Military Mom Demands DRAFT Be Reactivated By Bush

[Dems Will Win]

If Bush is comparing this to WW II, then shouldn't a DRAFT be right around the corner? This Military Mom is DEMANDING in an LTTE that the DRAFT be reinstated. By the way, in September 2003, Karl Rove surveyed the GOP Caucus in Congress and received approval for the old DRAFT (no women drafted in the Combat DRAFT) if Bush wants one. The IRR has been called up--they are out of troops, unless they start to quadruple deploy!

Time for a draft
Thursday, August 31, 2006

I am loathe to say it, but I think it is time for a draft. Everything I read and see tells me we are a nation at war. I still don't see the nation involved.

I am frustrated over being at war. Frustration at the attitude that we want the military to fight the battle against terrorists as long as it doesn't involve our kid. They have raised the age limitations, lowered the standards and yet the lines at the military recruiter offices are still short.

Our volunteer military have done their tours in combat and keep going back. My son recently went back for another year. He has nine weeks left of his original enlistment contract. They will keep him regardless of his contract.

Inactive reserves are being called up in all the branches. I am frustrated at the cost to military families.

Maybe if this war that President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld keep telling me we are fighting actually affected the nation, we would demand some real answers. I keep hearing we are in it for the long haul and to leave now would be a win for the terrorists.

Mandatory service seems to be a viable option, then. Everyone between 18 and 25 must serve two years in some capacity. Soldiers killed by IED, Marines ambushed. I think it is past time that this nation at war actually became a "nation" at war.

-- KATHLEEN FLYZIK, Marysville

http://www.pennlive.com/letters/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1156969506304090.xml&coll=1

[ck4829]

1. The nation doesn't want to get involved

And I can see why.

[Initech]

62. Yup, they'd be much better off watching American Idol.

[gratuitous]

2. Another military mother Bush won't be meeting with

But she makes some valid points. I do see a number of people demanding answers and accountability from the corrupt Bush administration, I just don't see them offering any explanations.

[MadHound]

3. Terminally stupid idea

Let's see here, we're already 8.5 trillion dollars in debt, and mired in a deadly quagmire in Iraq that Bush refuses to get us out of. All that activating a draft would do is to give Bushco the manpower he needs to fulfill the rest of his PNAC dreams, invading Iran and Syria, thus driving us further into debt while killing more untold tens of thousands of people.

Sorry but this whole notion of "making the country aware of the true costs of war" is bullshit. It is a half baked idea that will allow the rich once again to skip out while the poor die, and gives the green light to Bushco to press onwards in their quest for ME hegemony.

[Vincardog]

55. A Universal draft for everyone for BUSH'S WAR would wake the fucking

sheeple up. It would also lead to an overwhelming rush to vote the bastards out of office.
Let the Republicants institute a draft before November and see what happens.

[Initech]

61. If there's indeed a draft, it aint happening before November

Those assholes will wait until after they've comfortably stolen the next two elections before instating a draft. No way will they give up their cushy jobs that easily.

[shanti]

99. i could see it happening

after the elections tho. wouldn't matter if they won/kept their seats or not. in fact, it would be a great way for them to really stick it to us. you know the chimp is dying to do just that too.

[Initech]

103. I picture this scenario:

The repukes steal the next election in every state, county, and district in the country. A draft is instated. Riots insue. Bush declares martial law, only to be met with mass protests.

[shanti]

116. keep going with this...

remember the camps that are already built and ready to go?

[madmunchie]

94. It is the best thing that could be done

It is not a half baked idea. Sure, the rich might get out of serving, but the 3?% that support Bush aren't all rich, and a large portion of that percentage would be affected by a mandatory service to Connery draft. They would not be so willing to support a war that their friends and/or family would have to go to. Spread the obligation around to everybody, not just the small percentage being affected now.

I have always felt that when everybody has a stake in a war, like sending their own family members, they wouldn't be so supportive of bushit wars, such as we have now.

Besides, which, EVERYBODY would have a better realistic idea of what war is really about, not some John Wayne, Audie Murphy version.

When troops go to war to fight for our country, OUR COUNTRY, all of it, needs to be involved in a real way, not just by watching the news and paying a little more money at the gas pumps.

[MUSTANG_2004]

97. Wrong, it is a half-baked idea

Vietnam had a draft. Vietnam was very unpopular. And yet Vietnam was far costlier than Iraq in terms of casualties, and was the longest war in US history. Is that what you hope to accomplish for the Iraq war?

If you think involuntarily sending soldiers overseas to die will solve the problem of unpopular wars, I'd suggest you consider how well that strategy worked in Vietnam (hint: your strategy was a complete and utter failure).

[madmunchie]

100. Hint: That was over 40 years ago. The war coverage isn't anything

like it is today. People are much more glued to their T.V. sets actually viewing what is happening. When what they are viewing hits closer to home for them, they won't be quick to send their own kid to war.

Besides, the fact that we have imprisoned many of our soldiers to going back to Iraq several times because there are not enough soldiers to replace them is another form of slavery, is that fair?????

This whole war sucks, the fact that we have enslaved our volunteer army is allowing Buscho to get away with much of what is going on, it is time to draw back the curtain and to free the slaves.

[MUSTANG_2004]

101. Disagree

Vietnam was on the news every night and was heavily reported on (and back then, the 6:00 news was standard fare for everyone, so everyone saw video of the war on a daily basis). I don't remember much myself (just a child during the war), but I do remember there was no shortage of coverage and interest in the war.

[misternormal]

106. Every night at 6pm & 10pm...

... for 10,000 days news from Viet Nam was piped to us by the major networks... Of course that was when there were real reporters in the field, not the Geraldos of today.

Film directly from the front, not the "Press Pool" Crap we see day after day now... (A lesson learned from Viet Nam, and tried and true Press suppression instituted in Operation Desert Storm).

People would rather sit at home and watch Survivor, American Idol and the pablum fed to them by the networks, so that they do not have to think about the loss of lives in the ME.

The coverage was much better 40 years ago than it is now.

The Nielsen Ratings saw to that.

[madmunchie]

121. It was different, We have 24 hour News Channels now

"People would rather sit at home and watch Survivor, American Idol and the pablum fed to them by the networks, so that they do not have to think about the loss of lives in the ME."

