"Senator Joseph Biden, the top Democrat of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made the prediction after new data released by the Pentagon showed the US Army failing to meet its recruitment targets for four straight months. 'We're going to have to face that question,' Mr Biden said on an NBC television show when asked if it was realistic to expect restoration of the draft."
- MediaCorp Press
For May, our Army is reporting recruitment levels have fallen seventy-five percent. Overall average for military recruitment is down forty percent. We are quickly running out of soldiers to replace natural attrition losses; our soldiers are leaving our military at the highest rate in history.
News is out many career military men, specifically generals, have been forced out of the military through "retirement" for their voicing concerns we are facing dangerously low numbers of troops. Many top brass have expressed worry we will not be able to respond to military emergencies with our main military force being tied down in the Mideast. Those military "Lifers" are suddenly no longer in the military.
Numbers have it we cannot sustain Bush's wars without a military draft.
Selective Service Director William Chatfield is currently touring our country seeking eleven-thousand volunteers to staff the Selective Service. Why is he ramping up manpower for our Selective Service Draft Board?
Chatfield, while in Louisiana, commented on our severely growing shortage of American troops and stats released by the Department of Defense, "I have no inside, secretive knowledge of the numbers...I have faith in their pronouncements. I have faith in those who supply Mr. Rumsfeld with the numbers. If he says that, it's the truth," referencing Rumsfeld's denial of a need for bringing our military draft back to life.
He has faith in Rumsfeld telling the truth; he wants to keep his job.
Department of Defense is estimating we will need eighty-thousand new recruits by 2006 year. We have less than half that. Each month our military loses more personal than can be replaced. Our military force level has fallen to a dangerously low level, and continues to fall at an alarmingly rapid pace; we are running out of soldiers.
How are we to fight against terrorism with less soldiers and with those troops we have, bogged down in the Mideast for the next decade?
I am certain Bush will break his promise of no military draft using an excuse of national security.
"It's not my fault young people are not signing up. We have to reinstate our military draft in the interest of national security."
Chatfield's ramping up manpower for the Selective Service certainly suggests our country is again headed for a Vietnam style draft.
You suppose Bush's twin girls will be drafted?
IP: Logged |
PHILADELPHIA - For the first time since the Vietnam War, pacifist churches are thinking of how to prepare young men to become conscientious objectors in the event the draft is resumed.
...Mennonites, Brethren and Quakers, believe a draft appears more and more likely as U.S. troops continue to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Army fails to meet its recruitment goals.
"We are probably one terrorist attack -- one 9/11 -- away from a draft," said Dan McFadden, director of Brethren Volunteer Service in Elgin, Ill.
Leaders of the peace churches, which have their roots in Pennsylvania, say that what they may need to do now is prepare in-house programs in which their young men might perform two years of required civilian public service in exchange for not having to go into the military.
The draft ended in 1973. But the Selective Service System, which is charged with maintaining machinery for a draft, is encouraging the peace churches to make contingency plans.
"We do encourage it," said Cassandra Costley, who was appointed last year as director of a new alternative-service division within Selective Service....
--
Ramping up of Selective Service manpower, a new "Alternative Service" division.
posted
Note that Bidden did not speak out against a future draft, and in fact left the door open to one.
Only the Democrats like Charles Rangel, are advocating the reinstatement of the draft.
Only democrats want compulsory fighting and death on the part of our youth.
Some people love this nation and are proud to serve, and will do so voluntarily. They will die willingly. Some democrats want to force this on unwilling others.
Another case of democrats wanting government ot decide your fate for you, instead of letting you decide for yourself (as in Social Security reform, and also in taking money from you and having government decide how to spend it instead of letting you have what you earn and deciding yourself on how to spend it).
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
posted
You boys are not doing your homework as you are expected to do.
---
"...If indeed the fight is worth fighting, the president should make a national appeal for all Americans to make the sacrifice," said Rangel, a decorated Korean War veteran.
He said the country would "have a very different foreign policy" if the children of members of Congress were liable to be conscripted...
Last year, Rangel offered a similar measure to underline that point. It was defeated 402 to 2, with Rangel voting against it.
REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK This time, casualty of bill J. JIONI PALMER WASHINGTON BUREAU
----
"casualty of bill"
"...if the children of members of Congress were liable to be conscripted...."
"...Rangel voting against it...."
Rangel is not trying to pass his bill. He is sending a message to the Whitehouse and Congress.
Rangel is highlighting Capital Hill hypocrisy.
