[djohnson]

Originally posted by chris v:
Go ahead and deny that recruiters are a whole lot more active on school campuses in working-class/poor areas.

At least they are getting a choice. Let's see, free college and a chance to make something of myself or wasting my life away in this junky place.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by itai195:
I'm sympathetic to you here, but I can't just ignore the obvious demographic contrast between the military population and the general population. I wouldn't say people only go into the army out of desperation, though it's interesting that mitchell and davesimon just defended the proposition of someone going into the military to avoid jail time. Isn't that desperation?

The jail thing is a red herring. One of the things about the all-volunteer force is that the standards of the military are much higher than they used to be. In seven years in the Army, I never once met anyone who enlisted because a judge told him he'd put him in jail otherwise. If you have that kind of a background, the odds are you would need a waiver to enlist, and those kinds of waivers are hard to get, and it is not in the power of a judge to order the Army to take someone.

Of course it is true that the military is an attractive career to a lot of young people. That is undoubtedly part of the appeal. Even if you only have a high school diploma you can build a career with responsiblility and which will earn you respect and at the same time, decent money and good benefits. All of this is part of the appeal -- along with the patriotic appeal of service to country.

But is that desperation? How is that any more desperate than a person who goes to college in order to build a worthwhile career? What about anyone who gets any job? Unless you have some kind of independent income, it always involves seeking some kind of security and reward.

The military is a cross section of society. It isn't all that out of step with the rest of America. If anything, it is more tilted toward the middle and lower middle classes than the norm. Most of the people I served with came from that kind of background. But there were also some outliers. I recall one millionaire, and I had an LA gangbanger on my team. But mostly, the military looks like America.

But it is this liberal condescension that really gets my goat. You don't win any points for telling someone that they were a desperate pawn. Most people in the Army joined because for one reason or another they wanted to.

[OldManMac]

<Thread derail>

Did you hear about the new dance craze? It's called the Simey Spin!

<Back to your regularly scheduled thread>

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by chris v:
Go ahead and deny that recruiters are a whole lot more active on school campuses in working-class/poor areas.

Yes I do deny it because that is bull. Typical made up "facts" about the military from someone who has never served.

Recruiters go wherever there are young people of recruitment age. They go to all high schools that will let them in, and they go to all colleges that will let them in. However, the goals are different. When you recruit a high school graduate, it is to get him to enlist. College graduates can become officers, but officers are only a small percentage of the military.

[Beewee]

Originally posted by winwintoo:
Having a draft again would disrupt your whole economy. All the kids of poor parents would be drafted, all the kids of rich parents would be able to avoid it just like they always have and where would the little b_tards buy their drugs!

....and the ones that couldn't buy their way out would come to Canada again. Not sure we want them.

Our beef is no good, we're blamed for everything, you think you own our water, you denigrate our health care system and then want to take advantage of deals we negotiated for prescription drugs, and now you're lining up at the border to get flu shots and b*tching 'cuz we think they should go first to the people who paid for them - that would be us.

I've been watching this whole election thing and getting more and more disgruntled. Does your government even care about anything within your own borders?? It seems like your whole focus is outside - how you can "police" the world and "bring democracy" to the world. Isn't that what nations did way back in the 1600s only then they were called "conquerers"

I think it's time the world put a stop to this madness. The UN inspectors should wade into the USA and find the weapons of mass destruction and if you refuse to disarm, then an assault should be mounted immediately. You are a danger to the free world.

Have a nice day M

I agree
America is filled with fat, lazy and stupid hypocrites. We constantly tell the world "Do as we say not as we do." It amazes and mystifies me that our own people are so oblivious to how we actually act. How we bi*ch about WMDs and we have the largest stock pile in the world. How we bi*ch about how poorly other countries treat their people and millions of our own citizens are without health coverage. And millions more are without employment because we ship our jobs over seas.

But as long as we have "freedom" and fight terror and remember apple pie and the american way...we'll be all right

In response to the the thread topic:
Bush is probably planning a draft. 3 reasons, Reason 1: if he gets re-elected he can do anything regardless of how much it pisses people off cuz it will be his last term, lets face it this President would start World War 3 in the name of Freedom, Peace, and the "American way of Life".
Reason 2, we don't have enough people in the army, navy, airforce, or national guard to support this war so they'll have to come from somewhere.
And Reason 3: He can't be drafted.
If and when a draft happens I will have to sit down with a pen and paper and hammer out a "f*ck you" letter to our president.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
This is not new.