How true, ESPECIALLY when it isn't their kid in Iraq. Put their kid in Iraq and see how interested in "Survivor, American Idol and....they are. Then they will pay attention and then they will care. As long as we can keep the present volunteer troops enslaved and not involve the majority of Americans, the longer they will prefer "Survivor, American Idol ...

So many people are passive and not caring precisely because they aren't having their loved ones endangered in Iraq like so many were endangered and killed in Viet Nam.

[SammyWinstonJack]

102. Whether the majority supports/ does not support any war brought on

by these thugs, doesn't seem to make a difference in whether we go to war or not. They simply don't CARE what the majority of us thinks. So if they re-institute a draft or not, it won't be a decision based on a political basis, only on their need/ability to carry on perpetual/never ending war. JMHO.

[MadHound]

111. Sorry, I'm not willing to sacrifice the lives of unwilling soldiers

Nor the tens of thousands of innocents that will die due to the sudden influx of manpower that will occur, thus allowing Bushco to go into Iran and Syria. In fact I find it moraly reprehensible that there are people here who are willing to make that sort of sacrifice with other peoples' lives, all to make some sort of point or to rouse further opposition to the war WHEN OVER SIXTY PERCENT(and growing) OF AMERICANS ALREADY OPPOSE THIS WAR!

How dare you be so willing to shed the blood of innocents! That is just goddamn appalling beyond words! Don't you get it yet, haven't you been paying attention? The vast majority of Americans already oppose this war, the point that you are willing to shed others' blood for has already been made. The trouble now isn't in getting people on our side, the trouble is in actually getting Bushco to see that Americans don't support the war and having him bring the boys home. By giving Bush more cannon fodder, all you are doing is ensuring that Bush will go into Iran and Syria, as he has already stated he wants to do. One of the few things preventing this from already happening is the scarcity of the military. By opening up a draft all you are doing is removing this obstacle. And even if this causes more people to oppose the war, what could is this going to do? Hell, Bush isn't paying attention to the majority of opinion now, when you set up Iran and Syria for his taking with more men, what makes you think he will pay attention then.

These sorts of propositions of sacrificing the lives of others, both at home and abroad, all to make political points is revolting, and I hope that people wake the fuck up to what they're saying, realize the inherent moral wrong behind such ideas, and then shut the fuck up.

[madmunchie]

122. Excuse me, but how dare you presume to know what I have sacrificed!

Are you physic or just arrogant?

I have made sacrifices, thank you very much! My son is over there now, my ex was in Vietnam, my dad in WWII. So next time you go off, THINK.

YES, I believe that EVERYBODY needs to serve their country, in some way or other. I believe that it is brave, valiant and it is damn time that ALL of us GIVE, not just receive.

I am against this war, I am against Bushco, but we have a population of people that don't give a shit, because their kid isn't serving AT ALL! They can wave their flags and chant their patriotic sayings and ACT like they really care.

When their CHILD OR SPOUSE OR THEMSELF ACTUALLY serves this country, THEN AND ONLY THEN are they qualified to really know what they are talking about.

Serving this country doesn't mean going to war. There are other ways of serving as well. That is what I am talking about.


People wouldn't support Bushco, if they were truly experienced with what it is to actually serve and/or sacrifice for your country. People need to learn what it is to SERVE period. We are all becoming too selfish and too detached from life's true struggles. Bushco loves this because he appeals to the most superficial of our traits. That is what I find when I talk to most Repukes, superficial people that go on and on repeating all of the stupid Bushisms like they are parrots or something. They haven't served anybody but themselves, like Bush. They just walk the walk and talk the talk without ever wearing the shoes.

I think that it would be beneficial for this country for all young people to serve in some way to help society, whether in the military, hospitals, community development... I will stick to my beliefs and I don't really care what you think because I know why I feel the way that I do from up close and personal experience.

[MadHound]

124. Yet with all of your sacrifice,

You are more than willing to put more people into the meat grinder, both here in the US and abroad in such places as Iraq, Afghanistan, and given the sudden influx of manpower Bushco will have, probably Iran and Syria next. All to make some sort of political point. Sorry, but I find that sort of political gamemanship with innocent lives to be despicable. And face it, your point has been made, like I said earlier, over sixty percent of the people in this country are against the war, and that percentage is growing. Both Republicans and Democrats are against this war, so what is the point of feeding more kids into the meatgrinder? To raise that percentage even higher?

And if you want to compare personal sacrifices made by the two of us, we can go on all day and all the way back to the old country. But what it all boils down to that our relatives and ourselves served and some died in wars, some of which were justified, some of which weren't. But frankly I think that the meme you espouse, that one must serve this country before being taken seriously in their political opinion is a false one.

But I stand by my earlier comments, that feeding the military machine more cannon fodder only continues to enable Bushco in their PNAC dreams of ME hegemony. It is a stupid and pointless idea, and one that will take the lives of tens of thousands of people, both US soldiers and innocent Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians and others. You may be willing to play politics with other peoples' lives, but I find that to be morally reprehensible and will not do so.

So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, and move on.

[madmunchie]

128. I realize that people are FINALLY turning against this war

I am not talking about just making a political point either. That is really unfair. I am not willing to sacrifice ANY human life, American or otherwise. I just believe that EVERYBODY needs to serve their country in some way or other. I approach it kind of like this: This world isn't here for you, what can you give back or learn to give to this world, remember JFK? I believe those words - literally - Israel does it. All of their young people serve. So please get off of the "wanting to send the innocent kids to a meat grinder", that is not what I said. It doesn't have to be military, like I mentioned before.

By doing this, everybody will understand what giving to your country really means, they will be more invested in their votes and what our Government is doing with their power. They won't be as likely to fall asleep behind the wheel, like they are now. This war was wrong from before day #1, yet in their ignorance and lack of personal experience the American people let it happen. The way to stop things like this from happening again is to have every American serve in service 101. To really understand the sacrifice and to be really invested in our Governments decisions.

