PDA

View Full Version : More News On the 2005 Draft You Need to Know If You are 18-25



Nbadan
10-02-2004, 01:57 PM
Because of some confusion about the relationship between the Military Draft Alert and HR 163, the so-called Rangel draft bill—which is in reality a “protest bill” with no prayer of passing, here are the differences between the RANGEL PROTEST BILL and the secretive behind-the-scenes activity at the SSS and the DoD, to ready not only a BUSH COMBAT DRAFT in 2005 but also a BUSH SKILLS DRAFT and BUSH MEDICAL DRAFT in 2006 or sooner:

RANGEL PROTEST BILL

Click here for text of HR163 (http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr163.html)

Would replace current draft legislation that drafts only men for combat, retaining current exemptions such as high school and Conscientious Objector status.

Closes loopholes that allow privileged treatment for the wealthy and well-connected; no more college deferments, for example.

Drafts women for combat as well as men, ages 18–34.

Does not draft for skills, this is a combat draft only.

ACTUAL BUSH SSS ACTIVITY TOWARD A 2005 DRAFT

Only men are drafted for combat, 18–25 (current law—no Rangel bill needed)
“Groundwork being laid” (SSS Spokesman Amon) for a non-combat skills draft of men and women age 18–34. The two-year process to gear up SKILLS DRAFT started nearly two years ago, in Feb. 2003, meaning a skills draft would be ready in 2005 (a new law would be passed if Bush gets “re-selected”).

The Medical Draft registration data collection is also going to be readied for operational use in 2005 by use of work already done on the Skills Draft, and by modifying the draft registration card to include a list of medical skills. This means the Medical Draft would be ready in 2005, men and women age 20–44 (this draft, like the current combat draft for men 18-25, is already the law of the land)

The secret Issue Paper actually proposes being able to call a Skills and Medical Draft WITHOUT calling a combat draft.
The biggest difference of course is that the RANGEL PROTEST BILL will NEVER happen and the NEW BUSH DRAFT has already begun gearing up for 2005:

Timeline of activity on Skills and Medical Drafts

Feb. 11 2003—Top-level meeting between the head of the SSS and Deputy Undersecretary Abell in charge of Personnel and Readiness of the DoD on the SKILLS DRAFT. This is the meeting recorded in the unpublicized Issue Paper, revealed by a Freedom of Information Act request in May 2004. The SSS goes back to the drawing board after this meeting, encouraged enough to do some more planning.

Summer 2003—A drive begins to start filling Draft Board vacancies by asking current board members to find new ones.

Fall 2003—DoD announces critical skills shortages in linguists, computer experts and engineers. SSS Director Brodsky orders the designing of the SKILLS DRAFT procedures, the registration card, and the massive database needed to track every young American under the age of 35 AND their skills. Brodsky, who “plays” J. E. McNeil, the head of Center on Conscience & War, a Conscientious Objector support and information group, and other anti-draft leaders by calling them regularly and schmoozing them, lies to McNeil, telling her that in February of 2003 the SSS had to “justify their existence” before a hostile committee—when in reality the SSS and DoD were having the SKILLS DRAFT meeting and he himself had just started designing the new system and making it his top priority.

Sept 2003—Draft board recruitment ad goes up on the Internet.

November 2003—Draft board ad scrubbed!

Dec. 2003—Brodsky announces the Skills Draft to be the “top priority” of the SSS in newsletter and tells of rapid progress to come.

March 13, 2004—Word of Skills Draft leaks out in a SF Chronicle story—the SSS admits it and tells reporters it’s just a “planning contingency.” In an attempt to throw the press off, the SSS also says it would take 2 years to gear up and work the kinks out of a Skills Draft and that there is no funding for it. Eric Rosenberg, the reporter on the story, finds out about the Feb. 11 meeting Issue Paper and files a Freedom of Information Act request to get a copy.

May 1, 2004—An article on the Skills Draft fails to mention several key points: skills conscription would be expanded to fill labor shortages throughout the Dept of Homeland Security, which is 1/3 of the whole government, the Skills Draft can be called without a combat draft, Skills induction will take a mere 90 days of reauthorization, the SSS wanted to “promptly” change the very MISSION of the SSS, and so on. The article does, however, reveal many major points of the sweeping plan.