First, it's because of his own choices that he ended up with that choice. Second, my father-in-law was given a similar choice. He was a screwup who was quite literally run out of Jackson Hole, WY and told to never come back. He was given a choice between jail and the Marines. He became a jarhead.

Years later, after the Marines straightened him out, finished with college and with a few years professional experience under his belt, he went back to Jackson Hole - hired as the CEO of their local electric co-op.

He still thinks the judge who gave him that choice saved/changed his life. And he's thankful. Maybe your friend will be too.

That kind of lottery is really nice at time of Peace.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Beewee:
I agree
America is filled with fat, lazy and stupid hypocrites.

I think this is inappropriate.

Fat lazy hypocrites are all around the world. There is no country for those guys. They're everywhere.

Dissing America on these criteria is not OK.

[Isaac]

a) no congress is going to instate the draft less then 45 days before an election unless they really really want Nader to win the election
b) the number of americans dying in Iraq is completely irrelevent to the morality of the draft, it's only relevent to cowards... the fact that the right not to kill should be a pretty basic prinicipal embodyed by the right to free expression, which most people's oppion (in my experince) is what "freedom of speech" is meant to mean, is a very relevent thing however.
c) some persons 22 year old friend... have they been accused of any violent crimes?... has he been convicted of any violent crimes?....

[edit: grammer, clarity]

[tie]

Originally posted by Beewee:
Bush is probably planning a draft. 3 reasons, Reason 1: if he gets re-elected he can do anything regardless of how much it pisses people off cuz it will be his last term, lets face it this President would start World War 3 in the name of Freedom, Peace, and the "American way of Life".
Reason 2, we don't have enough people in the army, navy, airforce, or national guard to support this war so they'll have to come from somewhere.
And Reason 3: He can't be drafted.

I agree that Bush is probably planning a draft. When the election is over, if he is reelected, he can do whatever he likes, and will freely renege on campaign promises just as he did last time. A big example; Bush claimed in 2000 that he wouldn't drive the budget into deficit. But his announced policies made it clear that in fact he would. What happened? He did. (This is only one of the promises he backed out of, including also for example his supposed reluctance to commit to nation-building.) We have the same thing today; Bush claims that he won't instate a draft, but all his policies point to him in fact doing so. He will.

We do not have an all-volunteer army today. This is why stop-loss measures were necessary. We already have a back-door draft. Bush says all the reservists he talked to "didn't view their service as a backdoor draft. They viewed their service as an opportunity to serve their country." Then why was the stop-loss measure necessary? Bush is lying.

Our army is way overextended. A quote from Krugman: "Commanders in Iraq have asked for more troops (ignore the administration's denials) - but there are no more troops to send. The manpower shortage is so severe that training units like the famous Black Horse Regiment, which specializes in teaching other units the ways of battle, are being sent into combat. As the military expert Phillip Carter says, 'This is like eating your seed corn.'"

Bush has made no sign that he will change his policies in his second term. He doesn't think Iraq was a mistake. He is likely to try to commit the US to several more nation-building exercises in his next term. But the current military just can't handle it.

The administration's strategy of denial in the face of these realities was illustrated by a revealing moment during the second presidential debate. After Senator John Kerry described the stop-loss policy as a "backdoor draft," Charles Gibson, the moderator, tried to get a follow-up response from President Bush: "And with reservists being held on duty --"

At that point Mr. Bush cut Mr. Gibson off and changed the subject from the plight of the reservists to the honor of our Polish allies, ending what he obviously viewed as a dangerous line of questioning.

link

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by tie:
I agree that Bush is probably planning a draft...

Baloney. A fair argument can certainly be made we are over-extended. What's the current number for what we have in Iraq? 150,000? I think that's high but let's go with that number. So what do we need to not be over-extended? Let's go with 150,000 again. Okay, let's round it up to 200,000 just to be safe. We should reinstate a draft to get a couple of hundred thousand more men? That's like using a MOAB to kill a gnat. The miltary does NOT want a draft. Arguments to the contrary are just dumb.

[Kilbey]

Do you think the femenists will fight for equality if there ever is a draft? (Which there will not be during Bush's 2nd term. Count on it).