I talk to people that (used) to like Bush (and believe me it is really hard to talk to them at times, they are so far removed from the consequences of this Government's actions that as they sit back and sip on their wine and munch on some designer cheese. I want to shake them to reality, yet they have a kid running around totally self absorbed with building their lives so that they can be yuppies - or whatever the newest term is and they accept only the truth that is convenient and easy for them to face.

So many of these people that are against the war aren't against it philosophically, they just see an inept, incompetent administration floundering in a 3rd world country and they are embarrassed, tired and just want some more "shock and awe". They don't understand why the whole philosophy is wrong, and if they don't understand that, will they go into another war with those same blinders? How many more thousands of lives will be lost because of a basically ignorant, uniformed, uninvolved, superficial population?

This is a frigging merry-go-round. Iraq isn't the 1st unnecessary war, and if things don't drastically change, it won't be the last. All that the administration has to do is to convince the American people that there is a reason to go to war and since the American people aren't, by a large part, personally invested, they will follow a good sales campaign over and over again. What I am talking about goes beyond Iraq, it goes to our future as a people. When people actually spend a part of their life giving to something other than their bank accounts, they have more of a tendency to be less superficial and not be so eager to spill blood.

[Totallybushed]

4. There's not going

to be a draft.

The Republicans are doing alright, by their lights, without one. Why would they give the Democrats such an issue? They won't. They consider such demands from Democrats to just be political ploys.

I don't like Republicans, but I will admit what many here on DU won't. They'revery astute, politically. If our campaign strategy is waiting for them to shoot themselves in the foot, well, look forward to another stolen election.

[Dems Will Win]

10. Bush and the GOP have skated by this issue so far

BUT ONLY BY HIRING 200,000 Mercenaries, back-door drafting hundreds of thousands of troops, totally wearing out the National Guard and REserves and calling up the IRR.

That is now over. Those were the good ol' days for the GOP. Now we are the bad new days.

THere are no more mercenaries, no more big recruiting, enlistees are refusing to sign up again, the IRR has only about 20,000 more troops they can call up and a lot of those won't appear.

We are short over 100,000 troops in the Army alone. The situation is totally different from 2004. Bush must start a DRAFT or lose in Iraq to a civil war.

[Totallybushed]

18. I don't think so.

He can continue the war. Perhaps at much reduced levels of US troops. Let the Iraqis do the dying. What does it matter to Bush, really, if it's just Iraqis killing each other? Do you really think he cares?

He can move troops in from elsewhere. Then he can claim that he has "redeployed" troops like the Democratic politicians have been demanding. The American voter will buy it.

He has several other options. Including finding some face-saving excuse ("We tried to bring them Democracy, but the primitive heathens were too pig-ignorant and mule-stubborn to accept this great gift from us"), and withdrawing, letting them have their civil war.

What he can't do is reinstate the draft. Do you think the Democrats will do so, if they should win the election?

:rofl:

[Dems Will Win]

20. Bush could reinstate the draft in November or December

Before the Dems take over. Just a 1-page trigger resolution will do it. Then when the Dems take over and try to repeal the draft, Bush can veto it.

See?

[Totallybushed]

22. Well maybe, but

first we have to win in November. There's a lot of optimism out there. There was a lot of optimism in 2004. There was a lot of optimism in 2002. There was a lot of optimism in 2000. That and $4.75 will buy you a latte at my local Starbucks. It is FAR from a done deal.

Besides, to re-institute the draft will require an act of Congress. Surely the Dem senators can filibuster for a few weeks. Not all the Republicans will want a draft. And Bush will want a successor that will pardon him for all the crimes we know he''s committed. So will he risk arousing the sleeping giant by re-instituting a draft. I really don't think so.

People that do seem to think that Republicans like senseless wars more than they like being in positions of power to help themselves and their buddies, but I find this unrealistic.

But I could be wrong.

[Dems Will Win]

28. Actually, it's just a one-page "trigger resolution"

No full act of legislation is needed to reinstate the old Combat Draft (no women). Don't know if there would be enough Dems to stop it. I would hope so. Because the DRAFT gives Bush the troops to invade Syria AND Iran.

[Totallybushed]

33. It would still

have to get by Congress is my understanding.

Congress makes "resolutions", not the President. Can he do it with an "executive order"? I don't think so, but I don't know. All I do know is that I hear only Democrats talking about a "draft", not Republicans. How is that going to play out this fall? Badly, would be my guess, if it gains any traction at all.

[Dems Will Win]

57. We're warning the public against a DRAFT, we're not for it

[Totallybushed]

60. Two word,

"Charlie Rangle".

Other than he, there are others calling for a draft. I don't doubt that you, personally, are warning against one, but the Republicans aren't going to consider the notion. so all you are doing, in th eend is associating the draft with Democrats.

At least that's the way I see it, and, I think and fear, the majority of the American people. I'll vote Dem, anyway, 'cause I know what you're trying to do, but will they?

[bluestateguy]

5. I choose not to participate

A draft only feeds the war machine with hundreds of thousands more warm bodies for more wars. The absence of a draft and lack of troops is probably the only reason why we are not in Iran now.

And for those of you who think that a draft will ignite the anti-war movement again, I say big deal. OK, some young people will resist and protest, but hundreds of thousands more will simply march off to war because the government says they have to go. The American people are very child-like and will do what they are told to do.

Furthermore, the notion that you can devise a military draft with "no exceptions" for the George P. Bush's and Paris Hilton's of the world is just naive. They WILL find a way to evade service, I promise you.

[coalition_unwilling]

24. No, I think bringing back the draft would ignite widespread campaign

of massive civil disobedience such as this country has never seen, not even during the Vietnam War. Remember that the draft existed when the Vietnam War began. Now 2/3 of the country knows deep down, even if only 50% will admit it, that the Iraq war was based on lies. I could see the entire country shutting down, if anyone were to try to reinstate the draft now (either to escalate in Iraq or, God forbid, to invade Iran).

That's a different question from whether the draft should be reinstated. My own opinion is that a republic (lower-case 'r') needs universal conscription to keep its government honest.

[butterfly77]

43. Thats the way I see it ...

but I don't know about your last sentence.

[AnneD]

47. I have come to those conclusions too.

I think part of the reasons these chicken hawk GOP have gotten away with so much is that it require no sacrifice on the publics part. How different it would be if their kids couldn't get a deferments and had to serve. Bet those guys would think first before putting our troops on the ground anywhere.

