News: US militery draft is back (I'm not joking)

[Guest]

(And here we go again - )

Welcome, GilderoyW - your craziness will mix well with our fun-lovin' group.


She - bless your heart. Your well-read brilliance and obvious patience have been proven time and time again.

 

[Blarneystoned]

It's good to know I am loved..haha

You all have a great night...Im on for a day then off for one then on for 3..so I doubt I will have much time for this..but it was a lot of fun ...Sleep well and may you have a great day tomorrow.

Blarneystoned

By the way Dr M..thanks for those stats...800 to 63 000 ...that is impressive.


Blarneystoned

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Huh.

Damnitt people, what's everyone smoking these days?

Rumsfield is pulling troops in from S. Korea and other hot spots and also doing stop-loss programs. This does not point to an overwhelming surplus of volunteers. It in fact points to a depleted military that needs fresh blood. In fact, Rumsfield has said just that. At the same time, two bills appear in Congress with next to no TV or news coverage and draft boards all over the country INCREASE membership.

Forgive me for being paranoid, but I know many friends and sons of friends who are of "the age" or will be in 2 years time.

Blarney, not that it'll matter but here's the problems with nukes. There are a lot of automatic reaction systems in place from the cold war. Also, you know a nuclear blast will elict a nuclear response. It's the shit Bradbury writes about sometimes. Bad juujuu.

Zor, let me explain everything because you are sense-deprived. You do not ownz0r our @$$E$. In a debate there must be presentation of argument, a counterargument based on an actual reading of the other person's opinion, etc... Your friends have not done such a thing. I gave up trying to point this out. So I only mention it one more time to you because you're young and frankly stupid. Don't worry, we all go through that stage in life.

Also how much money is enough? We already spend more than every other country quite a few times over. Our tech is so shiny and amazing that it truly cannot be fought by an army. Rabbles of civilians with rifles though? We suck at fighting them and every country has figured out that the only way to beat the US is to get into a nasty guerilla war. For that we don't need much money. Only enough for armor that actually stops bullets, a clear plan of execution with tactics, wariness, and luck. I say divert the money from the next shiny bomb into better armor for guerrila warfare and guerilla warfare training. Countries already know we can bomb and bomb better than them. Let's now keep troops alive instead.

About our points on joining up... We are saying that those who believe that war is a good thing, that it is justified, should support those beliefs with action. Your decision to join up after college reflects that strength of conviction and I hope all who share your beliefs have the same strength to do what they believe is right. Good luck and may God favor on you so that you don't die. (longwinded I know, but eh)

 

[SummerMorning]

A bunch of you who are impulsive, emotional, and unfortunately un-educated lefties lost this discussion. OWNED!

Wow. What bravado. What panache.

 

[SummerMorning]

Re: Someone has to push the red button

More troops in Mach 4 gear or led suits to the front....If I remember right I think one nuke will take out 12 sqare miles or so.. I couldnt see most of the middle east having more than a few to dish out at once...Pahkastan and india maybe have the best shot and I bet they can only lauch a few at at time so far....North Korea has about 8 nukes and of that I am not sure if they have a delivery apparatus...Pahkistan just demoed theirs..

Blarneystoned

I believe you are discovering some new mythical geography there, I've never heard of a Pahkastan or a Pahkistan...

...but there is in fact a small 150 mio. state called Pakistan.

 

[jeanne_d_artois]

Re: Re: Someone has to push the red button

I believe you are discovering some new mythical geography there, I've never heard of a Pahkastan or a Pahkistan...

...but there is in fact a small 150 mio. state called Pakistan.

The state called Pakistan is fighting the war on terrorism, has aided the US, UK and others against Al-Queda, has apologised for its nuclear weapons program, has been readmitted to the Commonwealth and is promising free democratic elections.

They and the new government of India are continuing peace talks to solve the problem of Kashmir which has caused wars between them since 1947.

Pakistan has real problems with fundamental Muslim fanatics and the remains of the Taleban but they are trying hard to be good guys. They are not a threat to the US. Some of their citizens might be; as some US and UK citizens are a threat.

Jeanne (aka Og)

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Where does all that money go?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3754307.stm

Running short of bullets... We spend more money than any other country in the world on our military and we still can't afford bullets for our troops. Something is seriously wrong with Pentagon spending.

 

[SummerMorning]

Where did I read the data that for every 1200 bullets fired in Vietnam, 1 hit an enemy combatant?

