Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/19/2004 8:48:41 PM EST
I keep hearing people talking about this. I hear it on the radio. I hear it on tv. Sometimes I even hear it here.

Well, what is people basing this on? I don't see anything to indicate a draft is on the way. Hell, I was reading an article someone posted here within the last month regarding the US Navy pretty much sending about 10,000 people packing. If there's a need for a draft, I don't see why they would be getting rid of people.

If there's a need for a draft, why has there been no plans for an increase in the size of our military. Why has there been no legislation or discussion within Congress to fund this increase in military size, strength, equipment and training?

I just don't get this. I mean sure, the draft could be reinstated if some unforseen situation developed that required it. But for the life of me, I cannot understand why so many think the draft is coming back. It's like they think there's this sinister plan to draft 1 million American that have just turned 18 as soon as Bush wins re-election. This is what it's all about isn't it? The left is trying to scare parents and young people into voting for Kerry and are just making this shit up? That's the only thing that makes sense to me. Because I can't see any reason why we would start the draft up again with the current situation. None.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 8:52:48 PM EST
I think its something somone made up to scare the uninformed. I heard it from several people who say thy are going to to it since everyone is leaving the military since Bush invaded Iraq.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 8:53:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
This is what it's all about isn't it? The left is trying to scare parents and young people into voting for Kerry and are just making this shit up? That's the only thing that makes sense to me. .



You're just listening to the left too much, quit paying attention to them!

If there IS a draft coming up, well then I've ripped the DoD off because I just enlisted with a $12k bonus when they could have turned me away and then drafted me for free :)

Seriously though, I think it's just the left BS'ing trying to make Bush look bad for wanting our military to not be the pussy of the world.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 9:01:56 PM EST
Can anyone tell me how well retention is going? Unless we are losing people in droves and the number of new recruits have dramatically dropped, then I can see no possible reason for a draft.

From all I have heard, recruiting is going well. And I haven't heard of a mass exodus within those already in the military. Is this the case? Otherwise I can only call BS on these people screaming "the draft is coming back soon....be afraid". I get so sick of hearing that shit.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 9:03:26 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 9:04:57 PM EST by raven]
It's kind of interesting that all the bills in Congress to activate a draft are sponsored by Democrats like Charlie Rangel and Jim McDermott.

Bush and the Republicans haven't said boo about drafts. It's all brought up by the Democrats, who turn around and say it's Bush who's calling for it.

Bullshit and deception. The Democrats' stock-in-trade.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 9:12:06 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 9:14:44 PM EST
I thought thay had alot of people staying.


I think the basic idea is, draft scared 16-20ish kids thinking they will get drafter, sent away from their girlfriend, room and civic with a wing, then end up in some hell hole of a place and get stuck there forever. Soccermom is scared her kids will get drafted right when they turn 18 and sent away forever.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 9:18:09 PM EST
It's a fantasy of the libs so they can re-live some past "glories" burning their (Non-existant) draft-cards.

Link Posted: 9/19/2004 9:18:33 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 9:20:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
Can anyone tell me how well retention is going? Unless we are losing people in droves and the number of new recruits have dramatically dropped, then I can see no possible reason for a draft.

From all I have heard, recruiting is going well. And I haven't heard of a mass exodus within those already in the military. Is this the case? Otherwise I can only call BS on these people screaming "the draft is coming back soon....be afraid". I get so sick of hearing that shit.



What you have heard is right...

The 'I-just-joined-for-college-cash-why-do-I-have-to-shoot-people' folks are leaving in droves, but they're having no trouble replacing them with folks who will do the job...
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 9:23:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
I keep hearing people talking about this. I hear it on the radio. I hear it on tv. Sometimes I even hear it here.

Well, what is people basing this on? I don't see anything to indicate a draft is on the way. Hell, I was reading an article someone posted here within the last month regarding the US Navy pretty much sending about 10,000 people packing. If there's a need for a draft, I don't see why they would be getting rid of people.

If there's a need for a draft, why has there been no plans for an increase in the size of our military. Why has there been no legislation or discussion within Congress to fund this increase in military size, strength, equipment and training?

I just don't get this. I mean sure, the draft could be reinstated if some unforseen situation developed that required it. But for the life of me, I cannot understand why so many think the draft is coming back. It's like they think there's this sinister plan to draft 1 million American that have just turned 18 as soon as Bush wins re-election. This is what it's all about isn't it? The left is trying to scare parents and young people into voting for Kerry and are just making this shit up? That's the only thing that makes sense to me. Because I can't see any reason why we would start the draft up again with the current situation. None.