Sept 13, 2004—Issue Paper agenda memo of key Feb 2003 meeting posted on the Web, including this:

“while a conventional draft may never be needed, a draft of men and women possessing these critical skills may be warranted in a future crisis if too few volunteer.”

2004—MOCK DRAFT LOTTERY HELD, and SAMPLE MEDICAL EXAM REPORT ORDERS ISSUED TO MAILING LIST. Alternative Service is geared up for first time in 31 years! Papers to place Conscientious Objectors with employers are actually drawn up. SSS has been brought up to 95% operational capability, full Medical draft capability is set for 2005, and all DRAFT BOARD vacancies are to be filled by Spring 2005!

March 31, 2005—

SSS Director must report to the Congress that the entire system is primed and ready to open 2,000 draft board offices and to start inducting within 75 days: June 15, 2005.

Blatant Truth (http://blatanttruth.org/rangel.htm)

ClintSquint
10-02-2004, 02:30 PM
If you really thought the draft was coming..would some of you look for deferments for your eligible children?

Many talk a tough game but when push comes to shove, they don't want to send their kids.

Will the Bush twins be the first to sign up?

Nbadan
10-02-2004, 02:34 PM
Will the Bush twins be the first to sign up?

Yeah, don't count on that happening. The Republicans keep claiming that all this draft talk is a Democratic conspiracy, but yet W has outlined no plans for covering shortages in recruitment goals in the Guard and reserves.

Marcus Bryant
10-02-2004, 02:58 PM
The fucking Selective Service has been in operation for decades. Get a fucking clue.

Yonivore
10-02-2004, 03:57 PM
That's been the law since 1980 smegma-breath.

ClintSquint
10-02-2004, 03:57 PM
Well no shit Sherlock.

Marcus Bryant
10-02-2004, 04:00 PM
Then what is your point, if you are able to point out one with your head firmly implanted in your rectum?

Nbadan
10-02-2004, 04:01 PM
So tell me, if W invades Iran were is he gonna get the troops to do it? Not from the Reserves, or the National guard or even the Individual ready reserves. 600 soldiers from one Guard unit alone have failed to meet the call from W to serve in Iraq.

Yonivore
10-02-2004, 04:04 PM
So tell me, if W invades Iran were is he gonna get the troops to do it? Not from the Reserves, or the National guard or even the Individual ready reserves. 600 soldiers from one Guard unit alone have failed to meet the call from W to serve in Iraq.
Personally, I don't think an invasion of Iran is in the cards. We may bomb some strategic Command and Control centers and encourage an internal revolution (already on the brink), but, I don't see American troops going into Iran anytime soon.

Marcus Bryant
10-02-2004, 04:05 PM
So tell me, how is it preferable that we wait until we are attacked again. Or did you enjoy seeing nearly 3,000 slaughtered in the continental United States on live TV? Did your boss give you the day off at work? Did you enjoy a cold beer and some snacks while you saw that go down?

Nbadan
10-02-2004, 04:15 PM
The ineptitude of the W adminstration not withstanding, I think there are more than adaqute safety measures now in place to protect the nation against another 911 type attack. What I want to know is, what happened to the 5000 Al-quada opperatives that were supposedly in the U.S. already planning attacks?

Could it be that 911 had nothing to do with Al-Queda, as Bin-Laden has said in the past and more to do with the PNAC plan to invade Iraq written during the Clinton administration? Could it be that a secret plan to attack U.S. targets using commercial airliners drawn up by our own intelligence agencies was finally put into action by an administration that needed justification for its invasion of a sovereign country that had nothing to do with 911, or Al-Queda, or any plan to attack the U.S. of U.S. interests?

CommanderMcBragg
10-02-2004, 04:53 PM
I surprised Yonivore isn't backing Dubya on a preemptive strike against Iran.

I mean, are they not an immenent threat?

Marcus Bryant
10-02-2004, 04:58 PM
Could it be that 911 had nothing to do with Al-Queda

Game over.

Nbadan
10-02-2004, 05:03 PM
eh, ask the 911-families sueing the * adminstration for being complicit in the attacks if they think it's game over. Ask the CIA agents who recently came out and said that the U.S. knew much more about the planned 911 attacks before they happened if its game over. Ask the people who have examined Halliburton stock manipulation between the Aug 6 Presdential Briefing and 911 if it is game over.

