PDA

View Full Version : Yeah, There's No 2005 Draft Immenent..



Nbadan
09-07-2004, 01:47 PM
...and Tommy and Yoni are true libertarians...

This from the same people who brought you W's bogus 11 point poll lead...


Some democrats on the Hill claim that they are worried a second Bush Administration may prove more militarily aggressive than the first. One reason: a Democratic official tells TIME that a leading Pentagon hawk recently hinted that the doctrine of pre-emptive war could soon apply to potential new targets.

During a private Aug. 19 conference call with Capitol Hill aides from both parties, sources say, senior Pentagon policy official William Luti said there are at least five or six foreign countries with traits that "no responsible leader can allow." An outspoken proponent of the Iraq war, Luti had declared at an October 2002 conference that the U.S. has "the right to ... hold accountable nations that harbor terrorists."

In his recent call, Luti did not name the nations he had in mind but said they are led by dictators with weapons-of-mass-destruction programs and close ties to terrorists. His remarks suggest that the Administration is looking well beyond the current "axis of evil," which includes Iran, Iraq and North Korea; this might put countries like Syria in the spotlight.

A Pentagon spokesman declined to release a transcript of the call, saying Luti was stating "well-established official policy," not advocating pre-emptive strikes. The U.S., he added, has many other policy options at its disposal. They would presumably include measures like supporting opposition groups in suspect states.

Time (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040913-692871,00.html)

18-24 year olds better start taking this election and this administration seriously or they will be bullet stoppers for the administration in Syria or Iran.

Tommy Duncan
09-07-2004, 01:50 PM
Yes, I am a libertarian. Unfortunately a simpleton partisan like yourself cannot seem to understand that one does not have to be a member of the "other side" to critique your stupidity.

Nbadan
09-07-2004, 01:51 PM
Nope.. You are quite ample at providing your own stupidity.

Tommy Duncan
09-07-2004, 01:53 PM
Ha. You are the running joke here.

CommanderMcBragg
09-07-2004, 01:54 PM
Libertarians are just moderate conservatives and liberals whose presidential candidates doesn't have a prayer so they are left to pump up the lesser ot the two evils.

Nbadan
09-07-2004, 01:56 PM
Ha. You are the running joke here.

No, your cigar forum is the running joke. (and the fact that you can't post under one name, but that goes unsaid)

Tommy Duncan
09-07-2004, 01:56 PM
Libertarians are not moderate conservatives.

Tommy Duncan
09-07-2004, 01:58 PM
What "cigar forum"?

I'd rather be known for using different handles than being a conspiracy believing partisan chump who knows nothing more than to parrot "neocon" 24/7. You know very little about political philosophy or anything else to be taken seriously.

CommanderMcBragg
09-07-2004, 02:11 PM
Libertarians are not moderate conservatives.

Then what are you?

I've noticed the so called "libertarians" in here rarely pump their own party's candidate and their own beliefs but rather tend to always argue their conservative point of view thus making themselves out to be "moderate" or what is funnier, "compassionate" conservatives.

Tommy Duncan
09-07-2004, 02:14 PM
Then perhaps you've missed when I've criticized the "compassionate" move by Bush to expand Medicare.

Try again.

Also, in case you haven't figured it out by now, one does not have to be a Libertarian to be a libertarian.

Yonivore
09-07-2004, 02:15 PM
The article that started this thread isn't unlike what the President said he would do. Go after the terrorists and those that harbor them...

I don't see this as a big surprise.

Nbadan
09-07-2004, 05:41 PM
back to the original topic and what this could mean to hispanic males between 18-26


SALON, November 3, 2003
Title: "Oiling up the Draft Machine?"
Author: Dave Lindorff

BUZZFLASH.COM, November 11, 2003
Title: "Would a Second Bush Term Mean a Return to Conscription?'
Author: Maureen Farrell

WAR TIMES, October-November, 2003
Title: "Military Targets Latino Youth"
Author: Jorge Mariscal

Evaluator: Robert Manning
Student Researchers: Jenifer Green, Adam Stutz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Selective Service System, the Bush Administration, and the Pentagon have been quietly moving to fill draft board vacancies nationwide in order to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. In preparation several million dollars have been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget. The SSS Administration must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide. An unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld’s prediction of a “long, hard slog” in Iraq and Afghanistan (and a permanent state of war on “terrorism”) proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and H.R. 163 forward in 2003, introduced by Democratic Representative Charles Rangel and Democratic Senator Fritz Hollings. Entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, their aim is “To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons (age 18-26) in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.” These active bills currently sit in the Committee on Armed Services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era remember. College and Canada will no longer be options. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a “Smart Border Declaration,” which could be used to contain would-be draft dodgers. The declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a “pre-clearance agreement” of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminate higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

In May 2000, Delaware was the first state to enact legislation requiring that driver’s license information be sent to the SSS. By August 2003, thirty-two states, two territories and the District of Columbia followed suit. Non-compliance with sending information to the SSS has always been punishable by up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Up to now, the government has never acted on these measures, but levied punishment would bar violators from federal employment and student loans. The SSS has altered its website (www.sss.gov) to include a front-page denial of a draft resurrection, but continues to post the twenty-four page Annual Performance Plan which includes its June 15 deadline still intact.