It's real SIMPLE

The antiwar Demos think that if they force trust-fund kiddies to go fight the war, even Republicans will oppose it...

They see a draft as the best way to shut the whole thing down, and push for it under the guise of making the military more 'representative' (using Moore's BS that the service 'traps' unsuspecting minority kids with promises of money & education, and that middle-to-upper class folks never serve)...

You're ruight, it is BS....
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 9:39:14 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 9:49:31 PM EST
Yeah the minority exploitation thing is total BS. Whites are way over represented in the combat arms, just look at bunch of news photos, they are mosty white, and some black.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 9:50:59 PM EST
Wow....low class people enlisted? I know Im from a upper-middle class family, and Im sick and tired of being handed the major things in my life and Im ready to go out and get them for myself. Enlisting real soon here.

John
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 11:39:50 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 11:47:08 PM EST

Originally Posted By NightWatchman:
Yeah the minority exploitation thing is total BS. Whites are way over represented in the combat arms, just look at bunch of news photos, they are mosty white, and some black.


Saw a Pentagon Personnel Office article about 6-8 weeks ago that flatly stated that enlisment ratios very closely matched the general population and economic splits. Within 1-2% in all categories.
The Left's meme of 'only poor minorities are fighting and dying for America' is a sadass retread from the Vietnam Era, like all the rest of their rhetoric and Lies.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 11:49:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By Troy:
Liberals have been comparing Iraq to Vietnam from Day 1, rolling out the "quagmire" label 5 months into the campaign.... -Troy

More like 5 DAYS. The big sandstorm that hit US forces in West-Central Iraq at the end of the first week of the push to Bagdad immediately had Liberal shills crying 'quagmire!'
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 11:59:33 PM EST
Ok, looks like we are all on the same page. That's what I thought.

In essence, the liberals are still stuck back in the 1960's and that's all they will ever be. Their whole lives are wrapped up in that whole experience. Burning draft cards, Vietnam, Woodstock and smoking pot.

<Sigh> Mommas, don't let your babies grow up to be liberals.

-CH
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 1:47:11 AM EST
The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are running at or near record levels for reenlistment and retention.

They are also running at about 100% of their projected recruiting goals.

The Army National Guard in some states is not able to retain enough people, in some states the Army National Guard is not going to be able to meet their recruiting goals.

The Navy and Air Force want to get rid of a good portion of their Enlisted middle grades while retaining the top and building up the bottom.

The Army wants to reduce (not by much) their recruiting from the bottom while enlisting the mid-grade people that are not able to stay in the Navy / Air Force.


Defenselink.mil

the Air Force and the Navy have no problem at all making their recruiting and retention goals. In the Army, active duty recruiting is going well, and the service will make its fiscal 2004 goal.

Army Reserve recruiting also is going well, and the component expects 102 percent of its goal at the end of September, Rumsfeld said.

The Army National Guard is somewhat below its target. "They're at 88 percent, but seem confident that they're going to eventually make the numbers they need," the secretary said.

National Guard officials said that they will be short about 5,000 prior-service personnel at the end of the fiscal year. The shortage will be added to the goal for fiscal 2005.

With respect to retention, overall the military is doing well, Rumsfeld said. The retention for the active components is over 100 percent of target, and reserve component retention is about 99 percent.

In the National Guard, retention is almost 101 percent. DoD officials said that the re-enlistment rate is even higher for units back from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Link Posted: 9/20/2004 2:53:45 AM EST
They are filling up the draft boards here in Michigan. I just got a notice that they are interviewing people on the wait list and starting new training classes.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 3:18:26 AM EST
That "draft" crap is a canard coming from the Left. Charlie Rangle et al are the perps who are spreading that shit around in a feeble attempt to scare the hell out of the sheeple. They claim that it is a secret Bush plan...then they say it is the ONLY way to get sufficient numbers of troops into the Sand Pile.



Truth is that retention in the combat arms has never been better. Apparently, the young troops recognize great leadership from the top down and really like busting up shit and killing BGs.

Don't fret about the draft...it is NOT going to happen. We will likely see a modified Defense budget for FY05-06 that includes one or two more Infantry Divisions...but NO draft. It would give the Left ALL the ammo they truly want to beat up Bush and start their anti-war campaign again ala the 1960's.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 3:42:46 AM EST
I don't think it is a canard. If a full-scale middle east war breaks out, there will have to be a draft.
Yes, only demos have been pushing the issue (after Vietnam, the draft was abolished and the system to use Reserve and National Guard troops was put in place in order to discourage wars like the one currently going on--all set up by Democracts).

