Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Could this be possible, or is it just a rumor? I heard that it is possible that Bush could reinstate the draft after the Nov. election. Is that even legal? I think it's scary to think that this war could escalate to Vietnam. Would you serve? I would, but I would definetely be mad.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 04:16 pm: Edit

Nope. It's not going to happen. It was just a rumor, and was quite an old one too.

By Sammgc68 (Sammgc68) on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 04:18 pm: Edit

I'd star in a hardcore gay porno if that were what it took to get out of serving in this war. The benefits of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

By Joev (Joev) on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 05:45 pm: Edit

Unless you are in the Guard or the Reserves you have absolutely no chance of getting called to active duty.

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 06:29 pm: Edit

No, there's no chance... assuming we don't start a war in another country.

By Nlkrueger (Nlkrueger) on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 06:44 pm: Edit

I highly doubt it, as well. Our army is large and rely heavily on technology, reducing the actual amount of manpower that is necessary.
And although Bush obviously has no career after 2009 (if he wins in Nov), the entire administration would be finished. There's just no support for a draft, especially not in the war we're fighting now in Iraq.

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 07:34 pm: Edit

Two democrats have proposed reinstating the draft, but their bill won't make it through the U.S. House. Pres. Bush won't let the democrats reinstate the draft.

By Taffy (Taffy) on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 07:40 pm: Edit

^ is he on record saying that? or did it come straight from where most people get their facts.. (_(o(_)

By Lamom (Lamom) on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 08:45 pm: Edit

There is an explantion on truth or fiction.com. Do a seach for draft.

By Megofou (Megofou) on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 08:50 pm: Edit

Oi. That would be incredibly ridiculous. It's bad enough sending the people we've sent. Trying to draft people would be utterly •••••• up.

By Hoo_29 (Hoo_29) on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 10:09 pm: Edit

Yeah, I agree. I never thought it was true at all. Some stoner at my school told me (always a trustworthy source!). Hypothetically, would you guys step up for a war that you don't support, or go to jail/border cross?

By Nlkrueger (Nlkrueger) on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 10:12 pm: Edit

Both Bush and Kerry have stated their opposition to the draft. Kerry likes to insinuate that with our current course, Bush will have to reinstate the draft, while Bush likes to accuse Kerry of scare tactics by doing that.
I'd trust Kerry over Bush not to begin a draft, though.

By Somecanadianguy (Somecanadianguy) on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 10:13 pm: Edit

maybe if do reinstate the draft it'll be easier to get into MIT since they won't have enough Americans to fill the 92% of spots they keep reserved for you guys.
Honestly, I hope that no leader is in fact crazy enough to do such a ridiculous feat, even though I don't believe either of them.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 10:52 pm: Edit

well, somecanadianguy, the draft is certainly not "such a ridiculous feat". In this current situation, a draft is likely a bad idea. But that doesn't mean that all drafts are bad.

By Hoo_29 (Hoo_29) on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 11:14 pm: Edit

Yeah, some drafts, unfortunately, are neccessary. WWII was absolutely horrible, but the future of the world depended on us. But, the Vietnam war was, simply put, crap, and this war sounds worse and worse each day. Would you guys serve, or wimp out?

By Netshark2005 (Netshark2005) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 11:20 pm: Edit

Actually, there has been a bill in Congress to make military service mandatory for ALL people, man and woman for two years. go to thomas.loc.gov, and search for HR 163. It's all spelled out in plain English.

By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 11:59 pm: Edit

"there has been a bill..."
if you beleive that any politician would be foolish enough to pass a bill like that (without trying to make it look like the figurehead of the government was trying to make a more military state), mabe you should join the millitary anyways to straighten out your intellegence.

By Yugekorb (Yugekorb) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 04:14 pm: Edit

Sammgc, hardcore? That makes it seem like you want that since you could get out just by saying you were gay and pretending to have a boyfriend. But if that's what you like...

By Chavi (Chavi) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 05:51 pm: Edit

The bill of which you speak was introduced by Charlie Rangel, liberal democratic congressman from New York and big friend of Kerry's.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 06:04 pm: Edit

The draft is NOT going to happen anytime soon.

In this type of war, our volunteer force is the single best weapon to fight the terrorists. A conscripted force is only an option for an extreme case emergency.

By Nlkrueger (Nlkrueger) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 08:20 pm: Edit

Chavi, if I'm not mistaken, Charles Rangel (a Korean vet) wrote the bill to bring attention to the fact that only ONE member of Congress has a family member fighting overseas.
In fact, that one member is a Democrat, Senator Joe Biden.

