan. Kagan is one of the top dog Strausscons, co-founder of PNAC, and buddy of William Kristol. In the preface to Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in America’s Foreign and Defense Policy, edited with Kristol, Kagan quotes Elliott Abrams, another rabid Strausscon, who “describes the faulty logic that has driven American policy toward the Middle East for more than a decade, warning that the security of Israel, Turkey, and American friends in the Arab world may be jeopardized unless the United States shifts its focus toward strengthening friends and consolidating American influence in the region,” possibly, as the above letter indicates, with conscripted bullet-stoppers.

William Kristol. Kristol edits the Rupert Murdoch financed Weekly Standard, essentially the Strausscon house organ, and is also a co-founder of PNAC. In 2002, Media Bypass reported, “In what has been called ‘punditgate,’ conservative journalists Bill Kristol and Erwin Stelzer of The Weekly Standard … have been exposed for accepting Enron largesse. … Kristol, chief of staff to former Vice President Dan Quayle, took $100,000 without disclosing the payments at the time. … Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard who postures as an independent journalist, got the money for serving on an Enron advisory board…” In other words, in addition to plotting and facilitating the murder of 100,000 or more Iraqis, Kristol also works for criminal organizations and does not bother to report the income. If your local grocer did this, he would be thrown in the hoosegow.

[shrike]

144. Where will we get these soldiers if there is no draft?

A lot of people pooh-poohing the draft idea, but, once again, where will these soldiers come from if PNAC gets their way?

[Lerkfish]

154. They're avoiding plain logic: attrition losses, dimished recruiting,

increased demand.

If you NEED more soldiers, but you're (literally) hemmoraging the current number, and you can't recruit new ones...where do you think they will come from?

[Swamp Rat]

157. The poor, minorities, new citizens.

Your neighbor's son, your family, my family... all Americans who do not have the privilege and dumb luck of being born rich.

The draft boards are ready to go. There are lots of DU threads with information about recent changes and current activity of draft boards. If you have any family or friends of draft age, I suggest you help them obtain CO status ASAP!

[Avalux]

158. Thinking like a neocon -

dress it up all pretty and lull the masses into thinking it's not really what it is......

another terror attack should do the trick. Who would say no when their country calls them after another blow on our soil?

[LiberallyInclined]

169. as the economy gets worse, and more jobs are outsourced-

there'll be fewer and fewer options for the lower classes. Or- they could even outsource the military jobs, and start offering it as an immigration perk- join the army and earn your citizenship.

conscripts are the last resort- forcing people to fight is the least desirable option, from a military perspective.

even if economic hardship makes volunteerism a charade, people still have the illusion that they're making a choice.

[Sterling]

189. It still wont pull in the kind of numbers they will need.

Think about how many people it will take just to occupy these countries if we can even win the first part if the war. Iraq should have shown you that already.

[LiberallyInclined]

209. I'm not worried either way- a draft won't affect me...

I'm too old, and i don't have any kids or siblings with kids.

if/when the time comes- i'll add my voice to the choir of discontent, but i would expect those with the most to lose would do the most to stop/oppose it.

[Kazak]

184. I have had the thought...

:scared:

[Geek_Girl]

202. Here's my Draft Theory

The administration is doing what it can to avoid the draft because of the political fall out and Roves dreams of having the GOP stay in power forever. I read somewhere that they were looking at outsourcing, that may work if we just focus on Iraq and Afghanistan, maybe.

But I don't think the neo-cons will be happy until they conquer Syria and Iran. They've done too many bad things to attain power to throw away there plans of taming the middle east and this is their chance.

Now if there is another terrorist attack that would adversely affect the stock market and because of our deficits the dollar is already pretty weak. That could potentially plummet our economy into economic ruin and I don't think they could afford to invade Iran.

So the question remains do the Neo-cons have the balls and the insanity to drive the bus off the cliff. If their smart they'll wait and bide their time. It looks like they'll be lining up another Bush for the presidency and that means they could possibly have 12 more years to carry out their plans to conquer the middle east.

But it will be interesting and scary to see how things play out.

[Sterling]

205. I think a gulf of tonkin style pretext may be what they are cooking up.

I could be wrong.