Linky

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:

Hmmm�why would someone with the H&S sig be reading Cox & Forkum.
Hmmm�to the laboratory!

Anyway, all this draft stuff is BS. A volunteer military is more efficient, better prepared, and easier to run that a military with a draft. You guys hate the draft? Go bitch to Rangel, not Bush.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by chris v:
He didn't die.

Odds aren't looking so great these days. One in a hundred in Iraq, more or less. What are the odds of getting killed in prison?

Well, I would say that your odds of getting killed in Iraq are probably higher than getting killed in prison, but your odds of receiving conjugal visits from a big guy you don't want them from are considerably higher in prison than in jail. And you odds of turning your life around are much better in the military than in prison. I have no stats to back that up, but I'm willing to bet that it's true.

I have coffee with the local Marine recruiter a couple of times a week. Ever since this draft talk has come up, he has stated that he can increase his recruitment 5X without even trying. He directs that many people across the hall (Navy recruiter) because they can pick and choose who they want, they have that many people interested. You wouldn't need a draft, you would just need to increase the recruiting quotas. Look at how much the total size of US forces has been cut since the end of the cold war. They could spool it back up if they needed to.

[finboy]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
So true. Kerry has no chance winning on the issues, so the DNC has to rely on scare tactics to even have a chance.

Is this NEWS to anyone? It gets worse every day. I wonder what the allegations will look like the week before the vote.

[itai195]

Originally posted by finboy:
Is this NEWS to anyone? It gets worse every day. I wonder what the allegations will look like the week before the vote.

Does describing in excruciating detail during every campaign speech that the biggest threat to America is the prospect of a terrorist detonating a nuclear bomb in an American city not amount to a scare tactic?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by itai195:
Does describing in excruciating detail during every campaign speech that the biggest threat to America is the prospect of a terrorist detonating a nuclear bomb in an American city not amount to a scare tactic?

That is the biggest threat to the US. He's just telling it like it is. It's the same reason why Kerry talks about the threat of loose former Soviet nukes. It's the same basic issue.

Unless, I suppose, you took The Day After Tomorrow literally. In which case I suppose the biggest threat is runaway CGI effects.

[finboy]

Originally posted by KarlG:
<Thread derail>

Did you hear about the new dance craze? It's called the Simey Spin!

<Back to your regularly scheduled thread>

Yeah, forget asking someone who actually knows something about this to explain what's going on.

Man, things on the Left must be desperate if Simey's getting attacked for spinmongering. That's ridiculous.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That is the biggest threat to the US. He's just telling it like it is.

I agree that it is the biggest potential threat, I got that message when he repeated it almost verbatim three times in the same debate. But I think it's a scare tactic to harp on that constantly and to say that Kerry couldn't protect us against such an attack.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by itai195:
I agree that it is the biggest potential threat, I got that message when he repeated it almost verbatim three times in the same debate. But I think it's a scare tactic to harp on that constantly and to say that Kerry couldn't protect us against such an attack.

Kerry agrees it is the biggest threat. He said so explicitly in the debate and he has said so repeatedly ever since. Expanduing Nunn-Lugar to soak up more "loose nukes" is one of his main themes.

So unless you think that Kerry is also scaremongering, you probably should pick another example. So far we have Kerry raising the specter of the draft and cutting Social Security -- neither of which will happen (although I dearly wish one of the candidates would tackle Social Security). On the other hand, you have your example of a real danger which both candidates agree is the biggest one we face and which both have talked about repeatedly.

So it is 2-0 for Kerry scaremongering.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So it is 2-0 for Kerry scaremongering.

I'll tie the score with the GOP sending out fliers that suggest democrats want to ban the bible and with Cheney suggesting we'll get attacked again if Kerry is elected. BTW, does Bush claiming that Kerry will raise taxes on the middle class also count as a scare tactic? What about the claim that Kerry's plan puts the government in control of healthcare? Or suggesting Kerry wants to increase abortions?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by itai195:
I'll tie the score with the GOP sending out fliers that suggest democrats want to ban the bible and with Cheney suggesting we'll get attacked again if Kerry is elected. BTW, does Bush claiming that Kerry will raise taxes on the middle class also count as a scare tactic? What about the claim that Kerry's plan puts the government in control of healthcare?