In addition to the possibility of a draft, the continual recruitment of Latinos into the armed forces has been creating volatile reactions from anti-recruitment advocates. The target recruitment of Latinos began during Clinton’s tenure in office. Louis Caldera, then Secretary of the Army, was able to discern that Latinos were the fastest growing group of military-age individuals in the United States. In May of 2003, the military was involved in a diplomatic dispute when recruiters made their way across the border. The headmaster of a Tijuana high school threw out the recruiter, and the Mexican government was vehemently upset. The Pentagon has preyed on the fact that Latinos and Latinas often enter the military in search of “civilian skills” they can apply in the workforce.

In 2001, Department of Defense statistics showed that while 10% of military forces are comprised of Latinos, 17.7% of this group occupies “frontline positions.” This includes, “infantry, gun crews, and seamanship.” With the army’s continual banter about educational subsidies of up to $30,000 for college and completion of GED requirements, the “glitz and glamour” of the military has enhanced misconceptions about the nature of military service for Latinos.

Charles Pena, director of defense studies at the libertarian Cato Institute presents a comparable conflict between the United States and the Middle East and the British and Northern Ireland where the occupying army encountered hostile opposition from civilian populations. In that situation the occupying army needed a ratio of 10 or 20 soldiers per 1,000 population, “...If you transfer that to Iraq, it would mean you’d need at least 240,000 troops and maybe as many as 480,000.” With no sign of retreat or resolution and every indication of increasing opposition in locations occupied by troops, it will likely be deemed necessary to increase and maintain military presence. Additionally, there is the massive exodus of ally troops and aid from areas of occupation and combat. The US has been unable to draw major assistance from other countries and high enlistment bonuses have been both ineffective and expensive in light of the rapidly growing debt. Add to the growing list of unfavorable realities an unwillingness of soldiers to re-enlist, and the US is unable to meet the soldier quotient needed to continue occupation of Iraq alone; excluding the probability of troops expanding occupied territory and the White House promise of war in multiple theaters.

UPDATE BY MAUREEN FARRELL: While the draft became newsworthy in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, the mainstream media brushed most concerns aside. "Military Draft Unlikely for ‘War’ on Terrorism,”ABC News reported on Sept. 18, 2001, citing military analysts' opinions. The Brookings Institutions’ Michael O'Hanlon, however, admitted that, should the U.S. military become involved in an extended occupation, then perhaps we’d be looking at “the kinds of man power requirements that would advise in favor of a draft." By May 2004, O’Hanlon updated his prediction, citing mounting casualties and an over-reliance on National Guard and reserve troops in Iraq. “The most likely cause [for reinstatement of the draft] would be an even more severe over-deployment of the all-volunteer force. . . ,” he wrote in the Los Angeles Times.

Though Rep. Charles Rangel also addressed conscription concerns, by the time my story appeared on BuzzFlash.com, little had been written about changes that would make “draft dodging” more difficult. Few mentioned that draft laws had been changed in 1971 to restrict college deferments and even fewer discussed the sweeping new policies regarding selective service registration. The border agreement between Canada and the U.S. (yet another roadblock to would-be draft dodgers) received even less press.

I first became interested in this story in July 2002, after reading a letter to the editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer regarding pending legislation linking drivers' license applications to selective service registration. At the time, half of all U.S. states had enacted such legislation (with scarce media attention) and as of April 9, 2004, all but 13 states had either passed such legislation or were in the process of doing so (also with scarce media attention).

Since this story broke, Presidential candidates Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader have raised concerns over conscription's ever-increasing likelihood; Sen. Chuck Hagel has called for a national debate on the issue; and the Selective Service System's proposal to draft women and extend the draft registration age from 25 to 34 has been uncovered. Yet the mainstream media continues to ignore the larger implications in regard to he 2004 election. (The Internet remains an exception, however. BuzzFlash has featured several editorials on the subject and in May 2004, conservative columnist Paul Craig Roberts, writing for antiwar.com, wrote: “If Bush is reelected, wider war and a draft to feed it seem a certainty.")

This story is important for several reasons, but most notably for the questions it raises. Why did the Selective Service System feel compelled to insure compliance through new laws? Does this shift have anything to do with the larger, but also underreported agenda to widen the war in the Middle East? Do most Americans comprehend the long-term consequences of President Bush’s stated desire to “change the world”?

An informed citizenry is crucial to democracy. Given that our military is already overextended, Americans need to scrutinize this administration's intentions for “dealing with” Iran, Syria and other countries. And before they vote, they should also understand that extended military commitments would most likely require a return to the draft — and that this time around, neither college nor Canada would provide refuge.

Project Censored (http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/24.html)

Tommy Duncan
09-07-2004, 06:04 PM
Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and H.R. 163 forward in 2003, introduced by Democratic Representative Charles Rangel and Democratic Senator Fritz Hollings. Entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, their aim is “To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons (age 18-26) in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.” These active bills currently sit in the Committee on Armed Services.

Aggie Hoopsfan
09-07-2004, 07:17 PM
1. You do realize Dan that Democratic Congressmen are the ones who rolled out the bill on Capitol Hill, right?

2.


what this could mean to hispanic males between 18-26

Playing the race card, why am I not surprised...

JohnnyMarzetti
09-07-2004, 07:21 PM
I'm sure the Dubya twins have nothing to worry about.