 |
| |
|
|
NeOmega
|
 |
Play Pentagenesis Beta!
Feb 2002
time: 21:31
|
|
I was a hair's breadth from joing the Marine Corps. I could've fought the refusal based on flimsy medical reasons, but I didn't.
I was highly recruited. 99 on ASVAB, 3.5 years NJROTC in high school. 3.7 GPA with many advanced courses.... and most importantly, I wanted to be a soldier, it was my career of choice. I couldn't wait to go to boot camp.
Clinton was president, and sending troops everywhere.
I asked my recruiter about that, and he said, "Well, I just trust the president knows more than me" Another thing I saw in one of the recruiter's offices was a poster of a cartoony Saddam Hussein with a bomb on his head. Oops, reminded me I was against the war when I was in high school.
I was all American gung-ho military, I wanted to blow stuff up, like I told my recruiter, when he asked about the medical field "It would be easier for me to kill someone than to try to put them back together"
But I don't want to be a pawn to make politicians more powerful, and I am completely satisfied with my decision. I still look back and wonder what the hell I was doing in that recruiter's office when I opposed the Iraq war? I was just a dumb 18 year old.
I had a guy who was going to vote republican instead of Libertarian, because of gun rights tell me he served, but told his son not to, because the wars of late are all just the biddings of politicians.
And look at our pool of soldiers dying in the battlefield. Notice how many women and immigrants are in there. Take it as sexist, but Jessica Lynch, unless she could've met the physical requirements that men needed, (which I doubt) really shouldn't have even been there. Secondly, I have heard marines complain before about women. It is all about teamwork on the field, yes, but continuosly having to pick up the slack for social expermentation? And what about Johnson? She was a big girl. I really don't think she met the wight requirements.
And immigrants? We have people serving, in our military, who aren't even U.S. citizens! Am I the only one who sees a problem here?
I have seen the high school classes opinions. They don't like this war. I wonder how many of them are going to sign up for patriotic duty? How many for college money? Which do you suppose fights better?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
Recruiting efforts must be lagging as the admin itself is now talking draft.
Saturday, November 8, 2003
Talk of a draft grows despite denials by White House
By CHARLES POPE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT
WASHINGTON -- The United States' uneven record in Iraq has kindled a small but persistent push to reinstitute the military draft, a politically charged idea that hasn't been seriously considered since the end of the Vietnam War.
Yet despite denials from the White House that a draft is under consideration, and despite the obvious political fallout of such a move during an election campaign, talk of a draft has heated up in recent days.
Asked this week if the president is considering reinstituting the draft, press secretary Scott McClellan gave a quick and emphatic answer. "No," he said, moving to the next question.
But military observers and some members of Congress say that the notion of a possible military draft is gaining traction, in part because of questions from Democrats in Congress about the conduct of the Iraqi reconstruction, from retired military officers who are worried that the force is too small to accomplish such a big and difficult job -- and because of the administration itself.
The Defense Department fueled the debate this week when it placed a notice on its Web site asking for "men and women in the community who might be willing to serve as members of a local draft board."
The notice, which appeared on an official Web page for the Selective Service System titled "Defend America," explained: "If a military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal Boards throughout America would decide which young men, who submit a claim, receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service, based on Federal guidelines. Positions are available in many communities across the Nation."
The Pentagon wouldn't comment on the notice, and by yesterday it had been pulled from the Web site without explanation.
Federal officials, falling in line behind President Bush and his official position, say there are no specific plans to bring back the draft but it's only prudent to have the plans and some of the people in place if it becomes necessary.
Despite those explanations, the public notice by the Pentagon marked the first formal request to re-establish draft boards since the draft was abolished in 1973.
Whether or not a draft is reinstated, debate about troop strength and the commitment to Iraq will continue. The United States has more than 130,000 soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, a deployment that has virtually drained the Army of its troops. One division remains in the United States.
Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and senior military officials have consistently said that the military is not stretched too thin and that there are enough soldiers to meet all responsibilities both domestically and overseas.
The Pentagon sought to underscore that point Thursday by announcing that it will send 85,000 new Army and Marine combat troops to Iraq to replace soldiers ending one-year tours. The Pentagon also alerted 43,000 National Guard and Reserve support troops that they may be sent to Iraq as well.
Taken together, those decisions constitute the largest rotation of U.S. troops since World War II.
In an added twist, the Army announced that soldiers in every unit designated for deployment to Iraq next year -- whether active duty or reserve -- will be prohibited from leaving the service during a period beginning 90 days before their departure to 90 days after they return.
Ironically, if the White House and Pentagon decide to reinstitute the draft they will earn support from some senior Democrats. Sen. Ernest Hollings of South Carolina and Rep. Charles Rangel of New York have both said that the country should bring back the draft.
Without a draft, they say, the current force will be overly dependent on National Guard and reserves. That fact, coupled with the yearlong tours required of Reserve forces, has sustained demands that a draft be considered.
Rangel and Hollings each sponsored legislation that would re-institute the draft. The identical bills call for mandatory national service in either the military or some other national service of all men and women between the ages of 18 and 26.
Rangel argues that poor and less-educated Americans suffer a disproportionate number of deaths and injuries in an all-volunteer force.
"In Iraq, minorities represented a disproportionate 32 percent of the deaths among combat-related specialties and 40 percent of those among the non-combat ranks," Rangel said.
"I do deplore the fact that Americans and Americans-to-be of their socioeconomic positions make up the overwhelming majority of our nation's armed forces, and that, by and large, those of wealth and position are absent from the ranks of ground troops," he said.
"The point is that, under a draft, every economic group, every social class, men and women, would be given the opportunity to contribute to the defense of their country," he said.
While some -- even many -- members of Congress privately accept Rangel's logic, no one expects Congress to publicly embrace the draft.
Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., who is one of the authorities on the military in Congress, opposes bringing back the draft, said his chief of staff, George Behan.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/natio...83_draft08.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
a draft is only needed if we are going to take on someone big
like NK or China
otherwise people will just be upset about it, there will be no feeling that hey are needed
JOn Miller
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by axi
The Roman army enlisted men for 20 years of service and promised them that at the end of the service, they would be given land to cultivate, in some part of the conquered provinces.
Perhaps you should do the same, but, since the desert is not suitable for agriculture, this should be modernised somewhat: Iraq veterans should be given claims for oil extraction, to start their own little Enrons and Halliburtons.  |
Why not just give them pensions?
But, AXI, you may have a point there. The Roman Army was at its best when they got to keep the spoils as their own. One could become rich if you had a commander like Caesar or Pompey.
Also, for a long time the Brit navy too could keep spoils. Thus they were very good fighters. Far better than if they had no stake in the outcome.
So, giving the US GI a share in the spoils in Iraq sounds like a plan.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Isn't the U.S. army just paid to wage war?
|
Soldiers are paid to be soldiers... Even they need to eat, their children need clothes, etc...
People join the military for reasons apart from the pay. Many of the kids in school (HS) these days will end up faced with the decisions of joining an armed force or not. I don't think gauging the outcome of this decision on the attitude of a high school kid warrents any concern for a draft. Generally, HS kids are oblivious to the real world and the challenges it offers. Most will see the armed forces as a means to over come these obsticles.
I have known many people who have gone to school (university) and then went to the armed forces. As well, I have known many peopl who have joined after several years of struggling in the real world. Sadly, I think the state of the economy and the state of the world will force many into the armed forces... Some will do it from a sense of duty, others will do it for money, GI bills, secure job, etc... This, however, will only come once the vail of innocence is removed by handing them a HS diploma.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-11-2003 09:25
|
|