Do your homework, boys, if you are to engage me in verbal fisticuffs. Should you not, I will give you an intellectual blackeye.
IP: Logged |
posted
Place a slab of cold meat on that shiner I gave you. Doing so will reduce swelling of your ego but will do little to remove the bruising.
IP: Logged |
posted
Purl Gurl: You boys are not doing your homework as you are expected to do.
Last year, Rangel offered a similar measure to underline that point. It was defeated 402 to 2, with Rangel voting against it.
Art: Yes, I heard Rangel talking before the vote and he passionately wanted the draft reinstated. Anyone who saw their bill being defeated by 402 to 2, and most who supported such a loser, whould vote against it to avoid embarassment, and later say they were just trying to make a point.
And the two who did stick to their beliefs and vote for the Rangel bill were democrats, not republicans.
The "revive the draft" is strictly a democrat movement.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
posted
...Although the Republican Congressional leaders brought this to the forefront in order to put it to rest, the military does not have enough people to carry out current military policy.
The Bush Administration continues to talk of a never-ending war on terrorism. To bolster the size of the military President Bush has issued "Stop-loss orders", which prevent many in the military from leaving when their time is up.
Sen. Kerry has called this policy a 'back door draft'. Rep. McDermott (D-WA) raised the question, "How big a step is it from where we are now to the president saying it is the national interest that everyone serve?"
Selective Service is now making political statements much like the Center for Disease Control has been made to do, regarding condoms, both made to do this by George Bush.
IP: Logged |
posted
Washington, D.C. Congressman Neil Abercrombie voted today against H.R. 163, a bill to re-instate the draft. He made the following statement on his vote for the Congressional Record:
"Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 163, a bill to re-instate the draft. I oppose the draft and do not want to see it brought back.
I added my name to this bill in order to promote an open, honest public discussion of the personnel crisis facing our military today, and in that sense I welcome today’s vote. It is unfortunate, however, that H.R. 163 is being brought to the floor with only a few hours notice, depriving the American public of the extended exploration this problem deserves...."
posted
Again, PG does not give all the facts. Only one side. The ARMY has increased it's goal by 30%, also reenlistment has exceeded it goals by those who are actually in the field.....
GEN. PACE: I think the Army's taking the right leadership approach to the problems it had the last couple of months in meeting their recruiting goals. First of all, we should make note of the fact that they're looking for almost 8,000 more soldiers this year than they were last year, because of our desire to grow the Army so it can transform itself, and then go back down to its prewar size. But there is an increased number there. The Army has allocated another 3,000 recruiters and a good deal of leadership time to train those recruiters in getting out to our communities. Interestingly, those who serve in the Army today, who are currently on active duty, are reenlisting at historic numbers. We have had the goals for reenlistment exceeded, especially by those units who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why? Because those soldiers have had the opportunity to serve the country the way they volunteered to do. They get it. They understand the tremendous positive impact they are having.
posted
so if bush decides to reinstate the draft will you blame it on democrats getting their way art? because you know damn well that it will be a decision made by republicans.
also i dont think anyone is pushing for a draft rep. or dem. i think that some people are just facing the numbers. If less and less people are signing up and more and more people are being sent to active duty and getting killed something has to fill the gap. and that gap is a draft. It isnt a rep. or dem. thing, its about math.
-------------------- "Gentleman, you have come sixty days too late. The depression is over." Herbert Hoover 1930
IP: Logged |
Answering my own question, Republicans pushed through HR 163 to keep that bill off the floor so it could not be debated. Democrats are indicating what is obvious, we are running out of soldiers and those troops we have, are spread too thin. With Iraq estimated to last up to another decade, we have no choice but to bring back the draft.
Republicans are making a concerted effort to squash discussion of this problem.
A unspoken danger in bringing back the draft, setting aside a risk of wide spread civil protest, is adding more troops will enable Bush to push for war in Iran, Syria and Korea. There is no doubt if our military were larger, we would be in more wars than the three we fight now.
Bush and his Republicans are absolutely abusing our armed forces and placing our country in grave danger. We are less protected, more than ever.
IP: Logged |
posted
PG, It's not Limbaugh fantasy, what I just posted were all facts. I know you don't like it but it is what it is. You can't site what part of my post is fantasy.
Do you think we are less protected now than before 9/11?
If you say we had more measures in place before 9/11 to prevent terrorism than we do now, then you are living in the land of OZ. Or your Michael Moore world of fantasy.
posted
"Do you think we are less protected now than before 9/11?"
Yes, I do.