Look, we live in a one-party country that appears to be two. So the Republicans can go to war and say "there will not be a draft" and then the Democrats can oppose the war and get the draft reinstated so an even bigger war can happen. It's called having your cake and eating it, too.


Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:04:43 AM EST
I think every male 18 years old should be MADE to serve four years....NO excuses... My two cent..
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:15:17 AM EST
I think part of the reason retention rates are so high is that the govt is using a "stop loss" law to force people to serve beyond their contract obligations. You get a lot of people who did their time, and it's time for them to go home, and they get told "Nope, you get out when we say you can". That's involuntary servitude in my book, but apparently, it's in the fine print that no-one ever reads, that by signing up, you agree to this.

If we peons wrote up such an contract out in the real world, heads would roll, but since it's the govt...it's apparenly okay. <rolls eyes>

Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:58:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By thelibertarian:
I don't think it is a canard.



Then that is merely one of the many thinks you think that aren't correct. No one is bringing up the draft except far-left Democrat alarmists trying to make the president look bad.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 5:22:43 AM EST
Do you know what Stop-loss is?
Do you know the enlistment contract time period?

It's obvious that you don't know what you are taking about.
Your last statement makes it PAINFULLY obvious indeed.

Go away


Originally Posted By billclo:
I think part of the reason retention rates are so high is that the govt is using a "stop loss" law to force people to serve beyond their contract obligations. You get a lot of people who did their time, and it's time for them to go home, and they get told "Nope, you get out when we say you can". That's involuntary servitude in my book, but apparently, it's in the fine print that no-one ever reads, that by signing up, you agree to this.

If we peons wrote up such an contract out in the real world, heads would roll, but since it's the govt...it's apparenly okay. <rolls eyes>


Link Posted: 9/20/2004 5:48:11 AM EST
Just a Democrat issue to scare voters.

The military doesn't have the room or equipment to take in all the draftees after Clinton shut down all the military bases for the peace dividend.

Plus volunteers are a lot easier to train than people who don't want to be there.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 1:13:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Do you know what Stop-loss is?
Do you know the enlistment contract time period?

It's obvious that you don't know what you are taking about.
Your last statement makes it PAINFULLY obvious indeed.

Go away


Originally Posted By billclo:
I think part of the reason retention rates are so high is that the govt is using a "stop loss" law to force people to serve beyond their contract obligations. You get a lot of people who did their time, and it's time for them to go home, and they get told "Nope, you get out when we say you can". That's involuntary servitude in my book, but apparently, it's in the fine print that no-one ever reads, that by signing up, you agree to this.

If we peons wrote up such an contract out in the real world, heads would roll, but since it's the govt...it's apparenly okay. <rolls eyes>





I guess if anyone happens to have a differing idea as to what's going on, they're a troll? Screw you. Since you seem to know what's up, oh mighty one, why not educate us, and not insult me?

I'm only repeating what I've heard elsewhere.

And NO, I'm not an Kerry-ite, nor a DU person.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 1:22:08 PM EST
Instead of parroting what you have "heard" why don't you do a little research yourself and come to the discussion "armed" with knowledge.

Google......



Originally Posted By billclo:
I guess if anyone happens to have a differing idea as to what's going on, they're a troll? Screw you. Since you seem to know what's up, oh mighty one, why not educate us, and not insult me?

I'm only repeating what I've heard elsewhere.

And NO, I'm not an Kerry-ite, nor a DU person.

Link Posted: 9/20/2004 1:22:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By billclo:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Do you know what Stop-loss is?
Do you know the enlistment contract time period?

It's obvious that you don't know what you are taking about.
Your last statement makes it PAINFULLY obvious indeed.

Go away


Originally Posted By billclo:
I think part of the reason retention rates are so high is that the govt is using a "stop loss" law to force people to serve beyond their contract obligations. You get a lot of people who did their time, and it's time for them to go home, and they get told "Nope, you get out when we say you can". That's involuntary servitude in my book, but apparently, it's in the fine print that no-one ever reads, that by signing up, you agree to this.

If we peons wrote up such an contract out in the real world, heads would roll, but since it's the govt...it's apparenly okay. <rolls eyes>





I guess if anyone happens to have a differing idea as to what's going on, they're a troll? Screw you. Since you seem to know what's up, oh mighty one, why not educate us, and not insult me?

I'm only repeating what I've heard elsewhere.

And NO, I'm not an Kerry-ite, nor a DU person.



You don't have a different opinion, you are just parroting the bullshit from the left, thus a making you a troll. You are only repeating what you have heard from the leftists.