This war has so depleted our trained NG and Reserves, that we will be years gaining back the trust of our enlisted. After all those stop losses and repeated call ups, we may have to have a draft just to HAVE a military reserve.

[TahitiNut]

69. Agreed. People became hugely less involved and active in politics

... at EXACTLY the same time as the draft was discontinued, AND the distribution of household income began it's long slide towards the eradication of any 'middle class' on the way to becoming the banana Republic we've become today - worse than China(!) and closer to Mexco than Canada.

[warrens]

6. Er, FUCK YOU, Kathleen

If you want to fight this stupid fucking war, go ahead. You go after my kid, and you're meat.

[MUSTANG_2004]

80. Agree 100%. n/t

[elehhhhna]

119. DING DING DING! YOUR POST WINS. Send the twins.

[NNN0LHI]

7. The kids of the wealthy never get drafted

Just ask Dick Five Deferments Cheney. He knows.

Don

[sofa king]

8. I've got a better idea.

Let's take Smedley Butler's recommendation and conscript all defense industry executives. Let them keep their positions, but confiscate all income above that of a buck private. Let's go a step further and make combat infantryman service mandatory for the children of all Members of Congress.

Very suddenly, we will no longer be "a nation at war."

[Blackhatjack]

9. Congress Has The Power To Stop This War, So Why Not ....

... ask every member of Congress if they believe this war is important enough for them personally to enlist and serve 3 mos tours of duty in Iraq until the war is over. They can stagger the members service, and so it will be fair we put all the names in a hat and pull out 1/3 to serve first, pull out the next 1/3 and notify them they are next, and tell the last 1/3 they deploy in 180 days.

Will never happen, but if it were to be put in place this war would end tomorrow.

[misternormal]

11. Self Delete

[misternormal]

12. Let's draft all of the military aged...

... nieces, nephews, cousins and grandchildren of the members of the * administration and the legislative branch... Once they are trained and deployed, then perhaps I will consider sending anyone I am related to, and urge others I know to do the same... NOT !

The draft is a nightmare that will not serve any more than to get more people killed... The time to get out of the middle east is NOW !!

[MessiahRp]

13. Republicans want war, they should fight it...

I figure if we send all right wingers to the military so they can actually fight the wars they start the entire country will wise up and turn far left. Right Wingers think they are exempt from fighting and sending people off to war is like playing an XBOX game or something since it's not their lives on the line.

Going into Iran is like hitting Reset when you're pissed that you're losing and picking a different mission that you *think* will be easier to beat. Except it's not.

Rp

[KansDem]

21. Right-wingers believe they are the CEOs of AmeriCo, Inc.

They wear the suits and tell the rest of the nation what to do. Like every other CEO, they have nothing to do with their company's products or services. Their worth is represented as a line of numbers on a voucher. They just collect their fat paychecks and look for ways to make more...at their employee's expense

[bling bling]

112. Brilliantly stated. You said it all in just 3 short lines.

That's EXACTLY what is going on. I would only add "or anyone else's" expense to your last sentence.

I just wish the Dems could talk to Americans in a way that clearly explains and exposes the Republicans for the scumbags they are as you have done so succinctly.

[shadowknows69]

14. The nation doesn't want this war

I don't think the majority ever did despite that appearance because of a cheerleading press. Bush knows this and has told us to collectively to fuck off.No, I think a TRUE volunteer fighting force is in order. Allow any soldier who doesn't want to fight anymore to leave the Army right now no harm, no foul and anyone left goes to war. I'll bet there wouldn't be enough troops left to fight Anarticas Army (couple of penguins and a polar bear)

[lisainmilo]

15. Hey Kathleen.....sign up B*

ask for the front lines. leave our children out of it!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. Why doesn't she enlist?

There's women in their fifties fighting and dying in Iraq.

[seabeyond]

17. i agree with the women. and i agree with ragel. i have two sons

they would leave the country or go to jail. but i agree with this woman for so much more than what she stated. they are volunteers the repugs say. they didnt volunteer for this. this has never been done to our military. everything about it is wrong. and somehow we, including military have to stand as one. that might be insisting on a draft.

again i say, two sons, their stance will be WON'T fight. not in this war. not in neocon battle.

do you know how quickly this nonsense would end. what we are doing to soldiers is so wrong. and bush would never do it for this reason, instead he is abusing our military and destroying them.

[ComerPerro]

19. Bush doesn't have the moral courage to ask for a draft

He doesn't even have the courage to stand up and ask his base, the super-rich, to make any sacrifices of any kind.

[PresidentWar]

23. Never happen.

Too many kids of well-to-do Rethug warmongering congressmen would be at risk.

[Dems Will Win]

27. They might be drafted but end up in safe places like Dubya

[PresidentWar]

96. While the Rethugs are in power, forget it

as I said, they will never endanger their own.

[Coexist]

25. Fear is a great motivator,

is it not?

[TahitiNut]

26. Absolutely. An everyone-eligible draft. Ubetcha.

It's disgusting that we have the fraud and fiction of 'all-volunteer' military. It's coerced and fraudulent. No nation can ever survive as a democracy without equitable participation and equitable sharing of the burdens. It's just too fucking eassy to wave a little flag (or protest sign) and go home with 'clear conscience.' There's no comparison whatsoever between being killed or wounded in combat and marching in protest a few times or sitting comfortably in a Young Republican's rally and waving one's pretend flag of patriotism. Where there's no equity there's no democracy!

Universal national service. Male. Female. Gay. Straight. Everyone.

It's not about "Us The People" and "Them The People" -- it's "We The People" and we sink or swim together!! That's democracy! Sweet or sour, we share the fruits.

[NNN0LHI]

29. Universal national service for the physically disabled too?

Because thats just one of the scams I have personally witnessed the well off use to avoid the draft or universal national service or whatever you want to call it.

Don

[Dems Will Win]

31. In the Skills Draft, even the physically disabled can be DRAFTED

There are no Medical Deferments in the Skills Draft. Man or Woman, age 18-34, 20-44 in the Medical DRAFT.

The only deferments in these is for "essential community service".