"I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that's involved, the sacrifice that's involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility."

By Justperfect (Justperfect) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 10:38 pm: Edit

they would have a draft if they didnt have enough, but i heard there are more than enough people that we wont need any, i think since 7/11 people have joined to fight terror,like pat tillman(nfl) and many others,i guess people say there will be a draft to "force" you into being a teacher

By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 10:59 pm: Edit

" they would have a draft if they didnt have enough, but i heard there are more than enough people that we wont need any, i think since 7/11 people have joined to fight terror,like pat tillman(nfl) and many others,i guess people say there will be a draft to "force" you into being a teacher"

HUH??

I was following and agreeing with you until the part after Pat Tillman. "there will be a draft to 'force' you into being a teacher." Huh-wha??
Confusing.

By Taffy (Taffy) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 11:01 pm: Edit

"i heard there are more than enough people that we wont need any"

^ recruiters are having a harder time tricking people into joining, as people see on the news the dead ends of military service.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 11:21 pm: Edit

OH really Taffy, the reason why people serve their country is because they are tricked and military service is a dead end....Gimme a break.

That post was purely idiotic. wait until Onnhis hears about this.

By Nlkrueger (Nlkrueger) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 11:38 pm: Edit

Seen Fahrenheit 9/11? Now, Michael Moore is far from a credible source, but he showed the actual recruiters and their methods at getting new men to join. Targeting the indigent, promising them money, college, etc.
I disagree that military service is a dead end, but in many cases, men are "tricked" to some degree. And with Iraq, the government is increasing service time, keeping soldiers employed longer than they were originally told.
It's getting bad, no doubt about it. With the way things are going, if action is needed in Iran or North Korea, I don't see how the military will have the manpower...
Perhaps other nations will help with the burden, but perhaps not; and knowing Bush's trigger-finger...

By Taffy (Taffy) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 11:40 pm: Edit

www.objector.org

By Vancat (Vancat) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 12:11 am: Edit

"Targeting the indigent, promising them money, college, etc. I disagree that military service is a dead end, but in many cases, men are "tricked" to some degree."

Actually, that is not entirely correct. Serving DOES bring benefits of college money, etc etc etc. The recruiters are not "tricking" people into serving, since in most cases the people WANT To serve and get these benefits in the end.

Of course, recruiters are eager to get more people to enlist. Its natural for them to emphasize the benefits on serving (i.e. college money) to meet their quotas. However, the recruiters don't deliberately "trick" or mislead people into joining by saying that they will DEFINATELY not see any action etc. We are an all-volunteer force and the recruits who sign up know full well the sacrifices and risks that come with their chosen profession.

By Taffy (Taffy) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 12:54 am: Edit

^ i guess you didnt bother reading through my link..

"The military isn't a generous financial aid institution, and it isn't concerned with helping you pay for school. Two-thirds of all recruits never get any college funding from the military. Only 15% graduated with a four year degree."

http://www.objector.org/before-you-enlist/gi-bill.html

By Nlkrueger (Nlkrueger) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 01:01 am: Edit

Well, I agree with you that offering recruits incentives isn't tricking them. However, telling these troops that after they have been on duty for a certain amount of time that they will be eligible to leave active duty and then forcing them to stay after they have fulfilled their end of the deal IS tricking them. It's called a "stop-loss" order, and it's just one of the pieces of evidence showing that Bush doesn't have the resources to keep this war going with our current troop levels. It's not pleasant stuff, that's for sure.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 02:42 pm: Edit

"However, telling these troops that after they have been on duty for a certain amount of time that they will be eligible to leave active duty and then forcing them to stay after they have fulfilled their end of the deal IS tricking them."

However, it is still the volunteer's decision to join up in the first place and to take on this sacrifice and additional risks. When one chooses to join the military, he or she KNOWS of the inherent risks in this profession and knows the potential risk of having to put in extra time. The recruiters are not deliberately lying to the recruits. When we are engaged in such a wide-spread war on terror, it IS necessary to keep troop levels the same. That's the decision of military commanders, and does not indicate that recruiters are deliberately misleading the recruits.

And don't forget, stop-loss is nothing new. It was activated in 1990 for the build-up of US troops to repel Saddam's invasion of Iraq. In 2002, it was issued again for NAtional Guard troops that were gearing up for the War against Terror. Remember, stop-loss is activated on the basis of the commander's judgements about what they need to get the job done. The soldiers are volunteers and it is there job to take these additional responsibilities when ordered. They know this, and they are not "deliberatley tricked" by recruiters.