The Bible thing put out by some county GOP someplace (I forget where): I agree that was scaremongering. If you search the threads for the first time that was mentioned, you will see I said so at the time. However, Bush hasn't to my knowledge repeated the charge. Shall we impute to Kerry every wacky thing said by any Democrat anywhere in the country? How about we just impute to him the crazy things his own wife says?

Cheney's comments. I looked at what he said in its entirety. I think he just misspoke describing a sequence of hypothetical events. But I agree that what he said made it sound like he was asserting a causal relationship. However, I don't think Kerry's comments about the draft and social security could concievably be constured as accidental misspeaking.

Taxes: I think most economists seem to agree that Kerry can't increase spending the way he says he wants to, and also balance the budget without raising taxes more than on just those making more than $200K. So he will either break some spending promises or raise taxes. I think Bush is making a fair point.

Government control of healthcare: To be honest, I haven't really looked at Kerry's plan to see what it involves. This could be scaremongering, or maybe not. I don't know.

However, you can't define scaremongering as any failure to accept Kerry's campaign spin at face value. Both candidates have the right to run the numbers on their opponants plans and point out where they think there are problems or where they think their opponant isn't telling the full story. That isn't the same thing as scaring stupid kids with draft boogiemen when the only people talking about a draft are Democrats.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
However, you can't define scaremongering as any failure to accept Kerry's campaign spin at face value. Both candidates have the right to run the numbers on their opponants plans and point out where they think there are problems or where they think their opponant isn't telling the full story. That isn't the same thing as scaring stupid kids with draft boogiemen when the only people talking about a draft are Democrats.

I don't know, it seems to me to have more to do with falsely characterizing the opposition's platform. On taxes, for example, I think you view Bush's position the same way some Democrats view Kerry's argument about the draft. A reasonable extrapolation of the candidates' policies would suggest that Kerry raising taxes on the middle class and Bush having a draft aren't totally out of the question.

Another one I forgot to mention -- Bush mischaracterizes Kerry's global test to suggest Kerry thinks we have to get permission to defend ourselves.

Also, by their own admission the bible fliers were mailed out by the RNC, not some podunk office in the middle of nowhere or a random group of unaffiliated Republicans. I wouldn't blame Bush for the actions of a few in his party.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Taxes: I think most economists seem to agree that Kerry can't increase spending the way he says he wants to, and also balance the budget without raising taxes more than on just those making more than $200K. So he will either break some spending promises or raise taxes. I think Bush is making a fair point.

I think the draft issue is analogous to this one.

Bush says he won't institute a draft. Kerry says he won't raise taxes on the middle class. Bush says he wants an aggressive military in the war on terror. Kerry says he wants x, y, z spending. Bush says in order to have x, y, z spending, you're going to have to raise taxes on the middle class. Kerry says in order to have an an aggressive military in the war on terror, you're going to have to have a draft.

And to some people, getting their taxes raised is just as scary as getting drafted.

[edit: itai great minds think alike. I suppose small minds think alike too. Not sure which ones we are.]

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I think the draft issue is analogous to this one.

Bush says he won't institute a draft. Kerry says he won't raise taxes on the middle class. Bush says he wants an aggressive military in the war on terror. Kerry says he wants x, y, z spending. Bush says in order to have x, y, z spending, you're going to have to raise taxes on the middle class. Kerry says in order to have an an aggressive military in the war on terror, you're going to have to have a draft.

Do you recall posting this:

Originally posted by BRussell:
OK, he says there will be no draft. It's never been plausible anyway. But I think it's fair to ask about the logical consequences of his policies. He says he wants to fight a military war on terror, as opposed to Kerry's "law enforcement" approach. OK. And he says we need to stay in Iraq to see it through. OK. So how do we do that, while maintaining the ability to respond to other threats? The fact is, we can't. OK, we won't have a draft. But something has to give.

You know there isn't going to be a draft. So does Kerry. Stop apologizing for what is obviously nothing but campaign propaganda. There is not going to be a draft. Everyone who has any understanding of the issue knows there is not going to be a draft. Yet Kerry keeps suggesting there is going to be a draft.

Scaremongering.

And no, the taxes issue isn't analogous. There is no "all volunteer" force of taxpayers analogous to the all volunteer armed forces.

[itai195]

dp

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And no, the taxes issue isn't analogous. There is no "all volunteer" force of taxpayers analogous to the all volunteer armed forces.