BronxCowboy
10-02-2004, 05:10 PM
So tell me, how is it preferable that we wait until we are attacked again. Or did you enjoy seeing nearly 3,000 slaughtered in the continental United States on live TV? Did your boss give you the day off at work? Did you enjoy a cold beer and some snacks while you saw that go down?


Funny thing is that attacking other people doesn't prevent attacks on us. Never has, never will. That's the function of diplomacy. Oh, but you're the one who doesn't like diplomacy, right?

Marcus Bryant
10-02-2004, 05:17 PM
Well at least danny boy is back to his true conspiratorial-wacko roots.


Funny thing is that attacking other people doesn't prevent attacks on us. Never has, never will. That's the function of diplomacy. Oh, but you're the one who doesn't like diplomacy, right?

Certainly worked on 9/11, did it not?

Diplomacy certainly stopped the North Koreans from developing nuclear weapons, did it not?

Uncle Donnie
10-02-2004, 05:30 PM
Could it be that a secret plan to attack U.S. targets using commercial airliners drawn up by our own intelligence agencies was finally put into action by an administration that needed justification for its invasion of a sovereign country that had nothing to do with 911, or Al-Queda, or any plan to attack the U.S. of U.S. interests?

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you spout bullshit like this?

BronxCowboy
10-02-2004, 05:31 PM
Certainly worked on 9/11, did it not?

Diplomacy certainly stopped the North Koreans from developing nuclear weapons, did it not?

Since no real effort was ever made, I guess we'll never get to know.

Marcus Bryant
10-02-2004, 05:43 PM
Indeed. Thank you President Clinton.

Yonivore
10-02-2004, 06:29 PM
I surprised Yonivore isn't backing Dubya on a preemptive strike against Iran.

I mean, are they not an immenent threat?
I believe I said I was in favor of bombing the hell out of 'em...

Nbadan
10-03-2004, 03:19 AM
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you spout bullshit like this?

Look, I'm not gonna attack you cause your new. Please do some more reading and get better informed before trying to criticize me.

The plan was called Operation Northwoods. In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed staging phony attacks to destroy U.S. property and killing Cuban refugees and U.S. citizens, in order to create a wave of indignation and rage, to justify an invasion of Cuba that could have killed hundreds of thousands of people and possibly led to nuclear war.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

Uncle Donnie
10-03-2004, 08:50 AM
The plan was called Operation Northwoods. In 1962...

Yeah that's great and all, but something that may have happened 40 years ago and was rightfully rejected isn't enough to make me believe (or even consider) that Bush killed 3000 American citizens, crippled the economy, and empowered our enemies all just so he could take out Saddam. If you are going to make such damning accusations you better have some substantial and undeniable evidence (blogs by nutjob conspiracy theorists don't count). The sheer magnitude of such a conspiracy in and of itself pretty much makes it impossible, but don't let the real world stop that vivid imagination of yours.

Shit like this is why I have distanced myself more and more from the democratic party and will be voting for a republican president for the first time ever in November. There's such hate for the current adminstration that logic has gone right out the window.

Yonivore
10-03-2004, 03:21 PM
Look, I'm not gonna attack you cause your new.
When has that ever stopped you?

Please do some more reading and get better informed before trying to criticize me.
Yeah, realize that Nbadanallah is a conspiricist extraordinaire and go along or have every bigfoot argument since 1937 thrown at you.

Marcus Bryant
10-03-2004, 03:28 PM
UD has been around longer than danny boy. Not sure why danny thinks he is "new."

SpursWoman
10-03-2004, 03:58 PM
I think he was talking about BronxCowboy. Although the way he's started off, I'm thinking he can't be all that new around here.


:fro :lol

pooh
10-03-2004, 06:59 PM
I'm 37...past the limit...draft away.

exstatic
10-03-2004, 07:46 PM
Makes me glad that I'm an old fart, and NOT a doctor.

Aggie Hoopsfan
10-03-2004, 08:35 PM
W has outlined no plans for covering shortages in recruitment goals in the Guard and reserves.