And most likely, we will have the resources to keep this war going. Already, massive remobilization and relocation efforts for the US forces in Europe are under way. This will take quite a while to accomplish, considering the number of American forces there, but will help maintain current equipment and troop levels for the fight.

The only way we're going to go to a draft is if something of biblical proportions occur. Something on the scale of WW2 perhaps.

By Nlkrueger (Nlkrueger) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 03:19 pm: Edit

"And most likely, we will have the resources to keep this war going. Already, massive remobilization and relocation efforts for the US forces in Europe are under way."

Don't forget Korea. Remember, North Korea is no longer a threat.

"The only way we're going to go to a draft is if something of biblical proportions occur. Something on the scale of WW2 perhaps."

I'd say we're headed that way, as much as I don't want to believe it. Iran and North Korea are not being dealt with properly. There's no communication.
North Korea has been able to stall us and stall the UN by making demands and refusing to cooperate. In January 2003, they withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Bush didn't seem to care. We only cared about Iraq. In April of the same year, North Korea announced it HAD nuclear weapons, and threatened to sell them.
It's quite obvious that North Korea was a bigger threat than Iraq in late 2002/early 2003. At least Saddam Hussein allowed weapons inspectors in; the same can't be said for Kim Jong Il. While UN inspectors were being let in and searching Iraq, North Korea kicked the inspectors out.
Which one would've seemed a bigger threat? The cooperative dictator or the uncooperative dictator?

By Taffy (Taffy) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 03:42 pm: Edit

recruiters are worse than used car salesmen. they have a quota to meet and will trick, decieve, or say whatever they have to, to meet that quota. they offer empty promises of discipline, education, and money. have you even seen f9/11? im not talking about the parts about 9/11, im talking about the part where he follows around the recuiters. there was a kid who wanted to get into the music industry. the recruiter mentioned that shaggy was a marine. he pretty much said the military helps you become rich and famous in the music industry. bullshlt. that kid would be better off going to community college at least and interning somewhere.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 03:52 pm: Edit

Taffy, if all you trust are these ridiculous and biased sources, I am not all surprised about your attempts to belittle and and offend the US military.

NLkruger, on the other hand, I'll actually debate with you. I feel it's quite ironic how North Kkorea, in your own words, "stalled and refused to coorperate with the UN", yet the UN did not do squat about it. And I hardly consider Saddam a *cooperative* dictator, considering the amount of dirty money him and his cohorts took from the Oil-For-Food catastrophe. BOth are quite dangerous, and Bush went after Saddam. Of course, I think North Korea must be dealt with eventually, but I would REALLY like to see the international community actually step up and take responsibility.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 03:55 pm: Edit

and Taffy, are you SURE you were never at a chili-cookoff?

By Nlkrueger (Nlkrueger) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 06:49 pm: Edit

Vancat, I had a feeling that you would question the "cooperative" statement. I considered Saddam Hussein cooperative when compared to Kim Jong Il, that is.

"I feel it's quite ironic how North Kkorea, in your own words, "stalled and refused to coorperate with the UN", yet the UN did not do squat about it."

The UN, honestly, can do practically nothing major without the support of the US. The focus of the US moved to Iraq. Why? I say 1. evil regime (no one doubts that) and 2. oil. Bush didn't want to deal with North Korea, thus, turned the focus to Iraq. It's not like he could've fought two wars at once (Iraq/N. Korea) and there's little chance for the big anti-war nations against the Iraq war (France/Germany primarily) to step up and say 'no' to one war and 'yes' to another.
I agree completely that both the UN and the US failed at responding to North Korea. North Korea was smart and no doubt exaggerated the risk they pose. They're desperate. It's only a matter of time before the sanctions choke the nation to the point of death.
What's scary is what a nation being choked to death would be willing to do to survive. Here in the US, there's almost no chance of being at risk. But in Japan and South Korea, the danger is great.

Saddam may have had the capability (we didn't know going in) to attack his neighbors, but he was no threat to us. Bush will continually claim that our safety was threatened, but that is obviously not the case.
Now Bush is beginning to focus on Iran. Iran will most likely see how well North Korea's policy of threat worked and try it themselves. I don't want to scare people, but I think a confrontation may be coming if both sides remain as inflexible as they are now.
Kim Jong Il wants aid. The world wants him to give up his nuclear weapons. Both refuse to do what is asked. It's a standoff, and if the world can successfully keep aid from North Korea (China, I mean you!), there's little that North Korea can do.
An attack by Kim Jong Il on a neighbor would be suicidal all by his lonesome, which is why we have to do everything possible to ensure that China is on our side.