[NNN0LHI]

32. Sure they CAN be drafted. They just WONT be drafted

Thats part of the scam. You think they are going to draft someone who has a doctor who swears his patient is in too much back pain to walk into the induction center? Of course not.

Don

[TahitiNut]

34. Yup. It's limited abilities, not disabilities - at least in my view.

As long as people have abilities and they're not institutionalized (hospital, etc.), some manner of service should be mandatory. I'm a strong believer that it's about our abilities, not our disabilities. I have congenital lower lumbar scoliosis, now resulting in chronic sciatica. If I'd been wealthy, my parents could've afforded the kind of medical care that would've identified this congenital condition back then and I could have been exempt from the draft. Instead, I was drafted and sent to Viet Nam. Anyone can serve their nation.

Until alternative modes of national service (public health care, VISTA, Peace Corps, etc.) are established, the draft should include EVERYONE between 18 and 32. The notion that women should somehow be exempt or that gays should be barred or that the wealthy have 'better things to do' are equivalently despicable discrimination.

[NNN0LHI]

36. I see what you are saying now. I misunderstood you at first

Anyone who is not wealthy and can't afford to buy a medical exemption gets sent to the front line to become bullet catchers.

But if someone is wealthy they can afford to build up a medical case for their kid and he gets a desk job playing stink finger with his secretary.

Yea, that sounds fair.

Sounds like the deal Bush got in the national guard.

Don

[TahitiNut]

48. I guess you don't need anyone else to have a 'discussion' ...

... if you're merely going to put your words in their mouths, Don. Why not just sit alone and argue with yourself? It'd be cheaper and you'd always "win" ... if you call that "winning."

:shrug: :eyes:

[NNN0LHI]

50. How many times we had this discussion?

Its starting to feel like Groundhog Day around here.

You are no dummy. You have read the same figures as I have that show 14 million 19 year olds (just men) would become eligible for the draft every single year. You know we can't use 14 million men every year. We need maybe a half a million or so at most. What happens to the thirteen and a half million that are not needed for anything?

I don't want my tax dollars to pay for thirteen and a half million swinging dicks to stand around picking their noses.

Don

[Ron Green]

66. The nice thing is that you don't have to pay them very much when they've

been conscripted. So you save a massive amount of labor cost, and you got thirteen and half million to build some good will around the world and infrastructure at home.

:-)

[NNN0LHI]

67. I think we have spread enough "good will around the world" for a while

Really I do.

Don

[Ron Green]

115. I don't believe in isolationism, and I do believe that America can be a

great and good neighbor to the nations of the world. I'm sorry if you don't share that belief.

[IronLionZion]

45. You think the handicapable Americans can't do anything do you?

these fine folks can do any number of jobs requiring computer skills, or language, or code breaking or intel analysis. Nobody can escape, not even a son of a bush. If you want this country to end the war, first the country needs to be at war, or at least feel it.

[NNN0LHI]

49. See post # 36 n/t

[TahitiNut]

51. "Wahhh! Unfair! Somebody got it better than my kid did!"

That's the stance. And the "solution" is to pile the whole load of death and dying and working and sweating on those who have the least. Run out of "least" in this country. Then just offer people from a nearby impoverished nation the chance at a fast-path to "citizenship" (of Rome) if they do military service. Hell, Mexico is nice and handy ... and Haiti's next. While we're at ti, spend taxpayer money to all the wannabe Rambo's at $120,000/year to go and kill in our name. Mercenary forces! Yeah! Fuck 'democracy' and all that participation stuff - we're too good for that. We're the ownership society. We can BUY freedom from having to work for it! (Or find a Greater Fool somewhere. Or poorer.)

:puke:

Democracy is a Do-It-Yourself project ... it can neither be bought at GOP Depot nor exported at the muzzle of a rifle.

[NNN0LHI]

74. We had thousands of mercenaries in Vietnam even with a draft

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=7855

<snip>Vinnell's Asian adventures served as a springboard for its emergence as a global company that was more than willing to do a little intelligence work on the side if the opportunity presented itself. In his memoir Ropes of Sand, former CIA operative Wilbur Crane Eveland describes how he used his Vinnell connection as a cover during his tours of duty in Africa and the Middle East in the early 1960s, noting that company founder Albert Vinnell expressed his willingness to help the agency do whatever it needed to do (for a fee, of course). Eveland returned the favor by negotiating contracts for Vinnell to do construction services on oil fields in Iran and Libya, bribing the appropriate officials along the way.

Vinnell's big break in the military/intelligence field came during the American intervention in Vietnam, when the company won hundreds of millions of dollars of business doing everything from building military bases to repairing armored personnel carriers to running military warehouses. At the peak of its involvement Vinnell had 5,000 employees in Vietnam, but not all of them were engaged in straightforward military operations. Several retired Army and Marine officers familiar with Vinnell's work in Vietnam have indicated that the company ran several "black" (secret) programs. In a March 1975 interview with the Village Voice, a Pentagon official described Vinnell as "our own little mercenary army in Vietnam" and asserted that "we used them to do things we either didn't have the manpower to do ourselves, or because of legal problems." The official indicated that one of Vinnell's jobs was as "rear security forces," assigned to "clean up" U.S. military bases in Vietnam during the U.S. withdrawal: "how they 'cleaned up' was pretty much up to them.... If we figured an area was certain to be overrun by the VC .... they were to demolish everything and anything."



http://www.nnn.se/levande/lessons1.htm

The first U.S. helicopters arrived in 1961, carrying death and destruction. Thousands more were to follow.


Lessons of the Vietnam War: Part I

Back to the Stone Age

By Edward S. Herman

The United States has used its enormous military superiority with great ruthlessness in the post-World War II era. During the Vietnam War, it dropped more bombs on the Indochinese peninsula than were employed by all sides during World War II. The U.S. also employed vast quantities of the cruellest weaponry, including phosphorus and fragmentation bombs, napalm, and chemicals that damage humans while killing vegetation.