Our country is bankrupt. Our soldiers are stretched beyond their limits. Our borders are wide open. We are disliked by most of the world. Terrorism events are at record highs and increasing.
America is on her back with her belly exposed.
We won't be defeated, by no means. There are none who can defeat America. However, we are capable of defeating ourselves.
IP: Logged |
As Glasshead alludes, the national debt is the amount of money I would like to have in my personal checking account.
"space/time, agreed:"
Ah ha! We can neither agree nor disagree! Space and time is something you need to handle with a GLUV on.
"to me, a fact is more along the lines of sunrise/sunset."
Ha! Our Earth's rotation is constantly slowing down. We need to line up our Earth's population of people on the equator, then have all start running, in the same direction along our equator, to speed our Earth back up.
"..drop a ball from an x-tall height, it will bounce from the floor to y-height...."
Uhhhh HUH! Rubber ball or lead ball or my butt?
"what passes for fact, a mi, is as insubstantial as GLUV f/s shares..."
posted
"Bamaman, your facts do not agree with statistics recently released by the Department of Defense.
I urge you to research and read."
PG, I urge you to take your own advice, better yet don't, keep up your hatred of Bush, it makes for good entertainment. This board would be no fun without you.
No. 577-05 IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 10, 2005
DOD Announces Monthly Recruiting/Retention Numbers
The Department of Defense announced today its recruiting and retention statistics by the active and reserve components for the month of May.
Active duty recruiting. The Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force met or exceeded their recruiting goals in May. The Navy’s recruiting goal was 1,939, and it enlisted 1,947 (100 percent). The Marine Corps’ goal was 1,843, and it recruited 1,904 (103 percent). The Air Force goal was 1,037, and it recruited 1,049 (101 percent). The Army missed its May recruiting goal of 6,700 by 1,661 recruits (75 percent).
Active duty retention. All services met or exceeded their overall retention goals for May. The Air Force mid-career rate is below its goal, because of efforts to reduce its strength by offering voluntary separations in surplus skills. All the services are projected to meet their retention goals for the current fiscal year.
Reserve forces recruiting. The Air Force Reserve surpassed its recruiting goal for the seventh month in a row, enlisting 682 recruits against a goal of 606. The Army Reserve, Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve brought aboard more recruits in May than in any previous month during this fiscal year, but still fell short of their monthly goals of 2,759, 1,143 and 1,038, respectively. The Army Reserve enlisted 2,269 (82 percent), the Navy Reserve brought aboard 1,074 (94 percent) and the Marine Corps Reserve had 914 (88 percent). The Army National Guard recruited 4,071 of its 5,791 goal (71 percent). Although the Air National Guard also fell short of its recruiting mission of 860 by enlisting 675 (78 percent), its year-to-date recruiting posture remained constant through May. The retention rate of the Air National Guard is very strong; and they remain within 1 percent of target.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Wednesday postponed by more than a week the release of military recruiting figures for May, as the Army and Marine Corps struggle to attract new troops amid the Iraq war. .....
......The regular Army missed its recruiting goals for three straight months entering May, falling short by a whopping 42 percent in April. The Army was 16 percent behind its year-to-date target entering May, with a goal of signing up 80,000 recruits in fiscal 2005, which ends Sept. 30.
The Marine Corps missed its goal for signing up new recruits for four straight months entering May and was 2 percent behind its year-to-date goal. It hopes to sign up 38,195 recruits in fiscal 2005.
i guess it all depends on who you ask????
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is true that the military did up it's enlistment quotas. That was in an attempt to fill the huge vacuum caused by a drastic decline in re-enlistments, BUT.......it isn't the increase in the enlistment quota that is the cause of the shortage of enlistees.......that have fallen even more that re-enlistments. Indeed, if you check into the actual figures, even had they not upped the enlistment quotas, the present rate of enlistments would be far below the old quotas.
IP: Logged |
Real median household income remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 at $43,318, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. At the same time, the nation’s official poverty rate rose from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5 percent in 2003. The number of people with health insurance increased by 1.0 million to 243.3 million between 2002 and 2003, and the number without such coverage rose by 1.4 million to 45.0 million. The percentage of the nation’s population without coverage grew from 15.2 percent in 2002 to 15.6 percent in 2003.
Regions Real median household income remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 in three of the four census regions — Northeast ($46,742), Midwest ($44,732) and West ($46,820). The exception was the South, where income declined 1.5 percent. The South continued to have the lowest median household income of all four regions ($39,823). The difference between median household incomes in the Northeast and West was not statistically significant.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