If you would bother reading the entire thread, you would already be educated on this issue, but that is not your goal, is it?
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 1:29:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 1:40:12 PM EST by billclo]
This is why I love this board so much. I come in, give an opinion, and get flamed. I ask for enlightenment, and I basically get told to STFU and Google it. I may have been mistaken about the issue, but JESUS H CHRIST, you guys don't have to be such assholes, you know? Honest error and all, you know? I'm sure you've never made one though.

And no, I had no intention of trolling, nor starting up trouble. Sheese.


edited STFU
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 1:33:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By raven:
It's kind of interesting that all the bills in Congress to activate a draft are sponsored by Democrats like Charlie Rangel and Jim McDermott.

Bush and the Republicans haven't said boo about drafts. It's all brought up by the Democrats, who turn around and say it's Bush who's calling for it.

Bullshit and deception. The Democrats' stock-in-trade.



YUP...
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 1:34:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By billclo:
This is why I love this board so much. I come in, give an opinion, and get flamed. I ask for enlightenment, and I basically get told to SHTF and Google it. I may have been mistaken about the issue, but JESUS H CHRIST, you guys don't have to be such assholes, you know? Honest error and all, you know? I'm sure you've never made one though.

And no, I had no intention of trolling, nor starting up trouble. Sheese.



Actually, it's STFU, not SHTF...
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 1:38:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By billclo:
I think part of the reason retention rates are so high is that the govt is using a "stop loss" law to force people to serve beyond their contract obligations. You get a lot of people who did their time, and it's time for them to go home, and they get told "Nope, you get out when we say you can". That's involuntary servitude in my book, but apparently, it's in the fine print that no-one ever reads, that by signing up, you agree to this.

If we peons wrote up such an contract out in the real world, heads would roll, but since it's the govt...it's apparenly okay. <rolls eyes>




Retention rates only include those who re-up, not those on stop-loss. And anyone who is in more than 180 days knows that you can be extended out past your DEROS (the date you expected to get out and head back to Fort Livingroom). That is why the military used to say' the duration (of the war) plus six months.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 1:40:17 PM EST

What's the basis for all of this "the draft is coming back" crap?


Anybody but Bush
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 1:50:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By AZ_Hi_Desert:

Originally Posted By billclo:
I think part of the reason retention rates are so high is that the govt is using a "stop loss" law to force people to serve beyond their contract obligations. You get a lot of people who did their time, and it's time for them to go home, and they get told "Nope, you get out when we say you can". That's involuntary servitude in my book, but apparently, it's in the fine print that no-one ever reads, that by signing up, you agree to this.

If we peons wrote up such an contract out in the real world, heads would roll, but since it's the govt...it's apparenly okay. <rolls eyes>




Retention rates only include those who re-up, not those on stop-loss. And anyone who is in more than 180 days knows that you can be extended out past your DEROS (the date you expected to get out and head back to Fort Livingroom). That is why the military used to say' the duration (of the war) plus six months.



Thanks for the info. I did some additional Googling, per the suggestion of KA3B, and found the text of the actual enlistment contract. Yup, sure is in there. 6 months after the end of a "war".

Available here:
usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/enlistment.pdf
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 2:09:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By raven:
It's kind of interesting that all the bills in Congress to activate a draft are sponsored by Democrats like Charlie Rangel and Jim McDermott.


Please, correct me if I'm wrong. But, hasn't the draft been Charlie Rangels baby for a lot longer than the war's been on. Isn't he the guy trying to use it as social reform. Y'know to get kids off the streets and give them automatic weapons because they don't have any skills after having dropped out of skool. Instead of, you know, figuring out how to keep them in school.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:55:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By billclo:

Originally Posted By AZ_Hi_Desert:

Originally Posted By billclo:
I think part of the reason retention rates are so high is that the govt is using a "stop loss" law to force people to serve beyond their contract obligations. You get a lot of people who did their time, and it's time for them to go home, and they get told "Nope, you get out when we say you can". That's involuntary servitude in my book, but apparently, it's in the fine print that no-one ever reads, that by signing up, you agree to this.

If we peons wrote up such an contract out in the real world, heads would roll, but since it's the govt...it's apparenly okay. <rolls eyes>




Retention rates only include those who re-up, not those on stop-loss. And anyone who is in more than 180 days knows that you can be extended out past your DEROS (the date you expected to get out and head back to Fort Livingroom). That is why the military used to say' the duration (of the war) plus six months.



Thanks for the info. I did some additional Googling, per the suggestion of KA3B, and found the text of the actual enlistment contract. Yup, sure is in there. 6 months after the end of a "war".

Available here:
usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/enlistment.pdf



Lesson to remember: Do research first...this prevents brogan in mouth syndrome.
Top Top