The U.S. attack on Vietnam was one of the great holocausts of our time. But since it was perpetrated by the United States, it is not regarded as such. It may therefore be useful to review the basic facts of the war and its long-term consequences. snip

The U.S. ignored the Geneva Accords, the rights of the Vietnamese, and the U.N. Charter by installing a dictator of its choice in what came to be known as South Vietnam. Southern puppet

The U.S. invasion force of 500,000 troops was supplemented by mercenaries from South Vietnam, Thailand, South Korea, and Australia. Their assigned task was to "pacify" the country, which they did by carrying out merciless "search and destroy" operations in which domestic animals and crops were destroyed, villages burned down, and large numbers of innocent people were raped, killed and made homeless. It was soon discovered that the "enemy" had deep roots among the people, who were therefore treated as enemies. snip

The Vietnamese enemy was quickly labelled ”terrorist” and aggressor-- allegedly committing "internal aggression"-- and was effectively demonized. The media averted their eyes from all but a minuscule fraction of the enormous U.S. violence, focusing instead on the relatively minor and more selective acts of the "terrorists." This helped make the almost unlimited use of force and high-tech warfare against the distant peasant society acceptable.

[Dems Will Win]

30. I doubt you realize the scope of what you are saying.

There is now a Skills Draft. This new draft would require everyone male and female to register for possible conscription based on their OCCUPATION.

Here's the list of the job shortages that already exist at the Pentagon in order of who would be drafted first.

ARABIC/FOREIGN LANGUAGE SPEAKER
DOCTORS
NURSES
MEDICAL CLERK EXPERIENCE
COMPUTER PROGRAMMER
COMPUTER NETWORK SPECIALIST
DATA ENTRY
MECHANIC
COOK
MUSICIANS
THERE'S HUNDREDS MORE

What's on your or your kid's IRS Form as an occupation--and I can tell you how likely they could be taken?

Ever hear of slavery?

[TahitiNut]

35. Ever hear of an ad hominem?

If you cannot post a reply that avoids personal attacks and personally-directed remarks, don't bother replying to me. Put me on your Ignore list, please. What I "realize" or don't "realize" is NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS AND IS IRRELEVANT. Trivialization of 'slavery' to describe the a draft that one opposes is intellectually and ethically bankrupt rhetoric.

[sofa king]

40. You're talking "Levee en Masse"

"From this moment until such time as its enemies shall have been driven from the soil of the Republic, all Frenchmen are in permanent requisition for the services of the armies. The young men shall fight; the married men shall forge arms and transport provisions; the women shall make tents and clothes and shall serve in the hospitals; the children shall turn linen into lint; the old men shall betake themselves to the public squares in order to arouse the courage of the warriors and preach hatred of kings and the unity of the Republic"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev%C3%A9e_en_masse

It's a powerful tool, but history suggests that such a phenomenon is rarely sustained for any length of time. Curiously, I think the last example of such an action was Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. It sort of worked, but only with heartbreaking results on the battlefield. Among other things, it's really expensive, and in the case of the Iranians, costly in lives.

I think you're suggesting such a practice in both war and peace, and the only places I can think of that did something like that were China and the Soviet Union. One thing to consider is that human rights and personal freedoms suffered during those times. Were the freedoms lost because of the levee en masse, or was the perpetual levee only possible because the freedoms were already gone?

I don't know, but I think it's an important question.

[TahitiNut]

46. No. I'm advocating Universal National Service.

Each person performing some form of national service for between 2-to-4 years, including public health service, VISTA, Peace Corps, the military, and other forms of service. No exemptions. Male, female, gay, straight.

I would personally rather we were sending 150,000 Peace Corps members to Iraq than 150,000 military. I personally believe if we had been sending as many Peace Corps members overseas for the last 50 years as we've sent military personnel, we wouldn't have the human sewage we have in the White House and Congress.

[sofa king]

68. That's still like 1.7 million people a year, though.

That's a wild guess based on the likely fallacious premise that about 5.7% of the population is of service age at any given time.

The figure of 1.7 million is pretty comparable to the standing armed forces we have now, which costs us half a trillion dollars a year. Are these people supposed to be generating revenue for us? Are they in addition to the standing army or mostly in place of it?

It's easy to misinterpret the tone of words floating up there on the screen, so I want to say up front that I'm not baiting you or toying with you or trying to be a jerk in any way. You seem to have thought about this a lot and I'm interested in your opinion. I've never really thought much about this myself.

[TahitiNut]

98. The birth rate is 1.4% (14/1000) in the US.

Assuming that 1.3% of the population reaches the age of 18 each year, with a population of about 300 million, that's 3.9 million people reaching service age annually. I'm guessing the 1.7 million figure is male-only. The CIA World Factbook places the number of people reaching the age of military service annually at 2,143,873 males and 2,036,201 females, for a total of about 4.2 million. So, the "ballpark" is around 4 million. Assuming a 2-year service obligation, that amounts to a total population in national service of around 8 million ... or about 5% of the workforce (about the same size as the number of unemployed!!).

For comparison, we currently have around 1.6-1.7 million active duty military service personnel. I don't see that we'd be increasing this under a national service obligation unless the public really supported such an increase. "Skin in the game" makes a big difference. About 20-25% of the military would be composed of those choosing to make it a career or at least extending their service voluntarily (NO STOP-LOSS unless there was a declared war and Congressional enactlemtn of stop-loss). About 75-80% of the military would be in E-1 to E-5 or O-1 to O-3 grades/ranks - about the same as currently.

Deploying people in a variety of roles, including public health service, VISTA (Volunteers In Service To America), the Peace Corps, a revival of the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps), other roles, and military service ... including training and experience in those roles ... can only be of benefit to the nation (which is, after all, all of us).

I call it Participatory Democracy ... the only "flavor" of real democracy there is, imho.

[sofa king]

117. I knew my number was wrong.

I just tried to figure out how I figured it out the first time, and couldn't even do that! But I'm pretty sure that in addition to my bad guess (I tried to calculate a four-year window in a 70-year lifespan, both male and female, I remember that), I probably also perfomed some bad math, as I often do.

I have to say that I find the idea somewhat attractive. But here's an obvious roadblock: I can think of many people with as many reasons to evade such service--I'm making too much money, I'm too important, I don't have time, I don't want to move, I don't take no shit from nobody, et cetera. So how do you enforce the compulsory part of participatory democracy? If citizenship is based upon completion of the service, then you wind up with a very large labor pool and armed forces which are by definition not citizens. If, on the other hand, you keep the current citizenship requirements, the George W.s of the nation will just find a way to skate--and may wind up running the country while the rest of us bust our asses.