 

[Pure]

No Child Left Behind (from visiting Iraq)

Despite war, recruiting steady:
Military meeting its goals, but commitments tougher

By Tyrone Richardson and Sofia Santana,
Boston Globe Correspondents |

June 5, 2004

Jean Caze walked into an Army recruiting office downtown yesterday with some questions for the man in uniform at the desk. But the unemployed 24-year-old from Somerville did not want to know about the dangers of serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. He asked about the pay, training, and how the recruiting officer had made his way through the Army. A half hour later, the recruiter was smiling: Caze had agreed to join.



Despite a litany of US casualties and extensions of duty abroad, military recruiters say they are continuing to fill their monthly goals for enlisting men and women in the Army, Navy, and Marines. But the recruiters acknowledge it takes more reassuring and explaining to recruit the same numbers than before the nation was at war.

"It takes longer for people to commit," said Sergeant First Class John C. Johnson Jr., a recruiter in the Buswell Street office. Candidates used to take three to five days to decide to join up, said Johnson, who has been recruiting for the Army since 1997. But these days, he said, it often takes about two weeks.

Recruiters acknowledge they are doing more advertising, telemarketing, and outreach to high school students to maintain the numbers they need for enlistment and retention.

Since January 2002, recruiters have been able to use directories of high school seniors drawn from lists mandated by the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Schools that receive money through the act are required to supply student directories to military recruiters.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Re: No Child Left Behind (from visiting Iraq)

Since January 2002, recruiters have been able to use directories of high school seniors drawn from lists mandated by the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Schools that receive money through the act are required to supply student directories to military recruiters.

My high school senior friend, one of the youngest of my old group of friends says he has been dogged by a marine recruiter for about 6 months. Every week he gets a call and even when he launched into a diatribe about why he didn't support the war, they still call. It's like patriotic stalking.

 

[SlickTony]

It would be easy to believe that this administration has no interest in the economy getting much better.

 

[Guest]

It would be easy to believe that this administration has no interest in the economy getting much better.

Well, not until a week before the election, anyway.

 

[Blarneystoned]

I said a draft isnt likely unless we get nuked

The likelyhood of getting nuked is minimal.....I just dont see a draft coming on unless we hit some cataclismic event. Recruitment is high and we have lots of reserves...not too mention all the retired and honorable discharges we can mandate back into service if they havent been out a decade or more..that is part of the contract....Kennedy did it in 1960.

Drafts weren't all bad though...the military teaches skills that the job market needs...not too mention trends which way our technology is going. I still dont see Iraq warranting a draft though. I was talking to Doctor M...he threw some stats up...we have over 800 dead...the Iraqis had some 30 000 soldiers dead and some 35 000 civilians dead...basically that means for ever 1 American dead..there are around 81 Iraquis dead....with 160 000 troups there and more heading that way... we have a long way to go.....so far that is less than half a percent casualty by our forces...(800/160000) = 0.005 ....We would need much higher casualties than that too warrant a draft...so stop the panic please

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Re: I said a draft isnt likely unless we get nuked

The likelyhood of getting nuked is minimal.....I just dont see a draft coming on unless we hit some cataclismic event. Recruitment is high and we have lots of reserves...not too mention all the retired and honorable discharges we can mandate back into service if they havent been out a decade or more..that is part of the contract....Kennedy did it in 1960.

Drafts weren't all bad though...the military teaches skills that the job market needs...not too mention trends which way our technology is going. I still dont see Iraq warranting a draft though. I was talking to Doctor M...he threw some stats up...we have over 800 dead...the Iraqis had some 30 000 soldiers dead and some 35 000 civilians dead...basically that means for ever 1 American dead..there are around 81 Iraquis dead....with 160 000 troups there and more heading that way... we have a long way to go.....so far that is less than half a percent casualty by our forces...(800/160000) = 0.005 ....We would need much higher casualties than that too warrant a draft...so stop the panic please

Where did you get your information that our military was at sufficient levels? Recruitment was boosted by 9/11, but overall I'm not sure that even with elevated enrollment our military has the numbers it needs for all of the missions we've begun.

Retention is high, sure. The job market sucks and people have families to feed, but there are also many soldiers in Iraq that were mere days, weeks and months from completing their contracts.

As far as the military providing useful training to soldiers that they can use in the outside world, that too is debatable. I haven't seen many ads in the classifieds for tank drivers and repairmen, infantrymen, patriot battery operators, helicopter pilots or engineers of all sorts.