By Nlkrueger (Nlkrueger) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 12:12 am: Edit

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6099727/site/newsweek/

Article about the possibility of a draft. Kinda puts into words what a lot of kids are thinking. They don't want to go out and be forced to serve. These nuclear nations that threaten aren't just the US's problem, they're the world's problem. Why should we have a president that would basically force us into service because of his refusal to take a more diplomatic route. I can understand and condone a preemptive policy. But I can't condone a policy of disrespecting our allies and being forced to go virtually alone (as Kerry said in the debate, 90% of troops in Iraq are US soldiers.)

By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 12:21 am: Edit

Sigh, the reason why Bush did not choose AKA could not choose a "diplomatic" route against Iraq was because so many of the UN nations personally benefited from the corrupt Oil-For-Food program as well as for many other reasons. Italy, poland, britain, australia, and many other countries around the world have stepped up with us, though many others haven't.

yes, more allies would be helpful, but we cannot constantly bend to the UN in order to justify all of our actions.

unfortunately, the UN has been completely ineffective with regards to the nuclear problem with countries such as NK.

And I'll say this again. We could very well have a draft many years from now if something bad of biblical proportions occurs. Nobody debates that, since nobody actually knows whats going to happen . But IMO the draft isn't going to happen in the near future.

By Originaloog (Originaloog) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 02:41 am: Edit

In case you hevent heard, the federal government is quietly staffing the SS Boards. Can anyone explain why they would be doing that?? Just a question.

By Nlkrueger (Nlkrueger) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 02:18 pm: Edit

Ok, did a little research on the staffing of SS boards.
Jimmy Carter reinstituted SS in 1980, with local board members serving a maximum of 20 years. As most of the people stayed on the full 20 years, around the year 2000 their terms began expiring and new people were needed.

Vancat, I agree that something of Biblical proportions (reminds of the Bill Murray line in Ghostbusters) could force the US into a draft. But I think that 9/11 was something of Biblical proportions. So far, Bush has done everything in his power to move us toward a draft, despite saying he's against one.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 04:41 pm: Edit

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1291280_1,00.html

Another new source writes about what most had known for years: why many countries opposed us going in to topple saddam.

By Originaloog (Originaloog) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 08:11 am: Edit

According to retired U.S. Army Colonel David Hackworth, a military analyst and one of the most decorated officers in the army, the U.S. military is now so shorthanded that a whopping 40 percent of the 135,000 troops being rotated into Iraq are National Guard members and reservists. Congressman Rangel also warns, “We haven’t called up this level of reservists since the Korean War.”



Both the Pentagon and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld deny that a draft is in the works, yet there are signs to the contrary. For example, last fall, Presidential advisor Karl Rove polled Republican members of Congress on how they felt about he draft. They said they’d support the president. Also, last fall, the Defense Department’s website posted an ad for local Selective Service System board members, and according to the Selective Service Annual Performance Plan for 2004, before next March 31 draft boards must be potentially operational within two and a half months of a return to conscription. Increasingly, members of Congress, including Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), are calling for a draft.

By Nlkrueger (Nlkrueger) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 04:23 pm: Edit

About the Selective Service System's board member ad, I mentioned it a couple posts up.

I doubt that a draft will happen; I just don't think that Congress would support it. Besides, as it stands, whoever wins the election will have a tough time implementing a draft. It's shaping up to be an extremely close election, so whether the people decide Bush or Kerry on Nov. 2, I would predict difficulties in beginning a draft again. If Bush wins, the Kerry supporters will be pissed and certainly not support a draft. If Kerry wins, the Bush supporters will be pissed and certainly not support a draft.

Best case scenario: Kerry wins the presidency, Republicans control Congress. If Kerry tries to start a draft, the Republicans (seeing that most Americans don't want a draft) will stop the measure from taking effect.

Anyhow, if the future president does try to start a draft, there will be MAJOR losses for his party in the next election. Which makes most people believe that Bush has nothing to lose in starting a draft if he wins another 4 years.

By Yugekorb (Yugekorb) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 05:12 pm: Edit

Yeah, but would Bush really want the hate that he would get if he implemented or even supported the draft? History would not be written well in that chapter.

