Experts see military draft as inevitable

http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2005/02/17expertsseemilit.html

"We have 12 divisions and 10 are locked down in Iraq, either coming or going," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del. "Our ability to have any flexibility with ground forces anywhere else is diminished. If we had to move into Iran, Syria, North Korea or anywhere else, we'd be in real difficulty."

In addition, he said, "we have absolutely spent, exhausted, and in some instances misled the National Guard and the reserves. I've been in Baghdad and Fallujah and I've spoken with them. When they enlisted in the Guard, they never anticipated being sent for two tours of duty in Iraq lasting a year or 18 months. We can't keep asking citizen soldiers to do that."

In a highly critical memo on the use of Reservists, Lt. Gen. James Helmly said virtually the same thing late last year. Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, said that "overuse" in Iraq and Afghanistan could result in a "broken force."

Those guys have to be reelected. Let them vote for a draft and see how long they keep their jobs.

haven't you heard of them?

shoot, plenty are making BIG BUCKs on their 'wise' investments.

K street is waiting with open arms when all is said and done.

as EASILY as they vote for another $100,000,000 billion to feed the machine they will vote for the draft, bet.

peace

but they are finished politically if they do. Democrats oppose the war, and Republicans like it as long as they don't have to go themselves. It's not a winning political issue.

shoot, kerry's mad now cause he thinks bush is stealing his ideas :crazy:

peace

We're the ones who hire and fire politicians.

:scared:

peace

Why bother resisting the draft since we have no say in the matter? 90% of the population opposes a draft but that means no difference because all elections are fixed? Is that what makes you feel better than acknowledging you have a role to play in effecting political change?

peace

And I don't mean those that will be killed in action. I'm referring to those who will leave the U.S. and never come back. Or is this what Bush had in mind with Social Security, knowing that they would leave?

I'm afraid they are going to make another terrorist attack happen and use it as and excuse.

so they might not see that as an option. I think a draft would meet immediate resistance.

hello

peace

Terror!© It makes many Americans support and believe in whatever Bush says is needed.

I'm sure they'll put that off as long as possible.

The inevitability remains, however.

really, really, bad happens and there's a case for another war-- like against Iran.

Those red states are full of militaristic assholes who would go along with it in a minute if we were "attacked."

We have NOT grown up or learned much since the '60s and '70s when we drafted by the millions to send kids to Viet Nam, which posed much less of a threat than any of these countries we're threatening now.

Note all the publicity about planning for the day, sure to come they say, when we get hit with a dirty bomb in one of our downtowns, or a bag of smallpox gets loose.

Someone said we now spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined spends. I haven't checked if that's true or not, but we are undoubtedly heading toward a total war economy.

Everything is to be cut to feed Homeland Security and the war machine.

Rome had its bread and circuses, but we don't even get that.

resist the Idea of a MIHOP.

I have to admit I'm just appalled how many DU'ers are buying this Iran thing and going into "Iran wants to bomb US" mode.

After 20 consectutive lies, why are we so accepting that the 21'st story is the truth?

because MIHOP is a bit of a stretch without a smoking gun. Anything's possible with these pantloads, but throwing speculations around without evidence just makes us look silly. Accusations of criminal incompetence and malfeasance are far more credible.

Anyway, Iran is not a real threat, nor is any other country out there, but whatever threat does exist is more palpable than the old domino theory, and will be easier for warmongers to sell.

It's never been difficult to sell war to this country. The Revolution had support from only a third of the country, but it kept going. No war but WWII had genuine popular support, but we went anyway and Viet Nam was the only one we actually stopped.

And look how long that took, even with a huge movement against it. Much larger and more visible than the anti-war forces now.

Nope, this is history merely repeating itself. If they want to go to war, they will find it far too easy, as they already have.

They've committed enough blatent war crimes, stealing our constitutional rights, and committed outright, unarguable, examples of treason.

W/ all this in mind, if I wrongly accuse these guys of something, it really doesn't matter anymore. These people have exhausted the commitment of being fair and balanced and the more we wait around looking for smoking guns that can't be proven for years (and I believe will), the closer we will get to a world wide catastrophe.