And most importantly, how do you get the nation, which right now is deceived into thinking that they can do whatever they want (they just can't be bothered to do it) to back up this idea and like it? A back-breaking depression is what got the ball rolling last time. Will we need another to sell the idea?

[Name removed]

82. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Renew Deal]

37. I agree

If we are serious about "doing the job" in Iraq, it's going to take 500,000 troops. And if not, get out. There is no point in half assing it the way we are now. This is Bush, Rumsfeld's, and Wolfowitz's fault. They insisted that we didn't need that many troops and needed fewer troops for the occupation than the invasion. We're in this trouble because they refuse to admit they're wrong, so they do nothing about it.

[Az_lefty]

38. Draft young republicans...

these flag waving motherf*ckers want a War, they can go fight it.

[samsingh]

39. well this is the reason many of us didn't want to start a war

on lies and for the sake of making bush's companies rich.

[citizen snips]

41. Fuck Kathleen Flyzik

I would like to see her go over there.

[roamer65]

42. There will be a draft very soon...

when Chickenhawk Cheney and Raisinbrain get their Iranian war. If they want to draft my 40+ older butt...fine...but I will turn everything around me into a MASH episode. I won't take any orders seriously, will flaunt authority every chance I get and make a mockery of "don't ask, don't tell".

[butterfly77]

44. As a majority will...they will get no cooperation...

[cherokeeprogressive]

108. Best Post on This Thread

And that is

exactly

why there won't be a draft.

[MrSlayer]

52. Most of the war supporters would turn protester if that happened.

The idiots that support this war only do so because they don't have to sacrifice anything, put their kids on the front lines and all of a sudden they'll be right in league with those of us who were against it from the beginning. Chimp would never implement a draft.

[TahitiNut]

53. Funny how 'skin in the game' motivates a democracy, huh?

:evilgrin:

Hell ... most people look at it with no more vested interest than reality TV.

[Scout1071]

54. I think this is a terrific idea. Do it now. The time is past.

What do you think will motivate these rich, mostly white, suburban communities to start flipping against BushCo and the Corrupt Republicans? When their sons and daughters suddenly find themselves in harms way for a bullshit war....that's when.

[NNN0LHI]

58. My Republican parents would have had no problem with me...

...having been drafted and sent to Vietnam to die for their hero Nixon. (Note: The draft was abolished the year before I would have been eligible for the draft)

And that was after over 50,000 American soldiers had already died there.

Why would you want to send me and others in my position to our deaths because our parents are assholes?

What would that prove?

Don

[Scout1071]

59. Because I don't think they would ever really do it.

Only that last pathetic 25% will be there with Bush.

[NNN0LHI]

65. I do not want to find out if they would

Because even that last 25% of pathetic Bush voters may have liberal children like myself who vote.

Lets not alienate them.

Don

[The Backlash Cometh]

56. Kathleen, I'm sorry about your hardship, but as a mom of a young

man, I will resist any draft because calling it for the wrong reason, is just stupid. This war is unpopular. That's a fact. You start a draft and it's like putting a noose around our own children's necks and telling everybody else to please stop us before it's too late.

[OhioChick]

63. I agree with you 100%. n/t

[lonestarnot]

64. My kid ain't fight'n no bushitler fucking war, draft or no fucking draft.

[physioex]

70. No one on this board wants your kid to fight in any wars...

Youre preaching to the choir. Anyways I think the mother does have a valid point.

[lonestarnot]

71. Makes no difference to me draft, no draft. Things are still the same here

[lonestarnot]

73. And beside you entirely missed my fucking point. This is a bushitler war

as in bushitler. Anyone with half a brain cell should be refusing to fight it rather than enlisting to fight it.

[physioex]

75. Hmmm.....

Couple of points I would like to discuss:

1. The draft is not a enlistment, hence the term draft. Not sure what you are saying.
Earlier on this year I was advocating that DUrs join the local draft board since I am also of draft age, I would rather have a DUer making the choices over a freep.

2.) There are an awful lot of people that voted for chimp in 04 and look at the republican majority. Based on your statement I would conclude a whole lot of people have <0.5 brain cells.

I say let's get people to share in this burden equally then they might start to give things more thought. I think more people would wake up if there was a draft and this war could be brought to an end. You take the approach that I am not going to let my child go to war hence I won't support the draft. Which is why this war of choice has been dragging on soo long in my opinion. My approach is that I would support the draft but I won't let my child go.

I have no doubt that if the public in this country could somehow vote on a draft that my side would lose because most republicans and people like you would vote against the draft.

[lonestarnot]

86. Do you honestly believe that a draft would "get people to share

the burden equally?" The poor become more cannon fodder is what happens with a draft and the rich avoid. Bushitler and his entire administration should demonstrate my point precisely. How many of the bastards served combat duty in Vietnam? I bet you won't come up with too many. Bushitler himself is a perfect example of how the rich avoid service. His old poppie's money and connections got him a cush guard spot and he couldn't even serve that "equally." Draft bullshit. hmmm they are talking about this very thing on cnn right now.

[physioex]

110. Not necessarily share....

The burden equally, that is not the ultimate goal. Youre right about the rich and how they will draft dodge. But atleast get them more concerned about issues.....

[ikojo]

72. I agree not all in the nation are sharing in the

sacrifice. It is primarily the children of the working class who are putting themselves on the line for the children of the upper middle class and rich.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

76. I agree with her.

I think if we had a draft (male & female), then finally people would get off their fucking asses and start protesting this war in droves. Really get the numbers out. I'm saying this as someone who is of draft-age (albeit female) and with friends in Iraq. Hell, one of my friends over there is on his second fucking tour and that's just been extended by four months (he's one of the people from the bridgade in Alaska).

I also completely support the idea that everyone has to serve their country for two years (just like Israel). It doesn't have to be in the military, but I believe everyone should have to do some sort of service via Americorps, PeaceCorps, military, etc.