By Testertest (Testertest) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 12:50 am: Edit

Current adminstration's preferred defense posture is to be able fight two small wars simultaneously (Cheney's blueprint as Defense Sec under Bush-1, and Rumsfield's beginning of 2000) which was subscribed to by Clinton. This meant that the heavy hardware that was designed for the coldwar became obsolete and that more mobile military force be created and implemented.

Bush-2 allegations that Kerry voted to cut military spending is a fuzzy fact in that the Congress was and is a Republican controlled congress for the last 10 years, that both parties were looking for the "peace dividend" after the coldwar era and supported by both parties and even more so by the Republicans in the late Bush 1 and Clinton years. If there is any examination to the record, you will discover Cheney as Sec of Defense and Rumsfield were very adament in reforming and the military and by downsizing it.

We currently are now in a major conflict that is now an occupation war that is sucking up enormous resources in $ and manpower... and we still have two more "axis of evil nations" Inorder to deal with these rogue nations more $ and manpower must be developed.

There not many alternatives. If Bush-2 wants the nation to go it alone, then the draft is inevitable to defend the Freedom. If Kerry goes after the terrorists in more than 1 nation then he has to train more solders. Developing elite soldiers only comes from finding qualified soldiers in a larger pool of recruits/soldiers. Recruits is a loose term to be applied to all soldiers either volunteer or drafted.

Further since the Baby Boomer's Boomlet is a much smaller chort than prior generations...females, higher social-economic classes will be in the pool. Females are already doing major military duties because of 1)equal opportunity and 2)the shortage of males. IF any reason than to be "fair."

Is there going to be a draft?? What do you think? Any President that doesn't adequatedly prepare for the future is irresponsible and not defending the Constitution and Nation.

By Testertest (Testertest) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 01:16 am: Edit

I would personally worry about the doomsday scenio than worry about the Draft. The state of affairs is that Iran probably already has the bomb; that NK has 1-11 devices. Invading those countries has a high likely hood in triggering Doomsday and no amount of troops will be able to stop it. Bush2 went to war in Afgan. and Iraq because he could politically and militarily. Militarily, Bush-2, can't go now go into Iran and NK but could have in 2001.

In summary. If a draft is instituted, there could be no Earth to fight in. As Dr. Strangelove says "Quit worrying and Love the Bomb" and be sure that we all have room in the caves.

By Songman (Songman) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 09:13 am: Edit

Ok.I did not hear Kerry say no draft under his administration last night. I did hear Bush say "NO DRAFT" did I miss something in what Kerry said?

By Piman3141 (Piman3141) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 12:11 pm: Edit

BRING ON THE DRAFT, im ready to support my country when it NEEDS me.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 12:43 pm: Edit

A draft would be political suicide for whomever proposed it, I think. One reason why churning the Army through Iraq should be very unnerving to everyone, because our margin for handling problems anywhere else is cut to near nil.

Testertest, *my* big nightmare scenario is an Islamist coup in Pakistan.

By Simba (Simba) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 01:39 pm: Edit

Songman: Kerry has said many times in the past that he will not bring back the draft.

By Nlkrueger (Nlkrueger) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 01:44 pm: Edit

Songman, Kerry did state briefly his opposition to the draft. He's also been saying it quite a bit in his campaign stops.
But rather than just listen to the two candidates state their opposition, I urge you all to analyze their foreign policy and how it could affect our troops. Kerry obviously is for more multilateralism and diplomacy. Bush is obviously for preemption when needed, whether or not we have the support of others.
Kerry's plan (to me anyhow) seems to be much less likely to need more than a volunteer army.

I'm not worried about a doomsday scenario Testertest. The nuclear weapons that North Korea has (maybe, we have no idea) would be stupid to use, especially if the US chooses a diplomatic route in dealing with them. If they were to attack their neighbors, it would be catastrophic, but certainly not the end of the world. The US and Russia certainly would have the capability to create that doomsday scenario, but with level-headed presidents in office (even Bush is level-headed and not stupid enough to lauch enough weapons to destroy the world), I don't think we have anything to worry about.

By Nlkrueger (Nlkrueger) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 01:45 pm: Edit

There you go, beat me to it, Simba.

By Tlaktan (Tlaktan) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 07:49 pm: Edit

North Korea does have weapons, however, like many have said, KJI will most likely not use it.

His concentration (KJI's) is currently on South Korea.

As far as a draft goes.. forget it..

In fact, if you've heard of Blue to Green.. shows you there's a lot of inter-service transfers going on..