Is there an all volunteer force of senior citizens collecting social security, thus rendering Kerry's comments about that program a scare tactic? I don't see what one has to do with the other.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by itai195:
Is there an all volunteer force of senior citizens collecting social security, thus rendering Kerry's comments about that program a scare tactic? I don't see what one has to do with the other.

The Social Security issue is a scare tactic because there is no possibility whatsoever that either party would even attempt to tinker with the basic premise of Social Security. That is, that elderly people regardless of income should be able to tax their kids and grandkids, even though it is bankrupting the country and even though there aren't enough younger workers to pay for the retirements of baby boomers. The political reality is that nobody in Washington dares change this stupid ponzi scheme.

That's why it is scaremongering. It's a threat to the elderly based on nothing at all. But it isn't the elderly who ought to be scared of losing their Social Security. It is people like you and me who ought to be scared because we are being robbed by the generation ahead of us. But don't expect either Kerry or Bush to cross the AARP -- they wouldn't dare.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's why it is scaremongering. It's a threat to the elderly based on nothing at all. But it isn't the elderly who ought to be scared of losing their Social Security. It is people like you and me who ought to be scared because we are being robbed by the generation ahead of us. But don't expect either Kerry or Bush to cross the AARP -- they wouldn't dare.

I'm also not a fan of social security or of Kerry's desire to maintain the status quo, but Bush has expressed a desire to tinker with the program by allowing people like you and me to open USAs (is that still the acronym?). Kerry is basing his comments on his opinion that Bush will have to make his plan affordable somehow, and he's citing a CBO report.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by itai195:
I'm also not a fan of social security or of Kerry's desire to maintain the status quo, but Bush has expressed a desire to tinker with the program by allowing people like you and me to open USAs (is that still the acronym?). Kerry is basing his comments on his opinion that Bush will have to make his plan affordable somehow, and he's citing a CBO report.

Boy how I love not having to pay into Social Security with my main job. Since my wife does though, I am all for privatising the system. Us being in control of how we use our SS money... Oh yeah. Think of the boon to the stock market if everyone suddenly started adding X% to each it month!

To those that still think there will be a draft:

[itai195]

djohnson: what jobs are exempt from social security? If you're self-employed, you still pay your half of it -- that's what the self-employment tax is. Personally I like the idea of being able to save money myself, but that's obviously a politically charged issue. I fear social security might, in the words of the venerable Ross Perot, become America's 'crazy old aunt we keep down in the basement,' though I guess it can keep the national debt company.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by itai195:
I'm also not a fan of social security or of Kerry's desire to maintain the status quo, but Bush has expressed a desire to tinker with the program by allowing people like you and me to open USAs (is that still the acronym?). Kerry is basing his comments on his opinion that Bush will have to make his plan affordable somehow, and he's citing a CBO report.

Actually, what kerry said was:

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Oct, 17 -- John F. Kerry accused President Bush of having a secret, second-term plan to privatize Social Security starting in January, telling a church audience Sunday that the idea is "a disaster for America's middle class."

The problem is:

Kerry based this allegation on a secondhand, unattributed account of a private speech Bush reportedly delivered to Republican supporters in September. "I am going to come in strong after my swearing in . . . with fundamental tax reform, tort reform, privatizing of Social Security," Bush was quoted as saying in a Sunday New York Times Magazine article that was highly critical of the president. It was written by Ron Suskind, co-author with former Treasury secretary Paul H. O'Neill of a book condemning the Bush administration.

Washington Post.

Bush's timorous plan to allow people to save a small percentage of their Social Security taxes in designated accounts is public. That's not what Kerry is scaremongering over. Like his draft scare, he is warning about a "secret plan." Of course, the wonderful thing about "secret plans" is you can say anything about them because they are "secret" and therefore can't be disproved. The more fictitious and baseless it is, I guess the better. Assuming you have total contempt for the voters, of course.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Do you recall posting this:

Sure. And I've several times been the first to post that it was Rangel who proposed the draft legislation in Congress. But as far as I know Kerry has never said "Bush is going to have a draft." What he's said is that we can't continue to pursue the Bush doctrine without increasing the potential of the draft. That is absolutely true. You bolded certain parts of my post, but you apparently lost its overall meaning, which was perfectly consistent with what I've been saying, that Bush's policy just isn't viable. Either more people go into the military one way or another, or we scale back the ambitions of the Bush Doctrine. Bush doesn't want to confront that, just like he won't confront the consequences of tax cuts or of partially privatizing social security.