[dsc]

77. I have read a goodly number of responses in this thread

and one central issue seems not to be discussed. Her child already is facing a draft. After his time is up he will be forced to serve at least three months. I think it is a fair question as to why her child should face a draft so other children don't have to. I have yet to see the question even broached let alone answered in this thread.

[NNN0LHI]

78. I will bite

My advice for this woman if her son is being drafted is to do exactly what Dick Cheney did.

Have him get five deferments like Cheney did. That should take care of the problem.

Don

[dsc]

87. He can't get a deferment as he is already in the armed forces

His draft is the cruelest of all, after he has served his full tour (four or six years) he then gets drafted for at least three months to finish out Iraq.

[Lars39]

79. I think a better question would be why she isn't putting pressure

on bushco to end the war.

[dsc]

88. we have no idea if she is or isn't doing that

but even if she is it isn't working. Which still leaves my question unanswered.

[JI7]

118. some would consider this as doing more to end the war than

most other things.

[dogday]

90. Unfortunately, he signed up, he signed a contract

with the Military and in that contract they can stop order you at any time. My Son had it stipulated that he could not be held or stop loss, although I think in the long run it really won't matter, now that he is in, he may not be able to get out so easily either...

Those who have not signed up voluntarily, do not deserve to be dragged into this illegal war.. Those who volunteered knew what they could be getting into, although they were most certainly not prepared for what awaited them.

I feel for this Mother, as I am looking at the same thing for my Son...

[dsc]

91. and I am sure they made that clear when he signed the contract

when we likely weren't at war in Iraq.

[dogday]

93. My Son got it in writing, and I still don't know

if it will hold and yes this was before the war.

2001 had a big effect on many young men wanting to do the right thing, I think....

[dsc]

95. I hope your son actually gets out on time

It really is unfair that all the burden is on the very small number of families who have members in the military.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dogday]

83. This mother is sounding like she wants a draft so

her Son who fights in Iraq can come home and not be extended anymore and I understand that, but I am also a Mother of a soldier who is in Iraq and who may not get to leave when he thought he was going to either.. Yet somehow I refuse to even consider a forced draft of our young people to fight in this illegal conflict... I cannot bring myself to want any young person forced against their will to join the service and go to war and I never will no matter what happens to my Son.. He would not want that either, and that is why I can say this with such conviction....

I wish that mom some peace and comfort, but forcing others to do what her son is doing is not the way...

[gulliver]

84. I wish more military families would do this.

It won't bring about a draft, but it may reach a few consciences.

[3121guitarist]

85. Right she is.

We should have a draft, so we can see who the real leftists are. Are they willing to burn their draft cards or risk jail like they did in the 60's? The only way to get the lazy left off their asses is force them to respond. You have to stand for something, or you will fall for anything.

[boolean]

89. How about making a draft a requirement for invasion??

I'd support a law that makes it so that ANY invasion whatsoever is an automatic draft. Imagine how many people would've supported the Iraq war BEFORE it started had it meant a draft.

I bet people would've demanded to see actual evidence of WMD.

[stepnw1f]

92. Oh Goody... I Get To Die Too for Bush

and his sickness. Bravo...

Why does everyone consitantly assume the govt will make the draft a requirement for every citizen, when we can already see how inequal our system is. How many loop holes for the wealthy and their offspring? Seriously folks... we live in a very class based society where the wealthy get away with murder, and the poor get murdered.

[bling bling]

114. For real. Let's stay in reality.

Daydreaming about our congressmen's kids and all the Republicans kid's going off to war and suddenly realizing how wrong this whole thing has been is just a fantasy. It's the poor and working class who will die and who will lose their children. Those who don't die will come back to a nation of sick fuck chickenhawk republicans that will sabatage their characters should they dare say anything negative about the war. Those who come back injured physically will be victims of veterans benefits that have been scaled down by the rich republicans. Those who come back psychologically tormented will have to deal with their demons for the rest of their lives while everyone else moves on. The rich neocons will simply use their connections to keep their kids out of war. Like or not, that's reality.

[stepnw1f]

120. Yup

and those supporting the idea of the draft are stepping into another trap!

[Cha]

104. Raise taxes to pay

for the war on Iraq.

[bamacrat]

105. Yeah, hell lets let the mentally handicapped fight too, Im sure some are

willing and ready.

[Book Lover]

107. I've said a lot of things about "mandatory service" here and elsewhere

but the one thing I haven't said yet. There is no humanly possible way for such a complete plan to be emplaced.

A) If you think the rich, powerful and/or desperate will *not* find a way out of this service, then you have not been paying attention to how humans operate. We are very clever: someone will figure out a way to get out of "mandatory service." In any case, there will have to be exemptions in the plan - a simple example is the married couple of 20 and 21; if there is a child, are both parents drafted?

B) What the hell are we going to pay these people with? Last I heard, the federal government was running in the red.

C) What the hell are we going to have everybody do? Are we going to flood the globe with soldiers? Yeah, great idea. That'll win hearts and minds...

[bobbolink]

109. Good for you, Military Mom!!

:toast:

The responsibility of citizenship should be shared equally!!

There are some things I would add, but I appreciate her thoughts.

I can only hope this is taken seriously, and discussed with the gravity it deserves.

Responsibility.

Don't enter adulthood without it.

[Marr]

113. Well, it *does* naturally follow from the GOP rhetoric. If they believe

this occupation of Iraq is comparable to WW2, then a draft should be a no-brainer. And yet it isn't, because they know damn well that the comparison is ludicrous.

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. What she said

[Retired AF Dem]

125. No draft

If people arent willing to fight for their country the country isnt worth saving.

[Deja Q]

126. They accept people older than 25 (and women too), why won't she enlist?

That's right! The US is at war, but she doesn't want to do her part. I wonder why; any reasons I could come up with don't seem to fit her profile. :shrug:

[Deja Q]

127. Military mommy seems to forget; in the 2004 debates, Bush BARKED that

there would BE NO DRAFT as long as he's president.

(so what's going to happen by early 2009 that requires one? :think: )

[Dems Will Win]

130. DRAFT ALERT COMING SOON!!!!!

[HughBeaumont]

129. "Funny thing about fishing . . . "

" . . . never works out so well for the bait."