TIME magazine article on reinstating the draft

http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2003/poyforum.html?cnn=yes

Scary, scary, scary, scary, scary.

As a woman who won't be 26 for another 7 months, I'd be eligible.

Oh. My. Gawd.

and you'll realize that the ONLY way that they can get a "larger"
military is by reinstating the draft.
Its obvious that they cannot continue to allow combat troops' morale
to falter by playing "occupation force"...that role is best
reserved for conscripted kids.

Bad times ahead folks...and if Bush gets reselected...this will be
the new reality come July 2005...

I'd be off the hook by then, age-wise, but a lot of my friends wouldn't. What's the significance of that date?

from the comprehensive report on the draft from the sss.gov website there has been an infusion of 28m to have the draft up and running by March 2005, with the first group in the lottery to be those young men age 20 by June 5th 2005.

and the powers of evil want to maximize the insult.

</gloomy paranoia>

18 and 19 year olds are not priorities in the way SSS works now.

Please include an excerpt.

When pointing us to an article, it is standard DU practice to quote a few paragraphs.

You can use notepad to hold the address of the link while you copy a few paragraphs to your clipboard.

By posting both an excerpt and a link, we can decide if we want to take the time to load another webpage. Some of us have slow connections.

An excerpt also let's us know what you found notable about the article.

http://www.sss.gov/PDFs/Ann_Rpt02-scrn.pdf.

sounds kind of leisurely, like a vacation...

maybe it cold be sold as an "extreme" vacation in a beautiful foreign land.

remember, the nuremburg trials proved that "just following orders" is not a defence.

With all due respect to Chuck Rangel, it ain't gonna ever happen unless WWIII breaks out. Chuck feels very strongly about the character building benefits of national service. He did Korea and has felt ever since that everyone else ought to have a shot at what he went through, I think. He's very passionate about it. I watch at least one interview with him every year where he mounts and rides the "return to the draft" hobbyhorse for all it's worth.

The only way it will be "fair" is if they take all 4 million every year. I did the Vietnam Tango and the constant refrain was that it wasn't fair. They were right. We had the draft board. Anyone who had an influential doctor in town could claim a bad back (like Dean) or a hernia (which was a far more common complaint). I've often wondered just how many hernia operations that were done in the late 1960's and early 1970's were bogus. I suspect that most of them were. :-)

We tried defering people who were going to work in the defense industry, people who were going to teach K-12. Then Bobby Kennedy and later Edward got on their high horses and demanded first a "draft test" to cull out people who were in college who "didn't belong there" and later those bloody lotteries. I've often suspected that many, if not most middle-aged neocons were subjected to the lotteries and as a result wound up with a deep visceral hatred of at least the Kennedys and probably liberals in general who went on their jihad to make selective service fair when it was structurally impossible to do so. I've had many people on the right tell me just that.

It's easy, however, to do the numbers. Here is a first approximation. Let's run 'em on a 40 hour week and pay 'em something like minimum wage.

($7/hr)(52 weeks/year)(40 hours/week)(4000000)(((18 months service)/(12 months/year)))= $87,360,000,000/year for salaries alone.

You then have to house 'em, build bases for 'em, equip 'em with weapons to some extent, give 'em clothing and provide 'em food and medical care. It would bankrupt the US faster than anything anybody has done in the last several administrations.

Furthermore it would give us a standing army that would dwarf anything on the planet and scare the whey out of people like the Chinese, probably touching off an arms race to end all arms races.

With all respect to Chuck Rangel, it's a stupid thing to propose. I doubt seriously that he's serious about it except, maybe as a thought experiment.

If you mean, Charles Rangel, you should say so. So that you know for future reference, black men named Charles don't call themselves, Chuck. Black men named Richard, don't call themselves, "Dick." And black men named, John don't call themselves, "Jack." For the most part. I have an Uncle who has a lot of white friends who call him Dick. But, that is not how he grew up. And that is not what his black associates call him. We call him, "Ritchie" or "Richard." Not, "Dick."

Now, on your thesis that there is not going to be a draft, I don't think you should be so sure about that. If bush wins in 2004 he can do whatever he wants. They (republicans) control the voting machines you know? Do you think he will be worried that his little, election stealing brother Jeb won't be able to succeed him if he institutes a draft? If he controls the voting machines, why should that concern him?

So that you know for future reference, black men named Charles don't call themselves, Chuck.

Get a grip. His friends call him Chuck. :pals:

They (republicans) control the voting machines you know?

Across the whole USA, hun? Wow, I'd sure like some of what you're smoking! :D

On second thought... naah... paranoia's no fun at all... :)

And you know this how?