These people work for us. We need to stop being so generous, and understanding, they get paid enough to deal w/ a public that's 100 times more paranoid than we currently are. I think it's the only thing that's going to get real change.

My friends and I have discussed this unlikely contingency before, and agreed that we would camp out in front of the Pentagon and/or the White House and devote our waking hours to forcing the media and the American people to see the truth. I'm sure we wouldn't be the only ones, either.

There would be no peace in this country.

What am I missing here? If they force you to wear green then it's legal but otherwise not?

If we had to move into Iran, Syria, North Korea or anywhere else, we'd be in real difficulty

This is a bit alarming, why is he saying, if we HAD TO?

Furthermore, they ALL VOTED FOR IRAQ! What's to stop them for voting for a draft or another war?

Bush wasn't concerned about the spread of nukes until Kerry brought it up in the debates-now we may go into Iran because of it.

in general. Control of the gulf oil and gas resources is dependant upon:

1) Preventing Iran from getting 'the bomb'. No nation with the bomb has ever been invaded, thus the urgent ramp-up by the neo-cons even while Iraq has not been secured.
2) Securing the northern shore of the gulf. Shipping for oil exploitation and resupply of the legions requires an open gulf.

Syria probably figures in as a land route to the Med for an alternate logistics route, and to remove a possible foe from your flank.

The Middle East contains 2/3 of the world’s remaining oil reserves. More importantly, most of the world’s oil will be coming from the ME in 10 years. Ten years from now, a nuclear armed Iran loosely aligned with China through economic and military ties would effectively control gulf resources.

The neo-con goal is to secure the gulf area resources by establishing a permanent military infrastructure similar to cold war Europe. They see this as necessary positioning for the coming energy resource war with China.

It is about the oil. It has always been about the oil.

China and India. So has Saudi Arabia, for that matter.

China and India are the new growth markets for oil. Europe and Japan have been trying desperately to conserve and the US is fairly slow growth in fuel use.

The market is Asia, and the technology to drill and refine isn't limited to the major oil companies any more.

These guys seem to think that the Air Force will keep our oil pipeline running, but market forces are far more powerful than bombs.

And Korea.

It wasn't politically wise back then and politicians ruined their careers by supporting the draft, but guess what, there was a draft.

Gulf of Tonkin anyone?

Plus, these guys have only 4 more years. What do they have to lose?

Col. Hackworth: recruiting's tanked -- the draft's next
http://plutonium-page.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/8/20440/1036

Hackworth; Drafting Kids
http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Hackworth_100404,00.html

U.S. general warns Army Reserve is being 'broken'
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N05504230.htm

Brethren Agree to Revive 'Alternative Service' Draft Programs
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/158/story_15893_1.html

Senator (R) says US may need compulsory service to boost Iraq force
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040420154719.soi8dhtt.html

Illness taking grim toll at nation's boot camps
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002136521_bootcamp31m.html

An army's morale on the downswing
http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2004/12/28/news/edpfaff.html

The pattern of discontent in US ranks
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1216/p01s01-usmi.html?s=u2

Impress... coercing one into military service is the word for today
http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2005/01/03/news/opinion/1edmon103.txt

Deserters: We Won't Go To Iraq
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/06/60II/main659336.shtml

Old Soldiers Back On Duty
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/03/60minutes/main658994.shtml

National Guard Recruitment Plunges
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/national/main661555.shtml

Guard, Reserve showing strains; Experts predict serious problems
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04353/428818.stm

Coming up short for the "all volunteer" Army
http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/10/coming_up_short_for_the_all_volunteer_army.php

Former GIs Ordered to War, Fight Not to Go
http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/111804_former_GIS.shtml

Many former US soldiers balk at involuntary return to duty
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040929/news_1n29late.html

US military hints at staying in Afghanistan for decades
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-01/03/content_2411354.htm

Rumsfeld; Iraq troops through 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/06/international/middleeast/06cnd-rums.html?ex=1105074000&en=a1601aadd951941f&ei=5070

have never heard of the internets. <SIGH>

Damn libruls. *sigh*

If I was Mexico I'd be kinda tempted right now!