The bet is for $100 whether or not there will be a draft on or before June 2006.

Guess which side I took.  ;D

The bet is for $100 whether or not there will be a draft on or before June 2006.

Guess which side I took.  ;D



I wouldn't bet on a draft, yet I don't see how they're going to get all the soldiers they need for foreign campaigns.

It may not be a bad bet.  The spin will probably begin before the new year

Of course there will be a draft.  There was already something close to a mutiny in Iraq, and there could very well be more.

When you win that bet, Chucky, are you going to take us out for drinks?  ;)




Cat

bushie was asked yesterday if he was going to institute a draft.  He said "the pentagon hasn't asked
for anymore troops yet."  That was all he would say on that.  Start counting your money

bushie was asked yesterday if he was going to institute a draft.  He said "the pentagon hasn't asked
for anymore troops yet."  That was all he would say on that.  Start counting your money


With the situation in Iraq and Afganistan deteriorating, and the "backl door draft" that we already have, I think it is inevidable that our new President will call for the re-istitution of the draft, and as I understand it Canada is no longer an option.  Young people, learn Spanish.

With the situation in Iraq and Afganistan deteriorating, and the "backl door draft" that we already have, I think it is inevidable that our new President will call for the re-istitution of the draft, and as I understand it Canada is no longer an option.  Young people, learn Spanish.

I've been wrong before, but I still believe Bush will do everything he can to avoid reinstating a draft.  The return of conscription after 33 years will make him about as popular as beans on a bus trip!

I've been wrong before, but I still believe Bush will do everything he can to avoid reinstating a draft.  The return of conscription after 33 years will make him about as popular as beans on a bus trip!


oh, I don't doubt for a moment he'll do everything possible to avoid one.  I just don't think he can delay the inevitable.

All it takes is for one more country to begin making trouble, requiring intervention.

I've been wrong before, but I still believe Bush will do everything he can to avoid reinstating a draft.  The return of conscription after 33 years will make him about as popular as beans on a bus trip!


He doesn't really care, and he doesn't have to worry about reelection, no that he ever did with
Diebold on his side.

I added the bold color to your post to make my point ;)


Thanks, nice touch for those who tend to skim the surface :)

Of course, let's all forget the reality: that the only request for a return of the draft was sponsored entirely by DEMOCRATS.  Nobody in the administration has even mentioned the need or desire to have a draft.  Not the President, not the Secretary Of Defense, not the Joint Chief Of Staff.

In fact, short of a major war, our military is not set up for a draft.  Put simply, we do not have the equipment, the facilities, nor the bases to handle a large influx of new recruits.

A great many of the bases that were used in the past to train the numbers of recruits that would come from a draft were decomissioned during the 1990's.  And unlike the equipment that was used in the past, todays equipment is neither cheap, nor is it fast to produce.  Add to that the longer amount of time needed to train our modern military.

In WWII, a soldier could be trained to operate a tank in 2 weeks.  And the tank could be produced in a few hours.  A modern M-1 is much more complex, much more expensive, and takes much longer to produce.

The same goes with almost every other facet of the military.  Suppose we did start a draft.  Where would we train them?  The navy has only 1 training camp now, and not enough ships to employ a large increase in personnel.  The same goes with the Air Force.  We would have to have large expansions of ships and aircraft YEARS before any such draft.

Of course, I suppose the answer would be to just put them all in the Infantry.  Once again, where do we put them?  Before the 2nd Marine DIvision could be expanded, you would have to expand both the Recruit Depots in Paris Island and San Diego, and the Infantry Training Schools in Camps Lejeune and Pendleton.  Then you have to expand the facilities for housing, feeding, medical care, and everything else involved in housing thousands of new Marines.

This constant threat of a draft from Democrats is just so much hogwash.  It is a scare tactic, which for the most part is nonsense.  Short of WWIII, there will be no draft.  I just wish that people would stop useing the military to try and score political points.  They have enough to do as it is, and do not need to be used as a fear weapon against people who do not understand the reality.

reelection, no that he ever did with
Diebold on his side.


Well I give up.

Of course, let's all forget the reality: that the only request for a return of the draft was sponsored entirely by DEMOCRATS.  Nobody in the administration has even mentioned the need or desire to have a draft.  Not the President, not the Secretary Of Defense, not the Joint Chief Of Staff.


I know Rep. Rangel advocated a draft because he thought it would turn people against the warmaking ways of the neocons.  He thought making war a reality for all youth would stir a more activist bent.  I didn't agree with him.

Well I give up.

Finally, now you know how we feel. I gotta add that I feel your exasperation and had a good
laugh(this is not malicious iI really mean it,)  :) ;D ;D ;D

Well now...