You're in luck, however, if your MOS includes office work, dishwasher, truck driver, line cook or management. But the fact is, most of these jobs are quite easily obtained and held by anyone, prior service or not. The people who join by volunteering are likely to see the benefits and use them to their advantage, but being drafted and forced to conform to a military lifestyle will probably have a negative effect on how draftees perceive and use their training. Bitter pills are hard to swallow...eternally.

I don't suggest that there aren't valuable things learned in the military and that some skills can be transferred to the civilian world, but to make the blanket statement that initiating the draft would somehow benefit the working world is a bit far reaching.

And as far as your numbers of troops occupying Iraq goes, there is no correlation to the strength and potency of our military overall (think: the world) and whatever forces we have in Iraq. It might seem that we're strong there, but having so many of our servicemembers there, our defenses are down everywhere else.

I like the idea of having a limited military. One large and strong enough to defend us at home and invade any direct threats abroad, but one small enough that in the event someone in charge decides to rule the world, they will be limited. I don't think our occupation of Iraq, in and of itself, constitutes instating the draft. It's only thinned things out and put handcuffs on any other invasions and occupations. We're in a position now to simply maintain. And there's no fun in maintaining, it's all in the conquering.



~lucky

 

[Pure]

Blarney said,

we have a long way to go.....so far that is less than half a percent casualty by our forces...(800/160000) = 0.005 ...

apparently you have some trouble understanding the word
"casualty." but then again you were always weak
on issues of fact.

 

[oggbashan]

Re: Re: I said a draft isnt likely unless we get nuked

Where did you get your information that our military was at sufficient levels? ... One large and strong enough to defend us at home and invade any direct threats abroad, but one small enough that in the event someone in charge decides to rule the world, they will be limited. ~lucky

Throughout the 1950s and 60s the stated level of US defence was supposed to be sufficient for 2 1/2 wars - that is two major conflicts and one minor conflict. If you count the European and Pacific theatres in WWII as two major conflicts then the US would have been stretched to handle the minor conflict even with the help of the USSR and all the other allies.

Even at its strongest in WWII the US could not have handled two major conflicts alone.

Only the British in the War of 1812 seriously threatened the US mainland. The Civil War does not count as an external threat because the US was fighting itself.

Og

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Re: Re: Re: Someone has to push the red button

The state called Pakistan is fighting the war on terrorism, has aided the US, UK and others against Al-Queda, has apologised for its nuclear weapons program, has been readmitted to the Commonwealth and is promising free democratic elections.

They and the new government of India are continuing peace talks to solve the problem of Kashmir which has caused wars between them since 1947.

Pakistan has real problems with fundamental Muslim fanatics and the remains of the Taleban but they are trying hard to be good guys. They are not a threat to the US. Some of their citizens might be; as some US and UK citizens are a threat.

Jeanne (aka Og)

From what I understand Masharreff is sitting on a powder keg. His support for the US has lost him what popular support he ever had, he is barely holding on to his northwest provinces, and there have already been--what?--2, 3 attempts on his life. If he goes down, what happens then? Personally, I wouldn't make any bets on his surviving for another five years.

I also understand that his is an extremely repressive and brutal regime, possibly on a par with Saddam's, and yet the US supports him whole-heartedly, which gived the lie to the US's supposed support for freedom and liberty around the world. I'll believe his free elections when I see it.

Remember the US's boy Diem in South Viet Nam. He promised free elections too, as soon as the 'current unrest' settled down. It never did, and S. Viet Nam never did have a free election in its entire history.

---dr.M.

---dr.M.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Re: It's good to know I am loved..haha

By the way Dr M..thanks for those stats...800 to 63 000 ...that is impressive.


Blarneystoned

Just to clarify: What BS is referring to is the latest figures for the number of Iraqis killed so far in operation Enduring Freedom, which is now set at 63,000. 33,000 of these were Iraqi troops, 30,000 were civilians killed by collateral damage.

BS seems to see this as a point of pride. I don't.

Let's remember that these people weren't our enemies. Saddam was, and these people were just doing what good soldiers are supposed to do: defending their homeland from invasion. And we just rubbed them out.

I know their deaths don't mean much over here, and so I don't have any figures on total Iraqi casualties. But then, who cares? They're just sand niggers anyhow, right? They should have known we were the good guys and just surrendered, right?

I want to know how you win hearts and minds when you go in there and kill 63,000 people, half of them innocent, with your precision munitions. And then we're shocked that we're not greeted with flowers.