For example, when "Rock the Vote" started talking about the possibility of a draft, the RNC sent them a c & d letter (pdf file), telling them not to talk about it. (Here's what Rock the Vote really has to say about the draft:

The question is really not if we want to have a draft but whether or not our current foreign policy choices will ultimately necessitate a draft. In spite of the indignant pronouncements of Defense Department officials, there is mounting evidence that the Army is stretched to the breaking point and facing deteriorating retention and recruitment efforts.

That's a very accurate portrayal of the issue.

And yes, this is EXACTLY the same thing that all Repub. campaigns that I've witnessed are based on, in particular the Bush campaign. This draft discussion is actually much more circumspect, because Bush at every campaign stop just comes out and says "he's going to raise your taxes," and "he's going to have the gov't run your health care, " etc. Kerry doesn't say "Bush is going to draft you."

Bush's presidency and campaign are fundamentally based on dishonesty in a way that Kerry can't compare. It's based on saying we can cut taxes without consequence. That we can privatize social security in order to improve its solvency when in fact it would do the opposite. I think it's fair to make the same basic point about his foreign policy. But you folks have been playing the media bias line for so long that no one in the media is willing to step up and point out the truth.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Sure. And I've several times been the first to post that it was Rangel who proposed the draft legislation in Congress. But as far as I know Kerry has never said "Bush is going to have a draft." What he's said is that we can't continue to pursue the Bush doctrine without increasing the potential of the draft. That is absolutely true. You bolded certain parts of my post, but you apparently lost its overall meaning, which was perfectly consistent with what I've been saying, that Bush's policy just isn't viable. Either more people go into the military one way or another, or we scale back the ambitions of the Bush Doctrine. Bush doesn't want to confront that, just like he won't confront the consequences of tax cuts or of partially privatizing social security.

Assuming we need to increase the size of the military -- and I personally believe we do -- "one way or another" includes simply recruiting more volunteers. How many times do we have to point out that the armed forces today are the smallest they have ever been since the all-volunteer force was created? The military was almost twice the size when I joined than it is now. But it didn't require a draft.

If Kerry (who, by the way, has promised to increase the size of the Army) were going about saying that the Bush doctrine might mean going back to an Army the size it was during Desert Storm, then I would be OK with it. I'd be OK with it because it would in your terms be a reasonable extrapolation and because it wouldn't be scaremongering. It wouldn't be scaremongering because the Desert Storm Army was all volunteer just like the current one is. But he hasn't said that. He has suggested the draft is coming back. Oh, sure. He does so with a little bit of deniability. But just enough of a hint to scare the gullible.

Sorry, I think that is pretty contemptable. Not just because he knows it is a pack of lies. But also because a responsible candidate in a time of war would be encouraging young people to volunteer for military service. Not virtually telling them to pack their bags to flee to Canada.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by itai195:
djohnson: what jobs are exempt from social security? If you're self-employed, you still pay your half of it -- that's what the self-employment tax is. Personally I like the idea of being able to save money myself, but that's obviously a politically charged issue. I fear social security might, in the words of the venerable Ross Perot, become America's 'crazy old aunt we keep down in the basement,' though I guess it can keep the national debt company.

I technically work for the State of Texas. Thus I pay into our teachers retirement system and no I am not a teacher. A much better deal with the current state of social security.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Assuming we need to increase the size of the military -- and I personally believe we do -- "one way or another" includes simply recruiting more volunteers. How many times do we have to point out that the armed forces today are the smallest they have ever been since the all-volunteer force was created? The military was almost twice the size when I joined than it is now. But it didn't require a draft.

If Kerry (who, by the way, has promised to increase the size of the Army) were going about saying that the Bush doctrine might mean going back to an Army the size it was during Desert Storm, then I would be OK with it. I'd be OK with it because it would in your terms be a reasonable extrapolation and because it wouldn't be scaremongering. It wouldn't be scaremongering because the Desert Storm Army was all volunteer just like the current one is. But he hasn't said that. He has suggested the draft is coming back. Oh, sure. He does so with a little bit of deniability. But just enough of a hint to scare the gullible.