There are bills in Congress being discussed which would up the pay rates for the military. Unlike the demorats, the republicans think the best way to upgrade the army isn't to draft people who don't want to be there, but sweeten the financial pot for those who do.

exstatic
10-03-2004, 09:17 PM
There are bills in Congress being discussed which would up the pay rates for the military. Unlike the demorats, the republicans think the best way to upgrade the army isn't to draft people who don't want to be there, but sweeten the financial pot for those who do.


Having been there, you're talking about a raise of 50-100 a month for the average grunt in time of armed hostilities. The raises allocated by congress SUCK ASS. They're not going to keep people in the armed forces who are wearied beyond belief from too many combat rotations.

exstatic
10-03-2004, 09:32 PM
One thing that has struck me throughout this thread. The Pro-Bush forces seem to be both debunking and defending the possibility of a draft. Hmmmm.

Marcus Bryant
10-03-2004, 09:37 PM
Who defended it? I must've missed that.

Spurminator
10-03-2004, 10:07 PM
If the draft is ever brought back into effect, I will become a card-carrying member of the opposition party.

But it's not going to happen unless this country is attacked 10 times more dramatically than 9/11.

Aggie Hoopsfan
10-03-2004, 10:25 PM
ex,

The thing I heard, on NPR, was that they were talking about something like 20K signing bonuses for enlisting. Hardly $50 a month...


Could it be that 911 had nothing to do with Al-Queda, as Bin-Laden has said in the past

where the hell did he say that? I watched him take credit for it on tape, with the words coming from his own mouth. Wanna forward your DNC propaganda tape of him saying "I had nothing to do with this" to me for purposes of sheer humoric entertainment?

Thanks.

exstatic
10-03-2004, 11:27 PM
So tell me, how is it preferable that we wait until we are attacked again. Or did you enjoy seeing nearly 3,000 slaughtered in the continental United States on live TV? Did your boss give you the day off at work? Did you enjoy a cold beer and some snacks while you saw that go down?

Were you referring to the draft here, MB, or did you just run off and hijack another thread?

Nbadan
10-04-2004, 01:30 AM
Yeah that's great and all, but something that may have happened 40 years ago and was rightfully rejected isn't enough to make me believe (or even consider) that Bush killed 3000 American citizens, crippled the economy, and empowered our enemies all just so he could take out Saddam. If you are going to make such damning accusations you better have some substantial and undeniable evidence (blogs by nutjob conspiracy theorists don't count). The sheer magnitude of such a conspiracy in and of itself pretty much makes it impossible, but don't let the real world stop that vivid imagination of yours.

Operaton Northwoods wasn't rightfully or outwardly rejected by the Pentagon. They wanted to go through with it. It was a civilian committee that finally rejected the plan after it was presented to the Secretary of Defense.

Also, It's not me who is making these accusations about the administration's actions, or lack thereof on 911, it's the families of the victims of 911 who are making them, and they say that when they finally get their day in court they will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that members of our own government at the very least were negligent in aiding and abiding the conspirators of 911.

I don't know how involved the Neocons were in 911 since, as you, I am skeptical about conspiracy theories without valid proof. However, through careful research I do know that on the morning of Sept 11th, Dick Cheney was heading a clandestine operation that involved flying remote planes intended to simulate domestic hijackings. I do know that these simulations contributed to the slow or total lack of reaction by NORAD air forces that went into action defending our airspace within minutes when Payne Stewart's plane went off course just a few miles less than a year before. I do know that someone ordered NORAD planes out to sea, thereby leaving our domestic airspace vulnerable after the WTC attacks, and I do know that the 911 commission left many unanswered questions about the 911 conspirators, and especially their leader Muhammed Atta's time in the U.S. before the Sept 11th attacks.

Aggie Hoopsfan
10-04-2004, 02:03 AM
Well, I do know you're full of shit. What else is new?

Marcus Bryant
10-04-2004, 07:32 AM
Wasn't referring to the draft, just his general position of inaction against Islamist terrorism (so long as there is a Republican president apparently).

LandShark
10-04-2004, 09:56 AM
I am skeptical about conspiracy theories without valid proof.
http://www.conservationcafe.com/album/00000067/bsmeter.gif

:lol

MsMcGillyCutty
10-04-2004, 10:18 AM
If the draft does come back..I'll be busy giving the boys a "going away" present to remember me by.