Hopefully the points made about a draft being impractical are right, however since when has Bush ever done things properly?

Well now...

Hopefully the points made about a draft being impractical are right


I have yet to have anybody dispute me on these facts.

Unlike in the past, we no longer have a huge collection of "mothballed" bases which we can use to house a large number of draftees.

Until the last 20 years, the normal patter after a base was closed was to put it in "mothballs".  It would be decomissioned, then held in stasis with a small caretaker group to take care of it.  Then in the event of a national emergency, it could be quickly reactivated.

This was done in WWII, with a number of such bases opened to act as basic training centers, and then later as POW prisons.  Others on the West coast were used as Internment centers.  After the end of hostilities, they were again placed into mothballs.

During Korea, several were once again reactivated.  Camp Rucker was one such, which was made for training Army Divisions before the war, then during the war acted as a POW camp for prisoners mostly from Italy.  Deactivated at the end of the war, it was again activated during Korea.  After training another Army Division, it was once again deactivated.

During Vietnam, it was again activated, and was renamed to Fort Rucker.  It is still active, being the home of Army Aviation.  This is a great example of a base being opened and closed several times, based upon the needs of the service.

In more modern times though, bases are no longer placed into mothballs.  They are closed, and often even bulldozed flat and sold off, like Terminal Island.  Out of the 4 bases that I was stationed at that were closed, only 1 is in mothballs.  Seal Beach is the only one, and that is because unlike all of the others, the Navy can't do anything else with it.  The base has the distinction of also being a National Wildlife Refuge.  As such, it basically has to remain exactly as it is today.

With the large number of base closures, our military simply does not have the capacity to handle the numbers of people that would join in a draft.  And as I said before, where would we get the equipment?  And with the state of the Navy, how would we get such large numbers to Iraq, and where would we house them in Iraq?

Don't forget, that there is now an Iraqi government again.  We would need their permission to base them in Iraq.  And they can no longer be based in Saudi Arabia, since all of our bases there are now closed.

Mushroom, I can counter them by pointing out those things won't matter this time around.

The lack of resources will not deter them from a draft.  It won't be a huge draft like it was in the previous events.  This time it will be a smaller draft focused on individuals with certain needs.  With enlistment down, and people leaving when they can, they'll certainly be able to find room for a small amount of individuals to be drafted.  Even in Vietnam, there were more people eligable for the draft than they knew what to do with.  Hence the birthdate, and then the lottery number schemes during Vietnam.  They aren't going to draft 500,000 people when there's only need for maybe 10,000 more.

They don't need to draft everyone eligable, just people with say, Class I driving licenses to haul cargo in Iraq, or medical personal who are already trained and can be adapted to the military.  They don't need infinitry for this mission, no need for pilots.  They're trying to occupy and run a country.  They need people trained in the usual civilian occupations needed for industry. Work as an IT support person? I bet in today's highly computerized military they can find a post for you to occupy quickly.

Evidence?  Selective Service has been asked to require information about skills individuals have to be maintained.  Clearly, this time around they won't be drafting people randomly.

With Bushies vast military spending, i bet he could find a few tens of millions more to offer highly skilled workers more money in the armed forces than they could earn in the private sector. If some guy has just come out of college and he is offered an entry level job and ok wages at some major corporation or he is offered a good paying job and the abilities to utilise all his skills. He is gonna go with the second choice.

With Bushies vast military spending, i bet he could find a few tens of millions more to offer highly skilled workers more money in the armed forces than they could earn in the private sector. If some guy has just come out of college and he is offered an entry level job and ok wages at some major corporation or he is offered a good paying job and the abilities to utilise all his skills. He is gonna go with the second choice.


They already do that with military contractors to some extant.  I suppose that is a convient way around the draft politically, hire a ton of military contractors to do the job they aren't willing to pay the service men to do.

Evidence?  Selective Service has been asked to require information about skills individuals have to be maintained.  Clearly, this time around they won't be drafting people randomly.


OK, how about this?

We have had the Selective Service since the early 1980's.  We have not had a draft yet.  In fact, I heard the same thing during the Reagan years, and we did not have a draft then either.

Or how about this?  All 4 branches of the Military met or exceeded their 2004 goal for recruitment.  In fact, the Navy and Marrine Corps both acknowledge that they had to turn away qualified recruits, because they did not have the space to take them.

Before anybody should even start to talk about a draft, they would first enlarge the number of recruits the military can take in.  And that has not happened.  In fact, the Army is reducing the number of recruits they will accept.  That hardly sounds like the preperation for a draft to me.

http://www.vnis.com/story.cfm?textnewsid=1207