Sorry, I think that is pretty contemptable. Not just because he knows it is a pack of lies. But also because a responsible candidate in a time of war would be encouraging young people to volunteer for military service. Not virtually telling them to pack their bags to flee to Canada.

So now Kerry is telling people to dodge the draft too. Who's being dishonest here again?

Let me ask you this. Why do we have our 18-year-olds register with selective service? Bush has said now that there will be no draft under any circumstances. Is that responsible for a president to say? Especially a "war time president?"

Answer me this too. When is this increase in the all-voluntary military going to happen? We are right now, by all accounts, at a breaking point. What if NK or Iran started lobbing nukes around right now? Could we go to war with them too?

Like it or not, this is something people are talking about, and they're concerned. The draft may be just the symbolic buzzword, but it represents the fear of going to war under this Bush Doctrine. I know lots of people who have been called up on short notice. One lost his yard work business this summer. I've worked out an arrangement with another, a college student who was called up and she's now taking a correspondence course from Iraq over the internet with me so she can try to keep up with classes. Lots of people, their friends and fellow students, hear about these things and they're concerned. To suggest that they're ignorant, while at the same time supporting the Bush approach to the war on terror, is wrong.

[deedar]

Originally posted by winwintoo:

Can't you people see where your country is headed??

Some of us can. I totally agree with your post.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Let me ask you this. Why do we have our 18-year-olds register with selective service?

Beats me. Ask Jimmy Carter.

The registration requirement was suspended in April 1975. It was resumed again in 1980 by President Carter in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Registration continues today as a hedge against underestimating the number of servicemen needed in a future crisis

The people you mention were not "called up" as a draftee is called up. They volunteered for the reserves or national guard. When you do that, you make yourself available to be activated when needed. They are needed, so they are being called up. It's not fun for them, but it is what they volunteered for.

By the way, when the US started downsizing its military (ironically, not long after I joined it), it did so after Clinton held a Bottom Up Review. The Clinton Administration assured Congress that it could fight a major (Persian-Gulf war sized) war in the Middle East, and another in Korea. I was skeptical then, and I remain so today. That's why I agree with Kerry that the Army needs to be bigger. Actually, i would go further than him. But I don't think that there is any need for a draft. The Army was 18 divisions in 1991. It is 10 today. In the Carter and Reagan years, we had around 350,000 troops permanently in Europe, and something like 100,000 in the Pacific. Plus bases in the US and places like Panama. We could go back to that with a volunteer force if we need to. We did it once, we can do it again, and without a draft.

And by the way, a basic principle is the mission determines the size of the force. Not the other way around. Even Clinton understood that. That's why he had the bottom up review.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Just a reminder also that Kerry criticized Bush's plan to redeploy troops from Germany. So on the one hand, he complains that the Army is stretched and that might lead to a draft. But on the other hand, he wants to keep 70,000 troops in Germany guarding the Europeans from the Warsaw Pact. Does this strike anyone as a well thought out defense plan?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Beats me. Ask Jimmy Carter.

Point taken. But we shouldn't make people register on the one hand and then on the other hand tell people the draft is a ridiculous impossibility and an urban legend.

The people you mention were not "called up" as a draftee is called up. They volunteered for the reserves or national guard. When you do that, you make yourself available to be activated when needed. They are needed, so they are being called up. It's not fun for them, but it is what they volunteered for.

Sure. But understand that people see these things and they're genuinely concerned, and they've been concerned since long before Kerry ever mentioned the issue a week or two ago.

And by the way, a basic principle is the mission determines the size of the force. Not the other way around. Even Clinton understood that. That's why he had the bottom up review.

Makes sense. And isn't the mission Bush has set out for us, which I think you strongly support, the exact reason that people believe we're going to need a larger force, and that's why they're concerned about the draft?

Maybe I've just missed it, but what exactly has Kerry said on this? I've done some searching, and I can only find out-of-context snippets. I'm more than willing to say he's being dishonest on this issue. But whatever he's said, I can tell you this. The Dems see how Repubs run their campaigns, and this is exactly how they do it. They get very negative and dishonest about very hot button issues like this, and the media barely calls them on it. One of Bush's weaknesses is that he's perceived as a "warmonger," and I suppose they see this as a way to drive up those negatives. It's dishonest, but it's the state of politics. I'm not saying it's good, but the reality of the type of campaigning that Republicans have played no small role in creating.