No wonder they hate us.

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: It's good to know I am loved..haha

Just to clarify: What BS is referring to is the latest figures for the number of Iraqis killed so far in operation Enduring Freedom, which is now set at 63,000. 33,000 of these were Iraqi troops, 30,000 were civilians killed by collateral damage.

BS seems to see this as a point of pride. I don't.

Let's remember that these people weren't our enemies. Saddam was, and these people were just doing what good soldiers are supposed to do: defending their homeland from invasion. And we just rubbed them out.

I know their deaths don't mean much over here, and so I don't have any figures on total Iraqi casualties. But then, who cares? They're just sand niggers anyhow, right? They should have known we were the good guys and just surrendered, right?

I want to know how you win hearts and minds when you go in there and kill 63,000 people, half of them innocent, with your precision munitions. And then we're shocked that we're not greeted with flowers.

No wonder they hate us.

---dr.M.

He's also proud that they hate us. Don't waste your amazement. BS revealed his true self when he posted at the other thread, something to this effect: "There will be a global economy even if we have to force it on them."

For neocons like Cheney, that's what this has always been about.

Read "Project for the New American Century," to which Cheney and Rummy and the Bushes are all signatory. It's basically a rationale for using U.S. military power to reap the resources of the third world without using the word "colonize."

Here's the scenario as it's so clearly evident:

Cheney came into power with Project for the New American Century as his bible. GWB and his Bible were more palatable to the public, so he got to be the figurehead.

They were planning the invasion of Iraq from the first cabinet meeting. Not because Saddam Hussein was a dictator - the world is chock-full of dictators at various stages of weapons development.

The only problem that faced Cheney/Wolfowitzh & Assoc. was the sad fact that America wasn't likely to support an invasion of another country. Things were pretty good as they were.

If that bastard didn't silently cheer what happened on 9/11, I'd wonder why. It was exactly what the neocons needed to achieve their agenda. If there had been a group of Romanians or Peruvians who took credit for it, we would still have found a link to Saddam Hussein.

The global economy IS being forced on the world, so BS is happy. Whatever the outcome for Iraq, there is a need to rebuild and Halliburton & Bechtel & other campaign contributors are in place, sans bids, ready to go. As soon as the dust settles, they can reap their full reward. Cheney as power-monger has succeeded almost as well as Bin Laden.

 

[Blarneystoned]

Dont infer this was a draft question

WWII had 400 000 US dead.

Vietnam had something like 58 000 US deaths and 1 million Vietmanese deaths--soldiers and civilian mixed. I think our troop strength was about 500,000 at its height...which was over 10% casulaty...that was our worst defeat..all though the USSR considered 10 - 30% casualty acceptable. This high death rate for the United states was one of the driving factors for the draft. I

I think in Kuwait we destroyed somewhere on the realm of 88 000 Iraquis. I cant remember the casualty rate for our soldiers..but I know it was under 2000 and I want to say it was under 1000.

Iraq now
At any rate...the 800+ casualties ...like I said are under 1% and there is no need for a draft.

If you think a pentagon analyst hasnt already figured this out. Think again.

Blarneystoned

 

[shereads]

As of April - the most recent published figure I could find - the number of U.S. wounded in Iraq was over 3,000.

I'm told by a veteran friend that the death toll in Iraq is low relative to the number of wounded, since the availability of nearby medical care is making traumatic wounds survivable. One doesn't hear a lot about the number of permanently disabled that will be coming home from this.

 

[shereads]

deleted

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: Re: Someone has to push the red button

Pakistan...has apologised for its nuclear weapons program

That's lovely of them. Having had their chief nuclear scientist confess to selling secrets all over hell and yon, they gave him a stern talking-to. Apologizing and disarming aren't quite the same thing.

 

[shereads]

Analyse this.

<excerpt from interventionmag.com>

Combat deaths were accurately reported, but according to an article in July, 2003 by Editor & Publisher Online and later in October by National Public Radio, the numbers of wounded, in and out of battle, were being underreported.

Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, had complained in September 2003 that he was unable to find out how many US soldiers had been wounded in Iraq because the administration refused to release this information.

Lawrence F. Kaplan wrote in the October 13 New Republic: "Pentagon officials have rebuked public affairs officers who release casualty figures, and, until recently, US Central Command did not regularly publicize the injured total either."

Kaplan wrote: "The near-invisibility of the wounded has several sources. The media has always treated combat deaths as the most reliable measure of battlefield progress, while for its part the administration has been reluctant to divulge the full number of wounded."

[color=dark red]Last December, Congressman Gene Taylor (Dem.-Mississippi) complained that the Pentagon deliberately undercounted combat casualties. He cited the case of five members in the Mississippi National Guard who had been wounded in a booby-trap bomb explosion. Incredibly, their injuries were listed by the military as "non combat." The truth emerged only because Taylor spoke face to face with the most seriously injured of the five at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington DC. Taylor sent a memo to the other members of Congress to "ask if anyone has had a similar incident."[/color]

Last January 7, National Public Radio’s Daniel Zwerdling reported on the difficulties in finding out the truth about US casualties in Iraq. He said few Americans are aware of the surprisingly large number of US wounded in Iraq. Questioning several dozen people on the street about the total number of American soldiers who had died in Iraq, he had found that most could answer correctly. But when the NPR reporter asked about the number of US military personnel that had been wounded, no one came close to the actual figure. The answers ranged from a few hundred to a thousand.

The actual estimates are between 11,000 and 22,000 for the number of US soldiers, sailors and Marines medically evacuated from Iraq by the end of 2003 because of battlefield wounds, illness or other battlefield reasons.

Trying to get more accurate casualty figures, Zwerdling said he contacted Sen. Chuck Hagel (Rep.-Nebraska), a Vietnam veteran and former deputy administrator of the Veterans Administration. Hagel had tried to obtain the "total number of American battlefield casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq" from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The senator had also tried to find out: "What is the official Pentagon definition of wounded in action? What is the procedure for releasing this information in a timely way to the public and the criteria for awarding a Purple Heart [awarded to those wounded in combat or posthumously to the next of kin of those killed or those who die of wounds received in action]?"

Hagel had been seeking an accurate, updated count on the number of Purple Hearts and the dates they were awarded to US military personnel in Iraq. That number is significant because it is an official record of the total number of battlefield casualties. After six weeks, the reply Hagel received was, "the Department of Defense does not have the requested information."

[color=dark red]Stars and Stripes (November 5, 2003 European edition) noted that the Landstuhl military hospital in Germany had "treated more than 7,000 injured and ill service members from Iraq." But at the same time, the military had recorded some 2,000 combat casualties. This discrepancy is 3.5-times (350%) between the number of wounded in combat listed by the military and the number of service personnel medically evacuated from Iraq for treatment in Germany.[/color]

The Landstuhl facility, located near the huge US air base at Ramstein Germany, reported on January 23, 2004 that the total US medical evacuations from Iraq to Germany by the end of 2003 was 9,433. The number of hostile and "non-hostile" wounded listed by the Army at that point was approximately 2,750. The under reporting of wounded continues.

[color=dark red]Comparing the war in Iraq with that in Vietnam, the total number of combat troops in Vietnam was 550,000. As many as 155,000 of them were wounded while 10.7% were killed during 10 years. In Iraq, so far, the total number of combat troops total 150,000 and between 11,000 and 22,000 of them have been wounded during nine months. Thus 28.2% of combat troops were wounded in Vietnam while in Iraq "only" 0.3% died in combat, so far, and as many as 14.7% had been wounded in combat. [/color]

At first glance, Bush's war in Iraq seems to be much more "successful" than the war in Vietnam -- especially when the number of wounded are eliminated from the equation. The proportion of combat troops killed in Vietnam appears to be 35-times more than in Iraq. By contrast, the proportion of Vietnam wounded is only two-times that sustained in Iraq. That's getting pretty close.

With the specter of the Vietnam quagmire hanging over them, Bush and Rumsfeld can only talk about a "successful" war by emphasizing the relatively low number of Americans killed in Iraq, and hiding the extraordinarily high number of wounded. But for those who had sacrificed their lives and limbs to preemptively protect the U.S. against Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, Bush’s war has been a complete failure.

(Wednesday, February 18, 2004)

 

[Blarneystoned]

Triage

It is difficult to triage and categorize the wonded, but even your estimate of 3000 wounded would leave you well under a 2% casualty rate. Purple hearts can be given for everything from a bullet graze to a loss of all limbs. It is probably too soon to have all the data in and catagorized.

I think this draft question is sufficiently answered. As to senators looking for casualty rates...I can only see that information being used to promote that senator's campaign efforts ...I doubt the inquiries are being used to help the injured..military hospitals would be sharing that burden.

Blarneystoned out